A little OOTP 11 update...

[OakDragon]

Now, if the ball gets away from the catcher but the runner does not advance, that, I agree, would be nice to see. However, that would not be termed a wild pitch or passed ball, legalistically speaking, and I haven't played out enough games lately to recall whether that actually happens or not in OOTP.

[philthepat]

I know im a bit late to the WAR party, but thats something that would literally make me dance around the room like a madman if it was included in the game.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by Eugene Church

Batter think he has a home run... trots to first... but the ball hits the wall... outfielder gets it back to second and hold batter at first.

Not sure if this happens IRL anymore. I know it used to happen once in a while in the 90s, but I don't think it happens so often anymore these days.

Have the infielder throw the ball into the dugout or into the stands for a two-base error...

This, I know for a fact is in the game. It said something like "Ohh, and he threw it away and it bounced into the dugout!" or something along those lines.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

OTHER OBSERVATIONS MADE BY STEVEP. . .


A play in which the batter strikes out and a runner is thrown out on a steal attempt on the same pitch is scored as a DP in real games, but not in OOTP.

Wanted to wait to verify before posting but I thought this was wrong.
OOTP does score this as a DP. Just happened in the game I'm playing in my solo league.

[pstrickert]

I should note that SteveP posted these observations a year ago. Markus may, in fact, have addressed some of them.

[Malleus Dei]

This turned out to be a very fascinating thread.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

This turned out to be a very fascinating thread.

Indeed. I learned a few things myself.

[ericl]

I'm not sure anyones requested this yet, but can more varied contract offers be allowed? For example, I'd love to be able to offer a pre arbitration player an Evan Longoria type contract. The game won't allow it because the salaries aren't spread out properly.

Thanks

[mikev]

Originally Posted by Nihilianth

UZR? UZR/150? I assume that's the defensive stat that could replace Range? I hope so, because Range seems pretty darn useless to me. Especially without my theoretical "Range+"

Yes. UZR = the number of runs above (or below!) average a player is at his position. UZR/150 is the same, per 150 games played.

UZR intro, part 1
UZR intro, part 2

I never knew what the equation was to figure out WAR. I tried looking it up, but I couldn;t find anything official. I know it has to do with how many wins a player creates for their team over the course of a season, compared to a replacement player.

First you have to translate wOBA into runs.

From Fangraphs (link for full article):

The other great advantage wOBA has is that it’s extremely easy to convert into run values. Simply take a player’s wOBA difference from the league average, divide by 1.15, and multiply that by how many plate appearances he got, and you have a run value above or below average for that player.

So to use Rajai Davis as an example.

.354 wOBA in 2009
.354 - .332 (league average OBP, which wOBA is scaled to) = .022
.022 / 1.15 = .025
.025 x 432 PAs = 10.9 runs above average.

10.9 runs as a hitter + 11.3 runs as a fielder = 22.2 runs above average total, which is 2.2 WAR

However, you also have to factor in replacement value, which is set at 20 runs per 600 PAs. The point of this is to assume that the time the player isn't on the field, he's substituted by a replacement level player. Since Davis had 432 PAs, he gets 432/600 worth of that 20 runs. 432/600 = 0.72, so you take 20 * 0.72 and get 14.4.

He also gets a slight positional bonus because he played centerfield (2.5 runs) but he didn't play a full season so he only gets 1.4 runs.

So: 10.9 (hitting) + 11.3 (fielding) + 14.4 (replacement) + 1.4 (fielding adjustment) = 38 runs.

10 runs = 1 WAR, so Rajai Davis was a 3.8 WAR player in 2009.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

*EDIT*

So, to put this into OOTP terms, you could calculate some sort of WAR value assuming the ZR can be (or is) calculated as runs above/below average. However, you'd also have to figure out what replacement level is for whatever league settings you are using.

[jar2574]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Thanks for the shout-out. If I had to guess, the defensive stats/zone ratings will end up being calculated along the same paths I was using in this old study of v9 defense.

http://www.thefobl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28132

That study was awesome. I started emphasizing excellent defense at CF, 2B, and SS, and ignoring it at the corners, and my teams have benefited as a result.

