Unrealistic?

[siccjay]

Anyone else noticed that all kinds of players that are made up by the game seem to be inconsistant. This just doesn't happen very often in real MLB. Often I see players hit .340 one year and then turn around and hit .255 the next year. Not everyone in baseball mogul is Frank Thomas :)

[willat]

I guess that's the biggest problem I have with the game. Established stars should be a little more reliable. Okay, some times a guy has a great year, and then is never heard from again.

But, if a guy has a string of good years, then you can be pretty sure he's not going to deviate too much. The example I think of is the Yankees signing of Jason Giambi this year.

Do you think that they signed him thinking that there was a good chance that he would be mediocre for the rest of his career? Of course not. They knew, as does everybody in baseball, about what to expect from him.

But, in BBMOL, you never know what you are going to get. You could sign a FA that has batted over .300 for 5 straight years, but it's no surprise if he never sees .260 again. Pitching is even more dangerous.

It just seems like the roll of the dice is the biggest factor in how your team does now.

[siccjay]

I can't believe it took over 2 weeks for someone to reply to this. Are we the only two that see this as a problem?

[dturkenk]

I've been complaining about it for a long time.

It's a pretty polarizing issue unfortunately.

Take a look at these threads from one of the Challenge semifinals leagues:

http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=23454

http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=22831&highlight=dturkenk

[williethebasset]

I can go on and on on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and about this. but i wont

the bottom line is that players need to be consistent and they need to play to their ratings.

[takaplan]

I tend to agree with you guys on this...I'll let James know and we'll see if we can adjust this in the future.

I don't think it needs a significant adjustment, but maybe just a little bid of a move towards more consistency.

[sunzfan]

My team didnt' win this year. Hear me whine.

The BIGGEST problem in the game is that reliable stars should be a "little" more reliable? Do you mean drink from the fountain of youth? Or maybe just copy paste career stats over and over. That'd be real fun. Why shoudl there be variables? I completely disagree with this post (70% luck???)

Sure luck is involved, but it's the same way in the pro's...certain players have up years and certain players have down years.

Fact is, if it was all luck, the same GM's wouldn't keep winning, and we'd all stop playing this game. I've never seen a player bat .340 in one full year, and .250 the next...

Players have breakout years in the pros as well. It's all about reading the signs, not just reacting to the numbers...and not complaining after every little thing goes wrong...

Just my op...

[willat]

In a nutshell, the problem is too much randomness. I don't think anyone is calling for "cut and paste" stats.

Some people like to say luck is not involved, it's all skill, you people are all whining, blah, blah, blah. Really? It's tough to agree with that point of view after playing this game for over a year.

[sunzfan]

Well, I guess it's just that, point of view. I've played for over a year as well, and while I admit (again) that luck is involved, I think a lot of it is time invested in learning the game.

[siccjay]

Originally posted by sunzfan
I've never seen a player bat .340 in one full year, and .250 the next...


Before the restart in my league I had a player, Jerry McKee I think, hit 344 with like 47 homers and the next season he hit 255 with 29 homers. No injuries, same amount of games.

[Craigrrs]

I think they are trying to say that this is occurs when the league starts to get old (2010 and on) and 100 players have an A+ for power or A+ for contact... when the leagues start there only on like 5 of each! I think this is what leads to the randomness. The generated players need to be made similar to how the orginal players a rated, with only the elite power hitters with an A+ for power and so on. Too often I have seen teams with a whole team of players that have A for contact... that just doesn't happen in real life! That is my biggest complaint... keep the ratings consistent and I think the problems of the up and down stats will be solved!




Craig

[sunzfan]

yeah, you're right.

[jokerswild]

I think Craig has nailed it right on.

[khan]

I agree 100%. Especially in leagues that have run 10 or more years. Something needs to be done about this.

[Deke]

I also agree, completely. And I will say this, as far as consistency goes Ive seen several real life MLB players put together "career" years and then return to Earth the following year (Brett Boone, Juan Pierre). Now, with that being said, I dont think youll see someone perform a certain way for several years and then just drop completely off in real life, unless with the effects of aging. I myself havent seen too much of this problem in the leagues Ive played in. Most of the players perform similar to what theyve done in the past (in the league im in anyway) with a few exceptions. The real problem lies with what Craig said. Eight hundred (a bit of an exaggeration) players with A+ contact and A+ defense. Come on! This also leads to some GM's getting their hands on a super team that wins 130 games (something we also dont see in real life). Lets get real, and adjust the ratings.

[Craigrrs]

To further go on with what I said.... I have no real problem with the stats in this game... the real problem is the ratings... I don't care if guys have career years... that's fine with me. It happens in real life. But if a guy is going to hit .230 then I don't want him rated as an A+ for contact.


Craig

[Deke]

Amen. :)

[CompFreek129]

Hello everybody, newbie coming through!

