The problem with the Lahman Database

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Recently unemployed long time lurker of the board finally joining in the fray. Hey, it is better than searching for jobs.

Although the Lahman Database is a great effort with chockful of stats and players, I am worried that too many games are using it as a shortcut to bring in real players. Instead of using research in seeing what makes Ty Cobb Ty Cobb and giving him Real Ratings and what makes Sandy Koufax Sandy Koufax and giving him Real Ratings, all games use the Lahman database. Now Ty Cobb in OOTP is a ten on contact which means he could hit anywhere from .300-400. The problem is Ty Cobb never hit 300. What is the fun of seeing Ty Cobb hit .300? The fun is seeing Ty Cobb over a career and maybe he hits .380 for his career which is better than his real average but never hits .400 in a single season. I fear strat-o-matic or APBA, companies that have researched and KNOW ever player will never step up to the plate and offer us a real full featured career simulation. Instead we are stuck with only half fulfilling generic ratings of Puresim, Baseball Mogul and OOTP.

As it stands now, I would rather play with fictional players, which is a shame. I feel OOTP would be better off not using the Lahman Database and instead put the time and effort into researching each player for the next version of their game.

[Anrhydeddu]

What's the fun about playing a game that would be so predictable?

[korme]

fiction is the way to go, LWSFS.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

The fun would lie in putting together a team. What would happen if Ty Cobb and Joe Jackson were on the same team? What if Walter Johnson actually pitched on a good team? Could he win 500 games? The individual numbers largely would be similar, but maybe the Browns would emerge as a dynasty and not the Yankees. And to me seeing careers in progress. Seeing if Ty Cobb can match his hit total, seeing if Babe Ruth can outdue himself. To me that is fun. I do not mind seeing players underachieve, but to me Ty Cobb hitting 330 is underachieving. OOTP has him hitting 300 half the time, which to me is unacceptable. Plus, I forgot to mention this: The Lahman Database is absolutely horrible with rating players for defense, speed and stealing bases. There are teams such as last years Angel's and the Diamondbacks of recent years that were built on this premise. But with the Lahman Database's ratings, it would be impossible to build a team on speed and defense realistically because those ratings are unreliable.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by LastWhiteSoxFanStanding
The fun would lie in putting together a team. What would happen if Ty Cobb and Joe Jackson were on the same team? What if Walter Johnson actually pitched on a good team? Could he win 500 games? The individual numbers largely would be similar, but maybe the Browns would emerge as a dynasty and not the Yankees. And to me seeing careers in progress. Seeing if Ty Cobb can match his hit total, seeing if Babe Ruth can outdue himself. To me that is fun. I do not mind seeing players underachieve, but to me Ty Cobb hitting 330 is underachieving. OOTP has him hitting 300 half the time, which to me is unacceptable. Plus, I forgot to mention this: The Lahman Database is absolutely horrible with rating players for defense, speed and stealing bases. There are teams such as last years Angel's and the Diamondbacks of recent years that were built on this premise. But with the Lahman Database's ratings, it would be impossible to build a team on speed and defense realistically because those ratings are unreliable.

Ummm the Lahman database just has stats. It's OOTP that converts the stats into ratings. I'm not sure how it does it, nor do I really care. The Lahman database is probably the best thing on the internet, I can't take you bashing it.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

I'm not bashing the Lahman Database. I think it is a fine tool. But I wish some company would take the next step and research the players themselves. EA doesn't use some generic database to generate ratings for its players, neither did Jim for FOF. Why should we expect less from .400 software studios? And just so everyone knows I think OOTP is a great game, I just think the historical mode on it needs some fine tuning. I think the first company that researches its own historical mode without the database will be the first company that has a hit baseball game on its hands.

[VPI97]

Earl Weaver Baseball represented the classic players very well. There were many times I found myself cursing Ty Cobb when he got on base via a bunt single.

[FBPro]

If you are looking for "historical accuracy" then try a "replay" game like DMB or SOM. OOTP began as a game leaning towards having this type of result "as an option" but it is more of a "replay to get MY OWN history" and not ".256 hitter batting .2558" in my replay of 1968 as DMB or SOM would be.

