Real pitcher strikeouts

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Real pitcher strikeouts

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> PureSim Baseball >> Real pitcher strikeouts

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/3/2006 12:56:44 AM

URett

Posts: 54
Joined: 8/22/2005
Status: offline

I noticed in my real player seeded league that some pitchers develop insane strikeout abilities over time. One example:

Jimmy Dygert

Year - IP - K
1903 - 254 - 85
1904 - 285 - 95
1905 - 272 - 177
1906 - 292 - 165
1907 - 275 - 186
1908 - 177 - 138
1909 - 270 - 302
1910 - 350 - 485
1911 - 337 - 527

Anyone else seeing this? Could this be related to the new ratings changes during the season?

Post #: 1

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/3/2006 2:04:45 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

Yes, this is a glitch caused by the import of certain players. This issue has been discussed before. These are guys who maybe had a cup of coffee or two in the majors, did well, and then faded into obscurity.

However, the game stills rates them, and if they maintain a long career, WILL generate insane stats. Someone else called this the "Roy Hitt" syndrome.

It's most likely found in one-shot players from 1900-10.

(in reply to URett)

Post #: 2

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/3/2006 3:18:33 AM

George M

Posts: 13
Joined: 11/3/2006
Status: offline

It's not just "cup of coffee" players. I started an association seeded with real players from 1975. Glad I picked Frank Tanana:

Frank Tanana'75

Year - IP - K

2006 - 164 - 153
2007 - 145 - 196
2008 - 237 - 443
2009 - 246 - 655
2010 - 245 - 712
2011 - 247 - 731
2012 - 259 - 768
2013 - 258 - 760
...

Also, Pete Falcone'75 averaged over two Ks per inning for several years. I'm using the 1.38 beta.

As an aside, I started Tanana in the first World Series game I managed (2011). He took a no-hitter into the 12th and ended up with a 15 inning complete game 2-hit shutout win with 45 Ks. Yep, every out he recorded was a strikeout. Not really that surprising since almost 99% of his regular season outs that year were Ks.

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 3

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/3/2006 3:29:33 AM

wlfcards

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/12/2006
Status: offline

I imported some 1970 and 1985 players in my year 2023.
Dwight Gooden '70
Year KOs ERA
2023 221 4.80
2024 447 3.00
2025 667 2.27

A 1985 Eric King who was unwanted in 2023, signed as a free agent in 2024 had, in 2025 570 kos and 16 complete games.

(in reply to George M)

Post #: 4

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/3/2006 3:38:47 AM

URett

Posts: 54
Joined: 8/22/2005
Status: offline

The guy I picked had 6 year career in real life, almost 1000 IP and almost 600 K, so no Roy Hitt.

Without having anything to back it up I could see a multiplying effect of a good start to the season causing a ratings increase causing more Ks causing another increase and so on. Has anyone noticed something similar with other stats? I remember seeing outlandish K numbers, including pitchers who would only have a handful of non-K outs per season, with previous versions of PureSim, but I don't remember seeing the same with HRs or AVG.

(in reply to URett)

Post #: 5

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/3/2006 3:57:22 AM

XCom

Posts: 193
Joined: 6/6/2006
Status: offline

I think many people have seen this bug come up with the most recent beta patches. I'm afraid it is related to the new aging model that Shaun incorporated into beta 1.36. It seems that alot of problems have been seen since 1.35 was released and Shaun has been really bogged down with real life stuff and hasn't had a chance to remedy the issues. I would recommend reverting back to an earlier patch version. I'm using 1.31 with little or no problems and 1.20 (the last official patched version) is really the best bet for consistent results right now until Shaun addresses all of the outstanding issues with the last few beta patches.

(in reply to URett)

Post #: 6

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/3/2006 2:44:10 PM

Sandman62

Posts: 13
Joined: 7/12/2006
Status: offline

To revert back from 1.38 do I just need to install the 1.20 version? Also I have not seen any wierdness with 1.38 using fictional players, does this bug affect fictional players also. I have only played 3 seasons in my current association with 1.38 and do no see anything strange yet....

