Historical Stats skewed 1901 62 Homeruns --I'm probably doing this wrong (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> PureSim Baseball >> Tech Support



Message

smc415 -> Historical Stats skewed 1901 62 Homeruns --I'm probably doing this wrong (5/20/2006 11:49:11 PM)

I've started multiple associations all attempting to start in 1901 with 1901 players, but with a 16 or 20 team league.

In my last effort I selected puresim Classic. I selected a start year of 1901. I selected two leagues, 4 5 team divisions, geographical finances, I randomized the cities, and then I assigned the Jackson City Tremors as my human team.

I went with a 60 player roster allowing injuries and trades.
I clicked customize the schedule 162 games

No Designated Hitter and default 4 man rotations. I'm seeding with 1901 real players, and I'm appending the source year for identification's sake.

I've created that league while I typed this post. It is drafting now.

I've followed those steps three times before, and each time has yielded league leaders in HRs with numbers in the 60s or once a round 70. This last time the league leader played for San Antonio and he had 62, the next 7 HR leaders were all teammates. All of the top ten had 40 or more bell ringers. Of note, only the 8th of the top 10 was a historic player.

Should the steps I chose above result in an association where I will see historic stats reflecting the eras as I sim through them...i.e. the dead ball era till the 20s, then a change through that era...all the way through the current era?

Also when I go through the amateur draft, will I see 1902 real life rookies?



puresimmer -> RE: Historical Stats skewed 1901 62 Homeruns (5/20/2006 11:56:13 PM)

This is a really tough one, because you are creating a league that is much larger than its 1901 counterpart, so PureSim is generating a bunch of quality fictional talent which is throwing of the balance.

I'll look into this, but in the meantime, I'd suggest creating associations that match the era you are simming more closely and probably going with 35-man rosters.

Not ideal I know, just letting you know why you are seeing the anaomalies.



smc415 -> RE: Historical Stats skewed 1901 62 Homeruns (5/21/2006 12:47:28 AM)

Not a problem. I thought that if I ran a strict fictional league starting in 1901 that the stats would reflect the era. Is that not the case? Does the fact that I'm seeding with real players somehow "break" the era appropriateness of the autogen players?




smc415 -> RE: Historical Stats skewed 1901 62 Homeruns (5/21/2006 1:39:02 AM)

Just as an update I stopped the above sim in August and two guys had 40 homeruns. Also the top nine HR leaders all played for ....San Antonio. The tenth guy on the list had 18 homeruns. I checked and San Antonio had this very odd shaped field. I think it was one of the "Sullivan" fields. I think it is cool that you include your kids in this project, and I don't mean this in the wrong way. But, you should exclude those fantastical stadiums from random selection/assignment. I feel like I'm being overly harsh, but I've been spinning my wheels for several attempted of associations. It looks like this field might be too blame for the "anomalies" I've seen.



dewelar2 -> Era Adjustment? (5/21/2006 4:17:49 AM)

That does bring up one question -- what, if any, kind of era adjustment does the game use? If I start a league in, say, 1910 (smack in the middle of the Dead Ball Era) and plunk 2001 Barry Bonds into the league, is he going to hit 70 homers, or is he going to hit something more reasonable for a league leader at the time (say 10-15), or somewhere in between? I'm just curious, so I know how to handle things for future associations.



smc415 -> RE: Era Adjustment? (5/21/2006 5:23:03 AM)

Well This is far from definitive, but I believe he would hit an era appropriate number of homeruns. After changing San Antonio's park to a historical field, Nap Lajoie led all of baseball with 16 homeruns in 1902.



dewelar2 -> RE: Era Adjustment? (5/21/2006 5:27:00 AM)

True, but Lajoie is era-appropriate. What I'm looking for is players from more homer-friendly eras (or, for back in, say, 1877 when it took something like eight balls to draw a walk and fouls weren't counted as strikes, whether 20th-century pitchers' walk and strikeout totals would be appropriate).



smc415 -> RE: Era Adjustment? (5/21/2006 7:16:27 PM)

Nap may be era appropriate but his contact eye and power ratings are high, not as high as Bonds, but still pretty high. Plus there are a number of autogen players in my association with Barry-like 90 plus power numbers.



dewelar2 -> RE: Era Adjustment? (5/21/2006 9:31:53 PM)

Sounds good. I will note for the record that when I import Lajoie into my 2006 association, his Power number is 20, so the era adjustment apparently doesn't work going in that direction.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.265625