35 Year old MR throws No Hitter..um..

[Gastric ReFlux]

What setting are you using on pitcher endurance in the league setup?

I have a thread rattling around in here about a relief pitcher who got assigned to being a starter for over 12 years or so. His average outing was about 4-5 innings, not 6.

I'll go dig up that thread.

[landru]

Originally posted by Doctor Drew
Actually, if a player is all defense and weak offense, using the Win Shares system, he's not going to rate among the top players at all. Examples include players like the Mets Rey Ordonez, a defensive specialist at shortstop...in his 1999 season (a brilliant defensive year), he totalled 13 win shares. This was good enough for 8th on the team, but put him well behind players like Mike Piazza (21 win shares), who is considered a weak defensive catcher, but is a champ with the stick. Defense is important, but a purely defensive player is not among the top players, no matter who you ask. You gotta be able to do SOMETHING at the plate.

Yes, you are correct, Win Shares does not emphasize defense at the individual level very strongly compared to their offense-which I think is a weakness. Also, Palmer/Thorn's TPR emphasizes being a good hitter at a position that is weak hitting in the rest of the league too strongly. But on the whole when I look at the team level using both methods, I can see at what positions I really need a better fielder, and about how much offense I am willing to give to get that.

[Gastric ReFlux]

This is thread about Trever Miller, a reliever who started

Trever has never pitched a complete game. Now to me, that's more unrealistic. It seems like he should have had a day when he would go all the way.

[MJohnson]

Hoyt Wilhelm pitched a no-hitter in a rare start, the game was nationally televised as well

[rogmax11]

Gastric, you are correct in your assessment sir.

[HolyCow98]

Wabner

I agree with you on the putting good relief pitchers in the rotation and then being over-producing what seems realistic..

For me, that is another seperate problem....

For that you have to look at why that happens in the game....
Just my opinion....is that the way the game handles endurance for pitchers....Pitchers SHOULD have just one fatigue rating....I have no problem with the rating putting a roof on the total amount of pitches a guy can throw, but there should be ONE rating not seperate ones for relief and starting pitchers...

But that is just my opinion....

As far as anyone being able to do amazing feats, especially when we are talking about a single-game feat, I really hope that some good stories....pop up, for me, like the one you wrote..

The first things I thought of was..."hmmm, I wonder if it was in the heat of a pennant race.....I wonder if it was in a big city with alot of media attention...NY or LA.."

It didn't phase me that a he did what he did..... If it were me, I would edit his player history and write a short comment about the unlikely and tremendouos feat so that when I look at the retired list after he is gone, I will go ..."oh yeah, I remember that guy!!!"

Well, thats how I like to enjoy OOTP anyway....

[dougtimms]

I agree. Pichers are able to pitch too many innings. It makes it so there's no difference between pitchers with D duration and those with an A duration. They're all pitching 9 innings. I know this is somewhat configurable, but please Markus: tone it down a bit. SPs with E duration and MRs should not be pitching so many complete games.

[Lets Go Mets]

at least it wasnt a perfect game

[magicmike]

I guess it's quite plausible to think that a Tim Wakefield type pitcher might be able to do something like this today, but I do see a problem in this fictional case because it suggests that the endurance ratings are more or less meaningless. Could this be a question of poor scouting reports?

[HolyCow98]

Well...in , my leagues that use modern settings, I'm not seeing a huge amount of complete games...now in the any of the other settings, while in real life there were more CG's then there are now, they seem a bit too high...especially with a completely fictional league....I've had the A endeureance guys complete 30 out of 35 starts........ I might be wrong but for the "baseball boom" era thats seem a little high to me....

On the other hand...it is fictional so that makes it easier for me to accept things like that...

[Charlie Hustle]

Originally posted by Wabner
Also, why isn't defense emphasized more than it is in the scouting reports and in the new star system? A player like Ozzie Smith is pretty much considered a bum in OOTP. If you edit a rookie SS and make him a fair hitter (fair hitting with good at drawing walks and avoiding Ks). If you do that and then make the guy an A runner, A stealing, A SAC, A bunting and A range with a .999 fld %---he's still considered a 2 to 2.5 star prospect. Shouldn't this guy be considered a defensive wizard with great potential despite his lackluster hitting? It makes one question just how important things like range, throwing arms, etc actually impact the game.

Let me point out one real-life specimen...Gookie Dawkins. Baseball America rated him as the Reds' top prospect 2 or 3 years in a row because of his defensive tools and above average speed. The Gookie-Monster sports a career MINOR league average of .251, in 3 big league stints he's hitting closer to .200. Mr. Dawkins just recieved his walking papers Monday, and will be whiffing away for the Dodgers come April.

I think in retrospect, Baseball America would've gave Gookie a maximum of 2 stars. Granted, Ozzie Smith isn't remembered for his offensive prowess, but he wasn't exactly a liability at the plate either, at least not to the degree that many slick fielders are.

