Endurance ratings should change automatically when pitcher role changes

[douga]

The endurance rating should change based on whether a pitcher is starting or relieving a game.

Having my middle reliever act as a spot starter does not work because of his endurance rating staying at his reliever rating.

Currently, when I change a pitcher's role, the endurance rating does not change and it seems we have to manually edit it. This should be part of the game; we should not have to manually edit ratings.

Maybe, the endurance ratings are changed in the background and we just need to be made aware of this. I don't know. Something like 'when relieving starters endurance ratings drop by 4... when starting, reliever endurance ratings are increased by 4.'

[sfgiants88]

Ebdurabnce

But back to the point. If endurance ratings changed in that manner, what would prevent all the best relievers from starting?

All the best pitchers would be starters and the relievers would be all the scrubs.

[douga]

Originally Posted by sfgiants88

what would prevent all the best relievers from starting?

The short response is, there is nothing preventing relievers from starting now.

But you do bring up a valid point that would need to be addressed if a change were to be made.

This was kind of a follow-up to another thread discussing whether relievers have the capability in real life to go for more than a few innings! The general consensus seemed to be, 'well, yeah, of course'.

My own answer would be that all pitcher's should be able to move back and forth between roles, but they would take time to get accustomed to the role. i.e. endurance and performance would drop until they get 'x' number of innings/games under their belt.

Part of your concern about all the 'best pitchers' being starters is already addressed in part, I believe, because when you change their role, their potential ratings seem to drop, and if this is factual, would you want to take your 5 rated potential closer and make him into a 3 potential starter?

Of course, if you don't officially change their role, then this might not happen? So you may also need some type of thing that automatically changes a pitcher's role based on how you are using them. (If that doesn't happen already).

A Main point of all this is to be able to have 'spot starters' who have an endurance greater than 3. So there may be another answer out there.

[bp_]

Originally Posted by douga

The endurance rating should change based on whether a pitcher is starting or relieving a game.

Having my middle reliever act as a spot starter does not work because of his endurance rating staying at his reliever rating.

Currently, when I change a pitcher's role, the endurance rating does not change and it seems we have to manually edit it. This should be part of the game; we should not have to manually edit ratings.

Maybe, the endurance ratings are changed in the background and we just need to be made aware of this. I don't know. Something like 'when relieving starters endurance ratings drop by 4... when starting, reliever endurance ratings are increased by 4.'

It shouldn't change just because you switch the guy. It should be a gradual decline in endurance if you keep the player in a relief role. I actually like the fact that if you switch a starter to a reliever you can allocate those endurance points to other categories in spring training.

[BobBob]

This all belies a more important point... relief pitchers are usually relief pitchers not because they have less physical endurance, but becuase they are not as good as most starters.

Most big league releif pitchers started in the minors but become releivers in the bigs because they don't have what it takes to start... usually a limited pitch selection. Much more rarely, they have a taxing delivery that prevetns them from going several innnings.

In OOTP, pitch selection seems to have nothing to do with a pitchers role.

Rather than get rid of endurance, I think there should two distinct aspects to "endurcance." First, physical endurance. Second, pitch selection. Going about 50/50. This would create a more realistic gaming environment.

[dodgecharger1968]

OK, I posted this before, but maybe this is the place for it...

My solution is that YOU choose the endurance. Pitchers with more pitches and a certain formula weight will maintain their ratings and velocity at higher endurance levels. Other pitchers will peter out at various "max" endurance ratings. I think that this is more realistic in that it's like telling a pitcher how to train. It should take time to change the endurance setting in mid-season, too, like at least a week (though you should have a good idea of what you'll get when it happens from "offseason workouts and scouting reports", etc.).

Some pitchers would be exceptional in short relief, and still solid in the rotation, others would be good starters yet no better in relief. And there would be a handful of guys who just can't go long innings with any effectiveness. I would do away with roles as such, then, and only use the endurance rating and this formula weight rating. I think this is similar to real life and adaptable to a simulation.

It drives me nuts how impossible it is to switch relievers to starters when it happens ALL THE TIME in MLB!

[rocknfire7]

How about a starter endurance rating, reliever endurance rating, and a closer endurance rating for every pitcher.?

