Thanks for screwing me in the WS, OOTP!

Bobbuttons · 07-22-2002, 12:46 AM

This has been brought up before, but I had the most important of circumstances reiterate to me just how important this is...

Why even have the Outfield In option if they won't even throw home?

Game 5 of the 1998 World Series, which is tied at 2 games apiece. Colon against Smoltz. A gem. Tied at 1 as we go to extra innings. Bottom of the 10th, Atlanta gets a runner at 3rd with 1 out. I walk the bases loaded and face Graffinino still with 1 out. I bring the outfield in for a play at the plate. Chipper Jones (C speed rating) is at third. Graffinino sends an easy fly ball to left. Caught by Magglio Ordonez, who has a good arm. SO WHY DOES:

"Jones scores without a throw."

There is no reason whatsoever in any game, let alone a World Series game that you do not at least attempt to throw home. It's the whole game (and ultimately the series, as Atlanta would win the series 4-2) on the line with that guy at 3rd. It wasn't even a fast guy on base and a poor arm in the OF. He had a legitamate shot if he was playing in. Just completely unrealistic. Oy ve.

Mrexbaseball · 07-22-2002, 01:55 AM

That sucks...hopefully this will be improved in OOTP5, because I myself have experienced crappy instances like this one.

Lamorak · 07-22-2002, 09:14 AM

While playing 'in' oufielders will have to break back to catch any deep to medium deep flyballs. That means once they get to and glove the ball, their momentum will be heading the wrong direction.

It's very difficult to make a strong throw home from a deadstop let alone running the wrong way. Ideally good outfielders set up to snag a potential sac fly while running toward homeplate so their momentum is with them.

A 'C' runner isn't slow, it's average.
An easy flyball isn't neccessarily shallow.

By the time Ordonez caught the ball and tried to set for a throw, Chipper had already crossed the plate.

JML · 07-22-2002, 01:09 PM

I think in OOTP the object of outfield in is to prevent a bloop single. It doesn't necessarily improve the chance of a play at the plate. Lamorak is probably right on this one, Ordonez had to go back on the ball, so he had no play at home. With OF at normal depth, he might have actually had a better shot at Jones.

alhill · 07-22-2002, 04:46 PM

The point is that it's game 5 of the World Series, and you at least want the outfielder to throw home even if there is no chance. What's there to lose? The fact that he doesn't even try to throw leads to believe that there is something wrong with the AI. It may very well be the case that Mags had to go back to catch the ball, but the pbp should either say so or at least humor the player by having the OF heave it toward home plate.

sporr · 07-22-2002, 04:56 PM

Yep, it sounds like one of the many situations where the same line of play-by-play is used in many different cases. The other that comes to mind is the double-play ball that never seems to result in a double play. The problem is that there is a finite number of play-by-play lines that have to be used to describe a nearly infinite number of different situations. This means there are bound to be many cases where the pbp text doesn't quite jive with what really happened. Admittedly, there should be more lines of pbp to handle unique situtations such as this.

Steely Glint · 07-22-2002, 06:19 PM

In left field if you are playing in and the batter hits a fly ball over your head and you have to go back to get it any significant distance you will not backpedal but will turn and run because you can't make it that far backpedalling. So if you are turned then when you catch the ball you are facing the stands and to throw home you have to transfer the ball while you do the stop and pivot move, and then you have to aim and fire. It's not easy and it doesn't happen instantly.

If there is a decent runner on third and you don't make a perfect transfer and a perfect pivot and a perfect throw - and you have to do all three of them perfect and fast as well because the delay caused by you facing the wrong way is significant - then you're screwed and the runner will score.

Signed, been there and done that in college

alhill · 07-22-2002, 06:48 PM

Not the point steely glint: the point is it's the WS: wouldn't you at least throw it anyway? You lose nothing by throwing it and you gain in the .01% chance that the guy trips and falls running home.

Nobody is arguing that a throw after catching a ball hit over your head is easy.

Can you imagine in a WS game, a guy making such a catch and then just tossing the ball to the crowd and walking to the dugout?

TheRockCT · 07-22-2002, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alhill
Not the point steely glint: the point is it's the WS: wouldn't you at least throw it anyway? You lose nothing by throwing it and you gain in the .01% chance that the guy trips and falls running home.

Nobody is arguing that a throw after catching a ball hit over your head is easy.

Can you imagine in a WS game, a guy making such a catch and then just tossing the ball to the crowd and walking to the dugout?

I can agree with your frustration, however, I must point out that the game's PBP logic doesn't recognize that it's a World Series game. While OOTP strives to be a true simulation of major league baseball, it still can't get "every" nuance down. It cannot recognize that the World Series is the be-all and end-all to the season you've just played.

