06/08 Update: New injury-related features in OOTP 12

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Qwerty75

How rust works according to Markus

See also posts #68 and #69 of this thread.

Okay, I posted the previous reponse before seeing this. Posts 68 and 69 did not reference this. You repeating the same point is not a citation, but thank you, finally, for the citation.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

I am not in favor of putting anything into the game that cannot be proven statistically. It is like adding a clutch rating, or game handler rating. There is no evidence that can be used statistically so it shouldn't be in the game.

The real criteria should be the old EA line. "If it is in the Game, it is in the Game." Rust is a part of the game. Ask any player, pitching coach or trainer. They'll tell you prolonged periods of not playing affects playing level. It is random (some starting pitchers feel fine on three days rests, some pitchers lose something on their pitches after more than 5). But as rule, players (esp. pitchers) have to work their way back after long lay-offs. Almost every pitcher is on a pitch-count on their first start back after a lay-off. Bench players that don't hit in a game for a couple of weeks are affected by not playing. It is a part of the game.

Rehab assignments are a part of the game, and I am happy that we are going to have them. I wish they were done while still on the DL, but that is minor compared to the flaw of not having them at all.

[jaxmagicman]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The real criteria should be the old EA line. "If it is in the Game, it is in the Game." Rust is a part of the game. Ask any player, pitching coach or trainer.

I am against asking players anything. They don't understand statistics in the least, they think clutch exists and if you wear the same underwear or not shave you win more games.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

I am against asking players anything. They don't understand statistics in the least, they think clutch exists and if you wear the same underwear or not shave you win more games.

But it does. Just not in the way they think it does. Baseball is played in the mind. Some guys play better under pressure, and some guys fall apart. Some guys need the superstitions to help them get ready for the game. I don't think it should be represented as a "clutch" rating, but I do think the game does well with the mental aspects, because that is where those things matter. It is in the head. I like that the game has a "hot" factor and a "cold" factor, because that does model what really happens. Slumps get into players heads, and being hot at the plate does as well, because they believe it does.

I think stats and especially the modern stats, do a great job of analyzing how good a player is/isn't, and can even be predictive over the course of a larger season. I don't think it does a great job of game to game, situation to situation. Little factors with small stats inputs can skew what the statics tell you. And it can never tell you the mental states/physical states of the players involved, and that plays a very important role in any given situation.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

The real criteria should be the old EA line. "If it is in the Game, it is in the Game." Rust is a part of the game. Ask any player, pitching coach or trainer. They'll tell you prolonged periods of not playing affects playing level. It is random (some starting pitchers feel fine on three days rests, some pitchers lose something on their pitches after more than 5). But as rule, players (esp. pitchers) have to work their way back after long lay-offs. Almost every pitcher is on a pitch-count on their first start back after a lay-off. Bench players that don't hit in a game for a couple of weeks are affected by not playing. It is a part of the game.

Rehab assignments are a part of the game, and I am happy that we are going to have them. I wish they were done while still on the DL, but that is minor compared to the flaw of not having them at all.

I believed that once. But experience has changed my mind on such additions. When there is no statistical guideline for something we end up the game being constantly tweeked. Someone finds an article that says one thing. Someone else remembers an incident with their favorite team that indicates something else. Someone who played (or coached) little league, high school, college or minor leagues will add their experience. Someone will make another comment after watching one game (or one week or one season) in OOTP and give another opinion. In the end, with these types of additions forces you (and i) to spend more time on the OOTP boards making sure that it doesn’t get messed up with what you (or i) think is an erroneous way to handle the feature. And you spend less time actually playing the game.

IMHO, the whole idea of introducing RUST into OOTP was a perfect example of micromanagement. Again, IMHO what we should add into OOTP are things where different strategies can reasonably be used. Some people don’t like the Rule 5 draft. But, at least in that case, you’re making a decision choosing one player over another. One person could make an argument for one player or one type of player another could make the argument for another. But no one would choose to use RUSTy players.