[TroyF]

I'm sorry, but I'm at least partially with LWSFS here.

I only play with fictional players and only want a fictional universe for my means.

Yet, if you are going to have the real players in a database, there needs to be some shred of credibility in them. I don't think that LWSFS is saying that having Cobb hit .364 in one year instead of .368 is that big of a deal.

He's saying that using ratings which make it nearly impossible for Cobb to show the consistency he did in real life isn't right.

Please, don't shoot me. . . again, I don't care about real players. If I did, I'd want Ty Cobb to be hitting over .350 most years, not going from .312 to .395 to .322 over a string of three years.

TroyF

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Thank you TroyF! I know it must have been quite painful to take my side but I appreciate it. You clarified my point much better than I did. I enjoy fictional players as much as anybody else, but I also enjoy the historical aspect as well.

On another note, I didn't realize my name was going to be such a mouthful! LWSFS sure doesn't look pretty. Everybody feel free to call me schmuck instead :-)

[FBPro]

From what I understand of the use of the database is that players imported "normally"(not always) have the potential to have a similar career as they had IRL. But with the nature of the OOTP engine(fluid) vs. "replay games"(stagnant) some will and some won't.

IMO, it is the beauty of the game but that is just me. The replay type games are too predictable.

[TroyF]

Again FBPro, in this case it isn't so much that Ty Cobb won't be Ty Cobb everytime you start a career, but that finding someone with the consistency of Cobb will be highly improbable, if not downright impossible.

I haven't played replay in awhile, but when I did this bothered me as much as it appears to be bothering schmuck (hmmm. . . LWSFS seems just as easy, I'll go with that in the future)

This isn't so much of an attack on the database as a question about the way Markus handles the numbers in it. Even if I don't agree with it 100% or the fact I never use this feature anymore, I do think it is a valid complaint.

It's been my experience that the OOTP board engages in a lot of the quick trigger defensive behavior. I thought he deserved a bit more conversation on his topic over here.

TroyF

[Axxon]

I agree that there are issues when importing from the Lehman database but there's just no way anyone is going to do what you suggest. I don't think it's financially feasable to do it. Even the venerable Strat, which has been around for many many years doesn't have every season available yet and they charge a pretty good fee for every SEASON you want that they do have.

With the current set up an OOTP player has every season available out of the erm download so to speak and at no additional cost. I don't see how even attempting what you're suggesting would work for them under the circumstances. Imagine how many NEW customers it would need just to pay the researchers. Again, strat and APBA have both computer and board variants and they are already doing the research for the board games which seem to be their better seller so again they get more value for their time.

What I'd liike to see is OOTP working on improving the importing of players and somehow create a better model of the player it brings in. Tighten up the current game in other words. I don't know how feasable that is even but I'd imagine it would be less work than painstakingly researching every year and very slowly releasing seasons that we as fans may or may not be waiting for and may or may not want to pay for.

Also, to make THAT work they'd need to make the game not be able to import from the database and I'd say they'd piss off more of their current customers ( like me for instance ) than they'd offset by the few customers paying $20 ( strat is actually more expensive here ) for say the '31 season for example.

I'd say your heart is in the right place but I just don't see it happening any time soon.

[FBPro]

Originally posted by TroyF
Again FBPro, in this case it isn't so much that Ty Cobb won't be Ty Cobb everytime you start a career, but that finding someone with the consistency of Cobb will be highly improbable, if not downright impossible.

I haven't played replay in awhile, but when I did this bothered me as much as it appears to be bothering schmuck (hmmm. . . LWSFS seems just as easy, I'll go with that in the future)

This isn't so much of an attack on the database as a question about the way Markus handles the numbers in it. Even if I don't agree with it 100% or the fact I never use this feature anymore, I do think it is a valid complaint.

It's been my experience that the OOTP board engages in a lot of the quick trigger defensive behavior. I thought he deserved a bit more conversation on his topic over here.

