2 Major Post 5.10 issues

mtw · 04-14-2003, 03:33 PM

I will state once more that as a customer, I appreciate the close attention given to this product by its developer, a service superior to any computer software product I have used, ever. A couple of the issues I had brought up in prior threads and did not see in other posts were addressed in this patch, which certainly makes me feel that my concerns and observations are attended to.

That said, there remain a couple of issues of major concern to me. After 3 simmed seasons with OOTP5.10...

1) AI depth usage/fatigue issues: The AI's use of its depth chart and fatigue substitutions are causing all position players to miss 10+ games per season, which has a huge impact on individual stat totals and likely on team performance. The most games started (out of 154) for any player in these three post-5.10 patch seasons was 144, the most games played 147. In my opinion (and this is only my opinion), this represents a major problem for achieving "realistic" individual position player results. An adjustment to individual player fatigue "tolerance" (I've posted already on the concept of an individual player "fatigue" rating) and AI depth chart logic would probably be needed to address this effectively.

2) For Deadball Era players: The AI does not account for SB and sacrifices in its Team Strategies in Deadball Era, so these totals are always very low, a problem without any reasonable workaround (except to go in before every game and manually change the AI's team strategies--much too cumbersome to be workable). This wasn't a problem in previous OOTP4 versions because manager tendencies could be set manually in Team Setup for AI teams, without the AI resetting them. This was hardly ideal, but it worked. Ideally, the "Era" setting in League Setup would cause the AI Team Strategies to adjust appropriately in all areas. I believe that having the AI Team Strategies use as a default starting point the frequencies from the League Era setting would be the easiest way to achieve this(Stolen Bases would have to be added to League Era setting). From their, the AI could tweak it's Team Strategies in the same manner it does now.

Steve Kuffrey · 04-14-2003, 03:40 PM

I'm curious what numbers you expect in the first topic? The one's that you mentioned seemed fairly close to me, maybe off by a bit but not a huge amount.

SunDevil · 04-14-2003, 03:44 PM

The amount of time taken off by players have been discussed before in other posts. Someone did a study and found that only seven people in the 2002 season played in all 162 games. I can't seem to find the post but if you do a search you will find that not many players even reach 154-158 games area either. I hope this helps.

Karl Marx · 04-14-2003, 03:51 PM

How many players played in a 162 games last season in the bigs?

Jody

chinaski · 04-14-2003, 03:56 PM

Missing 10+ games seems all to normal to me.

As of right now, there are only 18 players who have played in every game so far this year in MLB.

sixto · 04-14-2003, 03:56 PM

Isn't the question how many played 155-162, or thereabout? I think a 3-season sample with nobody approaching 7 games of a full season is a pretty decent size for questioning if there is a small issue. {Edit: I am responding to the post immediately before mine.}

Treches · 04-14-2003, 04:05 PM

2002 (6): Beltran, Long, Tejada, ARod, A Boone, D Lee.

2001 (7): Long, Tejada, ARod, Delgado, L Gonzalez, O Cabrera, Abreu.

Treches · 04-14-2003, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixto
Isn't the question how many played 155-162, or thereabout? I think a 3-season sample with nobody approaching 7 games of a full season is a pretty decent size for questioning if there is a small issue. {Edit: I am responding to the post immediately before mine.}

This is a valid point. I haven't done any research myself as it is utterly tedious. If any is interested, go here: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/sbstats.htm

Hammer755 · 04-14-2003, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Treches
This is a valid point. I haven't done any research myself as it is utterly tedious. If any is interested, go here: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/sbstats.htm

It would probably be easier to use this:

2002 NL Leaders
2002 AL Leaders

2001 NL Leaders
2001 AL Leaders

2000 NL Leaders
2000 AL Leaders

Edit - Never mind, it only gives the Top 10, which usually only goes to about 159 or so games

GForce22 · 04-14-2003, 04:22 PM

well, Hammer, that tells you all you need to know. If the top 10 takes you only through 159 and NOBODY is reaching 150+ in OOTP, then there's definitely a problem there.

GH

satchel · 04-14-2003, 04:24 PM

I’m more curious about the second issue. Is the AI still resetting its manager tendencies before every game?

Steve Kuffrey · 04-14-2003, 04:28 PM

No but the computer owned teams change their tendencies based on the player talent.

Steve Kuffrey · 04-14-2003, 04:40 PM

Ok, I just simmed a fictional season 162 game sked, fatigue on, one human owned team and had 5 players play 162 games, I didn't count them but had a pretty good number play between 150-159 as well, this seems to be set pretty close as far as I can see. My test was for only one season but I don't know of anything that would make the results come out drastically different in any other.

dsvitak · 04-14-2003, 04:40 PM

Well, I am with MTW on this one.