I know there are loads of examples of guys who were 'hot prospects' based on their gloves that ended up being great at the plate too, but scouting is scouting. You've got to weight it somehow. I view this as a can of worms that we could debate till the cows come home and not find a solution.

Personally, when I'm evaluating talent either for draft or trade, defense is usually one of the last things I look at. I almost never take a guy with 'E' range, but I've made some 'D' rated players into serviceable starters.

In the end it all comes back to the style of team you like. I tend toward a high-powered offense/great rotation. Some prefer speed/average/defense. Whatever your style, that's going to dictate your bias as to what you want to see in the scouting.

[Charlie Hustle]

As far as the pithing portion of this thread goes....seems like another cry for a 'universal' endurance rating. Begone with the SP's, MR's, and CL's. Let one endurance settle it all!

[Dragonmere]

I had something very similar to this happen in one of my solo leagues.. My closer at the time who had an E duration in relief and no starter duration filled in for 1 game during a time when I had 3 starters injured & a bunch of AAA rookies called up to take their spots. Anyways, turns out he pitched a complete game shutout also & set the league record for strikeouts with 19 in the game. Nothing like it has ever happened since & he never even made another start (I mostly simmed that league due to time constraints). I was pretty shocked, but couldn't really complain seeing as how he was my pitcher

[bigphesta]

Some things in baseball are just unbelievable.

For instance, my wife rented this totally cheezy movie the other day about this High School baseball coach, who's like 35 years old, who promises his team that if they make the playoffs he'd try out for the pros. The guys' like 35 years friggen old.

They make the playoffs and the guy actually tries out - and MAKES THE ROSTER at 35. I mean, how realistic is that? I know it was just a Disney movie, but c'mon. No one makes the pros at 35. That's just fantasy there.

Glad to know that OOTP keeps things in the "fantasy" world, just like this movie.

[Ragnar]

Your 35 year old MR with a C endurence pitched a no hitter? Did the MR have a "starter" endurence rating? I play out all of my games and i'll tell you now that it is not possible for that to happen if you actually play the game. I'm assuming your case was a sim. I have pitcher EN set to normal in the league settings. A MR with a C EN will be lucky to get through 4 innings.

[MJohnson]

If a pitcher is throwing a no-hitter, the computer AI will leave the pitcher in so he can have his day in the sun no matter how tired his arm is.

[Squonk]

..

Bill ..

Unfortunately, as you have witnessed in this thread, the community has taken a turn for the worse, as you have seen so many times on the Internet in the past. The last time I can remember this happening was the old High Heat community ... 'bout three years ago ...where if you said anything negative, you were called a lunatic and you simply never returned to discuss the game further.

That's where this game is now.

People are blindly defending the engine, for that weird reason people do, even in the face of many, many farcical results and major bugs. The actions by the posters here would truly be a classic case study in sociology. My theory is that it goes deeper with them. They have invested themselves and far, far too much of their time. Therefore, they take it personally and it damages their psyche. Like any human, they deny evidence or they attack evidence. There is no rational anymore. That point in this game's history is over.

The community, really any community on the Internet that has a cult following with a social hierarchy and such, is much akin to a pile of bricks. It's solid in the beginning, and useful, but it gets to a certain point where it topples over on itself and then becomes useless and, finally, abandoned as rubble.

I could cite you fifteen major showstopping problems in this edition of the game after playing it for about a month but I won't. There is no use to it because it's real and it attacks people's ego. I could cite you fundamental cracks in the engine that will make this entire community, and it's social hierarchy, totally moot in two years time. It will be a ghost town with a few stragglers. Kind of like High Heat today.

You and I both know Markus is a good guy and he tries very hard to put out the best product he can and then follow that with unprecedented support. However, absolute power corrupts absolutely. When reading these boards, if I was the creator of the game, it would cause me serious, long term motivational problems. Why try when the masses worship so blindly? It would be near impossible to keep an edge and be progressive with this type of idoltry. It's not Markus' fault. The community, in it's zeal, does the game a great inservice. For some sociological reason, they are unable to see this.

In the end, the community, with the remarks made about such a ludicrous situation as you described, and their utter defense of that (and the defensive rating problem, which is even bigger and causes the game to be utterly un-authentic, IMO), is truly screwing itself. But .. there is a social hierarchy thing going on here and it has now assumed control over logical thought and reason.

Rational is out the door.

Don't even try.

At this point in this game's progression, the franchise is basically over.

So, it's pointless to even mention anything.

Just let it play itself out and consider it a part of baseball gaming history in the future.

SQ

..

[ctorg]

I'm going to ignore the previously posted hyperbolic rant and just chime in that I really don't think that players should have a single endurance rating. The reason is that I think the difference between being a starter and a reliever is not just how much endurance a guy has, but a type of pitching.

If a guy is a starter for years and has moderate success, then you put him in the bullpen and he does better, it's because he pitches differently as a reliever. If he's a power pitcher, for instance, he no longer has to worry about lasting the whole game and can just pitch full force.

