Starters v Relievers

[Gorilla Shakespeare]

For some reason, I couldn't find this thread in here. Perhaps it got moved to the OOTP6 forum. In any case, I'm still hoping that this year's version includes some kind of logarithm or formula that makes your average pitcher more effective as a reliever than as a starter. In past versions it's been the other way around and has acted something like a "comeback code" that reduces starting pitcher decisions and, frankly, is really really annoying.

[draven085]

It'd also be nice if the game generated more good relievers. IMO OOTP generates more good starters than it does good relievers, a problem which could also help explain the appearance of a comeback code when in all likelihood such a code does not exist.

[Gorilla Shakespeare]

Originally Posted by draven085

It'd also be nice if the game generated more good relievers. IMO OOTP generates more good starters than it does good relievers, a problem which could also help explain the appearance of a comeback code when in all likelihood such a code does not exist.

This would work as well, but IMO they're interrelated. IRL most pitchers tend to perform better as relievers than as starters. If the game, for example, gave a boost to a pitcher's ratings when he came in relief the first time through the lineup, that would go a long ways towards making the game more like real baseball.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Gorilla Shakespeare

This would work as well, but IMO they're interrelated. IRL most pitchers tend to perform better as relievers than as starters. If the game, for example, gave a boost to a pitcher's ratings when he came in relief the first time through the lineup, that would go a long ways towards making the game more like real baseball.

If anything, it seems something like this should go the other way...a guy who can't hack it as a starter should lose effectiveness the second time through the order. It's the sledge-hammer approach to modeling the number of ways a pitcher has to get a hitter out. On the other hand, I'm still not in favor of a ratings change like this at all.

[Gorilla Shakespeare]

Originally Posted by RonCo

If anything, it seems something like this should go the other way...a guy who can't hack it as a starter should lose effectiveness the second time through the order.

That'll work too, but you'd want it for both starters and relievers in that case.

It's the sledge-hammer approach to modeling the number of ways a pitcher has to get a hitter out. On the other hand, I'm still not in favor of a ratings change like this at all.

Like it or not, in real life relievers wind up with lower ERAs and the like than starters. This was the case even before LaRussa ball. In fact, it's a time-honored piece of Conventional Baseball Wisdom that some pitchers who are otherwise decent simply cannot hack it as starters. Next year, I'm hoping for improvements (one interesting wrinkle in particular is how Baseball Mogul handles pitch modelling) on this. For now, we need a way, any way, for starters to have a shot at going better than 17-6 in a season.

[draven085]

Josh once suggested that all pitchers be given a hidden boost to their ratings when appearing in relief, even full-time relievers. If this suggestion could be combined with a system where OOTP generates less overall relievers and more starters I think we'd start to see a more realistic pitching dynamic. How many pitchers are actually drafted as relievers out of high school or college? Nearly all amateur pitchers enter the professional ranks as starters. This is not currently the case in OOTP.

[Gorilla Shakespeare]

Originally Posted by draven085

Josh once suggested that all pitchers be given a hidden boost to their ratings when appearing in relief, even full-time relievers. If this suggestion could be combined with a system where OOTP generates less overall relievers and more starters I think we'd start to see a more realistic pitching dynamic. How many pitchers are actually drafted as relievers out of high school or college? Nearly all amateur pitchers enter the professional ranks as starters. This is not currently the case in OOTP.

"

Exactly what I was thinking on the first point, and you raise an excellent second point. One more thing: it's flat-out not realistic that some pitchers' endurance is 40 pitches as a starter. *Every* pitcher should be able to throw at least 85-90 pitches per game. As a parallel to real life, that's about the point Rick Honeycutt crapped out, and he was about as extreme a situational reliever as you could ever get.

[andymac]

I agree with pretty much everything in this thread.

[Doughnuts?]

Nothing to add, just impatient for 200 posts.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Gorilla Shakespeare

That'll work too, but you'd want it for both starters and relievers in that case.