Spring training should have been about checking to see how close your star player in AAA or AA was to being ready to be called up, trying out different lineups with the new FA acquisitions, seeing who your fifth starter will be, seeing if an aging player still contribute to a team. It should not be about getting players ready. Not because that doesn’t happen, but because everyone will do it. If we were worried about people hiding stars from injury, just make it an equal chance that a player being injured during spring training whether playing or not. IRL teams play “B” games (to make sure everyone can be ready and no one is rusty) so injuries that did not occur in scheduled game could be from them.

The amount of “rehab” time that each player needed after injuries could have just been added on to the time that the player would be out. It would be something like “LF Dan McIntosh was injured on a defensive play. The Diagnosis: sprained ankle. It will take about 5 weeks to recover. After that he’ll need 5 days of rehab.” We would just leave the player on DL until he’s recovered and done his rehab. Why is the extra step need? If someone wants to play the player without rehab they could, he/she but why would they risk it?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

The amount of “rehab” time that each player needed after injuries could have just been added on to the time that the player would be out. It would be something like “LF Dan McIntosh was injured on a defensive play. The Diagnosis: sprained ankle. It will take about 5 weeks to recover. After that he’ll need 5 days of rehab.” We would just leave the player on DL until he’s recovered and done his rehab. Why is the extra step need? If someone wants to play the player without rehab they could, he/she but why would they risk it?

Because it happens. I like realism. The Braves just rushed back Heyward after an injury. He played two minor league rehab games, but he was still rusty, and made an throwing error that he normally doesn't. Some players are too good to be patient (especially with the team's offense slumping), and some players you can afford to be patient with. This option allows that to play out, and adds a good bit to the role-playing immersion.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Because it happens. I like realism. The Braves just rushed back Heyward after an injury. He played two minor league rehab games, but he was still rusty, and made an throwing error that he normally doesn't. Some players are too good to be patient (especially with the team's offense slumping), and some players you can afford to be patient with. This option allows that to play out, and adds a good bit to the role-playing immersion.

1. There is no proof that he made the error because he was rusty. They can say it was because he was rusty but there no way to prove it. According to Baseball-Reference, Heyward made six errors in 2010. He didn't usually make errors then either. 97.6% of the time he didn't make an error. Did he have an excuse for each of his six errors? Or is it that sometimes he makes errors.
Incidently, he's fielding percentage .971 now after that error.

2. Even if we are to believe RUSTINESS caused that error, how long does it take Heyward to become rusty? 10 games? 20 games? Does it take him more games to be rusty than say Hunter Pence? How many games of "rehab" does he need to recover from RUSTINESS? 1 game? 3 games? 5 games? Does it take him more games to recover than Chipper Jones? By how many?

3. The example that you gave just cover a fielding problem? Does that mean that it didn't affect how he hit? How he ran? Does that particular injury only cause RFs to be RUSTY.

i don't argue that RUST doesn't happen in real life. My point is there isn't any data in it that we can realistically model it in OOTP. Having RUST in OOTP is enough if everytime a player comes back from injury he automatically makes an error because he's rusty.

[statfreak]

OOTP would be a very dry game to play if it only used statistics. There are already games that only do that. I would suggest any one wanting to play a game based only and purely on statistics should try STRATEGIC BASEBALL SIMULATOR.

Thankfully Markus has a different vision for his game and the vast majority of users are happy with that vision, even if they question the implementation and means to accomplish that vision.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by statfreak

OOTP would be a very dry game to play if it only used statistics. There are already games that only do that. I would suggest any one wanting to play a game based only and purely on statistics should try STRATEGIC BASEBALL SIMULATOR.

Thankfully Markus has a different vision for his game and the vast majority of users are happy with that vision, even if they question the implementation and means to accomplish that vision.

No fictional leagues. No online leagues. No thanks.

[statfreak]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

No fictional leagues. No online leagues. No thanks.

Baseball Mogul then?!? It doesn't have RUST and meets your other criteria. Have fun!

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by statfreak

Baseball Mogul then?!? It doesn't have RUST and meets your other criteria. Have fun!

No fictional leagues. Do they have online leagues? No matter. No thanks.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by statfreak

OOTP would be a very dry game to play if it only used statistics. There are already games that only do that. I would suggest any one wanting to play a game based only and purely on statistics should try STRATEGIC BASEBALL SIMULATOR.

