On a Given Day Does the Game Engine Sometimes Modify Player Ratings?

[Puckett guy]

I am not sure if this has been asked before. Perhaps my question is best explained by an example. I am managing a game in the late innings. I bring in a reliever who has an excellent control rating and scouting is off. He then walks the next three batters. IRL the manager might conclude that the reliever just does not have command of his pitches that day and get him out of the game. Is this modeled in OOTP? Does the game engine sometimes dramatically adjust a player's rating on a given day or in my example is this just a random anomaly? In other words should a player's performance on a given day be considered in making managerial decisions?

[reddawg]

Sorry I can't help with that as I'm just learning about the game myself, but thats a good question.

I don't know if your suggested scenario is a really example or not, but I have been experiencing a fair amount of walks right after bringing in relievers.
Ones with way better than average control also, might just be a string of bad luck tho.
Thats with playing out my games, I sim and play some but I haven't noticed it as much lately with my simmed games tho.

[eriqjaffe]

Originally Posted by Puckett guy

I am not sure if this has been asked before. Perhaps my question is best explained by an example. I am managing a game in the late innings. I bring in a reliever who has an excellent control rating and scouting is off. He then walks the next three batters. IRL the manager might conclude that the reliever just does not have command of his pitches that day and get him out of the game. Is this modeled in OOTP? Does the game engine sometimes dramatically adjust a player's rating on a given day or in my example is this just a random anomaly? In other words should a player's performance on a given day be considered in making managerial decisions?

Players in OOTP have bad (or surprisingly good) games that aren't consistent with their ratings, just like in real life.

If you're asking whether the player's visible rating number will change to reflect how poorly (or how well) he is doing in a given game, the answer is no. The ratings can and will change over time, but they won't fluctuate to reflect the player's actual performance on a given day.

[endgame]

I can't say it's modeled, as in intended to occur, but it should naturally with any pitcher. In that sense, I doubt you'll see a pitcher consistently, without incident, ever throwing game after game without an off day. It will happen. It will happen that a great pitcher, with good stuff, can't do anything but walk batters. Can you say, Marmol? And I'm still surprised when, occasionally, one of my borderline guys steps up and pitches a heck of a game, striking out hitters like he's a 90 Stuff, when he's only a 45, but by the end of the year, he'll likely be 45-50 as goes K results.

I will say, and this is strictly perception only, that once a relief pitcher who is normally very controlled gets into a walk him, walk him, kind of rhythm, he often stays in trouble rather than consistently getting himself out of it. I don't often keep realism checks at a forefront, as my league is fictional, but- speaking of Marmol's performance -this has me reviewing the BS streaks and watchful for guys who simply don't have the poise under pressure they usually demonstrate. Just how to measure it? I don't know, but I do know I'm more aware of it with this current league than I have been in the past.

Short answer, is inconsistency or a bad day coded? No. Are off-days and bad streaks a part of OOTP's model? Yes, in the respect that the performances will average over time to equate the pitcher's quality. I think the exceptions will be those that are 'always able to be counted on', as well as those who are 'always going to fail.' So OOTP models RL in this instance pretty well, IMHO. The players will have their ups and downs.

[bpcarter]

The consistency gets really annoying sometimes lol. On my latest season, my pitcher who hadn't given up more than four runs in a game all season and had been undefeated in 35 straight games lost two in a row in the playoffs while giving up 7 and 8 runs in consecutive starts. And that season, my team won 131 games, without winning one in the playoffs!

[JohnHoward]

The most important rule with relief pitchers is that if you bring in a guy who is less than 100% rested you are taking your chances. You can get away with it for a game or two, but eventually he will be off and will give up more hits and walks than his ratings would indicate. Also, my view is that "hot" and "cold" have a more dramatic effect on relief pitching than any other aspect of the game. If you get a cold reliever, sit him on the end of the bench, or send him down. If you put him in the game he will get hammered.

Position players will sometimes see their ratings ride up and down a bit over the season. Some players seem more prone to this than others but I don't know the factor determining this. If the ratings are dropping quickly over a short period of time, that bodes ill for the future. Trade or release.

