Alright boyz, here we go (OOTP6 Thoughts!)

[Ben E Lou]

You *know* I had to do it.

Post your thoughts on the game here.

If you need to download, you can find it at one of these places:

ftp://216.55.136.39/pub/ootp/ootp6setup.exe
http://www.mirror1.ootpdevelopments.../ootp6setup.exe
http://209.235.192.175/files/ootp/ootp6setup.exe
http://www.ootp-leagues.com/files/ootp/ootp6setup.exe

[Samdari]

Can we sticky this thread, if only to annoy the NHL playoff folks?

[chinaski]

No trial run?! boooooooooo!

[Franklinnoble]

Did you just use the word "boyz?"

Ack...

[bbor]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Can we sticky this thread, if only to annoy the NHL playoff folks?

Hater

[Suicane75]

Interface is kind of clunky, that sound that it makes when you move the mouse over the file- league- team bar on the top of the screen is annoying as hell, i actually stopped a couple of times and looked out my window to see where the barking dog was before I realized what I was hearing. The dialog boxes for writing in new team names at the start of a career are also pretty clunky.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Did you just use the word "boyz?"

Ack...

Do you just spit on tradition???

[General Mike]

My thoughts are that it's gonna be another 3 hours before I even have the game installed

[HornedFrog Purple]

That thread made me King of All FOFC Media.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Do you just spit on tradition???

Hey, in some places, it's traditional to eat pig's feet. Don't expect me to embrace every wacky custom coming down the pike.

[Suicane75]

Coach hireing went pretty smooth, I noticed that all the coaches and managers are all pretty much between 40 and 60 years old and there arn't really any young guys who are very good which is kind of a drag. To people who have played previous versions, do young coaches who arn't very good get better as they age or is it sort of stagnant?

[kingnebwsu]

Sim speed is way way slower. Not that this is so bad, it gives me more time to analyze everything when I do my weekly sims.

I like the 100-point rating system. I wonder, can people be above 100? I know in OOTP 5 some (rare) people would be rated 11&12. Just wondering

[Suicane75]

Ughhhh, first thing that really ticks me off, In the initial draft, when you sort by batting or pitching rateings when looking at players, you cannot see their age, you have to constantly toggle. The initial league draft is a huge feature for me and this is a minor annoyance.

[Suicane75]

Addendum on the draft screen. At the very least the age, speed, stealing ability and running rateings should be on the general bating rateings screen. About 40% of the draft page is taken up by the huge font draft order portion which could easily be reduced to a smaller font and take up much less space which would allow for a wider rateings info area, as it is it's a bit tedious to toggle back and forth and find out how old and what the running ability of the best rated hitters are.

[kingnebwsu]

NOOOOO!!! PLAYOFF RESULTS!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!! IT'S ALL HAPPENING AGAIN!!!!!!!!

What I mean is, upsets in 3 of the 4 first round series. Houston and their 106 wins got beat 3-1 in the first round by 90-win Philadelphia. Sigh. I know it's only the first season, but this does not bode well for "realistic" postseason results. Epic world series between the 90-win Phillies and 91-win White Sox.

Double sigh

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by kingnebwsu

NOOOOO!!! PLAYOFF RESULTS!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!! IT'S ALL HAPPENING AGAIN!!!!!!!!

What I mean is, upsets in 3 of the 4 first round series. Houston and their 106 wins got beat 3-1 in the first round by 90-win Philadelphia. Sigh. I know it's only the first season, but this does not bode well for "realistic" postseason results. Epic world series between the 90-win Phillies and 91-win White Sox.

Double sigh

Sounds almost exactly like MLB nowadays to me.

[Suicane75]

Im seeing a bad mix of guys with great speed and no stealing ability and guys with moderate speed and great stealing ability. Not that a few of these guys arnt around but theyre are very few guys with great speed and great stealing ability.

[korme]

What are the initial thoughts on rating scales?

I started with:

Ratings: 1-100
Talents: 1-10 (don't wanna see a perfect idea of how good)
Other: 1-20 (speed ratings to remind me of CM)

[Suicane75]

I started with all ratings at 1-100. It's just an easier system to use when getting my feet wet.

[mtaystl03]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Sounds almost exactly like MLB nowadays to me.

Sure does. The Marlins and Angels sure didn't win 110 games.

[LloydLungs]

I think you'd probably see slightly fewer postseason upsets if home field advantage were part of the game -- as it stands now there's no particular point to having the best record as everything is even in the playoffs. That said, in a short series you're always going to see upsets.

