Historical rookies

[21C]

I know that the following is stated for Mogul 2005:

It does not automatically import data for each season thereafter as the game progresses. For instance, if you start your game in 1963, the game creates fictional rookies from that date forward - it does not refer to the Lahman database for 1964 to find new rookies. This decision was made because we feel the game should be challenging and unpredictable regardless of which season you choose to play. However, we understand the desire for this feature, and we're working on it for a future release.
But I would just like to affirm my desire for the historical rookies to be introduced in the correct years - not the fictional ones.

I just started a season in 1986 last night with the Cubs and, while it was cool to start with Greg Maddux and play out his career solely with the Cubbies, it was less than satisfying to watch my roster get filled with fictional players in subsequent seasons.

Any progress on this front?

[boomboom]

Originally posted by 21C
I know that the following is stated for Mogul 2005:

But I would just like to affirm my desire for the historical rookies to be introduced in the correct years - not the fictional ones.

I just started a season in 1986 last night with the Cubs and, while it was cool to start with Greg Maddux and play out his career solely with the Cubbies, it was less than satisfying to watch my roster get filled with fictional players in subsequent seasons.

Any progress on this front?

I really want this feature too.....everybody who wants this please drop in a post so that clay can here us!

[TwinswillWin]

It would be awesome if you could add in the daft with real rookies from that year. Like start with the Cubs and when Pedro was ready you could draft him if you had the pick.

[zhongv1979]

Me too... I love this very much!!!

[boomboom]

Originally posted by TwinswillWin
It would be awesome if you could add in the daft with real rookies from that year. Like start with the Cubs and when Pedro was ready you could draft him if you had the pick.

or like in ootp have an option of historical rookies to be assigned to their real teams!

[cartman00000001]

I just wanted you to know this is important for me too. You could always put a switch to turn it off if you want balance in the game. It really would be the ultimate...I would love to go back to 1918 and see how many rings I would win in Boston, or maybe 1920 and keep Shoeless Joe and the gang together. Maybe not let Jackie Jensen retire or Koufax...just to see what he would do in a 20 year career. Man there are so many wrongs to right, I could play forever!!

[kennybear]

i like to see this added also

[TwinswillWin]

Boomboom did the historical Rookies file take up a lot of memory. If not I think Clay and those guys should look into it (do do it now). Eventually the fans will help make this game the best Baseball Sim game ever(Not that it wasn't already) :)

[boomboom]

basically it shouldnt take up memory, just Clay needs to develop it to import from the lahman database. The information is there in the lahman files, but the program(bbm2k5) doesnt know how to read it.

Since I believe ootp3, to present ootp6, you are able to import rookies from the same database. The problem with ootp thou, is that importing that database takes forever. In mogul takes seconds.... ootp around 5-15minutes. Clay has done a great job with the importing of lahman.

[SouthernYankee]

Yes, I would love this also.

As someone else said you could start in 1918 and see what kind of team you could make with the Red Sox.

Talk about ultimate replayability.

[Jeff Olsen]

Originally posted by boomboom
or like in ootp have an option of historical rookies to be assigned to their real teams! This is what I like about OOTP. It doesn't really have any bearing on game balance what with all the trading going on.

[meinknotyou]

it's a great job and the information is there, but it seems it would slow the game down would't it?

Would Kevin Mitchell still hit 50 Home runs that one year? What about Cecil Fielder? What if Mark McGwire stayed with the Oakland A's? Would he still have hit 71 HR's? Would Bonds have hit 73 with SF or would he have signed with a different team after he left Pittsburg... if he left pittsburg at all.

Having the player's show up with their rookie stats may be possible, I just hope we're not expecting Clay to make them perform year after year how they did in real life. Remember Sosa's first couple of years? With the White Sox... 60+ HR material he wasn't...

[TwinswillWin]

No i'm not expecting Clay to have them preform the way they really do. That would be crazy and probably very complicated.

[boomboom]

Originally posted by meinknotyou
it's a great job and the information is there, but it seems it would slow the game down would't it?

Would Kevin Mitchell still hit 50 Home runs that one year? What about Cecil Fielder? What if Mark McGwire stayed with the Oakland A's? Would he still have hit 71 HR's? Would Bonds have hit 73 with SF or would he have signed with a different team after he left Pittsburg... if he left pittsburg at all.

