Tracking Ratings Changes

[KG Erwin]

I'm only in my second year with the Dodgers, but I find the ratings changes fascinating. This is more pronounced at the minor-league level, but I have a very young team, so the changes at the major-league level are interesting, too.

The coolest thing is to see a player's POT level actually increase. You vets know this -- developing that youngster in the minors into a potential superstar, and bringing him up at just the right moment. Also cool is to watch a pitcher's style change, say from a fireballer into more of a finesse/control guy.

That being said, I prefer the yearly off-season re-evaluations over the in-season changes. I suppose there's something to be said for both styles, depending on how much micromanaging you wanna do. As the daily in-game manager, though, I prefer to keep my GM duties as simple as possible.

[Max 86]

I don't like the in season changes either. The players still goes thru slumps and streaks anyway without them but usually perform up to their static ratings over the course of a season. If not, they're outta there!

[RedArgo]

If you are playing a league with real players, do their ratings change from season to season based on their actual ratings or is it somewhat random like a fictional league. So if I have Steve Sax on the '83 Dodgers when the '84 season starts will his ratings be the same as if I had just started the league in '84?

Thanks,
Bill

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: RedArgo

If you are playing a league with real players, do their ratings change from season to season based on their actual ratings or is it somewhat random like a fictional league. So if I have Steve Sax on the '83 Dodgers when the '84 season starts will his ratings be the same as if I had just started the league in '84?

Thanks,
Bill

I haven't tested this, but I wouldn't think that a given real player has a pre-defined career arc. Take for example, Jackie Robinson in his first year-1947. He performed better for my Dodgers than he did in real life, so his offseason ratings improvements were probably better than the Lahman import 1948 version.

Well, comparing ratings would be impossible unless I started a new league from scratch.

I haven't tried any side by side comparisons of real-life stats with PS results, but in 1947 Robinson turned out closer (in some aspects) than I thought:

PS/Actual

BA: .324/.297
Runs: 119/125
Hits: 211/175
HR: 7/12
RBI: 57/48
2B: 38/31
3B: 5/5
SB: 87/29
BB: 74/74

[Max 86]

That would be an interesting project though. Import each season roster each new season instead of having the game adjust the player ratings. In the '47 season you have the '47 rosters, the next season, import the '48 rosters and so on. Then track their careers over 10 seasons. Now that would be an interesting comparson.

[motnahp]

I'm in the infancy of this same principle now, although it wasn't my intention to carry it too far. I've managed the season of the 1979 A's, then started a new assn by importing the 1980 teams from the Lahman dB.

Since it's two different associations, I won't be able to track this via the Almanac feature, but I can certainly give it a look after the 1980 season is complete. I'm only on late April now, so it may be a month or more. I'll try to remember to post something at season's end.

[Frozen Stiffer]

KG,

I have found that real-player performance records versus their PS counterparts aren't always on track, but similar enough to be believable. Usually. Using real players, I've only played a full season with two teams - my 1997 Marlins and my 2006 Marlins. The '97 project was a one-year deal to see if I could make my team reach the WS as did the real team. What I found interesting was that though we didn't make it to the WS, we were a wild card long shot; which is how the real Marlins got in. Just as the real Marlins experienced, we fought it out with Atlanta towards the end, and it was those deciding games which edged us out. We were about 2 games behind the wild card spot. In other comparisons, Kevin Brown went through a significantly lesser year than he did in real life. I don't have the exact numbers here, but he ended with an ERA 2 points higher, and a W-L record almost the complete opposite of his actual performance. Gary Sheffield's PS batting average was about 16 points higher and his HR numbers also higher, but still reasonably close. Believably close, if you ask me. However, it's not the players' performance resemblance that impressed me the most- it's the team's.

In the first year of my 2006 PureSim Marlins, we went 74-88. In 2006, the real world Marlins went 78-84. Damn. That's impressive. The players however, weren't as spot-on, and sort of all over the place. In some stats they were near perfect, in others they were Mercury and Pluto:

• PS Miguel Cabrera hit .286 with 27 HR and 74 RBI; RW (real world) Cabrera logged a .339 AVG (way off) with 26 HR (almost) and 114 RBI (way off).
• PS Dan Uggla hit .269 with 29 HR and 93 RBI; RW Uggla went .282 AVG (not quite) with 27 HR (very close) and 90 RBI (very close).
• PS Hanley Ramirez hit .251 with 11 HR and 56 RBI; RW Ramirez earned a .292 AVG (wicked off) with 17 HR (not too off) and 59 RBI (oh so close).
• Finally, a personal favorite of mine, PS Josh Willingham hit .256 with 25 HR and 70 RBI; RW Willingham hit .277 (well off) with 26 HR (near perfect) and 74 RBI (another near perfect).

I'm only listing their 2006 stats because in 2007, my PS team exploded and severely outperformed their real-world counterparts by a significant margin with only a very minor staffing change (1 new fielder, 1 new #5 pitcher, 1 new closer).

So how does one gauge this? Overall, the players' power numbers were almost a mirror image of the real world while their RBIs weren't as perfect, but damn near close. It seems that batting average showcased the greatest variation. This makes me wonder- why?