[Bonegavel]

Penis Fence!!!

[edit - ever since the comment was made about that icon looking like the above phrase, I can't help but laugh every time i see it. I don't like baseball, but I may be giving this one a shot.]

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by kingnebwsu

NOOOOO!!! PLAYOFF RESULTS!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!! IT'S ALL HAPPENING AGAIN!!!!!!!!

What I mean is, upsets in 3 of the 4 first round series. Houston and their 106 wins got beat 3-1 in the first round by 90-win Philadelphia. Sigh. I know it's only the first season, but this does not bode well for "realistic" postseason results. Epic world series between the 90-win Phillies and 91-win White Sox.

Double sigh

King, this was mentioned on the beta boards, so you're not alone. However, bear with me for a moment:

Currently, 4 teams from each league make the playoffs. Let's go with your 106 win Astros and your 90 win Phillies. Astros have a winning percentage of .654, while the Phils are at .555. Ok...now...according to the standings, over a 162 game schedule they are 16 games "different". That means 1 game in every 10 the Astros won, where the Phillies did not.

Now, let's put this in the context of a 5 game series. Is there REALLY much difference between the two teams mathematically? After all, it takes about 10 games to see that one game difference.

Caveat: I'm sure there are some real statisticians out there that can run these numbers much better than I can - if you can shed some light on this, please do.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that the Astros have a 60% chance of winning a single game against anyone they face in the playoffs - that may be a little high, but I think it's fair for this scenario. Based on a .600 winning pct in the playoffs, the Astros have about a 66% chance of winning a 5 game series. The next round they have about 70+% chance, and the same for the championship series, if they make it. So, the odds of the Astros winning the championship title is about 37.1%.

Really, it's not an OOTP thing - it's math.

[CraigSca]

Dola - regarding home field advantage...

I'd like to see this in the game as well, to some degree. I think the numbers and the exact influence still need to be worked out, but there have been some interesting conversations regarding this on the OOTP boards that shed some light on this.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

King, this was mentioned on the beta boards, so you're not alone. However, bear with me for a moment:

Currently, 4 teams from each league make the playoffs. Let's go with your 106 win Astros and your 90 win Phillies. Astros have a winning percentage of .654, while the Phils are at .555. Ok...now...according to the standings, over a 162 game schedule they are 16 games "different". That means 1 game in every 10 the Astros won, where the Phillies did not.

Now, let's put this in the context of a 5 game series. Is there REALLY much difference between the two teams mathematically? After all, it takes about 10 games to see that one game difference.

Caveat: I'm sure there are some real statisticians out there that can run these numbers much better than I can - if you can shed some light on this, please do.

Let's just say for the sake of argument that the Astros have a 60% chance of winning a single game against anyone they face in the playoffs - that may be a little high, but I think it's fair for this scenario. Based on a .600 winning pct in the playoffs, the Astros have about a 66% chance of winning a 5 game series. The next round they have about 70+% chance, and the same for the championship series, if they make it. So, the odds of the Astros winning the championship title is about 37.1%.

Really, it's not an OOTP thing - it's math.

Craig, from a mathematics standpoint, I agree with you there.

I think what Ben is getting at is that there haven't been all THAT many teams in contemporary baseball who pull off stunning upsets to make it to the World Series (or to win IN the World Series).

Otherwise, the Yanks probably wouldn't have as many pennants and championships as they do, huh?

It does happen, obviously. The 1988 Dodgers, and basically anybody who's played against the Braves in the last decade being more recent examples.

He and I were having a discussion about it earlier in the month, though, and when I checked out baseball-reference.com, most of the "surprising" outcomes were, comparatively speaking, in the World Series. There weren't too many examples of teams with win totals in the low 90s (or lower) bumping off teams with 105+ wins (the Seattle Mariners notwithstanding ).

[CraigSca]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I wonder if a lack of true home field advantage is partly responsible for this.

Second, just to play devil's advocate, in the grand scheme of things, baseball's expansion of it's playoff format was a very recent occurrence. That may be part of the reason why so "few" upsets have occurred in history (although we can look back at the Marlins and Angels for recent examples). Also, I do remember the Twins winning the WS despite having a horrible record away from the 'dome and in my childhood I remember the Royals winning in '85 despite having an only slight above average team. It does happen, obviously.

Besides a homefield advantage, however, I'm not sure what can be done. Obviously, it would be out of the question to artificially change the engine so the "good" teams win.