[JTSMOOTH]

nm

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by jar2574

That study was awesome. I started emphasizing excellent defense at CF, 2B, and SS, and ignoring it at the corners, and my teams have benefited as a result.

Yes, especially 1B. You can just plug any old ballplayer in at first, and not have to worry TOO much. Of course, the taller the better. And lefties are preferred. Other than that, first base is just an extra DH slot.

[Qwerty75]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

It uses the specific fielder, which was selected after factoring ball location and defensive positioning.

This is good news that individual fielders come into play. However, couldn't there be the issue of having those fielders count twice, once when the entire defensive setup is factored in a the beginning of the plate appearance, and then again with the specific fielder? I've seen some very low team BABIPs (for example, one in the .250s in my current solo league where the league average is .294) ... perhaps the double accounting is exaggerating the effect of having good or bad fielders at key positions? Having fielders count twice would also be logically flawed aside from any issues with the realism of results ...

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by Qwerty75

This is good news that individual fielders come into play. However, couldn't there be the issue of having those fielders count twice, once when the entire defensive setup is factored in a the beginning of the plate appearance, and then again with the specific fielder? I've seen some very low team BABIPs (for example, one in the .250s in my current solo league where the league average is .294) ... perhaps the double accounting is exaggerating the effect of having good or bad fielders at key positions? Having fielders count twice would also be logically flawed aside from any issues with the realism of results ...

Is this what happens? If so, it's news to me. You seem to be pretty sure of it, though. Where did you obtain this information? Just askin'.

[Vinny P.]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

Is this what happens? If so, it's news to me. You seem to be pretty sure of it, though. Where did you obtain this information? Just askin'.

I think it's just a meandering question. One which I am interested to find out now myself.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Killing Time

Charlie's idea would trash historical play for me, but there's another way to skin this cat. If the goal is that you as a GM shouldn't know what the future value of players is then do what Le Grande Orange suggested and randomize all the player names. I took a historical league and did that and now I'm having twice the fun that I was before.

Doesn't require any changes to the game that other people wouldn't like to do that either.

If you lack the creativity to come up with 17,500 or so random names on your own , there's a great site here. In the middle column there's a section titled "General" and the third link is called "Quick Character Namers" which generates names based off of the US Census. The maximum number of names you can get at a time is 50 but it is free and you just cut and paste, fix them up to your liking and drop them into a modified Lahman database, eliminating the dead giveaways like the original players' nicknames ("The Bambino" and "The Woonsocket Rocket"), maybe birthplaces and birthdays if you know those too and off you go. Now you won't know who's who and if you hide the ratings you can turn yourself into a blind stumbling fool if you want. Or you can complain...But that's so predictable.

[Qwerty75]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

Is this what happens? If so, it's news to me. You seem to be pretty sure of it, though. Where did you obtain this information? Just askin'.

Can't remember exactly how I came to be convinced this is how the engine works. I think it's a mixture of comments by Markus, talking to a beta tester, and my own observations. For example, I had a team where I had a first baseman learning to play left field and it brought the team BABIP up to a rate out of proportiion to what you would expect with simply the number of balls recorded as being played by the left fielder.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Qwerty75

This is good news that individual fielders come into play. However, couldn't there be the issue of having those fielders count twice, once when the entire defensive setup is factored in a the beginning of the plate appearance, and then again with the specific fielder?

Nope, that is not possible the way the system works... everything is fine on that front

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Qwerty75

For example, I had a team where I had a first baseman learning to play left field and it brought the team BABIP up to a rate out of proportiion to what you would expect with simply the number of balls recorded as being played by the left fielder.

Sample size issue, definitely. Or your team was overperforming before and simply regressed back to the mean...

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

This turned out to be a very fascinating thread.

Speaking of which . . .

There is an interesting thread on the Puresim forums in which you, MD, have caused quite a reaction. What's up with that?