Just look at when Rick Aguilera (I don't know why he's the guy that comes to mind) made this jump in 1989. He went from a questionable starter to a good reliever. Not because his endurance as a starter was bad, but because his skills made him more suited be a reliever. The game is littered with guys who were starters, some successful and some not, who are now relievers. Occasionally, it even goes the other way, like with Lowe. Their endurance wasn't a problem most of the time. They didn't usually go to the pen because they couldn't pitch 6 innings anymore.

What endurance would you give John Smoltz? Derek Lowe? Greg Swindell? These guys have all been successful on both ends.

[Sweed]

Originally posted by Squonk
..

Bill ..

Unfortunately, as you have witnessed in this thread, the community has taken a turn for the worse, as you have seen so many times on the Internet in the past. The last time I can remember this happening was the old High Heat community ... 'bout three years ago ...where if you said anything negative, you were called a lunatic and you simply never returned to discuss the game further.

That's where this game is now.

People are blindly defending the engine, for that weird reason people do, even in the face of many, many farcical results and major bugs. The actions by the posters here would truly be a classic case study in sociology. My theory is that it goes deeper with them. They have invested themselves and far, far too much of their time. Therefore, they take it personally and it damages their psyche. Like any human, they deny evidence or they attack evidence. There is no rational anymore. That point in this game's history is over.

The community, really any community on the Internet that has a cult following with a social hierarchy and such, is much akin to a pile of bricks. It's solid in the beginning, and useful, but it gets to a certain point where it topples over on itself and then becomes useless and, finally, abandoned as rubble.

I could cite you fifteen major showstopping problems in this edition of the game after playing it for about a month but I won't. There is no use to it because it's real and it attacks people's ego. I could cite you fundamental cracks in the engine that will make this entire community, and it's social hierarchy, totally moot in two years time. It will be a ghost town with a few stragglers. Kind of like High Heat today.

You and I both know Markus is a good guy and he tries very hard to put out the best product he can and then follow that with unprecedented support. However, absolute power corrupts absolutely. When reading these boards, if I was the creator of the game, it would cause me serious, long term motivational problems. Why try when the masses worship so blindly? It would be near impossible to keep an edge and be progressive with this type of idoltry. It's not Markus' fault. The community, in it's zeal, does the game a great inservice. For some sociological reason, they are unable to see this.

In the end, the community, with the remarks made about such a ludicrous situation as you described, and their utter defense of that (and the defensive rating problem, which is even bigger and causes the game to be utterly un-authentic, IMO), is truly screwing itself. But .. there is a social hierarchy thing going on here and it has now assumed control over logical thought and reason.

Rational is out the door.

Don't even try.

At this point in this game's progression, the franchise is basically over.

So, it's pointless to even mention anything.

Just let it play itself out and consider it a part of baseball gaming history in the future.

SQ

..

Yeah, I guess you're right. All these other guys shouldn't have an opinion Guess only the ones that agreed with him should have replied.

You really have 15 showstoppers? Are you still playing the game with these showstoppers? If you're really interested in helping the game bite the bullet take the heat and post them. Really I'm serious. Sure you'll take some heat from some posters (don't let it bother you they're only words) but Markus or Steve will see them and maybe do something about them. I'm guessing you make this post because you like the game and want it to get better. If you don't do this you'll be contributing to the death of the game (that you say is coming).

[Sweed]

Originally posted by ctorg
I'm going to ignore the previously posted hyperbolic rant and just chime in that I really don't think that players should have a single endurance rating. The reason is that I think the difference between being a starter and a reliever is not just how much endurance a guy has, but a type of pitching.

If a guy is a starter for years and has moderate success, then you put him in the bullpen and he does better, it's because he pitches differently as a reliever. If he's a power pitcher, for instance, he no longer has to worry about lasting the whole game and can just pitch full force.

Just look at when Rick Aguilera (I don't know why he's the guy that comes to mind) made this jump in 1989. He went from a questionable starter to a good reliever. Not because his endurance as a starter was bad, but because his skills made him more suited be a reliever. The game is littered with guys who were starters, some successful and some not, who are now relievers. Occasionally, it even goes the other way, like with Lowe. Their endurance wasn't a problem most of the time. They didn't usually go to the pen because they couldn't pitch 6 innings anymore.

What endurance would you give John Smoltz? Derek Lowe? Greg Swindell? These guys have all been successful on both ends.

Good points ctorg, I totally agree. There is a difference in these guys wheather it's just mental or what who knows? It's not as simple as saying this guy can throw smoke he's going to be a closer.

ctorg said "The game is littered with guys who were starters, some successful and some not, who are now relievers."

There are also a lot of MR that were given an opportunity at closer and never made it but did go back to MR and were succesful there. IMHO there are real differences between these three roles IRL and this justifies the way the game operates now.