Thankfully Markus has a different vision for his game and the vast majority of users are happy with that vision, even if they question the implementation and means to accomplish that vision.

I was just about to make a "very dry game" post, you beat me to it We don't have to go total fantasy and be able to hit a pitch 12 inches off the corner with a laser beam out of the end of the bat. We do need to have the "human factor" in the game if it can be presented in a realistic manner.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that no one here will say "rust", or use whatever term you like doesn't exist but we don't want any part of it because we can't quantify it? News flash, rust has been in the game for a long time without anyone I know of complaining. The effect is so subtle, like real life and the Heyward example, you have to ask yourself when playing OOTP "did I bring him back too soon?". That to me is beautiful. You should go away as the manager or GM wondering "should I have done that differently?" instead of "well of course I played Heyward he's the highest rated player why wouldn't he be in the lineup?"

After reading Dark Horse comments why have spring training at all? Just give us the updated ratings and call it good. I don't have to mess with lineups the ratings tell the whole story as long as I turn off those "unproven" scouting opinions. With real ratings showing I know exactly what I'm getting. No need to worry about the 20/20 contact guy getting off to a slow start, at the end of the year he's going to be hitting ~.330+.

I also know within statistical probability how my players will age and develop if we get rid of those pesky "unproven" coaches. How does one know how much a coach helps a player IRL? There really is no proof so I wish they'd never been put in the game.

Without some type of "human modifier" be it personality, mentality, streaks, rust, etc. the game could just as well be a huge spread sheet. OOTP would then be a game where the correct and smart thing to do is only play the highest rated players at all times. Anything else, without any type of modifier, would be stupid and simply betting against the odds. The higher rated guy is always going to have the best chance of having the roll of the dice go his way. Why would you ever play anyone else?

There are many things in Football Manager that many would sit here and say "why is that in there you can't prove it.?" but it is the only sports game I have ever played that made me feel like I was dealing with human beings instead of bags of ratings. At the same time it also plays a realistic game of football\soccer. OOTP can do the same and, thankfully, I believe that is one of Markus' ultimate goals.

[fintach]

Sweed's post reminds me that one of the things I love in this game is watching a backup with lousy ratings get a big, important hit.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

No fictional leagues. Do they have online leagues? No matter. No thanks.

You can have fictional leagues in Baseball Mogul.

http://www.sportsmogul.com/games/baseball-custom.html

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I was just about to make a "very dry game" post, you beat me to it We don't have to go total fantasy and be able to hit a pitch 12 inches off the corner with a laser beam out of the end of the bat. We do need to have the "human factor" in the game if it can be presented in a realistic manner.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that no one here will say "rust", or use whatever term you like doesn't exist but we don't want any part of it because we can't quantify it? News flash, rust has been in the game for a long time without anyone I know of complaining. The effect is so subtle, like real life and the Heyward example, you have to ask yourself when playing OOTP "did I bring him back too soon?". That to me is beautiful. You should go away as the manager or GM wondering "should I have done that differently?" instead of "well of course I played Heyward he's the highest rated player why wouldn't he be in the lineup?"

After reading Dark Horse comments why have spring training at all? Just give us the updated ratings and call it good. I don't have to mess with lineups the ratings tell the whole story as long as I turn off those "unproven" scouting opinions. With real ratings showing I know exactly what I'm getting. No need to worry about the 20/20 contact guy getting off to a slow start, at the end of the year he's going to be hitting ~.330+.

I also know within statistical probability how my players will age and develop if we get rid of those pesky "unproven" coaches. How does one know how much a coach helps a player IRL? There really is no proof so I wish they'd never been put in the game.

Without some type of "human modifier" be it personality, mentality, streaks, rust, etc. the game could just as well be a huge spread sheet. OOTP would then be a game where the correct and smart thing to do is only play the highest rated players at all times. Anything else, without any type of modifier, would be stupid and simply betting against the odds. The higher rated guy is always going to have the best chance of having the roll of the dice go his way. Why would you ever play anyone else?