TroyF

Fair enough and was not trying to "knock" his point. Just trying to clarify(incase he was under the wrong impression about OOTP), and as was just stated I don't see much additional research on the subject from the 400 camp as it really doesn't appear to be the direction they want to go with the game. Whereas other companies strive for the replay accuracy.

[ISiddiqui]

The fact is correct that OOTP isn't going to focus on historical replay. It'd take too much time and effort for something that probably won't make too much money. Unfortunetly it wouldn't be worth their time.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to have a kind of forum modified Lahman's where people on the forum do research on players, etc.

[Anrhydeddu]

I apologize for my brief response, I didn't have time to write much this afternoon.

I am, probably more than anyone here, a fanatic about using Lahman to play OOTP. I have said before that for solo leagues, I would not be playing OOTP if it wasn't for the ability to create historically accurate leagues with players from Lahman. The joy of playing with a four-division league in the 1970s, or two 8-team leagues of the 1940s or the two 10-team leagues of the 1960s (all with reasonable era settings) have been among my best gaming experience of all time. The reason I chose to import real players is the hook in keeping me interested in playing season after season. I was a baseball fanatic from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s and seeing players that I followed and loved come into the league gives me immense thrills and immersions. My expectations is that I definitely do not want measured predictability - in any game. In my 1960s Cardinals dynasty for example (you can see it the Dynasty Forum), Aaron, Mantle, Mays, etc were already established stars when I started in 1961 an continued to perform very well (winning several MVPs) but pitchers like Bob Gibson just never performed well at all. It seems to be a hit or not as much of hit in all of my historical careers that I have played using known players. If it were not, then you would easily grab a known superstar early on (before the AI got serious about prospects) and just wait until you start running off pennants year after year. That ceases to be a game and definitely ceases to be fun. I just want known players there for the immersion/fun factor, not for expected performance.

However, using Lahman is not perfect. I agree that it is "horrible with rating players for defense, speed and stealing bases". But to me, the advantages far outweighs the disadvantages when without Lahman, my interest would not be there if I had to play with fictional players (an online league is different).

In summary, it truly is an aesthetic feature for me - but one that is the most important hook in my obsession for playing OOTP. Beyond that, I thrive to make my gameplay challenging (easier to do with OOTP5 than OOTP4) and that means loving the relative unpredictableness of comparing real-life stats of known players.

Troy, your criticism of up and down nature of stats has nothing to do with using Lahman, it happens with fictional players as well. For many of the superstars in my current league, they have maintained high performance year after year, but perhaps not within a narrow range. I don't see anything wrong with that because that would make acquiring expensive FA less of a challenge.

Bottom line? I have always viewed OOTP as a historical strategy game, which is my area of gaming obsession, not a tactical simulation, and that is my bias when talking about features like using the Lahman database.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
The fact is correct that OOTP isn't going to focus on historical replay. It'd take too much time and effort for something that probably won't make too much money. Unfortunetly it wouldn't be worth their time.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to have a kind of forum modified Lahman's where people on the forum do research on players, etc.

Wouldn't work. The problem is not with the database. The database only holds players factual information. The problem is with how the game imports and interprets the data from the database. You can't make the database more accurate than history consequently.

The best that could be done is a forum modified league for each season that the players could import from. Hey, I'd love to use this but lots of luck even getting something this massive off the ground.

[ISiddiqui]

Wouldn't work. The problem is not with the database. The database only holds players factual information. The problem is with how the game imports and interprets the data from the database. You can't make the database more accurate than history consequently.

The best that could be done is a forum modified league for each season that the players could import from. Hey, I'd love to use this but lots of luck even getting something this massive off the ground.

You last paragraph (with the modified leagues)... is what I meant by a modified Lahman's.

[vtbub]

I don't see the problem being with Lahman's as with the game itself.

Any game system is going to have it's share of reality problems.

As an aside, I had a strat hockey team the year that Brett Hull had 80+ goals. Truly an awesome card.

Anyway, whether the limitation is dice or algorythims, there will be differences between real life and a sim.

This has been discussed over at .400 quite a few times, I'm not quite sure that anybody has gotten the answer exactly as they want, no matter what side of the debate.

