Big Things
There’s really just one.
Mea Culpa and Massive Overperformance
These are both issues with the OOTP engine and failures of me as the ultimate arbiter of the WBL universe. The exemplars here–and really the only truly egregious examples–are Ron Blomberg and Elrod Hendricks, both of whom were superstars in Year I, a status they never, ever approached in real life.
This is part of the challenge of doing this on your own–my sense of baseball history has blind spots. I had thought Blomberg had a couple good, full time seasons, but only really remembered him, like most of us, as the first DH. In real life, injuries and a huge platoon split prevented him from ever approaching full time usage. In the WBL, not only did he play 150 G, he far outperformed anything he did irl, slashing 336/412/649 with 44 HRs and 125 RBIs.
Hendricks is even more embarrassing–I had remembered, woefully incorrectly, Elrod Hendricks as having a career similar to Cliff Johnson‘s. If Johnson hit 40+ HRs in a sim, I would squint and say, wow, that’s kind of cool. Johnson certainly had that potential, he just never actually did it. But Hendricks never even showed the capacity to do that. In hindsight, I may even have been confusing Hendricks with Elston Howard, to my profound embarrassment.
I have pretty wide tolerances here, fwiw. I think Doug Rader having a career surpassing year (a 135 OPS+ is far higher than Rader had as a full time player) is fine. Rader was a good player, a decent hitter throughout his career. It feels possible. Now, if he does it year over year, there’s an issue. But this kind of outlier year for a player of Rader’s caliber is fine for me. Similarly, Mike Fiore finishing second in the league in walks seems fine: it is his 1969 season, and, if anything, his WBL slash line of 240/405/390 underperforms his real life 274/420/428. Here the challenge is to make sure Fiore, while perhaps better in year 2 and 3 than irl, does indeed fall off a cliff, with the 1969 year an unexplained success.
The Blomberg and Hendricks seasons are just too far outside the pale.
There are a couple of things at work here. First, I need to have a practice of looking at the overperformers more thoroughly. Second, I need to figure out what levers within OOTP to lean on. There are three I know of right now:
- OOTP does allow us to set a usage limit, below which it depresses stats. I have that set at 300 AB for hitters, and could raise it. But that just moves the bar, right? No matter where you put the bar, there will be someone who consistently falls just outside of it.
- Manually reducing ratings. Perfectly fine with this, but not really a fan of it. It’s a little too much of a thumb on the scale for MLB players (I do it for NeL players, but that’s because I use my own MLE’s).
- Injuries. This is the more likely route I would take. If I had recognized just how out of bounds Hendricks and Blomeberg’s performances were, I would have just upped their injury ratings significantly. This keeps an interesting narrative (man, if he could only stay healthy) while retaining a sense of luck (maybe he does stay healthy) while most likely reducing these outlying performances.
So, a pretty important thing to monitor in Year 2, imo.
Smaller Things
Triples & NeL Players
This is sort of a philosophical decision. There are two schools of thought out there. They are, broadly
- NeL baseball (I am using this term to refer to all of the non-MLB environments) was fundamentally different, full of more daring, more speed, more creativity. This resulted in more triples and, perhaps oddly, fewer doubles.
and
- Meh, that’s nonsense for a lot of reasons, and if you are combining these histories, you need to adjust that, essentially increasing 2B and depressing 3B so the overall universe of players is relatively evenly distributed.
Philosphically, I tend towards the latter–I don’t think NeL players were somehow “better at hitting triples,” and I don’t think they were universally faster (although some were each of those things). But practically, as MLE’s are created, the tend towards the former.
Certainly Year I did: 5 of the top 9 leaders in triples were NeL players. But it dropped off to 7 of the top 25 (that ranges from Louis Santop, the league leader with 14 to Pete Hill, one of 8 players who finished the season with 6 three baggers). There may be less here than meets the eye: if it weren’t for the presence of Santop and Josh Gibson (both catchers, of course, but also both under 20 at the start of the season) maybe this doesn’t even get noticed?
Something to track in Year II.
Money Money Money … Money
The initial salaries for the league were totally randomly invented. Turns out they were far too low: FA’s are demanding more in salary than the retained stars. So I just need to fiddle and figure it out. The goal is that each franchise has certain players they have 3-year and 5-year rights to, but those players should have highish comp, I think.
Time & Opportunity Cost
I played every single game. By hand. And only mis-clicked, issuing an intentional walk by mistake, a few times.
I enjoyed doing that. I really like the slow unfolding of the season, and I really like not seeing the AI do inexplicable things to the detriment of some team. I really like being able to massage the two-way players the way I want to. Lots of likes.
But I am not a young man.
At 3 real life years per season, I am unlikely to get more than 10 seasons out of the WBL. Which would barely see the current young players reach their peaks, let alone their retirements.
So I need to do something differently. Maybe not in Year 2, but at some point I’ll have to find a way to move through the seasons more quickly, most likely by playing certain weeks or months via the AI.
AI April? Machine managed May? Something.
Even Smaller Things
NeL Defense
Just a learning curve, need to slightly nerf NeL defense ratings.
Closers
38 saves to lead the league feels a little light. More, the number of closers who actually pitched pretty poorly was a little high, most notably Detroit’s Mike Henneman, who led the league in saves for most of the season. Cleveland’s Terry Adams tied him in the final weak, but Adams’ ERA was 2 runs lower (and his FIP just slightly below 2 runs better). At the same time, both had WHIPs that weren’t great, so … maybe not a real issue? Relievers are weird.
Base 10 Numbering
I don’t know why I started numbering TWIWBL’s with .0. But it made everything a bit more confusing, and starting with these, we’re going to start each series of TWIWBL with .1. Because that’s, you know, normal.