Quote:
Originally Posted by JMDurron
Well, two reasons
1) My "if there was an indication" language was an opportunity for Markus to ride in on his white horse of awesomeness to give such an indication
2) It's opening Pandora's box in one regard when it comes to another set of House Rules being needed.
To expand on #2, if IF shifting really is as powerful as it appears to be IRL, then OOTP should model that impact. If OOTP models that impact, then for the sake of realism, it would also have to model the fact that current and historical managers have not been using IF shifting as often as is optimal, and have appropriate strategy settings for the AI that reflect that. This means that in current day games, the human player would have a slight advantage over the AI teams by aggressively shifting, Maddon-style. It also means that in historical games, since there is no reason to expect shifting to be less useful in different eras once you get outside of the deadball era maybe, given that historical managers hardly used it at all, the human player would have a very significant strategic advantage over the neanderthal AI managers when it comes to defensive shifts.
There are two potential ways to address this.
1) Markus waters down the impact of IF shifting in historical contexts. I don't like that solution, because I don't believe there would be any realistic validity to it, as a pull hitter is a pull hitter regardless of era (again, once you get outside of the bunt-crazy deadball period), and a groundball is a groundball, so I'd expect the impact of shifting to be consistent from roughly 1920 to present.
2) House rules for players, to not shift more than was realistically done historically, AKA not at all. This is my preferred solution, but it's a case of more knowledge and transparency into the combination of real world effects, the OOTP simulation model, and AI manager tendencies giving the human player yet another edge over the AI. I happen to think that's appropriate for this particular issue, since it's reasonable to me that a modern day manager, if transported into the past to manage, really would use shifting more than his historical counterparts. I also happen to think that there's a not insignificant subset of players/posters who are constantly on high alert for any additional advantages conferred upon the human players against the AI, and who might therefore lobby for solution #1.
|
I will agree with The Wolf and say these are all very good points.
Some added thoughts:
Baseball is a game of adjustments, and it has evolved over time, and will continue to evolve. One difference now, than even 20 years ago, is the ability for hitters to pull up video of pitchers vs themselves, similar batters, or any batters in any situation and look for trends and assisting them in "guessing" pitches. Knowing that their history can be compiled and parsed by future opponents to the degree that it is now results in an incentive to consciously not to pitch to form every occasion. If a big league hitter can guess what is coming, he can hit it. Just ask a gimpy, but fist pumping, Kirk Gibson in 1988.
As the idea of shifting catches on, as all successful ideas do, hitters will make adjustments and value will be placed on players with the ability to hit against shifts. As more shifting occurs, more players will hone this ability. 40 years ago, Dominican players had a saying that "You don't walk your way off an island" that explained the free swinging nature of these players. Scouts looked for guys that made contact and those were the guys that got a trip to the continent. Walks were not valued by teams and scouts, as they are now.
In the last 15 years, or so, making contact has been devalued in favor of power and walks. As shifts become more mainstream in their frequency of use and degree, players with the ability to "hit 'em where they aint" will be of greater value.
A simulation must make assumptions in how RL data is translated into the simulation, itself. OOTP takes
the historical data*, which is the result of whatever conditions were in existence, and uses a normalization process to translate the base data into a universal output for whatever type of environment we want to create.
If shifting is to be reflected in the game as a way of diminishing a player's offensive chances to a greater degree than it is in use now, the game must also give players an ability to "hit against a shift" that is separate from whether or not they are a pull or spray hitter.
How do you work that into the game? Would a more intelligent hitter be better at recognizing a game situation where it is advantageous to give up 150 slugging points to gain 150 batting average points, for instance? Would a selfish player just not care and want to hit the HR regardless of game situation vs a shift? Would a pull hitter with a high work ethic be more likely to learn to hit against the defense than one without a high rating?
To reflect the more nuanced shifts described in the linked article in the OP, OOTP would need to employ a much more diverse batted ball location grid.
I am in favor of the game being more detailed, but there is more than one part to the equation as far as OOTP working the use of advanced shifts into the game.
One final note: The article mentions the improved fielding% and balls fielded by the Pirates because of the shifts. There have been many discussions, especially in the Suggestions forum, regarding what impact, if any, coaching has on player performance. In the case of the Pirates, it appears that coaching has indeed had a positive impact on the fielding numbers of the Pirates, which has had a positive impact on the pitching numbers.