I, for one, would love to have such a precise sim. On the other hand, I don't need my heart to break when the Red Sox collapse in sim1978 and sim1986.

As suggested earlier, Strat, DMB and ABPA are probably the best replay sims out there. The one thing that I like about OOTP/Lahman is the flexibilty of the program and the like.

You also might want to look at Strategic Baseball Simulator, a freeware program you can find on google. It strictly does the replay thing, and many seasons are available. It varies some in stats, but it uses individual seasons for stats and doesn't try to develop players.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
You last paragraph (with the modified leagues)... is what I meant by a modified Lahman's.

Cool. I didn't mean to be overly pessimistic about the idea actually. I don't think it would be easy to bring it to fruition truthfully but it would be a blast to try especially if it was always viewed as a work in progress so there was no real pressure to put something up right away.

[Bucc]

It's funny you should mention that. I just started a '64 league but I wimped and made it 4 5team divs. I picked '64 as it was the first year of baseball that I was alive for. It sounded like fun to sim my entire life in baseball so to speak. Plus, I know a HUGE number of these guys and even the draft was a trip down memory lane. I guess I play the historical part for pretty much the same reason you do. Still, I have a much more mature pure fiction league that I've been playing too.

It took 3 versions but OOTP5 is the one that finally has rekindled my interest in baseball sims and with the database it has rekindled my enthusiasm for baseball history which I used to really be a big fan of. It will take something much more however to rekindle my interest in the real thing. *sigh*

PS: I thought really hard about drafting Gibson as he's one of my favorites from that era but he didn't look like he imported well and was too expensive ( yes I use financials, never claimed to be a purist ). It's right after the june draft and he's 4-5 2.91 with San Fran so the jury is definately still out here. Interesting that he didn't pan out in your sim. The game must be crap.

One of these days, when I can evaluate players better I'm going to get into an online league and that will be a first for me.

[TroyF]

There we go guys. That's the FOFC I know and love.

I was just trying to get a little conversation started. I also understand the reasoning for why OOTP (and other text based sims) handle this type of thing.

My suggestion would be to have some (VERY rare) players who are rated at 10 in something to actually have a hidden rating which is a tad higher. So the once in a generation player that strings together 10 consecutive .300+ seasons or 30+ HR can exist.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

TroyF

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by VPI97
Earl Weaver Baseball represented the classic players very well. There were many times I found myself cursing Ty Cobb when he got on base via a bunt single.

We had a MicroLeague Baseball league on the C64 back in 87 and 88 (well, using those stats the years afterward), and we had to institute a rule that a team could only bunt a limited number of times per game. This stemmed from one guy who bunted Vince Coleman every at bat and had him hitting over .400 at one point (after which of course he would always steal 2nd).

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

I think part of the problem is and I am only going by OOTP4, I have yet to play OOTP5, is that typing in a .400 batting average for the contact rating only gives a ten overall. Plus the range for each number is large. I am guessing a ten is somewhere from .380-.410. A 9 could be around a 340-.370. These are just approximations, but those are significant swings and that probably accounts for the up and down careers of so many players, real and fake, in OOTP.

As for Microleague Baseball, those were the days. Nothing like the entire infield holding a conference at the mound when the manager came to give him the hook!

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

dola,

on the other hand those ranges could be a positive since many people seem to like the unpredictabilty of the game.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by LastWhiteSoxFanStanding
I think part of the problem is and I am only going by OOTP4, I have yet to play OOTP5, is that typing in a .400 batting average for the contact rating only gives a ten overall. Plus the range for each number is large. I am guessing a ten is somewhere from .380-.410. A 9 could be around a 340-.370. These are just approximations, but those are significant swings and that probably accounts for the up and down careers of so many players, real and fake, in OOTP.

As for Microleague Baseball, those were the days. Nothing like the entire infield holding a conference at the mound when the manager came to give him the hook!

Ahh yes, the epic battles between the pink smurfs and the white smurfs That manager could be slow too....

