The new historical 50-man roster (Full Version)

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



Message

SittingDuck -> The new historical 50-man roster (7/25/2006 4:33:28 AM)

Wow, what a trip to see guys imported in before their MLB appearance year. I am doing the Orioles in 1964. How odd to see Boog Powell as a LF/RF, Elrod Hendricks as a CF, and Davey Johnson (2B) and Mark Belanger (SS) as minor league CFs!!!

Not sure if that is the position they were in or the game just puts them in those positions. It sure would be interesting to know, though. And this brings up another issue. Since players can't be trained at a position in the minors, this means all these players will not be a their historical position.

Very odd.



Nukester -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/25/2006 8:00:26 AM)

Excellent excellent excellent job with the early imports for historicals !![sm=00000436.gif]

For the first time, I set up a 1903 historical league with 50 player rosters, and even though there were a bunch of super scrubs created for the minors, I did not notice any getting into my major leagues for the entire season. At least none of them showed on any leaderboard that I looked at. Saves were still too high (leader had 14), and Ill need to find a good setting for HR's in the engine (too high on default. Going to turn it down to about 20 and raise triples up a bit and see what happens), but overall, the best import Ive had to date.

Kudos !!



Nukester -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/25/2006 8:08:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SittingDuck

Davey Johnson (2B) and Mark Belanger (SS) as minor league CFs!!!

Not sure if that is the position they were in or the game just puts them in those positions. It sure would be interesting to know, though. And this brings up another issue. Since players can't be trained at a position in the minors, this means all these players will not be a their historical position.

Very odd.


I just checked and neither of those players ever played a day in the OF in real life, at least at the major league level. If the game is messing up positions, that could be a problem. With my quick sim test, I didnt really pay attention to positions, just final stats and rosters.



SittingDuck -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/25/2006 3:39:50 PM)

Yes, I think the position thing is all-important, to tell you the truth.  



SittingDuck -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 3:07:31 AM)

*bump*

This really needs to get more attention and consideration.  At least some input from those who are using such associations.  Are you seeing players imported in ahistorical positions?



Nukester -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 3:21:18 AM)

I just setup my 1903 start and will run for awhile to see what happens with the positions. Im not sure how far Ill get though because my sim speed seems to have taken a dive two patches ago. It takes a looong time for me to sim a season now. Ill get back at ya in a little bit



Nukester -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 3:37:25 AM)

I just did the same import that you did for 1964 and Belanger imported as a RF and Johnson imported as a LF........Not good [:(]

Ill check out my 1903 rosters and see how they look. Maybe its something to do with the year 1964 in the db (which I highly doubt, but we can hope)



Nukester -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 3:55:33 AM)

Doing a quick look through my 1903 season I do see some weird position placement, like Hal Chase (real debut 1905) importing as an OF'r. He did play a little OF in his career but not until 1907, and even then he only had 4 games in the OF and 121 at 1B. For his career he played 1815 games at 1B and 47 in the OF.

Sigh..........



KG Erwin -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 4:42:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nukester

Doing a quick look through my 1903 season I do see some weird position placement, like Hal Chase (real debut 1905) importing as an OF'r. He did play a little OF in his career but not until 1907, and even then he only had 4 games in the OF and 121 at 1B. For his career he played 1815 games at 1B and 47 in the OF.

Sigh..........


You can easily fix this by manually editing the player. With accelerated player entry, we are NOT gonna get our cake and eat it, too. Some compromises, or manual edits, will have to be made.



Nukester -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 4:44:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nukester

Doing a quick look through my 1903 season I do see some weird position placement, like Hal Chase (real debut 1905) importing as an OF'r. He did play a little OF in his career but not until 1907, and even then he only had 4 games in the OF and 121 at 1B. For his career he played 1815 games at 1B and 47 in the OF.

Sigh..........


You can easily fix this by manually editing the player. With accelerated player entry, we are NOT gonna get our cake and eat it, too. Some compromises, or manual edits, will have to be made.



I hear ya, but the positions are listed in the database along with everything else. It should be able to pick up the correct positions. Its not like everyone is out of position, just a few.



SittingDuck -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 4:56:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

You can easily fix this by manually editing the player. With accelerated player entry, we are NOT gonna get our cake and eat it, too. Some compromises, or manual edits, will have to be made.