_____________________________

(in reply to XCom)

Post #: 7

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/3/2006 4:03:30 PM

George M

Posts: 13
Joined: 11/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sandman62

Also I have not seen any wierdness with 1.38 using fictional players, does this bug affect fictional players also. I have only played 3 seasons in my current association with 1.38 and do no see anything strange yet....

Using 1.38 I have now simulated 34 seasons (2006-2039) in the association that produced the bionic Tanana. The association transitioned from real players to all fictional ones long ago. The fictional pitchers are fine - no anomalous seasons. Elite hitters seem to hit for higher averages than one might expect. In 34 seasons there have been 26 hitters that hit over .400 for a season, most fictional but a few real players did it. The highest season average was .455 for a real player and .444 for a fictional player. Power numbers seem reasonable. The season record for home runs is 58; 50 is rare.

All in all I'm happy with fictional player development in 1.38. I really don't mind a handfull of hitting superstars.

(in reply to Sandman62)

Post #: 8

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/3/2006 4:15:02 PM

Sandman62

Posts: 13
Joined: 7/12/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: George M

Using 1.38 I have now simulated 34 seasons (2006-2039) in the association that produced the bionic Tanana. The association transitioned from real players to all fictional ones long ago. The fictional pitchers are fine - no anomalous seasons. Elite hitters seem to hit for higher averages than one might expect. In 34 seasons there have been 26 hitters that hit over .400 for a season, most fictional but a few real players did it. The highest season average was .455 for a real player and .444 for a fictional player. Power numbers seem reasonable. The season record for home runs is 58; 50 is rare.

All in all I'm happy with fictional player development in 1.38. I really don't mind a handfull of hitting superstars.

Thanks for the response, I will keep with the current league structure I have since I am only using fictional players.
I will probably edit the xml to tweak it a bit to a 1950's-1960's style game and this way I should not hit the .400 hitters as often.....

_____________________________

(in reply to George M)

Post #: 9

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/4/2006 1:43:32 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

Shaun mentioned that the in-season aging model wasn't working out well, so he may drop it for now. The latest beta has the option to turn it off, so I recommend doing so.

(in reply to Sandman62)

Post #: 10

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/4/2006 11:01:54 PM

Cantankerous

Posts: 65
Joined: 3/19/2002
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline

I've simmed 27 seasons (1990-2016), all with fictional players, and the highest batting average for a season has been .385, the most HR's hit in a single season was 60, and this was done ONE time (and only a handful of players have hit 50 or more in a season), and the most K's for a pitcher has been around 285.

So I have not seen any of the weird numbers of strikeouts or batting averages that some have reported, and in fact it seems that my players (again, all fictional) have never been good enough to have "one of those seasons" where they have a truly all-time record setting statistic in some area. So in a way, I'd say that was good, and shows that the game is well-balanced. (At least in from my viewpoint.)

I have been playing with the 1.38 patch for probably 5 seasons now. Note that some of the lack of really high stats may have to do with the fact that I have always played with at least 26 teams in the league (currently with 30). So I never had any of those "old school" MLB leagues of 8 or 12 teams.

Perhaps the "smaller" sized leagues have a tendency to produce more "abnormal" seasonal results. Perhaps this coupled with the in-season aging model has a tendency to create weirdness. Just a thought.

Are people who are experiencing these strange K rates playing with small-sized leagues or with larger numbers of teams?

Could that have any bearing?

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 11

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/5/2006 12:27:17 AM

George M

Posts: 13
Joined: 11/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cantankerous

Perhaps the "smaller" sized leagues have a tendency to produce more "abnormal" seasonal results. Perhaps this coupled with the in-season aging model has a tendency to create weirdness. Just a thought.

Are people who are experiencing these strange K rates playing with small-sized leagues or with larger numbers of teams?

My association started as a single division with 4 teams and real players from 1975. The first simulated season was 2006. I expanded it to a total of 8 teams (two 4 team divisions) after 5 seasons. I have allowed it to transition over time to entirely fictional players. I've simmed through the 2039 season.

How do your players develop? Just about all my players who have hit .400 have had a contact rating in the 90's to 100 when they did it, and a similar eye rating. Most started out with fairly ordinary numbers and high potential. I usually let them develop in the minors for several years which seems like it may be the key. The computer controlled teams generally put their promising young players in the majors right away or after a very brief stint in the minors. They often end up as very good players, but never superstars.

