Idea for Pitcher Ratings and Role Development

[RchW]

This is an expanded copy of a post made in the AI eval thread. Rather than go OT over there, I'll throw it out here for comments.

The current way SP and MR are created in-game is too rigid. Many relief pitchers can throw multiple pitches and many starters actually use only 1 or 2 pitches when they have success.

The 2-pitch 3-pitch division is a construct that doesn't reflect how pitchers become SP or MR IRL. The reliance on less pitches often occurs after a pitcher fails as a starter. For that reason I suggest most created pitchers should start with multi-pitch potential. A small % of 1 or 2 dominant pitch types could be created as wild cards. These guys may flame out, may become closers or rarely may develop into SP. The key point being that almost all pitchers with sufficient stamina could be used initially as starters.

The development engine should use the variability in pitch effectiveness (pitch ratings) plus stamina to establish the overall stuff movement and control ratings . The way pitchers are used early in their careers should influence development. This in turn would help stream pitchers into SP, MR, CL and swing men roles. Pitchers may gain or lose pitches or get a boost or a hit based on the development algorithm and how they are used. This could allow SP to be further sorted into "power" vs "craft" pitchers. Something like comparing John Smoltz vs Tom Glavine where similar ratings come from very different attributes.

Unlike the current model, in this system most relief pitchers would not show better ratings than many SP. Instead they would have an effectiveness rating that declines based on how they are used and on the combination of pitch types/ratings. This multiplier would reflect available RL stats showing pitcher effectiveness vs attributes. The trade-off between ratings and effectiveness would allow one to sort long relief from short relief and also specialists and spot starters.

Long relief pitchers would be like "craft" starters, not as effective as the power types but a shallow drop off. Short relief pitchers and closers would be more like "power" starters. Highly effective at first but with a sharper drop off with extended use. A small % may be effective either way but with insufficient stamina to start.

Just my thoughts FWIW.

[gehrig38]

Originally Posted by RchW

This is an expanded copy of a post made in the AI eval thread. Rather than go OT over there, I'll throw it out here for comments.

The current way SP and MR are created in-game is too rigid. Many relief pitchers can throw multiple pitches and many starters actually use only 1 or 2 pitches when they have success.

The 2-pitch 3-pitch division is a construct that doesn't reflect how pitchers become SP or MR IRL. The reliance on less pitches often occurs after a pitcher fails as a starter. For that reason I suggest most created pitchers should start with multi-pitch potential. A small % of 1 or 2 dominant pitch types could be created as wild cards. These guys may flame out, may become closers or rarely may develop into SP. The key point being that almost all pitchers with sufficient stamina could be used initially as starters.

The development engine should use the variability in pitch effectiveness (pitch ratings) plus stamina to establish the overall stuff movement and control ratings . The way pitchers are used early in their careers should influence development. This in turn would help stream pitchers into SP, MR, CL and swing men roles. Pitchers may gain or lose pitches or get a boost or a hit based on the development algorithm and how they are used. This could allow SP to be further sorted into "power" vs "craft" pitchers. Something like comparing John Smoltz vs Tom Glavine where similar ratings come from very different attributes.

Unlike the current model, in this system most relief pitchers would not show better ratings than many SP. Instead they would have an effectiveness rating that declines based on how they are used and on the combination of pitch types/ratings. This multiplier would reflect available RL stats showing pitcher effectiveness vs attributes. The trade-off between ratings and effectiveness would allow one to sort long relief from short relief and also specialists and spot starters.

Long relief pitchers would be like "craft" starters, not as effective as the power types but a shallow drop off. Short relief pitchers and closers would be more like "power" starters. Highly effective at first but with a sharper drop off with extended use. A small % may be effective either way but with insufficient stamina to start.

Just my thoughts FWIW.

This is in no way a disparaging post to yours, but my comments and opinions on what you posted, and how this game creates and matures pitchers.

The reliance on less pitches often occurs after a pitcher fails as a starter. For that reason I suggest most created pitchers should start with multi-pitch potential.

This is not true honestly. Few pitchers on the planet have what you'd call '3 pitches'. In the big leagues, let's use a 10 scale, most big league starters have 2 8-10's and 1 2-7 pitch, maybe 2 2-7 pitches. Justin Verlander? 10 FB, 10 CB 8-10 Change, but that's him.
Me? I would tell you I had an 8-10 FB, 10 split, 4-5 CB, 2-4 Slider. On my best days my curve was a 6-7, my slider a 4, at best. I pitched 3000 innings with 2 pitches, and remember I had what was likely the straightest FB in the big leagues. My command was 10, 'movement' would have been, 1 FB 10 Split, likely a 5? I threw 95-99 when I was in my prime (97-2003).
Maddux? He had a 8-9 FB, 10 Change, and cutter 8-9? He threw 88-92 tops.
The hard part with this game is that in the big leagues my fastball was 3-5 pitches, in up, in down, in belt, down and away, up and away, up middle some nights.
For me guys are pegged starters and relievers in the draft on 2 main things, body, and effort. It's next to impossible to load 200+ innings seasons on a power arm, with a 6' kid. Because more times than not the power that kid generates is max effort, whereas once I learned how to pitch, I was a 93-95 guy throwing 85%, dialing up to 98-99 at 99% when I needed the punchout.
What made both Petey and Maddux so special was their ability to pitch, at max effectiveness, at 85%. Watch anyone with obscene command, how they finish their delivery, they're in control, and in great position to defend, at release.
The guys like Kyle Farnsworth, the entire cards pen? Those guys are relievers, whether they want to be or not, because you can't do that 100+ times a night and get 30+ starts out of your body.