The funniest thing we ever had happen with that game was a bad Game Disk copy. After about an inning or so, guys started running all over the field, a player ran right through the outfield wall and off the game. Then the scoreboard started reading:

CAREW CAREW.
CAREW CAREW, CAREW CAREW!

(my 1978 Greats team)

Game just went haywire I still am meaning to get a C64 emulator up and running to play again (I actually bought a C64 few C64 drives on eBay, but now don't have the disks!).

I actually started to try simming the 1962 NL season back then, but it would have taken forever. I did wind it up and let it go for opening day though, LA vs SF. Drysdale threw a no-hitter.

[Anrhydeddu]

In my 1960s Cardinals league, here is Hanry Aaron's battings stats. He is currently a 7/8/8 hitter but be aware that changes throughout his career (and will likely go down as he gets older). Please note that from 1954-1960 are his real stats while 1961-1968 are what happened in the game. It appears that the game was more consistent that he was in real life, I think.

• Year G AB H 2B 3B HR RBI R BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS Teams
  1954 122 468 131 27 6 13 69 58 28 39 2 2 .280 .321 .447 .767 ML1
  1955 153 602 189 37 9 27 106 105 49 61 3 1 .314 .366 .540 .905 ML1
  1956 153 609 200 34 14 26 92 106 37 54 2 4 .328 .367 .558 .925 ML1
  1957 151 615 198 27 6 44 132 118 57 58 1 1 .322 .379 .600 .979 ML1
  1958 153 601 196 34 4 30 95 109 59 49 4 1 .326 .386 .546 .932 ML1
  1959 154 629 223 46 7 39 123 116 51 54 8 0 .355 .403 .636 1.039 ML1
  1960 153 590 172 20 11 40 126 102 60 63 16 7 .292 .357 .566 .923 ML1
  1961 157 615 204 37 4 37 102 101 53 66 6 7 .332 .385 .585 .970 ML1,NL
  1962 158 598 196 33 7 33 105 119 78 57 3 0 .328 .405 .572 .977 ML1,NL
  1963 158 567 186 28 4 28 88 94 72 70 1 3 .328 .404 .540 .943 ML1,NL
  1964 157 576 189 33 2 40 104 102 82 60 8 2 .328 .412 .601 1.013 ML1,NL
  1965 158 561 168 21 1 23 72 101 77 60 3 1 .299 .384 .463 .847 ML1,NL
  1966 154 574 161 29 3 20 81 84 60 82 7 1 .280 .349 .446 .795 ML1,NL
  1967 157 584 174 34 4 25 88 94 67 81 8 4 .298 .370 .498 .868 ATL,NL
  1968 157 571 172 28 3 23 66 63 59 86 10 1 .301 .364 .482 .845 ATL,NL
  

[kcchief19]

No doubt that Lahman is a shortcut for OOTP to have historic play. Without it, there would not be historic play in OOTP.

If the complaint is that a player like Cobb is rated 10 in contact and go from .400 to .300 season to season, then the complaint is 100 percent with OOTP. If you would prefer that a player have less deviation in statistical output, then the game needs a setting to reflect that. In the Cobb example, what OOTP needs is a setting that would reduce the likelihood that he would have a horrible season. I know there is a consistency rating, but that has more to do with the players ability to play to his ratings, not with his deviation from year to year. I think that would be a good addition for OOTP.

If the complaint is the way players are rated, then there is an easy solution -- a game like OOTP lets you rate the players the way you see fit. Go for it. DM has the ratings, but it costs a fortune and has limited replayability. Heck, Strat-O-Matic was good, but it wasn't perfect from a statistical viewpoint and had no flexibility for the user to adjust ratings.

There is simply too much baseball history, not to mention too much disagreement over ratings, for a company to spend the time creating super-realistic player sets. But OOTP gives you the tools to do it yourself.

I'm like Anrhy in a lot of ways. While I enjoy starting from 2003 and going forward to see what I can do, I enjoy going back and playing with players that I know and relate to and seeing what I can do with them. I just started my latest Royals dynasty, where I go back to 1969 and play with the team from there on.

