this is so very wrong. - Page 2

mottyl · 03-28-2003, 07:55 PM

I'd agree with the whole thread: while a player's future stats should be mostly based on ratings and not previous stats, AI decisions regarding roster make-up and playing time should be based more heavily on current stats than they are now.

Also, I think there may be too many ratings hits within a single season for older players. The development algorithms seem to be better at reducing the large number of players who hang on into their 40's (ie. their decline is starting earlier), but the declines may be a little too steep now, especially during a season.

Henry · 03-28-2003, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ctorg
I think the key is to not bring up real players when making the argument. Even if your argument is valid (which I think it is here), that automatically prompts everyone to remind you that the game doesn't know people's names. The reason is that the majority of the people who have had problems are people who use real current players and feel that the computer isn't behaving realistically with them, and when that's the problem (i.e. handling them as a real manager would in real life), it's not OOTP that's at fault, but the roster set.

So when making these arguments, one should avoid naming names (at least if they are known players).

I agree about mentioning names, but another things we're forgetting is that we mentally "rate" players we know based on what they have done. Clemens and Wells and Randy Jones have almost always been good - been respected - and few teams in their right minds would let them go. But in the OOTP universe Clemens and Wells and Jones will ride the same roller coaster in ratings changes as everyone else - and the odds are they will faulter and they will fail. "Joe Doe', who in real baseball is a scrub may suddenly become your leagues Star... and he won't falter and he'll pitch till he's 40...

OOTP is not a statistics simulator guys.... no matter what ratings a guy starts out with, those rating start to change with the 1st game he plays in OOTP.

Henry

MizzouRah · 03-28-2003, 10:30 PM

Good thread. I want arbitration, but I don't want to see good veterans dropped either.

Clemens, Perez, Nichting, etc... it seems like it's getting better, but when I lose a pitcher to injury, I don't want to see Clemens sitting in FA.

The game is tighter than last year, but I would like to see some AI improvement in the areas mentioned above as well.

Todd

mking55 · 03-28-2003, 11:07 PM

I have found the game to be biased in favor of power hitters. It places far too much value on them for scouting reports and trading. It's not right, it's just something that is obviously programmed in.

I assure you, Whitey Herzog would not be happy.

Tarin · 03-28-2003, 11:27 PM

Since when was David Wells respected?

Henry · 03-28-2003, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarin
Since when was David Wells respected?

LOL... got me there

Henry

Markus Heinsohn · 03-29-2003, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Treches
Stats do have and should have everything to do with it; otherwise, it would be utterly ludicrous. This is performance we're talking here not potential. Problem is, as noted, the game favors homers way too much (not only regarding stats but also ratings, i.e. draft).

Well, actually the ratings for batters are based on OPS, with a little modifier that gives good contact hitters a little more value. Then defense, speed etc. is factored in afterwards...

Treches · 03-29-2003, 05:27 AM

OK, but what happens with the new players that get generated? Seems that the AI favors the homers' rating way too much when drafting, in my opinion. Also, does the modifier for contact-hitters treat a, say, .340 guy the same way as a .300 one?

boomboom · 03-29-2003, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixfour210
Many players, in real life, retire because of personal reasons or because they can't handle the rigorous training anymore. But if they decided to play, they wouldn't go from a 3.00 ERA to a 11.50 one or a .340 average to a .220 at least in most cases.

It's usually a gradual change. And by the time the player has gradually diminished his skills, his contract is up. [/B]

I am just going to say one player, Jeff Cirillo!!!

Sweed · 03-29-2003, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CubsSox
What I find totally unrealistic is David Wells in my season went from a three and a half star pitcher, who made the all-star team... then I guess the "Old Age" kicked and he dropped down to a one star shmuck! He didn't win a single game after that.

As sixfour said, when a player decides to continue playing their skills won't crap out on them drastic in the span of one season. Similar to that, they wouldn't crap out drastically on a course of one season. I could see if Wells dropped a half star, or maybe a whole star. But not two and a half stars!

It does happen. Think back to 1991 when the Cubs signed Dave Smith as their closer the guy totally lost it. I know he had a bad knee but the point is he didn't tell anyone and tried to pitch and was never good again.

I'll give you another pro athlete that tanked and was not in any way physically related. Jim Everett of the then LA Rams. I know football not baseball but just comes to mind as an example of someone that just fell apart.

Matteo · 03-29-2003, 11:50 AM

I don't agree stats should have more value in a players valuation. Stats are just a randomization of a players rating. A hits rating of "5" means .270, so if a player hits .280 in a season it is just because of statistical variation.

However, in his next AB his is expected to hit .270 again. Probably Marcus programmed the game in such a way that (younger) players have their rating increase lets say from 5.00 to 5.10 to 5.20 etc. so that the stats (without variation) should expect to go up. Don't forget stats are just output, ratings are input!