[dodgecharger1968]

I'd really like it if the game would reflect that some guys make great relievers and effective starters, and others are effective as starters and can't give you much extra in relief. So separate endurance ratings are a start, but you'd need ALL different ratings depending on the role. Which would be easiest to accomplish with some sort of consistent, player specific change-over formula, and maybe a modifier accounting for repetoire. Select the endurance off a slider, and the ratings change accordingly.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by rocknfire7

How about a starter endurance rating, reliever endurance rating, and a closer endurance rating for every pitcher.?

I like that idea.

[BigCity]

I don't think you have to change anything drastic. As long as the endurance rating is flexible to change based on usage. If you take a guy with an endurance of 5 (out of 20 let's say), he should be good for about 2-3 innings. If you start to use him as a starter, there should be a chance that his endurance "may" rise. Each player would have his own characteristics - some could increase, some could not. As a SP ages, or if he is constantly put in the relief role, his endurance may decrease. Financial demands could be keyed off a combinatioon of endurance and success.

By the way, I do not agree with simply changing endurance based on use. Endurance is a physical charateristic and should be treated as such.

[Mike Donlin]

But it's not quite right to say that a pitcher's endurance has dropped when he becomes a reliever and only throws 2-3 innings per game; rather, it's that over the course of a 5 game cycle, that pitcher will pitch as much as a regular starter--in other words, something like 2-3 outings of 1-3 innings each. The number of pitches per cycle is lower for relievers, but that is because of the greater number of outings.

To be sure, endurance is a trait, but it's within a very small range. Some pitchers can throw 90 pitches effectively, then tire, while others can throw 120. But it is still within that range, regardless of whether it comes in one outing (starter) or in two or three (reliever.)

This also underscores the point, made above, that relievers are not relievers because of endurance, but because of talent and, primarily, pitch selection.

So, in the end, I would favor a kind of pitches per week number for endurance, with some weight or penalty given to number of outings. You can choose to use those number of pitches as a starter or reliever, but let's give up the fiction that relievers are somehow constitutionally different from starters.

[RonCo]

The problem is, again, with the model.

The game uses the Endurance parameter to limit how long a guy can successfully pitch. This sounds like it's a physical thing. But as has been discussed here, a pitcher's ability to throw more than 5-6 innings is based on both his physical conditioning and the quality/quantity of his pitches.

Think about it for awhile. How would you model (using current day OOTP parameters) a starting pitcher who is physically fit enough to go 9 innings, but has only 1 major league pitch and a second decent one?

My suggested answer: you give him solid ratings, but middling-to-low endurance. This way, the guy roars through the line-up for 4-5 innings, but hitters catch up to him by the third time through the lineup and he's gone by the 7th inning. The real life guy feels fine, and hits the showers knowing he could have completed the game if he hadn't made that mistake to A-Rod. The OOTP guy leaves the game ina pool of sweat. But the stats work out about the same.

In this light, an OOTP guy with two solid pitches gets a little better endurance, and a guy with 2 great pitches and a third solid one can complete a lot of games...this guy gets a max endurance rating.

Of course, you can also use the OOTP endurance rating to model physical fitness, which, of course, makes logical sense. But note that a guy with three brilliant pitches who gets physically drained after 85 tosses looks just like a guy with 1.5 pitches who can run a marathon.

This is the can or worms that gets opened when the modeling process doesn't start at the right place. Pitchers really _do_ need individual pitch quality ratings that make a difference in the game engine. Hitters really do need ratings that say if they can hit a breaking pitch or not. Markus can provide a higher-order rating that indexes these in order to reduce gameplay complexity, but since that's the way baseball works, the model really needs them in there. The advantages of getting the model right at that level is that questions like this have answers that make sense with regard to real life.

A more useful design would seem to be something along the lines of:

Pitcher Ratings:
----------------
Pitch Quality: Fastball A
Pitch Quality: Curveball C-
Pitch Quality: Slider B-
Pitch Quality: Changeup D
Current Fitness (Endurance?): 98 pitches
Current Max Endurance: 125 pitches

Under this scheme, the pitcher can go in any role and pitch up to 98 pitches without losing anything. From 98-125, he's losing effectiveness due to fatigue. After 125 pitches his effectiveness falls off dramatically.

However, also under this scheme, the pitcher's repertoire can be given some index that would work in tandem with his physical status. So, while the guy above can, on a given day, go 125 pitches with some level of effectiveness, the likelyhood of that happening given the qulaity of his pitch set may be remote.