Having the player's show up with their rookie stats may be possible, I just hope we're not expecting Clay to make them perform year after year how they did in real life. Remember Sosa's first couple of years? With the White Sox... 60+ HR material he wasn't...

no the game wouldnt totally repeat the whole stats. But there ratings based on those stats. Maybe Mark McGuire would have hit 45home runs. Or maybe 65. Each game will be different....

[Brent]

This feature is THE feature I want the most.

[philliez98]

same here...this is the one thing i would want the most out of this game.....its replayability would be unlimited.

[DrDoom]

This would probably be the biggest improvement to baseball mogul in my opinion and even better if the game kept track of records too.

[RickArnold]

Yes, this is a feature I want to see, with a set option to either just assign rookies or draft em.

It'd be nice to start in 1910 and sim all the way up to say 1980, with 70 years of real players with stats set.

All-Time Leader Boards is another.

[goyanks225]

Originally posted by RickArnold
Yes, this is a feature I want to see, with a set option to either just assign rookies or draft em.

It'd be nice to start in 1910 and sim all the way up to say 1980, with 70 years of real players with stats set.

All-Time Leader Boards is another.


I like the idea of putting them in the draft, but if you assign them to the teams they go to, it would take the unpredictability out of the game, because you would know what teams would be good, and teams that have always been bad would never be able to win because they would follow the same trends they followed when they were bad in the past. In the draft, I would love to see.

[philliez98]

Clay,
Could we expect to see this implemented into an official patch for 2K5 or do we have to wait another year?

[SouthernYankee]

I agree with all that has been said here.

However, I would only want the rookies dropped into the draft not placed on the team they came in with.

H*** add this and I'll pay $10 extra for it...maybe even more...it would be worth it.

[TwinswillWin]

I wouldn't expect it in this years BBM

[DTF955]

But it would be manual and a real bear. I'd probably want to go to every rookie & edit him for the ones fromt he 1980s b/c that's my era as far as players.

Earlier seasons, you can still go to roster and edit in commissioner mode, am I right? As I've said, I'm still looking into the game, but if I were in, say, 1914, I'd have RuthCobb, Hornsby, etc.. And, then I would just add the greatest of all time as I went on - here a Feller, there a DiMaggio, over there a Greenberg & Foxx - but even then it would be quite time consuming to edit all those. You could do it, though.

I'd love to see the database used for earlier years, too. Then, I'd use Commissioner mode for the Paige's, the (Josh) Gibsons, and so on. Unless Clay wants to give us the Negro Leaguers at the same time as the regular rookies pre 1947 in Lahman.

Hey, for that I'd wait as long as it took! I'd love to replay pre-1947 with all the Negro Leagers in there. Although, frankly, I'd rather first have it so the comuter doesn't go benching veterans so fast, esp. ones who can still be productive. It was fun the first few times trading for Crew, Winfield, Rose, etc. in 1983 and getting them for a song to help put a team over the top, but after you've cheated for a while it loses its luster.

Then again, if it didn't happen *too* often, with certain GMs/owners one *can* easily see them makign such dumb trades. It's happened in real life, after all. (I was amazed how much the Cubs had to give for Broglio when I tried to trade Brock in mid-1963 once in the 2k4 demo. Maybe in this TL '83's Winfield for no name would be that universe's version of Brock for Broglio)

[Jeff Olsen]

Originally posted by goyanks225
I like the idea of putting them in the draft, but if you assign them to the teams they go to, it would take the unpredictability out of the game, because you would know what teams would be good, and teams that have always been bad would never be able to win because they would follow the same trends they followed when they were bad in the past.That would only happen if each players' career turns out identical to how they performed historically. Not gonna happen, due to all the trades and free agent signings and the fact that no computer can simulate reality.

[goyanks225]

Originally posted by Jeff Olsen
That would only happen if each players' career turns out identical to how they performed historically. Not gonna happen, due to all the trades and free agent signings and the fact that no computer can simulate reality.


But the fact is that as a general matter you know what teams are going to be good. The great players will still be the great players. As to the free agent signings, as a general matter it is the teams that HAVE the money to sign the big name free agents are the teams that are going to be good. Teams like the Devil Rays or Brewers and such will never have a chance because they don't have players that are going to be big name players in their systems, and they don't have the money to sign big name free agents.

