Quote:
Originally Posted by robc
I agree that those would have to be defined. I just don;t know what those values should be  . A decent start is that if a player is injured for 14 days or more, there is some rust. If a player doesn't play for 14 days, perhaps there should be some rust. Maybe this gets adjusted for their experience level. Maybe players with a good work ethic recover from rust faster. I don't know what the best design would be, only that it seems players should deteriorate if unused. |
The flaw with equating 14 days off with an injury and 14 days without a game appearance is the kind of physical acitivities the player in each case is capable of. For the injured player, they often have no baseball activities for an extended time, then gradually work their way back with drills on specific skills then testing them in simulated or live games. The "rusty" bench player undergoes the full range of practice activities, minus the simulated game situations. I would think the bench player would play better coming back from a layoff because he should he's more physically prepared to play a game.
How to program "bench rust" into the game also depends on what real-life situation you're trying to model. Is it simply that a player without game action for an extended stretch will not perform at maximum, like a team with a long period of rest at the end of the regular season or between playoff series? Or do you want to give relievers who don't get "regular work" a penalty when finally called upon? Is there even a consensus for what constitutes the onset and degree of rust for a periods of inactivity for position players and pitchers, respectively?
On the face of it, getting this to work well would be diminishing returns, IMHO.