What I agree on is that players age too soon and too fast, but I recall Marcus was going to fix that in the next patch.

Kemp · 03-29-2003, 02:43 PM

But remember, the scout doesn't know the players ACTUAL ratings. It would seem that at some point, the AI should take the "output" and realize that maybe they have a false realization about the "input" (the ratings).

There are many instances where a scout says, "this kid will never make it" and he turns into a good player. Same the other way ("this kid will be a star"). But at some point, when the stats say otherwise, the AI should adjust.

Henry · 03-29-2003, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kemp
But remember, the scout doesn't know the players ACTUAL ratings. It would seem that at some point, the AI should take the "output" and realize that maybe they have a false realization about the "input" (the ratings).

There are many instances where a scout says, "this kid will never make it" and he turns into a good player. Same the other way ("this kid will be a star"). But at some point, when the stats say otherwise, the AI should adjust.

Interesting and on the surface seems right - but - what should the AI adjust ?? It's opinion of the player ? And if so, doesn't that lead to even more confusion when trying to figure out player value ?

Example: John Doe is an "avg" player, has ratings around "5" and should hit maybe .280 ... he goes on a binge (a result that is nothing more than luck) and is hitting .320 even though his ratings are still "5". Should the scout say "this kid shows promise" when his ratings don't back it up ? ...or should the game start increasing the kid's ratings as a result of his lucky streak. Both options have their downsides....

Henry

magicmike · 03-29-2003, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
Example: John Doe is an "avg" player, has ratings around "5" and should hit maybe .280 ... he goes on a binge (a result that is nothing more than luck) and is hitting .320 even though his ratings are still "5". Should the scout say "this kid shows promise" when his ratings don't back it up ? ...or should the game start increasing the kid's ratings as a result of his lucky streak. Both options have their downsides....

But I don't think the original poster's concern had anything at all to do with how the a.i. evaluates a player on a lucky streak. I think his concern is about a computer a.i. routine that will sit a .326 hitter in favor of a .198 hitter (with all other major stats more or less equal) and will not recognize a problem with that.

Henry · 03-29-2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by magicmike
But I don't think the original poster's concern had anything at all to do with how the a.i. evaluates a player on a lucky streak. I think his concern is about a computer a.i. routine that will sit a .326 hitter in favor of a .198 hitter (with all other major stats more or less equal) and will not recognize a problem with that.

Ok... let's look at a situation...

Player A rated all 6's and currently hitting .250
Player B rated all 4's and currently hitting .320

Problem is putting Player B in the game effectively gives you a weaker lineup... as he comes to bat, he still is using 4's.

If we start to add in "adjustments" to the game for streaks - then the whole stats/rating relationship will be stressed to remain accurate over the season.

I don't know... seems to me if Player B was on my team in the real world and he seemed hot - I "might" put him in the game... but I'd more likely go with my proven player (A).

ps: and your comment about "more or less equal" can't be qualified either. It's highly unlikely the two players your talking about will have identical ratings - thus the game is going to have to pick the ighest rated player... unless you start to add coding that says "if these guys are within 10% and guy B is currently hitting better then use him" type logic... which I think would really risk the accuract of the entire ratings engine....

Henry

magicmike · 03-29-2003, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
If we start to add in "adjustments" to the game for streaks - then the whole stats/rating relationship will be stressed to remain accurate over the season.

ps: and your comment about "more or less equal" can't be qualified either. It's highly unlikely the two players your talking about will have identical ratings - thus the game is going to have to pick the ighest rated player... unless you start to add coding that says "if these guys are within 10% and guy B is currently hitting better then use him" type logic... which I think would really risk the accuract of the entire ratings engine....
Henry

But again, chinaski's example has nothing to do with streaks. His example is about player A who is a proven better producer over the course of a full season being sit down in favor of player B who in fact does not produce as well over the course of a full season, and the a.i. cannot recognize this.

Re p.s.: I'm looking at the actual example given: the two individual baskets of ratings that happen to be called Overbay and Munson in chinaski's case. In that case Overbay has better ratings except for power, and Overbay actually outperforms Munson over the course of a full season, especially in batting average. But the a.i. favors Munson. So, I'm a little confused. Are we saying that this is not a problem, or are we saying that it just can't be fixed?

sixfour210 · 03-29-2003, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
I agree about mentioning names, but another things we're forgetting is that we mentally "rate" players we know based on what they have done. Clemens and Wells and Randy Jones have almost always been good - been respected - and few teams in their right minds would let them go. But in the OOTP universe Clemens and Wells and Jones will ride the same roller coaster in ratings changes as everyone else - and the odds are they will faulter and they will fail. "Joe Doe', who in real baseball is a scrub may suddenly become your leagues Star... and he won't falter and he'll pitch till he's 40...