My pitching numbers for the fictional players seem pretty normal. The season strikeout record for a fictional player is 231, and 200 is not all that common.

(in reply to Cantankerous)

Post #: 12

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/5/2006 1:28:36 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

For Cantankerous and GeorgeM, are you using the 1.38 beta patch with the in-season aging model implemented, or the standard 1.20?

(in reply to George M)

Post #: 13

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/5/2006 2:53:56 AM

George M

Posts: 13
Joined: 11/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

For Cantankerous and GeorgeM, are you using the 1.38 beta patch with the in-season aging model implemented, or the standard 1.20?

I'm currently using 1.38. If it matters, the association was created (and the original player import done) using whatever version the demo is. I bought the program early in the association's second season and probably installed the 1.38 beta patch at around that same time. At the time I didn't know where to get the 1.20 version.

< Message edited by George M -- 11/5/2006 2:57:20 AM >

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 14

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/5/2006 11:29:25 PM

Cantankerous

Posts: 65
Joined: 3/19/2002
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline

KG Erwin,

I am using the 1.38 patch but I elected NOT to use the in-season aging model. (When given the option I elected to use the "original-flavor" version where players only changed ratings at the beginning of the season.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: George M

How do your players develop? Just about all my players who have hit .400 have had a contact rating in the 90's to 100 when they did it, and a similar eye rating. Most started out with fairly ordinary numbers and high potential. I usually let them develop in the minors for several years which seems like it may be the key.

I also let my young talent develop in the minors, especially the 18- and 19-year-old players with mediocre ratings who have high potentials. But oddly enough there was one player in the league (again, a league with 30 teams) who had ratings of 100 contact, 100 power, and 96 eye. He was not on my team, but I watched him carefully to see what kinds of numbers he produced. Note that he put up very good numbers for a lot of years, BUT he never had "superhuman" statistics. I think the best he did was maybe have a .360 average, 40+ HRs, and maybe 140 RBIs. All very good numbers to have, but not the "one of kind" numbers that set all-time records.

I had a (fictional) player on my team that played 18 major league seasons (he retired at age 40) and ended up with 624 career HR's. He won the MVP five different times and ended up in the Hall of Fame, however his personal single-season HR record was "only" 55, and he only hit 50+ HR's three times in a season. He showed to have almost two decades of very steady play, and turned out to be one the best players EVER in my fictional league. His ratings were very good for the duration of his career, but none of his seasonal stats ever appeared to be unrealistic.

I only mention this because PERHAPS his totals (and the realistic totals of the player above--the one with ratings of almost all 100's) were not "out of whack" because they were balanced by the large amount of talent of other players in the league. (30 teams makes for 750 major leagues players.)

Might it be that with only a FEW teams (say 4-8 teams max) there is not enough "balance" within the game for one player with exceptional ratings to be counterbalanced by a sufficient number of other players also with exceptional ratings to keep ONE SINGLE PLAYER from dominating the statistics?

Am I making sense here? I hope I'm presenting my point where others can understand it, but then since I don't know precisely why some people's leagues have unrealistic seasonal statistics (especially in K's), I am simply trying to present a possible reason.

(in reply to George M)

Post #: 15

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/6/2006 3:14:48 AM

George M

Posts: 13
Joined: 11/3/2006
Status: offline

I didn't realize the "in-season aging model" was an option. I don't see it in the program or association options. Is this something you choose when you first create an association? I set up my association with an earlier version of PureSim, but I'm almost positive that players' ratings change during a season.

(in reply to URett)

Post #: 16

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/6/2006 5:35:04 AM

Cantankerous

Posts: 65
Joined: 3/19/2002
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: George M

I didn't realize the "in-season aging model" was an option. I don't see it in the program or association options. Is this something you choose when you first create an association? I set up my association with an earlier version of PureSim, but I'm almost positive that players' ratings change during a season.

There is no button to turn on or turn off the option per se. You are only prompted whether you want to choose the "in-season aging model" or not when the appropriate patch is installed. (I believe this started with patch 1.36?)

So once you've made your choice there is no switching between options.