Edit: spelling and grammar

[SackAttack]

I'm checking the results of league playoffs (LCS, LDS) again at baseball-reference.com, and so far, other than the Yanks knocking off Seattle in '01, I've only seen one example of a team with a W/L record at least 10 games worse than their opponent actually advancing: the 1997 Cleveland Indians (86-75) beat the New York Yankees (96-66). I'm as far back as 1991 now, and those are still the two main examples of teams overcoming THAT large a discrepancy.

And I think that's what Ben's most irked about. Not so much a 93 win team knocking off a 96 win team with regularity - 3 wins, in different divisions, isn't statistically significant - but instead a 91 win team routinely knocking off a 105 win team. That simply doesn't happen in real life with the regularity it does in OOTP.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I don't the numbers in front of me, but I wonder if a lack of true home field advantage is party responsible for this.

Second, just to play devil's advocate, in the grand scheme of things, baseball's expansion of it's playoff format was a very recent occurrence. That may be part of the reason why so "few" upsets have occurred in history (although we can look back at the Marlins and Angels for recent examples). Also, I do remember the Twins winning the WS despite having a horrible record away from the 'dome and in my childhood I remember the Royals winning in '85 despite having an only slight above average team. It does happen, obviously.

Besides a homefield advantage, however, I'm not sure what can be done. Obviously, it would be out of the question to artificially change the engine so the "good" teams win.

That could be. Keep in mind one thing, though: you know how in the NBA, the East is significantly weaker than the West? There were a few years like that back in the old two-divisional format, where the team coming out of the East was significantly stronger than the one coming out of the West (or vice versa). Yeah, we didn't have that extra round of playoffs, but at the same time, you had two divisional champions, and they weren't always evenly matched.

Look at the '88 ALCS. The A's had 104 wins, the Red Sox had 89, and the A's made mincemeat of the Sox in 4 straight. Ordinarily, that's the result you'd expect to see (the victory, if not necessarily a sweep). With OOTP, all bets are off.

Now, go back a year to '87, and yeah, the 85 win Twins knocked off the 98 win Tigers. As I said, it does happen...but that's three times in 17 years.

Maybe homefield advantage is part of the issue, but I can't imagine that's solely responsible for why teams with gaudy win/loss records lose so frequently in the playoffs.

[SackAttack]

Dola,

1984, the Royals were fully *20* games worse than the Tigers. Guess what? The Royals got swept.

[yabanci]

Is there a help file or manual somewhere? What exactly do the "player creation modifiers" on the custom league setup do and why would I want to change them?

[stevew]

I noticed that if you import an Old league, and have starting pitchers set as Relievers or closers, their duration converts at - which I believe is worse than zero. So, if they are starters, you need to switch them to starters, at least until you finish converting.

[HighandOutside]

I hate to be a neophyte pain in the a**.. but what do I have to do to make the pull down menus readable...I'm sorry this is my first time trying the game

[stevew]

Originally Posted by HighandOutside

I hate to be a neophyte pain in the a**.. but what do I have to do to make the pull down menus readable...I'm sorry this is my first time trying the game

You gotta disable Direct3d support in the configuration menu.

[yabanci]

I'm really happy to see the option to turn off the gold stars.

[Vince]

Very sad that I forgot to pre-order.

[HighandOutside]

Thanks steveW...

[Huckleberry]

My really crappy first mathematical guess tells me that a 106 win team should win at a .588... clip against a 90 win team.

That would mean a 66.3% chance of winning a 5 game series. So the upset should happen in 1 out of 3 series, mathematically. Of course, in the real world factors like a tremendous top 3 starters with a very weak #4 and #5 starter combination on the weaker team would greatly increase the chance of the upset. #4 and #5 starter strength help with regular season wins but are minimized in the playoffs.

[Suicane75]

One of the first guys I drafted I notice has no control and not alot of potential for control but is listed as having 0 potential for Wild Pitches.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

My really crappy first mathematical guess tells me that a 106 win team should win at a .588... clip against a 90 win team.

That would mean a 66.3% chance of winning a 5 game series. So the upset should happen in 1 out of 3 series, mathematically. Of course, in the real world factors like a tremendous top 3 starters with a very weak #4 and #5 starter combination on the weaker team would greatly increase the chance of the upset. #4 and #5 starter strength help with regular season wins but are minimized in the playoffs.

Right. If the teams were more or less equal strength, and simply had a different winning percentage, then strict mathematics would apply. But, realistically speaking, there's generally a reason -why- a team that's 10+ games better than another team is in that position in the first place.

