OVR & POT rating for pitchers borked?

[Zeyes]

dola,

a couple prelim things I've found:

the make-or-break point for starting pitchers seems to be an endurance of 110. My guinea pig was rated 34 with an endurance of 109, but 73 (!) with endurance set to 110.

Also, there's something very weird going on with the OVR ratings scale. For some reason, everything goes boom around OVR=48:

Stuff=98, Move=100, Control=100 ---> OVR=48
Stuff=97, Move=100, Control=100 ---> OVR=41 (!)

This happens with any rating that has an effect on OVR...Stuff, Movement, Control, GB%, HBP, they all exhibit that break between 41 and 48.

Addendum: It's not necessarily between 41 and 48 though...in my test with the changed Stuff PCM (see below), the break was between 33 and 39 (but also consistently for all ratings). Really strange.

Okay, on to the actual test: I generated a severely lopsided player (Stuff 160, Movement and Control each 80), and placed him into four differently generated player pools, each of which was repeated 3 times to reduce the statistical noise a bit. Pool 1 had all default PCMs of 1.000, Pool 2 had Pitcher Stuff increased to 1.500, Pool 3 had Pitcher Movement kicked up to 1.500, and Pool 4 did the same thing with Pitcher Control. Here's how the OVRs for the player looked like (3 results for each pool):

Pool 1: 51, 55, 54
Pool 2: 42, 42, 42
Pool 3: 42, 43, 44
Pool 4: 45, 48, 45

That's a bit inconclusive, but it does look like the league averages might be taken individually for each skill, as the Stuff-enhanced pool was cutting down on our Stuff-enhanced guinea pig's OVR the most. Caveat: Alternatively, it's possible that the skills are affected differently by the PCMs, such that a 1.500 in Control does less than a 1.500 in Stuff...

[kq76]

Thanks for doing all that Zeyes! There definitely appears to be a problem or problems somewhere with it. Hopefully we can get a tester to TT this.

[Recte44]

I also posted on OVR/POT issues here with no response as of yet.

[sfgiants88]

Thank you for taking the time to look into this guys.

[Geebob]

Originally Posted by sfgiants88

Thank you for taking the time to look into this guys.

Excellent work guys. I didn't believe this when I read it, but I think about all of your conclusions proved out in my universe as well. Very strange things happening with pitcher ratings.

[marky32082]

Originally Posted by Zeyes

That permeates the whole game though. Take a look at how the GB% affects the estimated pitcher ERA in the editor...high GB% = large ERA, low GB% = small ERA. So the OVR rating at least follows along with everything else in the game, even if the underlying model might be questionable.

I was under the impression that low GB% is more desireable as long as HR% is low. The thinking is it's easier to make an out from a fly ball than it is for a ground ball.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by marky32082

I was under the impression that low GB% is more desireable as long as HR% is low. The thinking is it's easier to make an out from a fly ball than it is for a ground ball.

The problem is, at least from what I've read and sorry no sources come immediately to mind, but a low GB% increases, at least in real life, one's HRs Allowed.

As for the out part, I don't know. You usually stick your worst fielders at the corner outfield positions (and 1B, but let's ignore that for now b/c a 1B doesn't catch a hit ball a lot of the time) and it seems to me you see a lot of especially bad plays out there and some don't seem bad but they are because the OFer doesn't even get close to the ball. I think IF defenders are usually better than their OF counterparts. So yeah, a fly out is probably easier for an OFer than a ground out would be for them, but they're for the most part not trained for that and they're usually worse fielders. Then you also have the issue of if a ball is hit to the outfield for an out but with a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs then that's a run scored whereas hit for an out to the infield it's probably not. You also have greater opportunities for DPs with balls hit to the IF. I could go on I'm sure.

[battists]

I'm going to speak with Markus with this somewhat, and see if we can figure out if there is some way to improve that formula.

Thanks,

Steve

[battists]

Merged related threads...

[battists]

This was tweaked somewhat in the most recent patch. Can anyone tell me what they are seeing these days?

[kq76]

Originally Posted by battists

This was tweaked somewhat in the most recent patch. Can anyone tell me what they are seeing these days?

It's still screwed up.

Endurance: With OOTP2006 a player like Pedro Martinez in his prime would have relatively low overall / potential ratings just because his endurance was low for a starter when in reality he was the best pitcher by far during that stretch of his career and anybody would be an idiot for not ranking him a great pitcher back then. As long as you can start, good. Of course, the more endurance the better, but it doesn't matter nearly as much as it does in OOTP. Who would you want, an innings eater who is about average or a pitcher who is awesome but barely gives you 5 innings a start? For me it is not at all a close decision (I'd of course take the Pedro-like player every time), but it's a close decision going by OOTP2006's ratings.

Role: I still strongly disagree that just changing one's role should give a pitcher a huge boost in overall / potential ratings. That deceives people into believing a reliever is better than he really is. There's a good reason why he's a reliever and not given more innings: he's not that good. Someone shouldn't be able to trick another person into thinking a player is better than he is just by switching his role.

GB%: It still has the opposite affect of in real life and has no affect on HRA. To be fair, I seem to recall this being worse when I first looked at it, but it's still not right.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by kq76

It's still screwed up.

Endurance: With OOTP2006 a player like Pedro Martinez in his prime would have relatively low overall / potential ratings just because his endurance was low for a starter when in reality he was the best pitcher by far during that stretch of his career and anybody would be an idiot for not ranking him a great pitcher back then. As long as you can start, good. Of course, the more endurance the better, but it doesn't matter nearly as much as it does in OOTP. Who would you want, an innings eater who is about average or a pitcher who is awesome but barely gives you 5 innings a start? For me it is not at all a close decision (I'd of course take the Pedro-like player every time), but it's a close decision going by OOTP2006's ratings.

Role: I still strongly disagree that just changing one's role should give a pitcher a huge boost in overall / potential ratings. That deceives people into believing a reliever is better than he really is. There's a good reason why he's a reliever and not given more innings: he's not that good. Someone shouldn't be able to trick another person into thinking a player is better than he is just by switching his role.

GB%: It still has the opposite affect of in real life and has no affect on HRA. To be fair, I seem to recall this being worse when I first looked at it, but it's still not right.

Yea, IMO, like most problems in regards to pitchers in this game it comes down to the need to eliminate the "relief pitcher" and make it so that 95% of all pitchers created have the endurance to be able to start. Starters become starters because they are the better pitchers, not because they have more endurance...although endurance should effect whether a pitcher can regularly go 5-6 innings or 7-8 innings. However, that endurance rating should have a minimal effect on the overall rating of the pitcher because if they aren't very good they aren't going to be around for those later innings anyway.

[battists]

Guys, just FYI, Markus will definitely be looking at tweaking the overall ratings for pitchers in 2007. After much discussion, most of us feel the problem is simply that endurance plays too much of a factor.

At any rate, this is on the list of things to look at in 2007, and I'm going to move this over to "Logged Issues." Thanks!

Steve