This approach would also allow the modeling of stretching relievers to starters, for example, or having a guy who used to start atrophy in the pen, or proper effect of injury, or relegation of a player to the pen for quality reasons, or prudent effect of pitching with limited rest, or ... well ... any other physical/quality scenario that I can think of.

[dodgecharger1968]

OK, there are a lot of legitimate points that address real life circumstances. But I think here, we're working with ideas that are more complicated than necessary to simulate reality, and yet not approaching the complexity of reality. Why not get into soundness of mechanics, diet, regimen, natural bone structure, ligament flexibility, drinking habits, home life drama, etc?

Some guys are relievers because they aren't good enough to start. Some guys pitch in relief because they can throw three digit heat for about 20 pitches tops. Or they have a rubber arm. Some guys are relievers because they are too old to start, or too young, or the rotation is crowded with guys who suck in relief. Some guys start because the team has no better option, regardless of their repetoire.

But do we really need a back story for every single guy's role in this game? Do we need to know how well he throws each pitch in his arsenal? I don't know, the thought of keeping track of all of these things in the course of a game boggles my mind. I stand by my own suggestion. Ratings should at least change according to role, as they would in real life.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by dodgecharger1968

OK, there are a lot of legitimate points that address real life circumstances. But I think here, we're working with ideas that are more complicated than necessary to simulate reality, and yet not approaching the complexity of reality. Why not get into soundness of mechanics, diet, regimen, natural bone structure, ligament flexibility, drinking habits, home life drama, etc?

Some guys are relievers because they aren't good enough to start. Some guys pitch in relief because they can throw three digit heat for about 20 pitches tops. Or they have a rubber arm. Some guys are relievers because they are too old to start, or too young, or the rotation is crowded with guys who suck in relief. Some guys start because the team has no better option, regardless of their repetoire.

But do we really need a back story for every single guy's role in this game? Do we need to know how well he throws each pitch in his arsenal? I don't know, the thought of keeping track of all of these things in the course of a game boggles my mind. I stand by my own suggestion. Ratings should at least change according to role, as they would in real life.

IRL the ratings don't change because of the role they are in. A pitcher's curve ball doesn't break anymore because he's a starter. Or his slider isn't more unhittable because he's a reliever.

The simplest way to mimic real life is to give pitchers a starters endurance and relievers endurance. The way endurance works in this game is that the pitcher loses effectiveness after x number of pitches. The reason a starting pitcher loses effectiveness can be any number of reasons, conditioning, pitcher only has one or two good pitches, he loses concentration, blah, blah, blah.

For the reliever's endurance, it should correspond to how often as a reliever the pitcher can come out of the pen. The higher the endurance, the more often you can use him. These are the guys with the rubber arms. The guys with low endurance won't be able to pitch will only be able to pitch once or twice a week; and never on consecutive days.

This way you have pitchers that have both adequate endurance to do both start and relieve. These are guys who's roles will be determined by their other ratings (whether they are good enough to start) and what the team needs (maybe they're good enough to start but the team really need a closer or set up man).

Then you'll have some guys that can only start. And others that can only relieve.

[BigCity]

I still think endurance should adjust itself based on usage. If your 3 inning relievers starts a game, he'd likely go 5-6 before falling to "B" grades - but maybe next time out his 3 inning endurance would be 4 innings. It bothers me a lot to take a 3 inning RP and say "I think I'll put him in the rotation and simply make him a 7 inning pitcher". If things were that easy, there wouldn't be any reason to go looking for a new starter if you needed one.

[dodgecharger1968]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

IRL the ratings don't change because of the role they are in. A pitcher's curve ball doesn't break anymore because he's a starter. Or his slider isn't more unhittable because he's a reliever.

You don't think so? I think everybody's got a little something extra when they know they've only got to throw 30 pitches. In fact, there's also the "pinch hitter" factor, where you make the most of your opportunities when they're few and far between. But physically, yeah, I think relievers aren't pacing themselves, they use their best pitch every time they need it, reach back on every fastball, put full zip on every curve. They don't worry about throwing balls because their pitch count isn't important. Plus, in the game situation, the hitters don't prepare for the bull pen like they do for the day's starter. In fact, the change of pace is one of the best things working in a relief pitcher's favor. Everyone ought to be a little better in relief, ratingswise. That doesn't mean that that's the best way to use them, because any given reliever can't be expected to get half the innings of a starter. That's the trade off as I've always seen it.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by BigCity

I still think endurance should adjust itself based on usage. If your 3 inning relievers starts a game, he'd likely go 5-6 before falling to "B" grades - but maybe next time out his 3 inning endurance would be 4 innings. It bothers me a lot to take a 3 inning RP and say "I think I'll put him in the rotation and simply make him a 7 inning pitcher". If things were that easy, there wouldn't be any reason to go looking for a new starter if you needed one.