In fact, this time around, I actually started in 1968 and ran a season through so that I could start KC as a true expansion team and start from scratch. The only bad thing is that I had to fill triple-A for San Diego, Seattle and Montreal for them to have full rosters. One of the fictional triple-A guys created for Seattle is a total stud -- he won rookie of the year and is rated an 11 in power. D'oh!

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Originally posted by kcchief19
No doubt that Lahman is a shortcut for OOTP to have historic play. Without it, there would not be historic play in OOTP.

If the complaint is that a player like Cobb is rated 10 in contact and go from .400 to .300 season to season, then the complaint is 100 percent with OOTP. If you would prefer that a player have less deviation in statistical output, then the game needs a setting to reflect that. In the Cobb example, what OOTP needs is a setting that would reduce the likelihood that he would have a horrible season. I know there is a consistency rating, but that has more to do with the players ability to play to his ratings, not with his deviation from year to year. I think that would be a good addition for OOTP.

If the complaint is the way players are rated, then there is an easy solution -- a game like OOTP lets you rate the players the way you see fit. Go for it. DM has the ratings, but it costs a fortune and has limited replayability. Heck, Strat-O-Matic was good, but it wasn't perfect from a statistical viewpoint and had no flexibility for the user to adjust ratings.

There is simply too much baseball history, not to mention too much disagreement over ratings, for a company to spend the time creating super-realistic player sets. But OOTP gives you the tools to do it yourself.

I'm like Anrhy in a lot of ways. While I enjoy starting from 2003 and going forward to see what I can do, I enjoy going back and playing with players that I know and relate to and seeing what I can do with them. I just started my latest Royals dynasty, where I go back to 1969 and play with the team from there on.

In fact, this time around, I actually started in 1968 and ran a season through so that I could start KC as a true expansion team and start from scratch. The only bad thing is that I had to fill triple-A for San Diego, Seattle and Montreal for them to have full rosters. One of the fictional triple-A guys created for Seattle is a total stud -- he won rookie of the year and is rated an 11 in power. D'oh!

OOTP does include a great editor, allowing you to edit any and all ratings. If I wasn't such a schmuck, I would take advantage of it. I have two problems with the editor. One, if I adjust a Ty Cobb's ratings from say a 10 to a 12, I feel like im cheating. Which of course is silly because I am only doing what I think is fair. Making Ty Cobb play like Ty Cobb. The second problem is there are just too many little things to fix and I am lazy and I want to play the game and not deal with checking if every player is dead on balls accurate.

As for the Hank Aaron stats, the OOTP stats are a bit lower than his real stats from 1960-67. Hmm, I just tried copying and pasting his real stats from a website, but that was a complete disaster, but suffice to say Hank Aaron from 1960-67 took that leap from good player to great player. He hit over 40 hrs 4 times and drove in over 100 every year but 2. OOTP seems unable to replicate that leap players tend to make from good to great. Now that being said, the stats generated on Hank Aaron in your dynasty are not that far off. But by being just a little off every year. Aaron ends up with maybe 500 hrs instead of 755 which is a huge dissapointment for me, but I guess where the fun in the game comes for other people.

[Alan T]

Lahman database is great, its just the real stats that really happened. Not sure how anyone can say there is a problem with having a resource for factual data..


Like many others have said, your grief is not with the database, it is with the various game's interpretation of those stats. If you want a what if simulator, OOTP absolutly stinks for this. Baseball mogul is worthless in this regard.. I haven't gotten into Puresim enough to even know about that one. There are other games that do this type of thing great, and I had fun with them doing that for a while.

If you are looking to create an alternate reality, then those games aren't very good, and I would revert back to something like OOTP. Fictional players seems to be the best environment to use with ootp, because it then takes out of my mind the fact that.. hey such and such shouldn't be able to do that! When using real players, too many things can happen (injury to Pedro Martinez early in his career, Bonds never developing his power, etc) that makes a replay too unfeasible to compare to what really happened.


