Cal Ripkin

[zekester91]

first: Yes I'm still playing 2006 although I am thinking that this will be my last season.

Anyway I posted this over in 2006 form, Cal Ripkin, and thought wow, that must really be bad for people that want accurete historical sims.

Is it really true that OOTPB just randomly assigns the injury/durablity ratings to imported players?

That must make players like Ripkin, really take most of thier value away?

For me it doesn't really matter I like playing in a fictional world that just happens to have real players, but how do the people that play in dedicated historical sims deal with things like this?

[silvam14]

Originally Posted by zekester91

first: Yes I'm still playing 2006 although I am thinking that this will be my last season.

Anyway I posted this over in 2006 form, Cal Ripkin, and thought wow, that must really be bad for people that want accurete historical sims.

Is it really true that OOTPB just randomly assigns the injury/durablity ratings to imported players?

That must make players like Ripkin, really take most of thier value away?

For me it doesn't really matter I like playing in a fictional world that just happens to have real players, but how do the people that play in dedicated historical sims deal with things like this?

Well, let me ask you this, is there an injury/durability rating in the database? If there isn't, how is the game going to know that Cal Ripken is one of the VERY few ironmen in the league?

[Andy]

Who?

[zekester91]

Originally Posted by silvam14

Well, let me ask you this, is there an injury/durability rating in the database? If there isn't, how is the game going to know that Cal Ripken is one of the VERY few ironmen in the league?

I'd go with percent of games played in per year, or just even number of games played in divided by number of years played, and base it off that, sure it's an extra caculation, but since it already looks over whole carrer to make come up with the potentail I can't see it taking too much longer to get this number.

[Curtis]

I've wanted an iron man rating, too. Most other games have it, though that doesn't mean it's supported by data; it's more intuitive, I guess. Right now injury frequency acts as a poor substitute for an iron man rating.

[silvam14]

Originally Posted by Curtis

I've wanted an iron man rating, too. Most other games have it, though that doesn't mean it's supported by data; it's more intuitive, I guess. Right now injury frequency acts as a poor substitute for an iron man rating.

I'm not a historical player, but shouldn't there be SOME random factors involved? Isn't the historical genre more of a "What if" type of game rathern than an "exactly the same" type of game?

[phenom]

Originally Posted by Andy

Who?

Exactly.

[zekester91]

Originally Posted by silvam14

I'm not a historical player, but shouldn't there be SOME random factors involved? Isn't the historical genre more of a "What if" type of game rathern than an "exactly the same" type of game?

I think there should be, but I know, or have read at least a lot of people here on these boards that what histories down to the letter, and my post over in the 2006 form I thought it was more of a funny thing, but if people are importing without what they are known for it seems like you are taking away a majar part of his game. Granted once he's into the game anything can happen to him, but he should import as a "ironman" and then even the toughest players can get injured.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by silvam14

I'm not a historical player, but shouldn't there be SOME random factors involved? Isn't the historical genre more of a "What if" type of game rathern than an "exactly the same" type of game?

There's a discussion right now in another thread about what historical players want. And there SHOULD be some randomness, but then there's randomness in how many homers McGuire will hit, but they still give him a power rating. And I'd have an iron man rating in fictional games, too, but maybe hidden, or not revealed until a player has finished his fifth, sixth, seventh season.

[silvam14]

Originally Posted by Curtis

There's a discussion right now in another thread about what historical players want. And there SHOULD be some randomness, but then there's randomness in how many homers McGuire will hit, but they still give him a power rating. And I'd have an iron man rating in fictional games, too, but maybe hidden, or not revealed until a player has finished his fifth, sixth, seventh season.

I suppose this is why I can't get into historical gaming. I would constantly be trying to get the perfect re-creation and not enjoying the game as much

[marky32082]

Originally Posted by zekester91

That must make players like Ripkin, really take most of thier value away?

Not necessarily...You could make an easy argument that without the streak, Ripken is a top 10 shortstop of all time...probably even top 5. Without his streak would Gehrig not be a top 10 firstbaseman of all time? The only other ironman I can think of is Billy Williams...he was a great player and not even remembered for his streak. Tejada has played a bunch of seasons in a row and is great regardless.

I guess my point is it's not an ironman that makes you great, it's being great that allows the possibility to be an ironman.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by marky32082

I guess my point is it's not an ironman that makes you great, it's being great that allows the possibility to be an ironman.