In my league, I have the top 4 places in at bats.

Not right that my cleanup guy should have more ab's that EVERYBODIES leadoff guy.

bigphesta · 04-14-2003, 05:46 PM

don't look at at bats... look at PA's. Maybe the other guys walk more than your guys.

Unfriendlybob · 04-14-2003, 07:27 PM

Ok, I actually DID do 3 years of simulating and came up with these numbers for games played...

Code:

Games	2003 2004 2005
-----------------------
152+	100+ 100+ 100+
155+	55   57   58
158+	6    5    15
162+    0    1    6

I looked at the league leaders board that only counts the top 100 players. For each year at least 100 players played more than 152 games. In 2005 there was one player that played 163 games.

This is using default injury (normal) and fatigue on.

HolyCow98 · 04-14-2003, 07:43 PM

I've simmed 14 seasons, a slightly larger sample size....

I'm seeing some seasons where it is exactly how MTW has said..no one coming even close to 162 games...

And other times just like steve said with a number of players playing 160 + games...

In this particular league..I looked a little deeper in my attempt to see why it goes up and down....

Here is my opinion...two things...the way OOTP 5 handles fatigue and what kind of schedule you have....

From previous versions of OOTP it seems 5 has a quicker fatigue rate and the AI adjusts by resting its players more frequently. I always use Stickware for my schedules, unless I actually make one myself which is very rare due to the amount of time it can take to get just right, and with stickware you will get a good amount of variance with days off... seasons that were more that had more spread out days off and with fewer long streaks of games with few days off alway, atleast in this 14 season test...would produce a higher rate of players playing 158 games plus, which I think is what MTW is looking for...

Bears5122 · 04-14-2003, 07:50 PM

It's a computer game and will never handle fatigue like real life. I think the game does a good job and I'm sure in future versions and updates it will get tweaked to be better.

HolyCow98 · 04-14-2003, 07:59 PM

I think that the AI does a good job handling it....from what I've seen depending on the schedule, it will play it much how I probably would.

Mike D · 04-14-2003, 08:49 PM

I don't know if this has been asked, or even thought of, but is your season MTW lasting as long as a MLB season, meaning the number of days, or is it being shortened to accomadate the fewer games being played???

04-14-2003, 03:33 PM	#1
mtw All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 653	2 Major Post 5.10 issues I will state once more that as a customer, I appreciate the close attention given to this product by its developer, a service superior to any computer software product I have used, ever. A couple of the issues I had brought up in prior threads and did not see in other posts were addressed in this patch, which certainly makes me feel that my concerns and observations are attended to. That said, there remain a couple of issues of major concern to me. After 3 simmed seasons with OOTP5.10... 1) AI depth usage/fatigue issues: The AI's use of its depth chart and fatigue substitutions are causing all position players to miss 10+ games per season, which has a huge impact on individual stat totals and likely on team performance. The most games started (out of 154) for any player in these three post-5.10 patch seasons was 144, the most games played 147. In my opinion (and this is only my opinion), this represents a major problem for achieving "realistic" individual position player results. An adjustment to individual player fatigue "tolerance" (I've posted already on the concept of an individual player "fatigue" rating) and AI depth chart logic would probably be needed to address this effectively. 2) For Deadball Era players: The AI does not account for SB and sacrifices in its Team Strategies in Deadball Era, so these totals are always very low, a problem without any reasonable workaround (except to go in before every game and manually change the AI's team strategies--much too cumbersome to be workable). This wasn't a problem in previous OOTP4 versions because manager tendencies could be set manually in Team Setup for AI teams, without the AI resetting them. This was hardly ideal, but it worked. Ideally, the "Era" setting in League Setup would cause the AI Team Strategies to adjust appropriately in all areas. I believe that having the AI Team Strategies use as a default starting point the frequencies from the League Era setting would be the easiest way to achieve this(Stolen Bases would have to be added to League Era setting). From their, the AI could tweak it's Team Strategies in the same manner it does now.

04-14-2003, 03:40 PM	#2
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,023	I'm curious what numbers you expect in the first topic? The one's that you mentioned seemed fairly close to me, maybe off by a bit but not a huge amount. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

04-14-2003, 03:51 PM	#4
Karl Marx Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 213	How many players played in a 162 games last season in the bigs? Jody __________________ "The art of remembering and forgetting will also insure against sticking fast in some relationship of life, and make possible the realization of a complete freedom." Kierkegaard

04-14-2003, 04:05 PM	#7
Treches Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Damned Hell Posts: 2,150	2002 (6): Beltran, Long, Tejada, ARod, A Boone, D Lee. 2001 (7): Long, Tejada, ARod, Delgado, L Gonzalez, O Cabrera, Abreu. __________________ The Computer Baseball League