I have never been a big fan of trying to get a square peg to fit a round hole. I don't see anything wrong with it if you hate ootp because you want to have a realistic replay game. I wouldn't suggest you buy ootp if thats what you are looking to buy, there are other games far better at that out there.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

I don't hate OOTP. Not in the least. It is a fun game to play. And my criticism isn't with the database per se. Simply put, I would like the accuracy of DMB combined with the career and financial aspects of OOTP and I think the only way to acheive that is by not using a 3rd party database but by developing personalized ratings for each player. Most people on the board here think it is a fruitless dream, but I am a fruity kind of guy and would hope that someday a company fulfills my hope. I know it would take a lot of time and effort, but lets face it how long has Baseball Mogul been out, how long has OOTP been out. Obviously this kind of research cannot be done in one year, but if new versions of these games are still available another 5 years from now, why couldn't they research 20 seasons a year and have the ultimate accurate database for every player. And if people want unpredictability then support for the Lahman database could remain and the built in database for the game could be used for people who want a bit more historical accuracy. OOTP will probably never research these stats and come up with their own ratings, but if they did we all know how flexible and how much they listen to their customers and I do not see them dumping support for the Lahman Database even if they came up with an alternate one.

And once again the reason I do not go to DMB or Strat anymore is because I am a fan of seeing career numbers accumulate and OOTP can do that while those other games can't.

[FBPro]

Not sure if you frequent the 400 board but there are some "user adjusted" databases around. I really don't know what type of changes they have made but they are also available for d/l from various locations and it maybe something that is "up your alley" as far as adjusted for realism(really don't know but thought I'd mention it).

[Alan T]

one other thing to remember though, that for ootp to include real players in the game, they have to pay for additional licensing rights. Whether or not that would be worth the money for the end users, I think you could justify that if someone did it the right way, many people would indeed spend the extra money though. I do think the rediculous point system that is required of companies that do get licensing (instead of using money) is very lame though.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by VPI97
Earl Weaver Baseball represented the classic players very well. There were many times I found myself cursing Ty Cobb when he got on base via a bunt single.

No kidding. Earl Weaver Baseball Ty Cobb will be a first-ballot entry into the Computer and Video Game Sports Hall of Fame, along with Tecmo Football Randall Cunningham and NHL 95 Sergei Federov.

[lynchjm24]

[i]Obviously this kind of research cannot be done in one year, but if new versions of these games are still available another 5 years from now, why couldn't they research 20 seasons a year and have the ultimate accurate database for every player. [/b]

Because that takes time and money. There are so many other ways the developers can spend that time to improve the game in a myriad of ways that would be much more important to the 'majority'.

Plus no matter what you do with the ratings in OOTP, it still won't stop the random talent boosts and drops, the injuries, the park factors that will come into play in the different stadiums and the potential in the game to scout players incorrectly.

[ISiddiqui]

No kidding. Earl Weaver Baseball Ty Cobb will be a first-ballot entry into the Computer and Video Game Sports Hall of Fame, along with Tecmo Football Randall Cunningham and NHL 95 Sergei Federov.

Oh that NHL '95 Federov! Man, all you'd need is just him on the ice with 4 defensemen and a goalie and you'd still win .

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Oh that NHL '95 Federov! Man, all you'd need is just him on the ice with 4 defensemen and a goalie and you'd still win .

Yeah, Federov was always great in the NHL games, but never better than in '95 when EA decided to completely remove any actual hockey physics from the game and allow the players to change direction on a dime like pacman.

By the way, Turlos correctly pointed my glaring omission of Tecmo Football Lawrence Taylor from the list of hall-of-famers.

[LastWhiteSoxFanStanding]

Well no Tecmo hall-of-fame would be complete without former White Sox great Bo Jackson. I am sure we all remember the thrilling home run he hit to clinch the 1993 A.L. Western Division Crown.

Wouldn't it be something if Jim made a new baseball game complete with all the ratings from every player in Major League history? Sure, it is a long shot, but if anybody is nuts enough to do it, its Jim.

[Calis]

Not to try and threadjack here, but quick OOTP question, and I didn't feel like dedicating a whole thread to it. I just finally DL'ed the game last night, and didn't really start playing until today. Great game, really enjoying it so far.