Yes, I do believe that in the WS, a player would try with every ounce of his strength to throw home, regardless of the potential outcome. However, the game recognizes also that Atlanta had the bases loaded, so the outfielder (through PBP logic) was conceding the run (albeit the winning one), in order to prevent the runners from tagging up & moving up a base too.

However, all-in-all, I understand your situation, and hope that the PBP & actual in-game simulation will grow & expand with future versions.

JAttractive · 07-22-2002, 08:54 PM

Actually I think it is far simpler than all this (I am not 100% sure on what I am about to say but I am VERY confident on this)...

From what I have read the PBP does *not* accurately play out the results and is only their for flavour. What you read in text should not be taken literally, beyond the actual results. I believe the game randomly/selectively takes from a list of results each play, simply to make things seem more real. While the choices of text are based on the statistically decided outcome the actual play read out is just a random selection from that list.

Using your play as an example:

Colon vs. Smoltz

The result for this at bat is already determined to be a fly out to left field AND it is determined the runner will score based on the arm of the outfielder, speed of the runner and a random algorithm (likely the game does not even decide whether a throw is made or not but simply compares a number of different variables into an equation, that would include arm strength, and a result of "run scored" was determined) AND it is determined the runners will not move up a base NOR will any errors occur. Note that this is already determined, the whole play's *results* in its entirety. The game then randomly chooses plays based on the results to give us something to imagine.

So it may be something like this:

1. Give text for fly ball to left field, no error on catch.

a. Easy fly out to left field OR
b. It's a shot to left field.... Caught by Ordonez! What a play! OR
c. It's a sinking liner in to the gap... Wow what a catch by Ordonez!
etc.

Computer randomly chooses A.

2. Give text for failure to throw out runner, no error, runners fail to move up.

a. Ordonez with a throw home... this will be close... SAFE! Wow I don't think that was an accurate call.... The runners fail to advance.
b. Ordonez catches the ball but their will be no throw home....Runners at 1st and 2nd still.
c. Ordonez catches the ball and throws home... not even close!... The runners fail to advance on the throw.
etc.

Computer randomly chooses B.

---------

So while it may look like you got "screwed" what occured was that you were given the fair results of the outcome but the text semi-randomly applied was unfortunately "choosen". You could have easily been given something more palatable such as "Its a sinking liner to the gap in left field... Wow what a catch by Ordonez!... He throws home... But it is too late to get Jones... Run scored, runners remain at 1st and 2nd". Same results, just reads nicer for the situation.

Just remember that PBP is only flavour to the game and nothing else. It is text applied to a result and then mixed and matched to give it variety.

All that matters is the results

alhill · 07-22-2002, 08:56 PM

Very interesting post, JAttractive; I think you are largely right.

JAttractive · 07-22-2002, 09:02 PM

Thanks, I also just editted a few parts that I realized I could have been clearer on too.

JAttractive · 07-22-2002, 09:39 PM

I think this all applies to many aspects of the game too... Take for instance players like Tony Fernandez and Cal Ripken (sorry for the dated reference but it is what came to mind):

(Note: I have no idea on their actual fielding statistics but I remember their styles and am basing the following on that alone.)

Both were considered talented defensive shortstops who had a steady glove (few errors). Lets imagine in a given year they both made 1000 put outs and committed 10 errors making them the top rated defensive shortstops despite the fact that they had very different styles. While Fernandez was a bit more acrobatic and with greater range, Ripken was great at putting himself in the right position before the player swung so that he often had the ball hit right to him... no acrobatics required. Similarly arm strength would factor in on number of put outs but really that all does not matter in the game's equations. No one could properly put such things into a player's ratings as it would be subjective. However handily baseball is filled with statistics that let us get an overall picture...

So it does not matter that Fernandez may have gotten to his ball through acrobatics and had a higher "diving range", that Ripken had a higher "defensive knowledge" or that player X has a 10 rated arm allowing him to throw out more runners but lacking in those two areas... What matters is that they can be considered A rated for defensive range when determining how many balls they will get to and make outs on. As well the game already has the fielding percentages as occured in real life so it can factor in errors.

A play by play will always be limited then, as will any simulation game, as we are simplifying things dramatically in games like this. A play by play may read that "Ripken dives to his right and makes a spectacular catch!" when in reality he likely would have been standing right in line with the ball. What is accurate though is that he probably would have gotten an out on a groundball hit to him and the game still captures that.