I don't see that as a viable option on an annual basis. Nor do I know what position each player in the league originally was playing. Sure, it can be done, but why should it?

Rather, the situation should be investigated and if there is nothing that can be done, then so be it. But it needs to be determined if this is something regulated by the database or affected by PSBB.



Nukester -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 5:08:51 AM)

Its not the database. I just checked the db for Belanger and Johnson and neither one of them have any OF records in either the fielding or the fieldingOF tables.



KG Erwin -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 5:12:37 AM)

Phil, I ASKED for this, as an option to introduce ALL real players into a 50-man roster for old-time (1946 and earlier) leagues.   The option is there, but you don't have to use it.   Simple as that.   You can switch it on or off.

This might not work so well for the post-1970 era.



Nukester -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 5:23:41 AM)

The option is awesome and Im certainly glad its in there, but just because the game is bringing in real players early doesnt mean that it shouldnt be able to figure out the correct position. It figures out correct ratings by looking at all of the different stats, why wouldnt it be able to look at the fielding file and figure out the correct positions ? Like I said, its not like everyone is out of position, just a few. Yes we can edit them, but it sure would be nice if the import worked correctly so we didnt have to [:)]

(yes I know Im not Phil, but Ill chime in anyway. Just trying to make the game better [;)])



bigpapag -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 6:11:46 AM)

Guys

Belanger played some outfield for Elmira the Orioles Double A team. I was the batboy for the Red soxs Double A Team in Pittsfield at the time. Also Mark was one of my first baseball Idols since he lived down the street from me in Pittsfield.

Big Papa Gilk



Nukester -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 6:22:08 AM)

Hehehe...thats very cool, but the game has no way of knowing that [:)] And if I understand SittingDuck correctly players cant be trained for different positions in the minors, so that leaves a whole lot of editing over the years that could be eliminated with a correct import.



KG Erwin -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 6:34:55 AM)

But, Nukester, the "correct" import is the FIRST position the player is imported from Lahman.   Now, I started a sim in 1903, and if I keep going, the Babe will be imported as a pitcher.  Heck, in this alternate world, he coulda been a star pitcher for years.  "He's a natural". 

I don't plan on going that far, but that's the way the import feature works if you want real players. 

Glenn   



Amaroq -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 6:42:44 AM)

KG, I think everyone in the thread 'gets' that a correct behavior is 'position in first season at the major-league level'. The report is specifically that that is *NOT* happening, that some players are being created at a position which they never played at the big-league level - very different from seeing the Babe as a P, what they're reporting would be like seeing the Babe come in as a catcher or a shortstop.




Nukester -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 6:45:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaroq

KG, I think everyone in the thread 'gets' that a correct behavior is 'position in first season at the major-league level'. The report is specifically that that is *NOT* happening, that some players are being created at a position which they never played at the big-league level - very different from seeing the Babe as a P, what they're reporting would be like seeing the Babe come in as a catcher or a shortstop.




Exactly. I dont care that Roger Bresnahan is importing as a RF and Id rather he import as a catcher. I understand that. He actually played there. There is no way in the world Mark Belanger or Davey Johnson should import as OF'ers. They never played there. Not in their first year, not in their last year, and not in between. Never. Thats not right.



SittingDuck -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/26/2006 2:35:37 PM)

To be more specific, Shaun was himself thinking of this 50-man roster before it was asked for, IIRC.  So I think we owe it to him to report on this and give it proper feedback.  An option that works half-heartedly only really hurts PSBB, and Shaun knows that.



tim86432 -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/27/2006 3:48:42 AM)

I just simmed 1901 to 1918 historical with 70 man rosters. At the end of 1918 there were only 16 total real infielders. Out of the 16 about half were players that imported in 1901. The rest were scrubs. The OF was totally opposite. It was almost 100% real players including alot of out of position infielders. In the 1919 amateur draft there were only 3 infielders available in the draft and they were all scrubs.



Nukester -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/27/2006 4:27:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tim86432

I just simmed 1901 to 1918 historical with 70 man rosters. At the end of 1918 there were only 16 total real infielders. Out of the 16 about half were players that imported in 1901. The rest were scrubs. The OF was totally opposite. It was almost 100% real players including alot of out of position infielders. In the 1919 amateur draft there were only 3 infielders available in the draft and they were all scrubs.