My question is, is there a way to frigging set it so it doesn't ask you year after year if you want to import real rookies(draft time) Basically what I want to do is say, go to sleep...and let it sim 80-90 years, but I'm missing how that's possible(if it is, I hope so)?

[FBPro]

Not with historical play and if you are trying to sim X years, it will ask that question each year.

[Havok]

i always hated the Lahman Database (or the way it was imported). I'd have 19 year old closers getting drafted with 8 or 9's in ERA and guys like jose cansaco with a power potenial of average. It was all screwed up in my opinion.

Fiction is the way to go.... or just use this years players and use fiction players after that. OOTP needs to make its own Database that imports and exports rookie's much better.

(i haven't read this entire thread so if this has already been addressed sorry)

[Alan T]

Originally posted by Havok
i always hated the Lahman Database (or the way it was imported). I'd have 19 year old closers getting drafted with 8 or 9's in ERA and guys like jose cansaco with a power potenial of average. It was all screwed up in my opinion.

Fiction is the way to go.... or just use this years players and use fiction players after that. OOTP needs to make its own Database that imports and exports rookie's much better.

(i haven't read this entire thread so if this has already been addressed sorry)

The problem you explain is not a problem with the Lahman database. It has historical stats that are facts. The problem you mention is that you don't like how OOTP imports real factual historical data and then makes it's judgement of player's future talent ratings.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by kcchief19
In fact, this time around, I actually started in 1968 and ran a season through so that I could start KC as a true expansion team and start from scratch. The only bad thing is that I had to fill triple-A for San Diego, Seattle and Montreal for them to have full rosters. One of the fictional triple-A guys created for Seattle is a total stud -- he won rookie of the year and is rated an 11 in power. D'oh!

Know what I did to deal with the expansion issue? After the free agent period ended, I cut every player in AAA who was at least 30 years old and every player in AA and A who was at least 26 and made them free agents. Combined with the leftover free agents, I then split them up randomly into equal numbers and assigned them to the expansion teams. I did this at least 3 separate times - either for 2 or 4 expansion teams at a time - and each time, I was able to have realistically poor expansion teams using only the players who were imported into the league from Lahman. I think each team had about 60 players in the organization with which to build a Major League roster and fill out its minors. A few of the existing teams in the league were left a little short in the minors, but I figured they had the talent to deal with it. Plus, I increased the next year's draft to 10-12 per team to help the expansion teams with talent and the other teams fill out their minors again. Worked pretty well.

[Anrhydeddu]

Thanks, Ksyrup, that is very timely. In my current dynasty, I am at the end of the 1968 season and am getting ready for the expansion and realignment. For the expansion in 1962, I went the minors route and that worked well because the two teams (Mets, Colt 45s) had quite a bit of cash for years to persue free agents. I think this time, I like the idea of having some real players to fill up there teams.

[Ksyrup]

It's not perfect, but if you like the idea of keeping all of the players "real" - but not the idea of having the exact players as were on the expansion teams in real life - it works fine. I just don't like the idea of taking guys who could be in much different places in their careers than they were in real life and forcing them to change teams, as some people do. It just doesn't seem very realistic, especially if one or two of them have turned into good players for their other teams.

[cuervo72]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Yeah, Federov was always great in the NHL games, but never better than in '95 when EA decided to completely remove any actual hockey physics from the game and allow the players to change direction on a dime like pacman.

By the way, Turlos correctly pointed my glaring omission of Tecmo Football Lawrence Taylor from the list of hall-of-famers.

Oh man....you could block every single extra point with LT if I remember correctly.

[Alan T]

Originally posted by cuervo72
Oh man....you could block every single extra point with LT if I remember correctly.

Yep, every field goal, every extra point, and he was faster than any of the RB, QB or WR, so he could cover anyone on defense

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by Alan T
Yep, every field goal, every extra point, and he was faster than any of the RB, QB or WR, so he could cover anyone on defense

LT was no doubt the most dominant guy day-in and day-out. But Tecmo Super Bowl Howie Long would have games where he could dive through the line and sack the QB right away on every play.