Any Way to Keep statistics closer to reality?

[Brefni]

Like, say, Strat-o-matic? Getting tired of doing a replay and having Gil Hodges of 1951 hit 15 homers when in real life he hit 40, Tom Seaver have an ERA in the 3.00s when doing an early 70s replay, Dwight Gooden have ERAs of 4.00 to 5.00 in mid 80s, etc. I've checked the "Don't Randomize" button, but it doesn't seem to matter... Doing a 1919 replay, and on May 30the Joe Jackson is hitting .275. I mean, it just takes you out of the game. By the way, did Seaver's fastball really average 87-89 in his prime?

[CatKnight]

Hey Brefni:

I added some thoughts on this in your question regarding trades, but to summarize:

To limit players having random ability changes, set Aging Randomness to -100. It's not perfect, because BM doesn't use just one season's data to put together a player's predicted stats, but it should help.

To get the stats closer to the year you care about, autosim your way through an entire year, then print out the batting summary for the entire league. Now compare those totals with what really happened, and use that to modify the game's settings under simulation settings.

For example, in 1951 the MLB combined for 1863 HR. If you sim and come out with 2000 HR, then 2000/1863 = 7.4% over. I'd then change the HR percentage to 92 or 93.

Usually I did this two or three times, making minute adjustments on the second and third try, and could get pretty solid league wide totals.

Regarding Seaver: I don't think the velocity actually does anything in the game. Rely on his 'stuff' rating for his power.

[Brefni]

OK, thanks for the info, I never thought of tinkering with the simulation settings. I sort of thought the game took that into account, i.e., in 1968 the ERAs are dramatically lower, sort of thing. The aging randomness thing is another thing i haven't tried yet. I wonder if those individual year by year ratings in the "Input" folder are automatically loaded, or do you have to manually enter them in the sim settings for whatever year you are playing?

[Electricbassguy]

I started a game in 1969 and it seems there are more high-contact players that usual... is that normal? Meaning should there be 54 95+ contact players and just 2 95+ power players, 1981 right now...

[Brefni]

The game just seems so random to me. Too random. Players don't perform close enough to reality to make doing a replay even worth the trouble. I suppose on a game by game basis it's somewhat entertaining but, over the course of the season, if the signature players aren't the signature players, would you even care after a while?

[Brefni]

Yet again-- 2013 replay... Matt Harvey has a 4.54 ERA in mid May and he just got knocked around like a BP pitcher and he's walking the ballpark. I'm sorry, guy's ERA wasn't above 3.00 once all year, hell, probably wasn't above 2.50, and he DIDN'T WALK PEOPLE. He just didn't. He didn't give up hits. Period. I'm sorry, but interest just begins to flag after a while with this game. I mean, I could handle a little randomness, variability, what have you, but, this is too much.

[Jeff Olsen]

Baseball Mogul is a "what if" game and was never intended to replay specific seasons. Get something like Diamond Mind if you're only interested in replaying specific seasons.

[Electricbassguy]

I like the randomness about BBM.

If it were too predictable I could easily break the game by picking players who had great careers to start and faded quickly and then get Jamie Moyer for cheap when he was a terrible starter and get the benefit of his best years.

[Brefni]

Sorry, but "what if" doesn't work if there's not at least a semblance of reality... it's supposed to be "what if" I the GM make this move, it's not supposed to be what if all this other random nonsense happened. It's just not entertaining after a while.

[Alloutwar]

Sorry Brefni - it's not an exact historical replay. Some all-stars and HOF'ers won't pan out at all. Some nobodies will rise to be amazing, all depending on randomness, their GMs decisions, farm spending, playing time, and so much more.

I can confirm that this game stays entertaining, despite initially being turned off by some things not matching my mind's baseball reality...I started in 2007, and while single player wasn't a challenge at all, adding in a set of house rules and helping to fix the AI weaknesses went a decent way. Finally I moved on to BM leagues, and now I play in two historical leagues (1956, 1969). It's an awesome, enriching experience playing against other human GMs...building your team, dealing with the first rounders that flame out, and the 6th rounders that become everyday hitters...picking out the FAs with some decent ratings to shore up your decimated staff, and facing the agonizing decisions of what FAs-to-be you keep, versus those you let walk.

If you are looking for a more simplistic model that doesn't really create its own immersive universe, I don't know what to recommend...MLB Front Office was universally panned. MLB Power Pros (Wii or PS2) is a great time, but its 2007/2008 era and not historical...and its also filled with goofy japanimation elements which can be a turn off. diamond mind I am unfamiliar with, but sounds like it might be your cup of tea.

BM has some weaknesses in terms of pitchers never becoming themselves...bob gibson, nolan ryan, etc...these pitchers NEVER become the dominant force they were in reality. A lot of power pitchers are dealt a crappy hand by Mogul. Meanwhile a lot of fluky control/movement guys become Cy Young year in and year out. It's not perfect by any means, but it is a good game all in all. There's a chance you'll work past your initial misgivings as I did (after 6 months of shelving it in disgust) and let it into your heart.

Best of luck

[Brefni]

Thanks. I understand that no game is perfect and I actually do enjoy the game a great deal. Especially the play by play mode. THat's what's frustrating I guess, I just wish it was more realistic. I understand you don't want it to play out exactly as real life, just close. There's a big difference between 1968 Bob Gibson having a 1.44 ERA and a 3.25, or Roger Maris hitting 12 homers instead of 61 in a '61 replay though, to me, in terms of overall enjoyability.

I took a look at that Diamond Mind, and, I guess the deal breaker, like Out of the Park, is the play by play mode. I just don't find having the play result read out to me exciting or entertaining at all. I like the visuals of Baseball Mogul better, with the catcher view the animations on the field, and the fact that you can customize them with your own mock ups of stadiums of the past. To me the most entertaining seasons to replay are 1901-1950. It's a great way to learn about baseball history as well, and I don't know enough about them to know whether the stats are accurate. I like the fact that you can just jump into any game from any year. Like I said, I think on a game by game experience, it's a pretty cool approximation of an actual baseball game, and with the stadium pictures and ballplayers photos customized, it's a bit like peeking into the past and watching an old game.

[Electricbassguy]

I think that overall for players with decent MLB sample sizes the stats end up being somewhat accurate if they make it in the MLB and have a career. There are some cases in my games where a player who had an entire career going 0 for 5 ends up having a long career, but I don't mind that.

Stolen bases are down overall, so players like Barry Bonds and Andre Dawson don't get 300-300 style numbers

[HerbertMcHoover]

I would also like to see a boost in stolen bases. Rickey doesn't steal 120 or something and once we get Billy Hamilton in the game, I hope we can get that many stolen bases.

[mattynokes]

This whole thing reminds me of when Bill Selby hit a walk-off grand slam against Mariano Rivera in 2002. Realistically, a guy who didn't even have enough plate appearance in his career to qualify for one full season and only totaled a .223 AVG with 11 HR in those PAs probably shouldn't even get a hit, let alone a home run off of possibly the greatest closer of all-time

This like this is the beauty of Mogul. You can play the shoulda, woulda, coulda game if you'd like. But in the end, in your simulation the percent chances lined up to change history. Like I'm sure if I would re-create the Selby-Mariano moment, Rivera probably strikes him out to end the game much more often than Selby even gets a hit or even puts the ball in play.

[Electricbassguy]

I enjoy seeing players that played just one game ending up having careers in the majors. In my games I've noticed shortstops get this the most.