Yeah it seems like (although I havent tested it beyond what SittingDuck and I tested last night) the early imported players that should be infielders are actually importing as OF's even if they have no OF record in the Fielding or FieldingOF files. Maybe not all IF's are being imported as OF's but there are definitely a bunch. I havent seen an IF that is supposed to be an OF yet (again I havent looked at all today). If I can get my 9 year old to bed, I plan on doing a couple of scans through some imports



gibby290 -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/27/2006 5:07:38 AM)

I have my association set to 35-man rosters. I took over in 1980 and managed a team in a historical league. I have simmed from 1901. I noticed in my minor league was Wally Backman, CF. Now if I remember right, he played 2b/3b his entire career. Please say it ain't so



Nukester -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/27/2006 6:14:48 AM)

I just did an import of the 1998 season using the early imports of players option and have definitely found a pattern (with one exception).

Here are a list of players I found out of position by quickly skimming through the rosters. There may be more, but I just looked quickly:

Lyle Overbay - Imported as LF.......... Real life games in OF - 0
Marcus Giles - Imported as LF.......... Real life games in OF - 0
Rafael Furcal - Imported as LF.......... Real life games in OF - 0
Shea Hillenbrand - Imported as RF.......... Real life games in OF - 0
Jose Molina - Imported as LF.......... Real life games in OF - 0
Joe Crede - Imported as LF.......... Real life games in OF - 0
Juan Uribe - Imported as LF.......... Real life games in OF - 1
Morgan Ensberg - Imported as LF.......... Real life games in OF - 0
Angel Berroa - Imported as LF.......... Real life games in OF - 0
Matt LeCroy - Imported as LF.......... Real life games in OF - 0 [:D]

Once I saw Matt LeCroy in LF I knew something was wrong and I stopped looking [:)]. I can honestly say that I didnt notice an OF that imported as an IF. Might be there but I didnt notice any. With the lone exception of Hillenbrand, all of teh players imported as LF (Hillenbrand was imported as a RF). The entire Chicago Cubs minor league system was filled with LF's only (and pitchers of course).

Definitely something to look into for Shaun.



KG Erwin -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/28/2006 12:03:21 AM)

Yeah, I noticed this surfeit of outfielders, too, but didn't think it was that big of a problem.  Obviously the import scheme needs some work.  I'm sure that Shaun will work it out, but in the meantime, I'm setting the game aside for the moment. [:(] 



henry296 -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/28/2006 2:27:30 AM)

Thanks for the information.  That answers my question for now about whether or not  I should stop my current career and start a new 1946 career with the early import option. 



KG Erwin -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/28/2006 2:57:30 AM)

Henry, don't lose hope. 1946 was a magical year, and if the imported position quirks get worked out, then we have the potential for a great start. 

To me, that year signifies a new beginning. The vets are coming home, a new era of unprecendented prosperity is dawning, and MLB is breaking attendance records. 

With free agency having yet to rear its ugly head,  and expansion being a non-factor, I will reiterate my belief that this talent pool was unmatched by ANY era in baseball's history. 

If and when the code gets fixed,  this surfeit of incoming talent makes for an exciting time. 

In five years or less (using the 50 man rosters), here come Mantle and Mays.   



henry296 -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/28/2006 3:00:16 AM)

I'm excited about a new career.  I'm still with my first one that started in 1920 and is now in 1938.  I left the Pirates after many years of success and took over the Red Sox who had the worst record in the AL in 1937.  I was able to draft Enos Slaughter with my first pick to help the rebuilding process.

As soon as Shaun fixes the import error, I will start that new career.



puresimmer -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/28/2006 6:17:17 PM)

Fixed in 1.25

I'll release it today (I have the day off from work so I have some time to work on PureSim)



BauerPower -> RE: The new historical 50-man roster (7/28/2006 6:20:26 PM)

Sorry to look like an idiot; but just to clarify. Is this problem with importing players at the wrong position just for new associatiations using the early import feature, or for all associations including ones created under previous versions of puresim? I am just about to enter the offseason using an association created with patch 1.18 (I am now using 1.24) and if all the players are going to be outfielders I'll stop playing until the fix.

Note: I posted the question originally at the same time as Shaun, so I did not see his post until after I posted mine. (Just so I don't look like even more of an idiot!)



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.5