04-14-2003, 04:24 PM	#11
satchel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Ft Smith Ark. USA Posts: 2,681	tendencies I’m more curious about the second issue. Is the AI still resetting its manager tendencies before every game? __________________ JL Commish NPBL Rhode Island Reds ’33 ’34 ’35 TCBA San Francisco Railbornes ’74 ’76 ’77 ’78 FL New Orleans Black Sox ’56 ’57 ’58 ’59

04-14-2003, 03:44 PM	#3
SunDevil Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 373	The amount of time taken off by players have been discussed before in other posts. Someone did a study and found that only seven people in the 2002 season played in all 162 games. I can't seem to find the post but if you do a search you will find that not many players even reach 154-158 games area either. I hope this helps.

04-14-2003, 03:56 PM	#5
chinaski Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: end of the bar Posts: 296	Missing 10+ games seems all to normal to me. As of right now, there are only 18 players who have played in every game so far this year in MLB.

04-14-2003, 03:56 PM	#6
sixto Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,262	Isn't the question how many played 155-162, or thereabout? I think a 3-season sample with nobody approaching 7 games of a full season is a pretty decent size for questioning if there is a small issue. {Edit: I am responding to the post immediately before mine.}

04-14-2003, 04:22 PM	#10
GForce22 Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,654	well, Hammer, that tells you all you need to know. If the top 10 takes you only through 159 and NOBODY is reaching 150+ in OOTP, then there's definitely a problem there. GH

04-14-2003, 04:28 PM	#12
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,023	No but the computer owned teams change their tendencies based on the player talent. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

04-14-2003, 04:40 PM	#13
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,023	Ok, I just simmed a fictional season 162 game sked, fatigue on, one human owned team and had 5 players play 162 games, I didn't count them but had a pretty good number play between 150-159 as well, this seems to be set pretty close as far as I can see. My test was for only one season but I don't know of anything that would make the results come out drastically different in any other. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

04-14-2003, 04:40 PM	#14
dsvitak Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 5,359	Well, I am with MTW on this one. In my league, I have the top 4 places in at bats. Not right that my cleanup guy should have more ab's that EVERYBODIES leadoff guy.

04-14-2003, 05:46 PM	#15
bigphesta Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Des Moines, Iowa Posts: 1,366	don't look at at bats... look at PA's. Maybe the other guys walk more than your guys.

04-14-2003, 07:27 PM	#16
Unfriendlybob Bat Boy Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Georgia Posts: 16	Ok, I actually DID do 3 years of simulating and came up with these numbers for games played... Code: Games 2003 2004 2005 ----------------------- 152+ 100+ 100+ 100+ 155+ 55 57 58 158+ 6 5 15 162+ 0 1 6 I looked at the league leaders board that only counts the top 100 players. For each year at least 100 players played more than 152 games. In 2005 there was one player that played 163 games. This is using default injury (normal) and fatigue on. Last edited by Unfriendlybob; 04-14-2003 at 07:30 PM.

04-14-2003, 07:43 PM	#17
HolyCow98 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Douglasville, GA Posts: 2,735	I've simmed 14 seasons, a slightly larger sample size.... I'm seeing some seasons where it is exactly how MTW has said..no one coming even close to 162 games... And other times just like steve said with a number of players playing 160 + games... In this particular league..I looked a little deeper in my attempt to see why it goes up and down.... Here is my opinion...two things...the way OOTP 5 handles fatigue and what kind of schedule you have.... From previous versions of OOTP it seems 5 has a quicker fatigue rate and the AI adjusts by resting its players more frequently. I always use Stickware for my schedules, unless I actually make one myself which is very rare due to the amount of time it can take to get just right, and with stickware you will get a good amount of variance with days off... seasons that were more that had more spread out days off and with fewer long streaks of games with few days off alway, atleast in this 14 season test...would produce a higher rate of players playing 158 games plus, which I think is what MTW is looking for... __________________ NPBL Enjoying its 60th season Georgia GM

04-14-2003, 07:50 PM	#18
Bears5122 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 847	It's a computer game and will never handle fatigue like real life. I think the game does a good job and I'm sure in future versions and updates it will get tweaked to be better.

04-14-2003, 07:59 PM	#19
HolyCow98 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Douglasville, GA Posts: 2,735	I think that the AI does a good job handling it....from what I've seen depending on the schedule, it will play it much how I probably would. __________________ NPBL Enjoying its 60th season Georgia GM

04-14-2003, 08:49 PM	#20
Mike D Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: In a van, down by the river Posts: 2,802	I don't know if this has been asked, or even thought of, but is your season MTW lasting as long as a MLB season, meaning the number of days, or is it being shortened to accomadate the fewer games being played??? __________________ Sometimes the best laid plans will never get you laid the way you plan.