Well, I will admit up front that I am no hardcore baseball fan. I'm not even a sports fan. I didn't even know all the teams until this season, when I first started getting into it. But then after the season, I bought the game at the local CompUSA. (Only $5)

So I've played it for about a month now. I have 2 games, one Oakland 2009, the other Boston 2004. Well, I don't know what exactly is right or wrong (like I said, I barely know the players and teams, much less the rules and details of the game)

Well, the first thing I noticed, after about 2 seasons, they are WAY too many superstar rookies that are 20 or so that have B+/A+, A+/A+/C, etc. Every year, I get about 3 or so of these rookies on my team alone. The other computer teams seem to have as much. Pretty soon (as in my Oakland leage), the entire league is swamped with 1 or 2 point rookies, making every veteran essentially worthless. I built an entire team of rookies, with Cy Young, MVP, Rookie of the Year, and 5 of the Gold Gloves, and my payroll was less than 100 points. (And what are points, btw? I assume some sort of currency.) And every other team has at least half of its lineup and rotation filled with these rookies. They are just way too numerous.

I think the game is rigged against me, too. I have some sort of black finger, because it seems that every superstar player I get goes bad once they come to my team. Example:

Vladimir Guerrero gets MVP (.340 something, .500 something OBA, and 76 Homeruns.) I trade for him in the offseason, and he immediately drops to .260-.270, and no more than 30 homeruns. And he doesn't get better. He has so far stayed that way for 3 seasons.

Same goes for deals involving lots of points. Chavez, who has batted at least .333 with 35 homeruns for the last 4 seasons, demands 100 points for 7 years. Since he IS my #4 hitter and I had a lot of extra points, I decide to sign him. Next year, he hits .248, with FOURTEEN homeruns (And he actually had more at bats). He then hits .256 midway into the next season, and by then I am so disgusted I trade him away for some pitching prospects.

And the game, is way too easy. (I am playing on Mogul mode) Those "superstar" rookies are too willingly traded, and even veterans will go for one or two decent guys plus some rookies. B the year 2004 (2003 in my Boston league), I have an entire lineup of superstars (none less than A- contact and B+ power, and I have 3 A+/A+), and a rotation where NO ONE has an ERA higher than 3, and everybody has at least 19 wins. It's crazy; by 2008, I have won 3 World Series, 6 League Series (Is that same as pennant?), and my records so far are: 83-79, 99-63, 126-36, 116-46, 116-46, 120-42, 106-56.

And with all this, my payroll has never gotten over 200 points (that was my first year. Ever year after that has been around 100). My yearly profit is TWICE as much as my payroll.

So probably all of the stuff I am ranting about is supposed to happen, but I just don't know about it.

Anyways, since I don't really expect anybody to read it, I'll just list some questions...

What are points?
Is there anyway I can adjust the number of rookies and/or gameplay mechanics through the universe.dat file?
How do I use the player editor? I've been itching to create a Francisco Rodriguez with A+ movement and stuff.

[Craigrrs]

Well just so you know... this thread is about the online game... you would probably be better off posting that stuff in the CD-ROM forum... but yes points are basically money.




Craig

[billjoe439]

In Mogulers (current year is 2015), I did a search for ratings (my overall scouting is probably second or third...

A+ contact: fills entire page, gets CUT OFF with first player on SD

A+ power: 54

A+ eye: 52

A or better in all three ratings: 10

For a newly reset league that I just joined, Elite Mogul League 2 (which starts tomorrow)

A+ contact: 5

A+ power: 6

A+ eye: 7

A or better in all three ratings: 1 (luis gonzalez, bonds has b+ contact with initial ratings)

i think this may be the cause for inconsistancy...i see this as a major problem

[billjoe439]

the numbers reflect the number of players found with that search...

[billjoe439]

also, our league leader in average was my 3b phil curtin. he batted .323. in real life 2001, 17 players batted over .323. i don't know moguls requirement for making the leaders list, i wanted to find 2002, but mlb.com has a requirement of 3.1 plate appearances per game...i don't know if that's comparable to mogul...i don't think it is.

[Craigrrs]

Haha... well at least there are now some numbers to back up my claim... I was just too lazy to go count ;) Thanks Billjoe


Craig

[Clay Dreslough]

Guys,

Thanks for the input about the ratings.

You have an excellent point about the degradation of rating accuracy as the sim progresses into the future. The ratings get silly when over 100 people have A+ Contact and/or Power.

We have tweaked the talent levels in the CD-ROM version, and will be implementing the same in the online code when we get the chance.

Clay

[sunzfan]

Originally posted by Craigrrs
I think they are trying to say that this is occurs when the league starts to get old (2010 and on) and 100 players have an A+ for power or A+ for contact... when the leagues start there only on like 5 of each! I think this is what leads to the randomness. The generated players need to be made similar to how the orginal players a rated, with only the elite power hitters with an A+ for power and so on. Too often I have seen teams with a whole team of players that have A for contact... that just doesn't happen in real life! That is my biggest complaint... keep the ratings consistent and I think the problems of the up and down stats will be solved!

Craig


Yeah, you're right

sunz

my whine comment, in hindsight, was un-warranted. i apologize.

[billjoe439]

Originally posted by sunzfan
I've never seen a player bat .340 in one full year, and .250 the next...


change your mind after mogulers???

:p <---who ever uses the "stick out tongue smiley? that is disgusting, we're all men here (at least i haven't run into any girls...)

[Schaefling]

nothing