Like it or not, in real life relievers wind up with lower ERAs and the like than starters. This was the case even before LaRussa ball. In fact, it's a time-honored piece of Conventional Baseball Wisdom that some pitchers who are otherwise decent simply cannot hack it as starters. Next year, I'm hoping for improvements (one interesting wrinkle in particular is how Baseball Mogul handles pitch modelling) on this. For now, we need a way, any way, for starters to have a shot at going better than 17-6 in a season.

Sigh...

Yes. That's often the case, but I've never seen anything to show conclusively that pitch-by-pitch a pitcher is fundamentally better as a reliever than as a starter. Instead, I think ERA reduction in a relief role to be more reasonably explained by usage patterns (greater exposure to the platoon advantage, a need to only get 1 or 2 outs rather than 3 to extract themselves from a situation where they might give up earned runs, only facing a batter once in a day, etc), and a lack of more than one major league pitch (and the expectation that if you throw that same pitch to a major league hitter, he'll eventually figure it out), etc.

So, along your thought pattern, all pitchers could be modeled as starting with their good stuff. Great starters will hold onto their great stuff a couple times through the order. Relievers will lose their great stuff more quickly.

Now, the logic complaint to this is that you'll still see reliever who "aren't as good as they should be." I think the right solution to this is to improve the AI that decides how relievers will be used. Greater control over platoon advantage (as was discussed in another thread) is a key place to start. All you need to do to see what I'm talking about is to read about 30 game logs. OOTP usage of relief pitchers is better than it was, but it's still got a long way to go. Improve this, and I think you're a long way toward the goal you're trying to achieve.

[theobscure]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Sigh...

I think the right solution to this is to improve the AI that decides how relievers will be used. Greater control over platoon advantage (as was discussed in another thread) is a key place to start. All you need to do to see what I'm talking about is to read about 30 game logs. OOTP usage of relief pitchers is better than it was, but it's still got a long way to go. Improve this, and I think you're a long way toward the goal you're trying to achieve.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The problem could be solved, atleast to a large extent, by improving how individual relievers are used. No need to have a hidden across the board bump in talent or effectiveness for relievers.

I am brand new to this game. I just downloaded the free v5 version a few weeks ago and am addicted. The two things that stand out most to me as "weaknesses" are the trade AI and the bullpen management AI. Of course, these are probably the two most complicated and dynamic areas of baseball; so it makes sense they would be trouble spots.

Looking forward to the upcoming version.

[Gorilla Shakespeare]

...except that even before bullpens were really managed at all, relievers tended to outperform starters. In OOTP on the other hand even in the dead ball era you have relievers commonly blowing leads when they come in. And on second thought I don't like the "first time through the order" bit with starters, because it works against the conventional wisdom that the time to get to a good starter is right away, because if you don't they get stronger as the game progresses.

[theobscure]

[quote=Gorilla Shakespeare And on second thought I don't like the "first time through the order" bit with starters, because it works against the conventional wisdom that the time to get to a good starter is right away, because if you don't they get stronger as the game progresses.[/quote]

Starters good and bad vary on when in games they are most vulnerable. Does the game now incorporate ERA's per specific inning?

Could there also be some type of effectiveness rating for early, middle, late in games? Perhaps something like this could help the AI make better decisions regarding bullpen management.

Also, don't they keep stats now about how a pitcher performs situationally pertaining to run differential? I mean they keep all these hitting statistics that help verify "clutch" hitter labels. Isn't there a way to make this apply to pitchers as well?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Gorilla Shakespeare

the conventional wisdom that the time to get to a good starter is right away, because if you don't they get stronger as the game progresses.

I don't think this has ever been verified to be a skill. At least I know I've never seen a study that shows ths to be true over any significant span of time. I'm not a fan of arbitrary modifications to match performance that can't be shown to be true.

