Real players, replay mode. My association started with the 1987 season and is now in April 1999. I very recently d-loaded 1.82, then 1.83 after running with 1.76 (?) for quite a while. All games are AI-managed.
I "watch" a few games each season and have noticed what seems like a dramatic increase in stolen base attempts and stolen bases with the last two versions. Compared to earlier versions, runners are VERY often stealing second and third.
My only way to "confirm" my suspicions was to examine the single season leaders. The 1997 and 1998 seasons ran with 1.82 and 1.83, respectively. Looking at the top ten, a disproportionate number of the thieves came from those two seasons.
That's my only "gripe". I LOVE the color scheme during game play. The divisional tie-breaker game is brilliant. My first one was Red Sox vs. Yankees. Boston bombed the Yanks and won the AL East. New York, however, took the wild card and ended up winning the World Series.
Attachments
UO0001.jpg (181.09 KiB) Viewed 102 times
"Better to sleep with old hen than pullet" - Redd Foxx
Real players, replay mode. My association started with the 1987 season and is now in April 1999. I very recently d-loaded 1.82, then 1.83 after running with 1.76 (?) for quite a while. All games are AI-managed.
I "watch" a few games each season and have noticed what seems like a dramatic increase in stolen base attempts and stolen bases with the last two versions. Compared to earlier versions, runners are VERY often stealing second and third.
My only way to "confirm" my suspicions was to examine the single season leaders. The 1997 and 1998 seasons ran with 1.82 and 1.83, respectively. Looking at the top ten, a disproportionate number of the thieves came from those two seasons.
That's my only "gripe". I LOVE the color scheme during game play. The divisional tie-breaker game is brilliant. My first one was Red Sox vs. Yankees. Boston bombed the Yanks and won the AL East. New York, however, took the wild card and ended up winning the World Series.
You're right. I just setup an assn in 1985 and simmed 20 years overnight. I woke up this AM and checked the stats and sure enough, the one that is out of whack is steals. I'll have a look when I get home from work tonight.
On a related note, I think it's too easy to steal bases as it is if you have a halfway decent runner. I had a player who stole 90 bases in 1902. I could have done almost every season with him, but I forced myself to not steal as many bases, even though it may have cost me games, just so that it wasn't so historically inaccurate.
J.G. Wrathchild, Manager, St. Louis Cardinals (1900-1906), Brooklyn Superbas (1907, 1908)
I don't know, in my current season, I am seeing 77 speed runners getting thrown out by 38 arms (when the manager calls a pitch out, which is when ever a runner with any speed gets on base)
but I am also seeing the AI with simi poor speed runners stealing on better armmed catchers (41-42 speed, 62 arm, don't see many running on my 90 arm)
Real players, replay mode. My association started with the 1987 season and is now in April 1999. I very recently d-loaded 1.82, then 1.83 after running with 1.76 (?) for quite a while. All games are AI-managed.
I "watch" a few games each season and have noticed what seems like a dramatic increase in stolen base attempts and stolen bases with the last two versions. Compared to earlier versions, runners are VERY often stealing second and third.
My only way to "confirm" my suspicions was to examine the single season leaders. The 1997 and 1998 seasons ran with 1.82 and 1.83, respectively. Looking at the top ten, a disproportionate number of the thieves came from those two seasons.
That's my only "gripe". I LOVE the color scheme during game play. The divisional tie-breaker game is brilliant. My first one was Red Sox vs. Yankees. Boston bombed the Yanks and won the AL East. New York, however, took the wild card and ended up winning the World Series.
You're right. I just setup an assn in 1985 and simmed 20 years overnight. I woke up this AM and checked the stats and sure enough, the one that is out of whack is steals. I'll have a look when I get home from work tonight.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Wait, wait, wait...
I just started a real player association in 1998 and there are too few stolen bases, not too many. This is with v1.83. The numbers aren't way off, but they are low. In 1998 real life, there were 3284 stolen bases - in my sim there were 2558 stolen bases. In 1998 real life, there were 1505 caught stealing - in my sim there were 1149 caught stealing. So, my numbers are low. The top base stealer in my sim bagged 62.
Is the problem with an association started years earlier that is not transitioning correctly year-by-year?
I hope Shaun doesn't overcompensate with engine tweaks on this issue. The transitioning between versions might be the problem.
I started my season with an earlier version, and my SB totals are slightly high, but not outrageous. However, I play aggressively, and take advantage of poor-armed opposing catchers. I'll have my speedsters stealing 3 or 4 times a game. For example, in real life (1946) Pete Reiser had 34 SB in 482 AB. In MY league, Pete has 49 SB in 420 AB.
IF Shaun reduces the AI's level of calling for a steal, he should also use the override more often when a human manager calls for one (i.e., increase the percentage chance that the base runner stays put).
What I would NOT want is having guys like Rickey Henderson "staying put" too often; too few SB is as bad as too many, IMHO.
Im on the "too many SB's" side of the fence as far as my historical league, which is still in the deadball era. One of the problems is that there are way too few CS's. In a few test runs of the league before getting going, I would routinely see players with around 80+ SB's when in real life they had around 50 or so, however along with the 80ish steals would only be maybe 4 or 5 caught stealing. For 80 steals, the number of CS should be around 30-35 for most guys I would think (historical SB% is somewhere around 56% I think).
So if a player had 50 real life SB's and an estimated CS total (because of lack of CS data in the database) of around 15-20, for a total of around 70 attempts, in the game he would most likely end up with around 66 SB's and 4 CS instead of a more inline 55 SB's and 15 CS.
I was seeing way too few CS for this time period but the number of attempts didnt seem too far off, so in the XML file I changed the "STEAL_SPEED_MULTIPLIER Value" from 187 to 135 and changed the "CATCHER_ARM_MULTIPLIER Value" from 105.35 to 110.35 but left the "STEAL_ATTEMPT_FREQ Value" at the default 165. I wasnt too worried about getting exactly 56% CS, but I wanted to at least see some high double digit CS totals for players. In my current league, for 1903 and 1904, Honus Wagner (real life SB's of 46 and 53 respectively) had 46 SB and 23 CS for 1903, and 44 SB and 19 SB in 1904 using the above XML tweaks. Thats close enough for me, and way better than the 65+ SB's and 5 CS I would see before the tweaks. Maybe start with trying to get players with around 56% successful SB's, and, to compensate for the lack of data in the database, try to get the players with more runs scored and/or triples a little better percentage. Not too much with the triples though, as Im seeing players from this time period with alot of triples end up with alot of SB's also, even if they werent basestealers in real life at all (Sam Crawford comes to mind)
Maybe this is something that is only an issue with players with lack of CS data in the database, I dont know. Also this is with version 1.80. Im not sure if anything has changed in regards to this issue from there up to 1.83