BigCity that works for that group of pitchers that can handle either role. But that doesn't account for pitchers that, for whatever reason, aren't effective as relief pitchers. And the same for relievers, that aren't as effective as starting pitchers.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by dodgecharger1968

You don't think so? I think everybody's got a little something extra when they know they've only got to throw 30 pitches. In fact, there's also the "pinch hitter" factor, where you make the most of your opportunities when they're few and far between. But physically, yeah, I think relievers aren't pacing themselves, they use their best pitch every time they need it, reach back on every fastball, put full zip on every curve. They don't worry about throwing balls because their pitch count isn't important. Plus, in the game situation, the hitters don't prepare for the bull pen like they do for the day's starter. In fact, the change of pace is one of the best things working in a relief pitcher's favor. Everyone ought to be a little better in relief, ratingswise. That doesn't mean that that's the best way to use them, because any given reliever can't be expected to get half the innings of a starter. That's the trade off as I've always seen it.

i think we're probably looking at the same thing from different angles. i prefer to think that the game's ratings for pitchers represent that the best that a given pitcher can pitch assuming he's rested. And his ineffectiveness would occur when he's tired.

So a pitcher with 10/7/7 ratings and a 9 out of 10 endurance rating might have a 2.00 ERA.

But a pitcher with the same ratings with a 5 out of 10 endurance rating might have a much higher era, because he gets tired and starts getting hit in the middle innings. But if you take the pitcher with a 5 endurance and make him a closer, he's only pitching one inning. This way he never gets fatigued and he ends up with a better ERA. Same thing with the pitcher with the 9 endurance, pitching one inning he'll less likely be scored upon, and would probably have a better ERA.

i can see your argument about the pitcher being able to pick it up if they are only pitching an inning. But to do that in the game, the ai would have to have to "tell" the pitcher that he's only pitching one inning. And the AI would have to "know" when is an appropriate time to "tell" the pitcher that. For instance, if a reliever comes in the sixth inning of a blow out, i would want that pitcher to pitch for as many innings as he could. A closer, that comes into a tie game in the ninth inning isn't guaranteed to pitch only one inning.

Plus, if the pitcher isn't pacing himself then he would have to be gassed after so many pitches and would have to come out of the game. And then we'd get into the argument of how many pitches can a pitcher throw going all out. Is it 30 pitches? 45? 50? Is it different for every pitcher? And what happens in the middle of an at bat if he reaches that magic number? And all of that would wreck havoc on online leagues...

And having all pitchers have better ratings when they relieve doesn't allow for pitchers that don't do well in the other role. Having separate endurance ratings gives you that without having to go into the pitcher's repetoire, his "clutchness", his concentration, etc.

In closing, instead of saying that most pitchers are better as relievers, i would say that most pitchers are more successful (would have better ERAs) as relievers. This is because, as relievers, they are less likely to have to pitch with fatigue.

[BigCity]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

BigCity that works for that group of pitchers that can handle either role. But that doesn't account for pitchers that, for whatever reason, aren't effective as relief pitchers. And the same for relievers, that aren't as effective as starting pitchers.

True - and that's why you have to have another rating that defines whether a pitcher is flexible enough to change, or not. For historical players, you can give them a "0" if they were exclusively in one role, or a "9" if they switched regularly. For fictional players, you assign the rating randomly and keep it hidden - so you have to try the guy there to see if he can change or not.

[Elendil]

How about this: a ratings curve for pitcher performance over pitch count. Some pitchers do better when they're just starting out, then decline over higher pitch counts. Others do badly in the first couple of innings, then settle down and pitch well before tiring. All pitchers, of course, start to deteriorate after a certain number of pitches, but apparently, pitchers have different performance curves. The ones whose performance deteriorates quickly are obviously better as relievers but could be starters, and those whose performance takes some time to reach peak are obviously better as starters than relievers. Most pitchers are probably somewhere in between and could be used as either, depending on what a team needs.