[olivertheorem]

Originally Posted by bpcarter

The consistency gets really annoying sometimes lol. On my latest season, my pitcher who hadn't given up more than four runs in a game all season and had been undefeated in 35 straight games lost two in a row in the playoffs while giving up 7 and 8 runs in consecutive starts. And that season, my team won 131 games, without winning one in the playoffs!

Welcome to Small Sample Size Theater!

[Puckett guy]

I appreciate all the responses, but perhaps my question should be more precise. Assume in my original example that the reliever I have in the game has by far the best control rating of anyone available to pitch and he is not fatigued. Do I rely on his control rating and keep him in the game or should I conclude that based on the first three walks his control has gone to hell and get him off the mound?

[henry296]

We know this is basically a game of probability. The true ratings equate to a probability of certain outcomes. Therefore, even if a guy has walked three in a row the probability of the next outcome is the same as the first three outcomes because the core ratings and thus probabilities are the same. And in fact in each game the same pitcher has the same probability of walking the same batter because the players ratings are the same. Thus each at-bat is independent of the previous results.

The question is dothe ratings that determine each outcome get changed in by the game engine for each game and therefore the underlying probabilities are different from game to game. If so, then you should remove this pitcher. Otherwise, all else being equal pitching the best pitcher (with no scouting) gives you the best odds of success.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by Puckett guy

I appreciate all the responses, but perhaps my question should be more precise. Assume in my original example that the reliever I have in the game has by far the best control rating of anyone available to pitch and he is not fatigued. Do I rely on his control rating and keep him in the game or should I conclude that based on the first three walks his control has gone to hell and get him off the mound?

If a coin comes up 'heads' three times in a row, do think a fourth 'heads' is likely?

Remember, in any random-number game the one-in a million stuff happens three times (on average) if you play 3,000,000 times. With all the folks playing OOTP, 3 million games per day doesn't seem far-fetched. So three people will see these one-in-a-million events every day. AND THEY WILL BE THE ONES WHO POST!

In short, none of us should get our shorts twisted up about seeing an unlikely event. If you play enough OOTP, you will experience everything that can happen.

In this case, 'it just happened,' don't look for a reason other than a string of unlucky die rolls.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Puckett guy

I appreciate all the responses, but perhaps my question should be more precise. Assume in my original example that the reliever I have in the game has by far the best control rating of anyone available to pitch and he is not fatigued. Do I rely on his control rating and keep him in the game or should I conclude that based on the first three walks his control has gone to hell and get him off the mound?

The question you have to ask yourself is - "What would a manager do in real life"? I suspect there are a lot of things a manager considers when making that decision. How important is the win? Am I wearing my bullpen out too early in the season? How did this guy perform the last few times he pitched? Did he have "it" or was he shaky?

I'd look at it as he's either a) - having a bad game and just doesn't have "it" today, or b) - he's been inconsistent the last few times so maybe he is losing "it" somewhat.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by bpcarter

The consistency gets really annoying sometimes lol. On my latest season, my pitcher who hadn't given up more than four runs in a game all season and had been undefeated in 35 straight games lost two in a row in the playoffs while giving up 7 and 8 runs in consecutive starts. And that season, my team won 131 games, without winning one in the playoffs!

I beat a 24-2 pitcher who won 471 games in his career twice in one playoff series. I think they were the only times I ever beat him. Stuff happens.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

The question you have to ask yourself is - "What would a manager in real life"? I suspect there are a lot of things a manager considers when making that decision. How important is the win? Am I wearing my bullpen out too early in the season? How did this guy perform the last few times he pitched? Did he have "it" or was he shaky?

I'd look at it as he's either a) - having a bad game and just doesn't have "it" today, or b) - he's been inconsistent the last few times so maybe he is losing "it" somewhat.

