Page 2 of 2
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:48 am
by 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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:27 am
by Nukester
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
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:07 am
by gibby290
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
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 3:14 am
by Nukester
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:03 pm
by KG Erwin
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. [:(]
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:27 pm
by henry296
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:57 pm
by KG Erwin
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 12:00 am
by henry296
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:17 pm
by puresimmer
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)
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:20 pm
by BauerPower
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!)
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:24 pm
by Nukester
ORIGINAL: BauerPower
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.
Hmm...Good question. I have only tested it using a new association with the early import feature on, but it appeared to me that all of the infielders that imported to the outfield were all players that were brought into the league via the early import (I dont think any of the guys in my above test were supposed to import in 1998, but imported early due to the new feature)
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:27 pm
by KG Erwin
ORIGINAL: puresimmer
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)
That's great, Shaun. Looking forward to it.
[:)]