[gehrig38]

Originally Posted by RchW

This is an expanded copy of a post made in the AI eval thread. Rather than go OT over there, I'll throw it out here for comments.

The current way SP and MR are created in-game is too rigid. Many relief pitchers can throw multiple pitches and many starters actually use only 1 or 2 pitches when they have success.

The 2-pitch 3-pitch division is a construct that doesn't reflect how pitchers become SP or MR IRL. The reliance on less pitches often occurs after a pitcher fails as a starter. For that reason I suggest most created pitchers should start with multi-pitch potential. A small % of 1 or 2 dominant pitch types could be created as wild cards. These guys may flame out, may become closers or rarely may develop into SP. The key point being that almost all pitchers with sufficient stamina could be used initially as starters.

The development engine should use the variability in pitch effectiveness (pitch ratings) plus stamina to establish the overall stuff movement and control ratings . The way pitchers are used early in their careers should influence development. This in turn would help stream pitchers into SP, MR, CL and swing men roles. Pitchers may gain or lose pitches or get a boost or a hit based on the development algorithm and how they are used. This could allow SP to be further sorted into "power" vs "craft" pitchers. Something like comparing John Smoltz vs Tom Glavine where similar ratings come from very different attributes.

Unlike the current model, in this system most relief pitchers would not show better ratings than many SP. Instead they would have an effectiveness rating that declines based on how they are used and on the combination of pitch types/ratings. This multiplier would reflect available RL stats showing pitcher effectiveness vs attributes. The trade-off between ratings and effectiveness would allow one to sort long relief from short relief and also specialists and spot starters.

Long relief pitchers would be like "craft" starters, not as effective as the power types but a shallow drop off. Short relief pitchers and closers would be more like "power" starters. Highly effective at first but with a sharper drop off with extended use. A small % may be effective either way but with insufficient stamina to start.

Just my thoughts FWIW.

This is in no way a disparaging post to yours, but my comments and opinions on what you posted, and how this game creates and matures pitchers.

The reliance on less pitches often occurs after a pitcher fails as a starter. For that reason I suggest most created pitchers should start with multi-pitch potential.

This is not true honestly. Few pitchers on the planet have what you'd call '3 pitches'. In the big leagues, let's use a 10 scale, most big league starters have 2 8-10's and 1 2-7 pitch, maybe 2 2-7 pitches. Justin Verlander? 10 FB, 10 CB 8-10 Change, but that's him.
Me? I would tell you I had an 8-10 FB, 10 split, 4-5 CB, 2-4 Slider. On my best days my curve was a 6-7, my slider a 4, at best. I pitched 3000 innings with 2 pitches, and remember I had what was likely the straightest FB in the big leagues. My command was 10, 'movement' would have been, 1 FB 10 Split, likely a 5? I threw 95-99 when I was in my prime (97-2003).
Maddux? He had a 8-9 FB, 10 Change, and cutter 8-9? He threw 88-92 tops.
The hard part with this game is that in the big leagues my fastball was 3-5 pitches, in up, in down, in belt, down and away, up and away, up middle some nights.
For me guys are pegged starters and relievers in the draft on 2 main things, body, and effort. It's next to impossible to load 200+ innings seasons on a power arm, with a 6' kid. Because more times than not the power that kid generates is max effort, whereas once I learned how to pitch, I was a 93-95 guy throwing 85%, dialing up to 98-99 at 99% when I needed the punchout.
What made both Petey and Maddux so special was their ability to pitch, at max effectiveness, at 85%. Watch anyone with obscene command, how they finish their delivery, they're in control, and in great position to defend, at release.
The guys like Kyle Farnsworth, the entire cards pen? Those guys are relievers, whether they want to be or not, because you can't do that 100+ times a night and get 30+ starts out of your body.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by gehrig38

This is in no way a disparaging post to yours, but my comments and opinions on what you posted, and how this game creates and matures pitchers.