(in reply to George M)

Post #: 17

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/6/2006 10:19:42 AM

George M

Posts: 13
Joined: 11/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cantankerous

You are only prompted whether you want to choose the "in-season aging model" or not when the appropriate patch is installed.

Ahh, OK. That sounds vaguely familiar and I'm pretty sure I selected the new aging model. Knowing me as I do there's no way I wouldn't have chosen it, and the fact that ratings change during the season seems to bear that out.

Is this choice reflected in the XML settings?

(in reply to Cantankerous)

Post #: 18

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/6/2006 6:53:20 PM

Amaroq

Posts: 1100
Joined: 8/3/2005
From: San Diego, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cantankerous
I only mention this because PERHAPS his totals (and the realistic totals of the player above--the one with ratings of almost all 100's) were not "out of whack" because they were balanced by the large amount of talent of other players in the league. (30 teams makes for 750 major leagues players.)

Might it be that with only a FEW teams (say 4-8 teams max) there is not enough "balance" within the game for one player with exceptional ratings to be counterbalanced by a sufficient number of other players also with exceptional ratings to keep ONE SINGLE PLAYER from dominating the statistics?

Am I making sense here? I hope I'm presenting my point where others can understand it, but then since I don't know precisely why some people's leagues have unrealistic seasonal statistics (especially in K's), I am simply trying to present a possible reason.

That's an interesting hypothesis. Can the guys who posted the out-of-whack numbers indicate their association size, please?

I've been playing 1.20, with 16-team associations (8-team leagues, no inter-league play) and not seeing unrealistic numbers. (In fact, I primarily play that config, and haven't seen horrible numbers, period.)

. . .

For better understanding what's happening here, you need to remember that '100' in two different associations is not comparable. The ratings are done on a scale relative to the other players in the current association. If you imported a league consisting of 500 barely-made-it-to-the-majors guys, career .150 to .250 hitters.. one of them would be rated as the best "Contact" hitter, and would have a 100 rating.

If you then imported, say, Tony Gwynn at his peak... Gwynn would wind up with a 100 rating, while your next-best-guy might have been dropped to a 70 or so.

(For a quick demonstration of this, create a "Replay Association" seeded with 1901 pitchers and a 5-game season. Look at the number of pitchers with high "Stuff" ratings on the New York Giants. Sim the season. Import the 1902 draft, which includes a number of quite-good starting pitchers. Look at the Giants staff again. You'll see that many of those highly-rated pitchers have dropped from the 90's down to the 65-75 range, despite still having green arrows for their potential. Its not that they've gotten worse, its that the standard of pitching in the association has improved dramatically.)

My suspicion is that the 1.38 in-season aging model has the potential for a pitcher's ability to strike players out to climb unbounded, where the old off-season aging model had some form of hard cap on ability. In my imagination, there's no way we-the-users can tell this, because we see the 'scaled' rating - 100 Velocity! - and not the raw number which is generating incredible strikeout totals.

(in reply to Cantankerous)

Post #: 19

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/6/2006 8:20:19 PM

URett

Posts: 54
Joined: 8/22/2005
Status: offline

I play with a 40 team association and last season the now famous Roy Hitt was up to 770 Ks.

(in reply to Amaroq)

Post #: 20

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/7/2006 5:54:41 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

Posted by Amaroq:

"My suspicion is that the 1.38 in-season aging model has the potential for a pitcher's ability to strike players out to climb unbounded, where the old off-season aging model had some form of hard cap on ability. In my imagination, there's no way we-the-users can tell this, because we see the 'scaled' rating - 100 Velocity! - and not the raw number which is generating incredible strikeout totals."

I think you got it right there. This is something that Shaun will have to work on for PS 2008, or just shelve entirely. Personally, I'm happy with between-season improvements.

(in reply to URett)

Post #: 21

RE: Real pitcher strikeouts - 11/7/2006 7:48:40 AM

Cantankerous

Posts: 65
Joined: 3/19/2002
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline

KG Erwin,

You and Amaroq seem to be correct.

URett's 40-team league seems to blow my theory out of the water, so it seems as though the "in-season aging model" must be the sole (or at least the primary) culprit.

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 22