So what is really nice is that because of the number of statistics kept we can actually fairly accurately "replay" history in terms of statistical numbers. Now I would never suggest replaying games in any simulation game would ever be able to properly replay games between similar skill teams. Sure, I can tell you without even simming it out that the '92 Jays would cream the '02 Jays over the course of a full season. Now play the '92 Jays against some of the other great World Series teams and I will throw any sim results out the window. You just can't consider every variable in those cases where skill is so close (ie. leadership, coaching decisions, stadium factors, fan noise/distractions, lights.... or even more specific....player x hits low curves well and high fastballs and pitcher y happens to only throw those two things well so does he adapt or challenge him?.... etc.). Still it is fun to do anyway

07-22-2002, 12:46 AM	#1
Bobbuttons Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Picturesque Mentor-on-the-Lake, Ohio Posts: 3,708	Thanks for screwing me in the WS, OOTP! This has been brought up before, but I had the most important of circumstances reiterate to me just how important this is... Why even have the Outfield In option if they won't even throw home? Game 5 of the 1998 World Series, which is tied at 2 games apiece. Colon against Smoltz. A gem. Tied at 1 as we go to extra innings. Bottom of the 10th, Atlanta gets a runner at 3rd with 1 out. I walk the bases loaded and face Graffinino still with 1 out. I bring the outfield in for a play at the plate. Chipper Jones (C speed rating) is at third. Graffinino sends an easy fly ball to left. Caught by Magglio Ordonez, who has a good arm. SO WHY DOES: "Jones scores without a throw." There is no reason whatsoever in any game, let alone a World Series game that you do not at least attempt to throw home. It's the whole game (and ultimately the series, as Atlanta would win the series 4-2) on the line with that guy at 3rd. It wasn't even a fast guy on base and a poor arm in the OF. He had a legitamate shot if he was playing in. Just completely unrealistic. Oy ve. __________________ Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do....cause they're fast! Gibson swings, and a fly ball to deep right field! This is gonna be a home run! Unbelievable! A home run for Gibson! And the Dodgers have won the game, 5 to 4; I don't believe what I just saw! I don't believe what I just saw!

07-22-2002, 09:14 AM	#3
Lamorak Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 195	While playing 'in' oufielders will have to break back to catch any deep to medium deep flyballs. That means once they get to and glove the ball, their momentum will be heading the wrong direction. It's very difficult to make a strong throw home from a deadstop let alone running the wrong way. Ideally good outfielders set up to snag a potential sac fly while running toward homeplate so their momentum is with them. A 'C' runner isn't slow, it's average. An easy flyball isn't neccessarily shallow. By the time Ordonez caught the ball and tried to set for a throw, Chipper had already crossed the plate. Last edited by Lamorak; 07-22-2002 at 10:16 AM.

07-22-2002, 06:19 PM	#7
Steely Glint Major Leagues Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 430	In left field if you are playing in and the batter hits a fly ball over your head and you have to go back to get it any significant distance you will not backpedal but will turn and run because you can't make it that far backpedalling. So if you are turned then when you catch the ball you are facing the stands and to throw home you have to transfer the ball while you do the stop and pivot move, and then you have to aim and fire. It's not easy and it doesn't happen instantly. If there is a decent runner on third and you don't make a perfect transfer and a perfect pivot and a perfect throw - and you have to do all three of them perfect and fast as well because the delay caused by you facing the wrong way is significant - then you're screwed and the runner will score. Signed, been there and done that in college __________________ "His eyes had the steely glint of a hired gun."

07-22-2002, 08:54 PM	#10
JAttractive All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Posts: 1,135	Actually I think it is far simpler than all this (I am not 100% sure on what I am about to say but I am VERY confident on this)... From what I have read the PBP does not accurately play out the results and is only their for flavour. What you read in text should not be taken literally, beyond the actual results. I believe the game randomly/selectively takes from a list of results each play, simply to make things seem more real. While the choices of text are based on the statistically decided outcome the actual play read out is just a random selection from that list. Using your play as an example: Colon vs. Smoltz The result for this at bat is already determined to be a fly out to left field AND it is determined the runner will score based on the arm of the outfielder, speed of the runner and a random algorithm (likely the game does not even decide whether a throw is made or not but simply compares a number of different variables into an equation, that would include arm strength, and a result of "run scored" was determined) AND it is determined the runners will not move up a base NOR will any errors occur. Note that this is already determined, the whole play's results in its entirety. The game then randomly chooses plays based on the results to give us something to imagine. So it may be something like this: 1. Give text for fly ball to left field, no error on catch. a. Easy fly out to left field OR b. It's a shot to left field.... Caught by Ordonez! What a play! OR c. It's a sinking liner in to the gap... Wow what a catch by Ordonez! etc. Computer randomly chooses A. 2. Give text for failure to throw out runner, no error, runners fail to move up. a. Ordonez with a throw home... this will be close... SAFE! Wow I don't think that was an accurate call.... The runners fail to advance. b. Ordonez catches the ball but their will be no throw home....Runners at 1st and 2nd still. c. Ordonez catches the ball and throws home... not even close!... The runners fail to advance on the throw. etc. Computer randomly chooses B. --------- So while it may look like you got "screwed" what occured was that you were given the fair results of the outcome but the text semi-randomly applied was unfortunately "choosen". You could have easily been given something more palatable such as "Its a sinking liner to the gap in left field... Wow what a catch by Ordonez!... He throws home... But it is too late to get Jones... Run scored, runners remain at 1st and 2nd". Same results, just reads nicer for the situation. Just remember that PBP is only flavour to the game and nothing else. It is text applied to a result and then mixed and matched to give it variety. All that matters is the results Last edited by JAttractive; 07-22-2002 at 09:06 PM.

