DMB coming to an end.

Twins · Post by **Twins** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:09 pm

I've been using OOTP9 for almost a year now, and I think it's fantastic. I've just recently tried a couple of the online leagues, and they work pretty smoothly.

The thing with OOTP is that it really is almost infinitely customizable, which is probably the best thing it's got going for it.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:24 pm

I don't see an option for playing head to head online though, unless i'mmissing something in the almost 700 page long manual

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 10:35 pm

RedSox wrote:I don't see an option for playing head to head online though, unless i'mmissing something in the almost 700 page long manual

My understanding was that there wasn't one. Again, I'm no authority on it, though.

Brewers · Post by **Brewers** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:43 pm

For what it's worth, I've been using OOTP9 myself for some time to get my baseball sim fix prior to rejoining the league. I haven't played in an online league that actually uses the program in years, but the software has really improved by leaps and bounds from previous editions. It's pretty easy to get around and I personally enjoy using the program a great deal. Definitely differences between OOTP and DMB, but that's to be expected. The one or two times I had problems with the software, I was given a quick response by the tech. staff.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:56 pm

Tigers wrote:
RedSox wrote:I don't see an option for playing head to head online though, unless i'mmissing something in the almost 700 page long manual
My understanding was that there wasn't one. Again, I'm no authority on it, though.

After looking further, it really does look like there isn't an online h2h option, but honestly, that's not something I'd miss even a little bit.

Twins · Post by **Twins** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:42 am

There is no current head to head, online option built into the software. Some people have gotten around that by downloading a screen sharing program (something I'd personally not be interested in doing), and it basically allows you to control both teams as if you're sitting at the same computer.

It's not the best option in the world, but for those of you who really enjoy managing your team from game to game, it is at least a work around.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:15 am

I wouldn't want to go to a program that doesn't have h2h. The 2 seasons we've had h2h play are the 2 seasons I've most enjoyed the league

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:30 am

I think for a few people, the h2h is a big deal, but many of us have busy lives and adding that as one more thing to consume time just isn't going to happen.Given the history of the league (it's not a h2h league per se and has only been a recent addition) and the other potential advantages of OOTP, I wouldn't think lack of h2h should be a deciding factor.
Aaron, are you sure it hasn't been two runs at titles that have been what you enjoyed most the last two years?

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:40 am

Personally, I think we were headed in the right direction regarding H2H. If we were interested in just continuing to use DMB without using their official disks (making our own), we would have the ENTIRE offseason to input them into the database. I can write a stats scraping plugin or something that you guys can use to help us get all players' official season stats, then just run a calculation on those to generate the projections. This could be done in November, and then we'd have until March to enter them in DMB. That might be our best option going forward.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:37 pm

I can't think of many things that would be more contentious than us producing our own projections. on a personal level, it's something I'd love to work on (and have a bit in my spare time in the past) but there'd be no end to the trouble associated with it, no matter who does it. if we're going to continue using DMB, we'd have to use someone else's projections, whether it's PECOTA or Zips or even switching to the season disk.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:40 pm

The only contentious thing would be coming up with the formula. Once the formula is created and accepted there's no debating, projections are how they are (no manipulating the math). Then every season (while it's still in progress) we can look at tweaking the formula for the next season. I'm not saying creating the formula will be easy, because it most certainly won't be, but I do think it's a challenge that might we worth working on.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:43 pm

What's more, i don't see the h2h aspect gaining greater foothold or increasing it's prominence. many of use are (or were) young and as we get older, we have less time. As DMB/IBC priorities go, playing h2h is certainly the bottom of the list. Player research, roster updates, trades and everything else, even power ranking production, seem higher priority than h2h. Power rankings add to the overall flavor of the league and add enjoyment for everyone while a h2h game is much narrower in scope as far as who gets anything out of it.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:47 pm

Saturday, February 28, 2009
ZiPS Projections/ZiPS Projection Disk News Update
Just wanted to give an update as to where I am in making the Diamond Mind disk/ZiPS spreadsheet.

SPREADSHEET

Projections for about 2000 players are done and ready to roll.

I am working through a list of 152 requests.

PROJECTION DISK FOR DIAMOND MIND 9

Of the 2000 players above, roughly 1850 are entered into Diamond Mind, with event tables for Yankees and White Sox players still needing to be entered. Platoon splits for those players with adequate sample size are entered in and there are about 40 pitchers of the 152 requests above that need to be created as well.

Right now, it looks like I should have the first build of both the spreadsheet and the disk posted in the Monday/Tuesday timeframe. My initial hope was to have it up Sunday evening/Monday morning, but I got a little surprised by the number of new projection requests I've received.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:49 pm

Dodgers wrote:The only contentious thing would be coming up with the formula. Once the formula is created and accepted there's no debating, projections are how they are (no manipulating the math). Then every season (while it's still in progress) we can look at tweaking the formula for the next season. I'm not saying creating the formula will be easy, because it most certainly won't be, but I do think it's a challenge that might we worth working on.