I think you are right that is how a real manager would look at, but I don't think the game models "A" that he doesn't have it today which implies his likelhood of success is lower than normal. This is the essence of the original question. Is the having a bad day a function of bad probability luck or inherent lower ratings for that one game.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by henry296

I think you are right that is how a real manager would look at, but I don't think the game models "A" that he doesn't have it today which implies his likelhood of success is lower than normal. This is the essence of the original question. Is the having a bad day a function of bad probability luck or inherent lower ratings for that one game.

It's been my experience that OOTP does model this very well. I've seen high rated guys have bad games and low rated guys have good games. Very realistic imo.

[Childress]

Originally Posted by Puckett guy

I am not sure if this has been asked before. Perhaps my question is best explained by an example. I am managing a game in the late innings. I bring in a reliever who has an excellent control rating and scouting is off. He then walks the next three batters. IRL the manager might conclude that the reliever just does not have command of his pitches that day and get him out of the game. Is this modeled in OOTP? Does the game engine sometimes dramatically adjust a player's rating on a given day or in my example is this just a random anomaly? In other words should a player's performance on a given day be considered in making managerial decisions?

Excellent question. One I've posed myself on this forum. To put it simply, if a player's ratings DON'T fluctuate on a day to day basis much of the decision making in the game makes NO sense. For example, if your ace is getting shelled and if ratings remain unchanged there's no point in yanking him. As the innings pass, he will tend to revert to his statistical mean.

It's possible that short term fluctuations are programmed into OOTP. We don't know. To the best of my knowledge, he Powers that Be have been silent on the issue.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Childress

Excellent question. One I've posed myself on this forum. To put it simply, if a player's ratings DON'T fluctuate on a day to day basis much of the decision making in the game makes NO sense. For example, if your ace is getting shelled and if ratings remain unchanged there's no point in yanking him. As the innings pass, he will tend to revert to his statistical mean.

It's possible that short term fluctuations are programmed into OOTP. We don't know. To the best of my knowledge, he Powers that Be have been silent on the issue.

I don't understand that at all. If Justin Verlander is having a bad game and getting shelled, he gets pulled most likely. His ratings certainly didn't flucuate that day, he just had an off day. So there is a point in yanking him because he's still Verlander the Ace, but he's just having a bad outing. I can't think of too many managers that will just leave him in because they "know" he'll revert to statistical mean. He may or may not, but if you leave him in, then by the time he does return to his statistical mean, you may be so far behind that a comeback isn't likely.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

It's been my experience that OOTP does model this very well. I've seen high rated guys have bad games and low rated guys have good games. Very realistic imo.

I agree that I've seen it to. I just don't know why it happens and that informs how I would respond as a manager in OOTP.

On the same note does the hot/cold indicators impact player performance or just informational.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by henry296

On the same note does the hot/cold indicators impact player performance or just informational.

Can almost categorically say they are only reporting data.

[JohnHoward]

Originally Posted by endgame

Can almost categorically say they are only reporting data.

Agreed. If a batter gets five hits in a game you will see the hot indicator go on, but that's just reporting, it didn't cause the five hits. On the other hand, take the hot and cold indicators seriously. Ride the hot hand, sit the cold one.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

I don't understand that at all. If Justin Verlander is having a bad game and getting shelled, he gets pulled most likely. His ratings certainly didn't flucuate that day, he just had an off day. So there is a point in yanking him because he's still Verlander the Ace, but he's just having a bad outing. I can't think of too many managers that will just leave him in because they "know" he'll revert to statistical mean. He may or may not, but if you leave him in, then by the time he does return to his statistical mean, you may be so far behind that a comeback isn't likely.

I think you're thinking like a baseball fan and or a manager. Question is, would you play the game differently if you knew you could simply leave a pitcher in and he would revert to the statistical mean? I wouldn't. I may leave a guy in the game to get shelled and rest my bullpen. Heck, sometimes I get so pissed at a pitcher on my team(usually the closer) that I leave him in as punishment, but the day I start playing with statistical means in mind, is the day I quit the game altogether.

This thread is very interesting, but I'm almost hoping we never learn the answer to the question posed.