OOTP is not a statistics simulator guys.... no matter what ratings a guy starts out with, those rating start to change with the 1st game he plays in OOTP.

Henry

Who is Randy Jones?

biggamejrs · 03-29-2003, 07:50 PM

ZRandy Jones was a pretty good pitcher in the late 70's early 80's. But I think he meant Johnson.

he was 100-123 in 10 years. His era was 3.42. His best year was 1976, he won 22 games.

[img]www.animalcenter.org/.../ 2000/RandyJones.htm[/img]

biggamejrs · 03-29-2003, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by biggamejrs
ZRandy Jones was a pretty good pitcher in the late 70's early 80's. But I think he meant Johnson.

he was 100-123 in 10 years. His era was 3.42. His best year was 1976, he won 22 games.

[img]www.animalcenter.org/.../ 2000/RandyJones.htm[/img]

KC · 03-29-2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chinaski
As far as Joe Charbonneau and Maas go, they were just one hit wonders. Didnt both of them go down due to personal and health reasons?

Charbonneau went down for health issues, if I understand correctly.

Maas always pulled the ball, and couldn't hit pitches on the outside part of the plate.

03-28-2003, 11:27 PM	#25
Tarin Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: J-Ville Posts: 325	Since when was David Wells respected? __________________ T

03-29-2003, 05:27 AM	#28
Treches Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Damned Hell Posts: 2,150	OK, but what happens with the new players that get generated? Seems that the AI favors the homers' rating way too much when drafting, in my opinion. Also, does the modifier for contact-hitters treat a, say, .340 guy the same way as a .300 one? __________________ The Computer Baseball League

03-29-2003, 11:50 AM	#31
Matteo Major Leagues Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL Posts: 473	I don't agree stats should have more value in a players valuation. Stats are just a randomization of a players rating. A hits rating of "5" means .270, so if a player hits .280 in a season it is just because of statistical variation. However, in his next AB his is expected to hit .270 again. Probably Marcus programmed the game in such a way that (younger) players have their rating increase lets say from 5.00 to 5.10 to 5.20 etc. so that the stats (without variation) should expect to go up. Don't forget stats are just output, ratings are input! What I agree on is that players age too soon and too fast, but I recall Marcus was going to fix that in the next patch. __________________ ESPN The Show live chat during 2004 ALCS: Julie (Boston): Do you think Jeter does the fist pump everytime he disappoints a woman in bed? Or does he save it for when he's with A-Rod? Bill Simmons: Whoops - I didn't mean to post that. Really, I didn't.

03-29-2003, 07:50 PM	#38
biggamejrs Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Greenville, USA Posts: 212	ZRandy Jones was a pretty good pitcher in the late 70's early 80's. But I think he meant Johnson. he was 100-123 in 10 years. His era was 3.42. His best year was 1976, he won 22 games. [img]www.animalcenter.org/.../ 2000/RandyJones.htm[/img] __________________ Go Braves!! Last edited by biggamejrs; 03-29-2003 at 07:54 PM.

03-28-2003, 07:55 PM	#21
mottyl Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 24	I'd agree with the whole thread: while a player's future stats should be mostly based on ratings and not previous stats, AI decisions regarding roster make-up and playing time should be based more heavily on current stats than they are now. Also, I think there may be too many ratings hits within a single season for older players. The development algorithms seem to be better at reducing the large number of players who hang on into their 40's (ie. their decline is starting earlier), but the declines may be a little too steep now, especially during a season.

03-28-2003, 10:30 PM	#23
MizzouRah Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Troy, Mo Posts: 6,266	Good thread. I want arbitration, but I don't want to see good veterans dropped either. Clemens, Perez, Nichting, etc... it seems like it's getting better, but when I lose a pitcher to injury, I don't want to see Clemens sitting in FA. The game is tighter than last year, but I would like to see some AI improvement in the areas mentioned above as well. Todd

03-28-2003, 11:07 PM	#24
mking55 All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Boading, China Posts: 1,249	I have found the game to be biased in favor of power hitters. It places far too much value on them for scouting reports and trading. It's not right, it's just something that is obviously programmed in. I assure you, Whitey Herzog would not be happy.

03-29-2003, 02:43 PM	#32
Kemp All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,181	But remember, the scout doesn't know the players ACTUAL ratings. It would seem that at some point, the AI should take the "output" and realize that maybe they have a false realization about the "input" (the ratings). There are many instances where a scout says, "this kid will never make it" and he turns into a good player. Same the other way ("this kid will be a star"). But at some point, when the stats say otherwise, the AI should adjust.