Precisely, and that's going to be a contentious issue every time, every tweak to the formula is going to alter the value of many individual players. i'm right there with you on how exciting a project it could be to work on. I could see myself getting lost in such a project, but ultimately we'd be putting in a lot of effort, having a lot of arguing and likely producing an inferior product to what's already out there. It would take a very long time to match even the work that Dan Szymborski has done, nevermind PECOTA.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:51 pm

I honestly don't see the rush. I'd imagine that "someone" will be producing a DMB disk for at least the next 5 years, whether it's Zips or someone else. Frankly, if we were the first ones to come up with a formula we could probably sell it and make a little money ourselves (at least enough to cover the operating expenses Shawn incurs on the site). DMB 9c is clearly functional, so I don't see needing to switch as imminent. Also, I'm a big proponent of H2H, especially for the playoffs, and losing that would cost the league more than whatever new management features exist in OOTP would be worth, especially considering how well OOPSS works.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:56 pm

I should add, when i say a very long time to match their work, I mean YEARS, not months. And DS and the guys at BP don't have vested stakes in the individual players to affect their judgment and perspectives on developing the system, we do. I think as a side project, it would be a lot of fun. As something for the league, no way.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:04 pm

Athletics wrote:I honestly don't see the rush. I'd imagine that "someone" will be producing a DMB disk for at least the next 5 years, whether it's Zips or someone else. Frankly, if we were the first ones to come up with a formula we could probably sell it and make a little money ourselves (at least enough to cover the operating expenses Shawn incurs on the site). DMB 9c is clearly functional, so I don't see needing to switch as imminent. Also, I'm a big proponent of H2H, especially for the playoffs, and losing that would cost the league more than whatever new management features exist in OOTP would be worth, especially considering how well OOPSS works.

Totally agree with this.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:17 pm

Bren, I think you're speaking mainly for yourself since you don't play h2h. I know when it comes to the NL, the only people that don't make an effort to play h2h are Dan, Nils and Martin, everyone else does. I know there's quite a few AL guys that h2h as well. If you don't have time for it that's fine, but just because you don't, don't make some broad, generalizing statement that the majority of the league doesn't because its simply not true

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:35 pm

RedSox wrote:I should add, when i say a very long time to match their work, I mean YEARS, not months. And DS and the guys at BP don't have vested stakes in the individual players to affect their judgment and perspectives on developing the system, we do. I think as a side project, it would be a lot of fun. As something for the league, no way.

Bren if we developed a formula I'm guessing it would be some combination Marcel, Pecota, minor league stats, Zips/Chone, I doubt we'd actually be doing our own math because that could lead to too many questions.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:39 pm

I didn't say that the majority of the league never plays h2h. I said that for a few people h2h is a big deal. To me, a big deal is refusing to make a switch to another program because it doesn't have h2h. Almost all of us have probably played an h2h game at some point, including myself, but I doubt more than a few are so steadfastly pro h2h that they'd refuse to switch to a better system because of it (I'm not saying OOTP is better, I haven't looked at it enough, I'm just speaking in generalities).
It's fun when you've got the time, but it's a minor part of the league.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:45 pm

Athletics wrote:
RedSox wrote:I should add, when i say a very long time to match their work, I mean YEARS, not months. And DS and the guys at BP don't have vested stakes in the individual players to affect their judgment and perspectives on developing the system, we do. I think as a side project, it would be a lot of fun. As something for the league, no way.
Bren if we developed a formula I'm guessing it would be some combination Marcel, Pecota, minor league stats, Zips/Chone, I doubt we'd actually be doing our own math because that could lead to too many questions.

And there'd still be arguments about how much of each to include. Why create a bastardized system? Several people here have asserted that PECOTA is the superior projection method and no one has disagreed (which is saying something around here). If PECOTA is available, particularly with splits, why bastardize it with Zips? If it's not available with splits, then we use Zips (I'm not going to bother fighting the splitless PECOTA battle) alone. Trying to apply PECOTA or some other system to it is just going to create an unnecessary mess.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:46 pm

I would say H2H has become a major part of the league, specifically in the NL. I noticed when simming there was a LOT of H2H between NL teams but not as much between AL clubs. I think it's safe to say that it's become major. It's also excellent for the playoffs as well.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:43 pm

Pirates wrote:I would say H2H has become a major part of the league, specifically in the NL. I noticed when simming there was a LOT of H2H between NL teams but not as much between AL clubs. I think it's safe to say that it's become major. It's also excellent for the playoffs as well.

This has nothing to do with the NL/AL fact, but I know for me it wasn't fun ti play H2H when you hardly even had a roster. One of the things that has had me looking forward to a better team is the ability to play a good H2H. Also, playing H2H really isn't that time intensive. What does it take, maybe 15 minutes to play a game?

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:07 pm

A couple of things...

I don't think it would be pretentious at all to vote on an accepted formula to determine projections if we as a league could agree on a formula(PECOTA, marcels, zips, etc all averaged for example).

As for h2h, its a fun addition to the league, but just as bren said, it wouldn't stop me from making a switch to a another program, assuming the switch was called for.

As I see it right now, I don't think a switch is necessary at the moment. I think we need to tackle this issue though, as we are doing, and focus on getting the 2009 season up and going to the best of our abilities. Even if that means delaying opening day for a week or two. I want the best system we can put in place in the short term. Ideally, that would be based off PECOTA somehow, IMO. But my point is, if we can combine PECOTA with the splits of zips(assuming PECOTA won't have them), then I think that's something worth looking into, even if it takes a little extra time incorporating at the start of the season.

Thanks.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:48 pm

A couple times it's been mentioned to apply Pecota to Zips, I can't say I'm a fan of the idea. However, what if we went the other way? Use PECOTA as the base stats and use the split ratios that Zips uses and apply those to the PECOTA numbers? i don't think there's any way we do either of those in time for the season, it would just take way too much time, but it might be a better option for next year than just using Zips.

Actually, what would probably make more sense is using historical split ratios instead and tossing Zips entirely.