Again, I think that improving the AI use of the bullpen (even wen simulating the 'old days') is the way to make the stats look like you want them to. I'm not against your goal. Just against adding a batter-by-batter/pitch-by-pitch performance modifier that has never been proven to exist...especially when I think the root cause of OOTP's use of the bullpen can be easily proven to be poor -- or at least different from any real life period.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by theobscure

I mean they keep all these hitting statistics that help verify "clutch" hitter labels. Isn't there a way to make this apply to pitchers as well?

I have read many studies that attempt to prove clutch hitting, and never seen one that has bene successful. Do you have a link? I would love to be thrilled.

[theobscure]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I have read many studies that attempt to prove clutch hitting, and never seen one that has bene successful. Do you have a link? I would love to be thrilled.

I suppose I should have used my quotes around "verify" instead of "clutch". My point was that they keep all kinds of hitting stats about how a guy hits in the 7th inning, with men on, in a game with a difference of two runs or less, etc. Why couldn't they do this with pitchers?

Maybe they do. I have to confess that I am not a total stat geek. I love baseball strategy to such an extent that I realize the value in stats; I just think it has gone too far in application to "real" baseball.

Now that I'm in sim world, I realize I'm going to need to bone up on stats and that they are essential to more realistic simulation. I guess it's a catch-22; over abundance of stats are detrimental (in my opinion) to real baseball, but essential to simulation.

I guess I'm on the stats bandwagon. Especially, since my interest in "real" baseball has deteriorated to nearly nil for various other reasons.

[Doibhilin]

I agree, relievers are commonly understood as weak starting pitchers. Few pitchers get drafted and say, "Gee, I want to be a middle reliever."

And there's a pretty simple explanation: pitching is very physical. It takes a lot of effort and strain to throw a 90 mph fastball, and when you don't have to worry about throwing 90 of them, you're willing to put more into each pitch. Obviously there are other factors, but I think this is more important.

[koohead]

How much of a reliever's success can be attributed to being "situational"? I mean, a starter is not able to pick and choose what situation they pitch in. over 250+ innings a year, they encounter any and all situations. A reliever on the other hand is very situational...but if you expand that out to 200+ innings I don't think they would be as successful.
Plus, pitching 7 innings in a row is very different than pitching 7 innings over 10 days...which is what a typical reliever would do. a lineup learns alot about a pitcher over the course of a ball game...and hence a starter starts to lose some "effectiveness" towards the end of the game. Meanwhile, a reliever will see 3, 4, or even 5 different teams over the same amount of innings...and different batters each time...thus less familiarity.

My opinion is a marginal starter is more successful as a reliever because of the situations he is put into. you as a manager can put him into games where he is best suited...as opposed to a starter needing to be able to pitch under all circumstances.

[mrbill]

Originally Posted by koohead

How much of a reliever's success can be attributed to being "situational"? I mean, a starter is not able to pick and choose what situation they pitch in. over 250+ innings a year, they encounter any and all situations. A reliever on the other hand is very situational...but if you expand that out to 200+ innings I don't think they would be as successful.
Plus, pitching 7 innings in a row is very different than pitching 7 innings over 10 days...which is what a typical reliever would do. a lineup learns alot about a pitcher over the course of a ball game...and hence a starter starts to lose some "effectiveness" towards the end of the game. Meanwhile, a reliever will see 3, 4, or even 5 different teams over the same amount of innings...and different batters each time...thus less familiarity.

My opinion is a marginal starter is more successful as a reliever because of the situations he is put into. you as a manager can put him into games where he is best suited...as opposed to a starter needing to be able to pitch under all circumstances.

You're right, but only half the problem can be fixed by improving AI, the other half is this *unquantifiable* "lineup learning" aspect of starting vs relieving.

If only that could be quantified by some real stats that boiled down to a general rating across all pitchers, or to just one rating for each pitcher (hidden or not), I'd be pretty excited.

[Ktulu]

In case anyone hasn't you should read this thread on distinguishing starters from relievers.