There are many things in Football Manager that many would sit here and say "why is that in there you can't prove it.?" but it is the only sports game I have ever played that made me feel like I was dealing with human beings instead of bags of ratings. At the same time it also plays a realistic game of football\soccer. OOTP can do the same and, thankfully, I believe that is one of Markus' ultimate goals.

This +1000. That is the point. It is what makes it real. This is why I just can't even play Front Office Football. It is just a freeking spreadsheet. Why not play the games in Excel and be done with the rest? There is more to baseball than spreadsheet stats. That is all there is to it.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Dark Horse

1. There is no proof that he made the error because he was rusty. They can say it was because he was rusty but there no way to prove it. According to Baseball-Reference, Heyward made six errors in 2010. He didn't usually make errors then either. 97.6% of the time he didn't make an error. Did he have an excuse for each of his six errors? Or is it that sometimes he makes errors.
Incidently, he's fielding percentage .971 now after that error.

2. Even if we are to believe RUSTINESS caused that error, how long does it take Heyward to become rusty? 10 games? 20 games? Does it take him more games to be rusty than say Hunter Pence? How many games of "rehab" does he need to recover from RUSTINESS? 1 game? 3 games? 5 games? Does it take him more games to recover than Chipper Jones? By how many?

3. The example that you gave just cover a fielding problem? Does that mean that it didn't affect how he hit? How he ran? Does that particular injury only cause RFs to be RUSTY.

i don't argue that RUST doesn't happen in real life. My point is there isn't any data in it that we can realistically model it in OOTP. Having RUST in OOTP is enough if everytime a player comes back from injury he automatically makes an error because he's rusty.

All the things you bring up are the unknown that should be in any decent simulation of baseball. That is the whole point. A realistic model is the unknown. But take out the unkown and the variables, then you might as well just show stats at the end of the season, and remove 90% of the game as is.

[cdheer]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

This +1000. That is the point. It is what makes it real. This is why I just can't even play Front Office Football. It is just a freeking spreadsheet. Why not play the games in Excel and be done with the rest? There is more to baseball than spreadsheet stats. That is all there is to it.

You are confusing unknown with random.

Yes, there are lots of random parts of baseball. That's why we play the games, and it's why your "Excel" comment is sort of meaningless.

That doesn't mean the game should be full of made-up, unquantifiable nonsense. Should Markus add code to change the results of games based on phases of the moon? Of course not, because we can all agree that they have nothing to do with actual baseball results.

So then the question is, does "rust" actually exist and does it affect player performance in a material way? I don't think -- or at least, I cannot find with 30 seconds of googling -- that anyone has done an in-depth study on this, so we're left with anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is awful, as a rule.

Stats are just for measuring and (in some cases) trying to predict what actually happens. A game based on stats is not automatically dry. In fact, I'd argue this is a significant difference between OOTP and, say, DMB: OOTP sims a world, and there's plenty of random variation bundled in so that you CAN'T just "run a spreadsheet."

You don't need to add made-up mysticism.

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

You can have fictional leagues in Baseball Mogul.

http://www.sportsmogul.com/games/baseball-custom.html

Hey! Thanks, Wolf. i'll have to check that out... once it gets to be 9.99.

[Syd Thrift]

I'll take "false dilemmas" for $500, Alex.

The discussion is not whether to make the game basic and adding in phases of the moon. That's a downright absurd argument. The question is whether or not to add things which have not been quantified but which baseball people believe does exist. Rust is really IMO way over at the "it probably exists" end of the spectrum, really. The only thing I can think of which is further to the leftward "documented to be real" end of this spectrum is streakiness/slumpiness, which has been proven to exist in baseball by Fangraphs and the Curve Ball book. Coaches having an effect, clutch hitting (which is also in the game), morale, and so on are further over to the right end, and stuff like phases of the moon are so far over to the right as to not even be in this conversation.

[fintach]

Now wait a minute. Phases of the moon have a proven affect on lighting conditions and the tides, at the very least. Maybe we do need these in the game. I'm sure I read somewhere that they affect how the ball carries. . . .