Author Topic: Auto-Calc Test Seasons Thread (Read 9634 times)

Huckleberry · « **Reply #50 on:** October 20, 2016, 07:53:42 AM »

Quote from: Claybor on October 19, 2016, 10:21:20 PM

I am OK with anything that is decided, but I am still of the opinion that we have very few good contact hitters in the league, hence low batting averages. We have maybe 35-40% of the 7+ rated contact hitters that other leagues I am in have. The pitching on the other hand looks to be very similar in overall ratings, which will again result in lower batting averages.

Agreed, but that's another battle against the engine as the player creation modifiers are all at default.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #51 on:** October 20, 2016, 07:54:20 AM »

Here are the results of the test run of the era generator I wrote. I just picked runs per game as the representative stat, the line graph would look the same for any stat:

Claybor · « **Reply #52 on:** October 20, 2016, 09:05:27 AM »

Quote

Agreed, but that's another battle against the engine as the player creation modifiers are all at default.

I'm not trying to shoot this idea down or anything, but if the problem is with the player creation mods., then shouldn't that be what we are looking at. If other major changes are made and the 'player creation' starts going in a more hitting direction then we will have tons of hitting instead.

I guess I am repeating myself now, so I won't say anymore. I am playing regardless!

Coop · « **Reply #53 on:** October 20, 2016, 01:32:34 PM »

Huck, if I'm reading your graph correctly, it looks like this test gave you what you were aiming for. In a post from yesterday (listed as Reply #38), you showed that WBA teams in 2105 scored 4.055 runs per game, NL teams in 1995 scored 4.63, and NL teams in 2010 scored 4.33. My understanding was that you were shooting for something in the NL 2010 range, something around 4.33. The graph shows results that are generally in the 4.3 to 4.5 range, so I guess that nails it.

By the way, what was the league batting average from this latest test (over, say, the first five years)?

Huckleberry · « **Reply #54 on:** October 20, 2016, 03:17:38 PM »

That wasn't the simulation yet. That was setting up the era file. Now I have to run the simulation soon. Obviously trying to hurry as I don't like the dead spot we're in so I'm planning to get this done ASAP.

Havana_Jake · « **Reply #55 on:** October 20, 2016, 06:54:38 PM »

I'm good with whatever gets decided, but I'd vote for keeping it the same. I agree that there aren't many great contact hitters. I notice there are a lot of well rated hitters coming. The drafts have been loaded. I worry about it getting too offensive soon. But maybe eventually the auto-calc would regress the offensive numbers down if need be.

squaredrive · « **Reply #56 on:** October 21, 2016, 07:29:20 AM »

Huck, my advice would be to run some final tests then make an executive decision. You have always been fair so there are no worries there- i'm concerned we are going to start losing league interest with too long of a stagnant period.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #57 on:** October 21, 2016, 07:48:06 AM »

Agreed. My final step is going to be to run two long-term sims. One with the revised era_stats file and one without. Then I'll pick what looks best.

I do agree with the hesitation to meddle with the modifiers, though. I'd almost rather have improved player creation modifiers but the biggest issue is our league is simply too young to really know if this is a small sample size situation or a structural issue.

AndyHustle · « **Reply #58 on:** October 21, 2016, 11:08:06 AM »

I would also put my vote on figuring out what the best course of action is, and just make an executive decision. The long break is scaring me also, I do not want people to lose interest.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #59 on:** October 21, 2016, 11:48:58 AM »

Okay, I will make a decision this weekend after running sims. Found this thread:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/ootp-16-general-discussions/257544-why-league-offense-so-low.html

Those numbers in the OP sound a lot like our numbers in the WBA. So I'm starting to lean toward using the auto-calc button.

AndyHustle · « **Reply #60 on:** October 21, 2016, 11:53:08 AM »

One thing I just thought of... How much of a difference do you think a DH would make to league offensive numbers? Has to be at least a small difference

Huckleberry · « **Reply #61 on:** October 22, 2016, 07:31:17 AM »

Quote from: AndyHustle on October 21, 2016, 11:53:08 AM

One thing I just thought of... How much of a difference do you think a DH would make to league offensive numbers? Has to be at least a small difference

I am only comparing to the National League so that we can remove that as an effect. Typically speaking the DH does add somewhere around 6 points in batting average and about 0.3 runs per game to the league average.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #62 on:** October 22, 2016, 07:34:55 AM »

UPDATE ON LEAGUE PROGRESS:

Our next sim will be Sunday evening. I will continue running the tests in the meantime (my PC is finishing up a 100-year sim with the current settings right now, they just take a long time). I don't have to have this figured out until right before next regular season, so we're moving forward.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #63 on:** October 22, 2016, 08:05:25 AM »

Results of the 100-year sim with current settings (nothing changed)

Coop · « **Reply #64 on:** October 22, 2016, 10:12:31 AM »

Personal opinion --- this doesn't look good. It shows the IBL's batting average going down under .235 in the near future, and runs per game dipping to 3.8. Those are the kinds of numbers they would have gotten in the Deadball Era if they'd replaced baseballs with lumps of granite. Let's not go there.