True, and all of your examples are good ones. But, there are a lot of great players who weren't known for their durability. Being durable doesn't MAKE you great, and being great doesn't MAKE you durable, so I THINK there should still be a rating to express the durability aspect of greatness, just as there are ratings to express the power, batting average, speed, etc. aspects.

After all, just because a guy is durable doesn't mean you're forced to play him. A lot of OOTP players wouldn't play Steve Garvey, even though he'd have a high iron man rating and was one of the best first basemen of his era.

[Fibonacci]

I don't mind the randomness of injuries so much. What I don't like is the random assignment of injury proneness ratings. If there are going to be ratings for proness to injury, they should be based on some kind of statistical data and not random generated for a historical simulation. 2006 finally added some realism to speed and defensive ratings for historical players (which were previously random). I could only hope that the same would be done for injury proneness in 2007. If not, there should not be injury proneness ratings for historical players.

[masoo]

A lot depends on how anal you are about the re-creation. Some people will want their money back if a player's name is spelled wrong. Some people might want to take charge of the Orioles, just so they can sit Ripken down a couple of times a year and put an end to that stupid streak.

Beyond that, I'm with those that think an "iron man" rating would be a good thing, but that randomness should still be built into the game. Cal Ripken's streak had a lot of things driving it: Ripken's desire, of course, his manager's willingness to let Cal decide when to sit, but also the luck factor. Ripken never went on the DL because he got hit in the head with a fastball, never sliced open his throwing hand washing dishes, never had a kidney stone, all the kinds of things that happen to all of us. Or most of us, that is ... it's one of the things that makes the streak so amazing, that Ripken managed to go all those years without a single event that would require his absence. The game should have a rating that allows Ripken to play through a bad headache, but it should still allow him to get spiked on a play at third base that required a few days off.

[Fibonacci]

Originally Posted by masoo

. The game should have a rating that allows Ripken to play through a bad headache, but it should still allow him to get spiked on a play at third base that required a few days off.

This works for me.

One of the (plethora of) things though that made 2006 so frustrating was that a guy like Ripkin might have been randomly assigned an injury rating that made him prone to back injuries. I hope this has been corrected in 2007. I haven't read anything from those "in the know", (i.e. the beta testers), to indicate one way or the other, however.

[84CubsFan]

It's not quite what you're talking about, but I'd like to see ironmen in fictional play as well. The game does a great job of simulating that once-in-a-generation player like Williams or Mays. But right now it simply can't simulate a Cal Ripken because of the way that the game handles fatigue and depth chart AI. It's not high on my priority list of wishes by any means, but it would be cool to have one generated player in ten thousand not only be "durable" but just never get tired. The AI would also have to be coded to notice and to adjust substitutions to 0% if that player was good enough. In a 100 year sim, with both of those things coded into the game, there might just be that one player who plays every game for ten or twelve seasons in a row.

[flitchplate]

Originally Posted by masoo

A lot depends on how anal you are about the re-creation. Some people will want their money back if a player's name is spelled wrong. Some people might want to take charge of the Orioles, just so they can sit Ripken down a couple of times a year and put an end to that stupid streak.

Whoooooaaaaaahhhhhhhh they Nelly..........

I have not participated in this forum since..... it says February of 2005. So you know it took a LOT for me to come out of retirement.

But my boy Cal did the impossible......the amazing. I was at the game and let me tell you something.........there was nothing stupid about it. Baseball finally turned around after the miraculous acheivement.

Of course it took Bonds, McGwire, et all and a pile of illegal substance to squash Basball back into the ground. But lets not forget what this man meant to baseball.....

[flitchplate]

Originally Posted by Fibonacci

Ripkin.

Ripken....CAL RIPKEN!!!!!!

[Fibonacci]

Originally Posted by flitchplate

Ripken....CAL RIPKEN!!!!!!

You are absolutely right, and I apolopgize to Cal Jr. and Sr. I got my spelling from the title of the thread and didn't really think about it.

[zekester91]

Originally Posted by Fibonacci

You are absolutely right, and I apolopgize to Cal Jr. and Sr. I got my spelling from the title of the thread and didn't really think about it.

I'm just a horrible speller and didn't have time to look it up, I apologize for any confusion this may have caused you.