[Jeff Olsen]

Originally posted by goyanks225
The great players will still be the great players.Not necessarily. BBM has a tendency to be unpredictable, especially with Simulation Mode off, plus there's always a chance for significant injuries.
As to the free agent signings, as a general matter it is the teams that HAVE the money to sign the big name free agents are the teams that are going to be good. Good, yes, but a high payroll does not always equate to a World Series winner. Just ask George Steinbrenner.
Teams like the Devil Rays or Brewers and such will never have a chance because they don't have players that are going to be big name players in their systems, and they don't have the money to sign big name free agents. In other words, just like in real life. The Brewers haven't had a real chance since Yount retired and the Devil Rays have yet to get 70 wins.

[koolkerns101]

What if a a percentages was implemented? Like 20% this player would perform upto his ratings and peak. And then a breakout of maybe 30% saying he will go beyond his ratings. And even a possibility of a player to collapse and fade out and not even hit .200. Having all the percentages equal 100.

Example:

breakout- would exceed expectations for career(maybe 30%)
collapse- not make the bigs and be out of baseball...similar to that of Josh Hamilton.(maybe 13%)
improve- liv upto expectations, but dont exceed them(57%)

and of course be random for each player.
This would make it very fun and seem more realistic.



idea based out of Baseball Prospectus.

[egswanso]

in comment to both jeff's and goyank's points, i added a bunch of real old-time players to my league (yes, it wasnt 2k5, but we'll assume the underlining logic of gameplay hasnt changed that much) and have tracked their performence, in a situation very different from the league in which they played; in general, i agree with goyanks vis-a-vis hitters: stars tend to be stars. My stars, be they Shoeless Joe, Babe Ruth, Nap Lajoie, or Dan Brouthers, perform like stars: not, mind you, exactly as they did IRL, but stars nonetheless (although Lou Gehrig's failed to have a great career... good, but not great)

pitchers, on the other hand, have been hit and miss: some have flamed out VERY badly (John Clarkson), most went through a VERY rough patch (and i mean ERAs in the 8's rough) before becoming quality (Pete Alexander, Gaylord Perry, Phil Niekro) and the vast majority have been GOOD, but not as great as they were in real life (Sandy Koufax, Walter Johnson, Nolan Ryan (although he's still early in his career). Only a few have been as constantly good as they were in real life (the immortal Cy Young, for instance)

so i would have to say that knowing career paths of your real major leaguers would remove SOME mystery, but you would def. NOT have guareentees.

and BTW, this would be a feature I would very much like to see - it really defeats the purpose of the Lahman db if you just have Lahman for a year then just have fictional players... you might as well just have a fictional league. (assuming of course that you're not just interesting in simming a season - but i assume most of us play longer-term then that)

[cartman00000001]

I would want them to go to their respected teams. It would not remove the unpredicability out. Also, yeah there would be team that would be bad for years, but that has happened in baseball throughout. Remember the St. Louis Browns? But I do have 1 question. What would you do in 1920? Let's say you started in 1916 and Ruth is having a nice career as a pitcher. Would there be 2 Babe Ruths?

[boomboom]

in the lahman database, Babe Ruth is one player, with 1 ID, so in 1919, Babe ruth would be with whatever team he signed with in Free agency if he got traded.

And he would still be the pitcher.

[koolkerns101]

I would definately prefer being able to draft the players rather then having the placed on the teams. It would definately make it a lot of fun.

[goyanks225]

Originally posted by koolkerns101
I would definately prefer being able to draft the players rather then having the placed on the teams. It would definately make it a lot of fun.


Agreed

[cartman00000001]

Boomboom, so would that make the old Babe Ruth disappear?

[boomboom]

Originally posted by cartman00000001
Boomboom, so would that make the old Babe Ruth disappear?


the lahman database assigns ID numbers to each player, Babe Ruth the pitcher and hitter have the same ID since they are the same person...

if you start in 1916, you would never see Babe ruth as a hitter unless you edit him....only a hitter with 100 hitting.

[cartman00000001]

I see...the same thing with Smokey Joe Wood. It would be too bad to see no OF Ruth