I'm confident that we'll see much more realistic numbers when the test is run with the auto-calc setting.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #65 on:** October 22, 2016, 02:33:18 PM »

That one is running now.

Hopefully done around 7:00.

APMP · « **Reply #66 on:** October 22, 2016, 04:22:50 PM »

Those IBL graphs were definitely not pretty. Strengthens Twinkletoes' HOF case though.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #67 on:** October 22, 2016, 07:04:22 PM »

Results of 100-year sim with era_stats file:

Coop · « **Reply #68 on:** October 22, 2016, 07:45:49 PM »

Batting averages look good to me. Runs scored have a weird spike early on, going as high as 5.4 at one point, but then they settle down to 4.6. I wonder what's causing that big spike? Anyway, in general this seems to look pretty good, I think.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #69 on:** October 22, 2016, 09:25:17 PM »

Yeah, not sure what that spike is about. May run a few more short-term tests tomorrow just for 10 years to see if it happens again.

What I have learned for sure is that for equivalent league batting averages there is more scoring in OOTP.

Coop · « **Reply #70 on:** October 23, 2016, 08:04:13 AM »

It might be something that's virtually impossible to fine-tune or to identify in standard statistics. Like for example maybe in real life, a runner scores from second base on a single 50% of the time, but in OOTP he scores 75% of the time. That sort of thing would account for more scoring despite similar batting averages and on-base percentage. Just a thought. Anyway, it looks like something we just have to live with.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #71 on:** October 23, 2016, 11:47:30 AM »

Quote from: Coop on October 23, 2016, 08:04:13 AM

It might be something that's virtually impossible to fine-tune or to identify in standard statistics. Like for example maybe in real life, a runner scores from second base on a single 50% of the time, but in OOTP he scores 75% of the time. That sort of thing would account for more scoring despite similar batting averages and on-base percentage. Just a thought. Anyway, it looks like something we just have to live with.

Not a bad theory...gives me an idea.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #72 on:** October 23, 2016, 12:02:25 PM »

Never mind. Found the source of the scoring spike. Fielding percentages tanked and errors went through the roof. Fielding percentages were around 0.960 for several years instead of 0.980 with errors per game doubling from about 0.76 to about 1.56 in that period. The fielding percentages eventually stabilized but I will be looking at the modifiers to get that figured out.

1995 NL runs per game were 4.63 with a league ERA of 4.18 As an example, that crazy 5.45 runs per game in the chart for the ABL in 2109 was with a league ERA of 4.47. So while scoring was a bit high, errors were the real problem.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #73 on:** October 23, 2016, 03:15:14 PM »

Okay, I'm in the middle of a more slow-paced long term sim where I manually push the auto-calc button each year. This allows me to correct the ridiculous position modifiers that OOTP is applying automatically. The error rates are being set to absurd values (between 3.000 and 4.000 is common) so each season I will set those manually to try and get the correct fielding percentage.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #74 on:** October 26, 2016, 04:50:18 PM »

Update on this. Using auto-calc can cause extreme individual stats depending on league roster makeup. In 2122 during my slow sim, we have several 50+ home run and 200+ strikeout players in each league each year because many of the rosters are set up with high contact, low strikeout strategies by the AI. Because of our smaller league sizes (only 10 teams in each league), this means the league totals have to come from somewhere.

With that in mind I will continue my research but I now have reason to modify the approach I thought we would take.

edited to add - I'm thinking that I will cap the modifiers at certain levels. This may strike a balance between crazy modifiers and individual performances and leaguewide offensive explosions/droughts. It will also allow our league to develop its own personality and environment. I will test these caps for a few seasons, I think I'll start with 0.500/2.000 modifier min/max. Some of them have gotten up to 4.000 and as low as 0.300 in the future seasons.

Huckleberry · « **Reply #75 on:** October 26, 2016, 05:12:19 PM »

And never mind again. Hahaha. The bad news is I didn't know anything about how OOTP really worked before, the good news is I'm learning.

I had checked the automatically import historical player creation modifiers. The problem is that importing league total modifiers is based on the era_stats file I modified, but the player creation modifiers are a separate file. Ugh. So I had players in the future that were created based on real-world 1915, for example, then they were trying to match the league totals in my modified file. Disaster predictably ensued.

I will have to start this one over.

Coop · « **Reply #76 on:** October 26, 2016, 05:42:38 PM »

Well, at least you're gaining a lot of knowledge that will undoubtedly prove useful in allowing you to set up the WBA in such a way that the teams and players perform as desired. I'm sure it's time-consuming and aggravating now, but it'll pay off for years afterward. And it's something that NEEDS to be done, since your tests with auto-calc set to OFF showed that the league's current ultra-low batting averages are going to continue unless changes are made.

AndyHustle · « **Reply #77 on:** October 26, 2016, 05:53:33 PM »

Honestly, just reading this makes my head hurt. Kudos to you, Huck

User Info

Who's Online

Search

Author Topic: Auto-Calc Test Seasons Thread (Read 9634 times)

Latest OOTP News