And that's also why only 3 teams in the last 25 years (as far back as I've gone) have been 10+ games worse than their opponent in the LCS or LDS and won.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

One of the first guys I drafted I notice has no control and not alot of potential for control but is listed as having 0 potential for Wild Pitches.

I wasn't aware that they changed wild pitches to a rating now. I thought it was just an approximate number of wild pitches per 550 batters faced. same with HBP and balks.

[Huckleberry]

Sack Attack -

What about in the World Series?

[Huckleberry]

By the way, I've only gotten through 2000 going backwards and I show 2 upsets out of 4 chances in the LCS or LDS where a team has beaten an opponent that had at least 10 more wins than they did. And 1 for 1 in the World Series, which leaves us at 3 out of 5 matchups have resulted in the upset in the last 4 years.

edit - And then I got to 1998, where the big underdog put up a big 0-fer-4 spot to make it 3 out of 9.

edit again - I'm wondering what series you missed. Cleveland upset two teams in the AL Playoffs with at least 10 more wins in 1997. So there have been 5 out of 12 matchups resulting in upsets since 1997.

[SackAttack]

Huck,

I'm not checking the World Series, just LDS and LCS. I'll go doublecheck again, but I've only found a handful so far. the Yanks/Mariners in 2001, the Indians vs the Yanks in '97, and the Twins vs the Tigers in '87. That's been it, so far. I'll get back to you with more.

[samifan24]

I'm running an initial draft and came across something odd: a 21 yo stud 3B prospect with the following ratings: Stuff: 2, Control: 8, Movement: 3 (all out of 10). Sure, he's got great potential, but does this mean the guy will be the next Brooks Kieschnick (sic) or Dave McCarty?

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by General Mike

I wasn't aware that they changed wild pitches to a rating now. I thought it was just an approximate number of wild pitches per 550 batters faced. same with HBP and balks.

Yeah, i worded it wrong. It is an approxomate number of wild pitches, but still, to have 0 wild pitches for a guy whose control is 0 is a little off. All of my complaints aside I am pretty immersed in the game at the moment.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Is there a help file or manual somewhere? What exactly do the "player creation modifiers" on the custom league setup do and why would I want to change them?

There is a new manual incoming...

Player creation modifiers are only used if you don't feel OOTP's current system suits your needs. OOTP is designed to create new players that look like your typical modern day player. If you want to change these in any way, the option is yours (though I personally would feel no need to touch these - ever ).

-Craig

[Maple Leafs]

Random thought...

There's an old baseball adage that every team will win 50 games and lose 50 games, and that it's what you do with the other 60 that determines your season. If you believe that, then you could argue that a 100 win team is actually 25% better than a 90 win team (50/10 vs 40/20), not 10% or so better.

Not sure if that way of thinking has much value, but it could help explain why real life upsets seem to happen less frequently than the percentages would expect.

[Huckleberry]

1997 - Cleveland/New York, Cleveland/Baltimore (3 matchups)
1998 - None (3 matchups)
1999 - None (No matchups)
2000 - None (No matchups)
2001 - New York/Seattle (2 matchups)
2002 - None (No matchups)
2003 - Chicago/Atlanta (2 matchups)

That's not counting the World Series. I'm done for now as I've got work to do. However, I want to clarify that I'm doing this study not as a defense of OOTP but as an indictment of the MLB playoff system. I've got plenty of issues with OOTP, but a much bigger one with 5 and 7 game series being used to decide things in a sport with a 162 game season.

I would prefer that baseball go to a 9 game series at each round with one off day to mimic the regular season. They can reduce the regular season from 162 to 154 and then the max number of games for any team stays the same.

[GoldenEagle]

I found a potential bug. I messed around with some of the rating numbers and went back to the player screen and the starts were gone. I have never touched the star rating, so why would it do this?

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Right. If the teams were more or less equal strength, and simply had a different winning percentage, then strict mathematics would apply. But, realistically speaking, there's generally a reason -why- a team that's 10+ games better than another team is in that position in the first place.

And that's also why only 3 teams in the last 25 years (as far back as I've gone) have been 10+ games worse than their opponent in the LCS or LDS and won.

Does that mean then, that the game should change its algorithms of love for the playoffs and make that majority of 10+ better teams always win the series?

I would assume that the same engine is at work in both regular season and playoffs in OOTP6, which makes this even more interesting. Shouldn't this all just be built in to happen "correctly"?