07-22-2002, 09:39 PM	#13
JAttractive All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Posts: 1,135	I think this all applies to many aspects of the game too... Take for instance players like Tony Fernandez and Cal Ripken (sorry for the dated reference but it is what came to mind): (Note: I have no idea on their actual fielding statistics but I remember their styles and am basing the following on that alone.) Both were considered talented defensive shortstops who had a steady glove (few errors). Lets imagine in a given year they both made 1000 put outs and committed 10 errors making them the top rated defensive shortstops despite the fact that they had very different styles. While Fernandez was a bit more acrobatic and with greater range, Ripken was great at putting himself in the right position before the player swung so that he often had the ball hit right to him... no acrobatics required. Similarly arm strength would factor in on number of put outs but really that all does not matter in the game's equations. No one could properly put such things into a player's ratings as it would be subjective. However handily baseball is filled with statistics that let us get an overall picture... So it does not matter that Fernandez may have gotten to his ball through acrobatics and had a higher "diving range", that Ripken had a higher "defensive knowledge" or that player X has a 10 rated arm allowing him to throw out more runners but lacking in those two areas... What matters is that they can be considered A rated for defensive range when determining how many balls they will get to and make outs on. As well the game already has the fielding percentages as occured in real life so it can factor in errors. A play by play will always be limited then, as will any simulation game, as we are simplifying things dramatically in games like this. A play by play may read that "Ripken dives to his right and makes a spectacular catch!" when in reality he likely would have been standing right in line with the ball. What is accurate though is that he probably would have gotten an out on a groundball hit to him and the game still captures that. So what is really nice is that because of the number of statistics kept we can actually fairly accurately "replay" history in terms of statistical numbers. Now I would never suggest replaying games in any simulation game would ever be able to properly replay games between similar skill teams. Sure, I can tell you without even simming it out that the '92 Jays would cream the '02 Jays over the course of a full season. Now play the '92 Jays against some of the other great World Series teams and I will throw any sim results out the window. You just can't consider every variable in those cases where skill is so close (ie. leadership, coaching decisions, stadium factors, fan noise/distractions, lights.... or even more specific....player x hits low curves well and high fastballs and pitcher y happens to only throw those two things well so does he adapt or challenge him?.... etc.). Still it is fun to do anyway Last edited by JAttractive; 07-22-2002 at 09:43 PM.

07-22-2002, 01:55 AM	#2
Mrexbaseball Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 471 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	That sucks...hopefully this will be improved in OOTP5, because I myself have experienced crappy instances like this one.

07-22-2002, 01:09 PM	#4
JML Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The act or process of locating. Posts: 2,154	I think in OOTP the object of outfield in is to prevent a bloop single. It doesn't necessarily improve the chance of a play at the plate. Lamorak is probably right on this one, Ordonez had to go back on the ball, so he had no play at home. With OF at normal depth, he might have actually had a better shot at Jones.

07-22-2002, 04:46 PM	#5
alhill Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 79	The point is that it's game 5 of the World Series, and you at least want the outfielder to throw home even if there is no chance. What's there to lose? The fact that he doesn't even try to throw leads to believe that there is something wrong with the AI. It may very well be the case that Mags had to go back to catch the ball, but the pbp should either say so or at least humor the player by having the OF heave it toward home plate.

07-22-2002, 04:56 PM	#6
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	Yep, it sounds like one of the many situations where the same line of play-by-play is used in many different cases. The other that comes to mind is the double-play ball that never seems to result in a double play. The problem is that there is a finite number of play-by-play lines that have to be used to describe a nearly infinite number of different situations. This means there are bound to be many cases where the pbp text doesn't quite jive with what really happened. Admittedly, there should be more lines of pbp to handle unique situtations such as this.

07-22-2002, 06:48 PM	#8
alhill Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 79	Not the point steely glint: the point is it's the WS: wouldn't you at least throw it anyway? You lose nothing by throwing it and you gain in the .01% chance that the guy trips and falls running home. Nobody is arguing that a throw after catching a ball hit over your head is easy. Can you imagine in a WS game, a guy making such a catch and then just tossing the ball to the crowd and walking to the dugout?

07-22-2002, 08:56 PM	#11
alhill Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 79	Very interesting post, JAttractive; I think you are largely right.

07-22-2002, 09:02 PM	#12
JAttractive All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Posts: 1,135	Thanks, I also just editted a few parts that I realized I could have been clearer on too.