Page 1 of 2
The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:33 am
by SittingDuck
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:00 am
by Nukester
Excellent excellent excellent job with the early imports for historicals !!
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 !!
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:08 am
by Nukester
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:39 pm
by SittingDuck
Yes, I think the position thing is all-important, to tell you the truth.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:07 am
by SittingDuck
*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?
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:21 am
by Nukester
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
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:37 am
by Nukester
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)
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:55 am
by 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..........
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:42 am
by KG Erwin
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:44 am
by Nukester
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 1:56 am
by SittingDuck
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:08 am
by Nukester
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:12 am
by KG Erwin
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:23 am
by Nukester
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 [;)])
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:11 am
by bigpapag
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
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:22 am
by Nukester
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:34 am
by KG Erwin
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
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:42 am
by 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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:45 am
by Nukester
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.
RE: The new historical 50-man roster
Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:35 am
by SittingDuck
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.