This is not true honestly. Few pitchers on the planet have what you'd call '3 pitches'. In the big leagues, let's use a 10 scale, most big league starters have 2 8-10's and 1 2-7 pitch, maybe 2 2-7 pitches. Justin Verlander? 10 FB, 10 CB 8-10 Change, but that's him.
Me? I would tell you I had an 8-10 FB, 10 split, 4-5 CB, 2-4 Slider. On my best days my curve was a 6-7, my slider a 4, at best. I pitched 3000 innings with 2 pitches, and remember I had what was likely the straightest FB in the big leagues. My command was 10, 'movement' would have been, 1 FB 10 Split, likely a 5? I threw 95-99 when I was in my prime (97-2003).
Maddux? He had a 8-9 FB, 10 Change, and cutter 8-9? He threw 88-92 tops.
The hard part with this game is that in the big leagues my fastball was 3-5 pitches, in up, in down, in belt, down and away, up and away, up middle some nights.
For me guys are pegged starters and relievers in the draft on 2 main things, body, and effort. It's next to impossible to load 200+ innings seasons on a power arm, with a 6' kid. Because more times than not the power that kid generates is max effort, whereas once I learned how to pitch, I was a 93-95 guy throwing 85%, dialing up to 98-99 at 99% when I needed the punchout.
What made both Petey and Maddux so special was their ability to pitch, at max effectiveness, at 85%. Watch anyone with obscene command, how they finish their delivery, they're in control, and in great position to defend, at release.
The guys like Kyle Farnsworth, the entire cards pen? Those guys are relievers, whether they want to be or not, because you can't do that 100+ times a night and get 30+ starts out of your body.

No problem at all. When you were most effective was it the variety of locations or hitting a spot repeatedly or both?

Would it make sense for the game to split up those 1-2 pitches as you describe your FB in order to separate starters from relievers. Or are you saying that Farnsworth and the others may have had the same (better/worse) pitch but only 30 of them in the tank?

[gehrig38]

Originally Posted by RchW

No problem at all. When you were most effective was it the variety of locations or hitting a spot repeatedly or both?

Would it make sense for the game to split up those 1-2 pitches as you describe your FB in order to separate starters from relievers. Or are you saying that Farnsworth and the others may have had the same (better/worse) pitch but only 30 of them in the tank?

Both, I could hit my spot 8-10 times, and at my best it didn't matter where the spot was. Up was far and away the 'hardest' spot, as the only way to actually make the pitch up was to throw incorrectly, so could never control height really. But the spot was 100% dependent on the hitter, except on nights when I was on, then it really didn't matter what his spot was.

Watch 'throwers', this new wave of relievers that all throw mid to high 90s, 9 of 10 have ZERO command. They have control mostly, they can throw strikes, but control is not command. Command is controlling the ball INSIDE the zone, throwers generally can't consistently command the ball.

If it were doable, and would add fun, realism and all that jazz I would have 2 FB ratings, control and command. Control guys are most big leaguers, for the most part no one in the majors walks 90-100 guys, they throw strikes but get hit. Command guys control the ball inside the zone, giving up far fewer walks than command guys.

Then you'd have the rare 'command and control' guy, that deadly starter with both.

Now that I think on it, those 2, C&C would apply to pretty much all pitches except split and fork. Contrary to popular belief there's been about 4 guys I know of in history that 'commanded' their curve balls, had the ability to throw it to sides, the rest of us mortals only wished for control of that pitch, the ability to throw it for a strike

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by gehrig38

If it were doable, and would add fun, realism and all that jazz I would have 2 FB ratings, control and command. Control guys are most big leaguers, for the most part no one in the majors walks 90-100 guys, they throw strikes but get hit. Command guys control the ball inside the zone, giving up far fewer walks than command guys.

Then you'd have the rare 'command and control' guy, that deadly starter with both.

Now that I think on it, those 2, C&C would apply to pretty much all pitches except split and fork. Contrary to popular belief there's been about 4 guys I know of in history that 'commanded' their curve balls, had the ability to throw it to sides, the rest of us mortals only wished for control of that pitch, the ability to throw it for a strike

That is actually a pretty darn good start, I think. We pretty much all agree that the SP/MR distinction needs an overhaul, the problem is how to go about it. Adding a fourth rating to the current Stuff/Movement/Control would be interesting, even though you are then left with the problem of writing the equation that will allow the computer to figure out who should be a starter. But if batters can have both Eye and Avoid K's ratings, I think pitchers should be allowed both Command and Control.

I dunno; this has been a big thing of mine for a while now; in my leagues, I usually end up keeping my eye on guys with potential to be a starter (barring a third pitch), and often edit them to have that third pitch so that the computer will at least give them a shot as a SP. I've never been able to come up with a better idea for the system, though the above looks like a good start to me. And hey, who better to get ideas from than a former pitcher, right?

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by gehrig38

Contrary to popular belief there's been about 4 guys I know of in history that 'commanded' their curve balls, had the ability to throw it to sides, the rest of us mortals only wished for control of that pitch, the ability to throw it for a strike

I'll bite....

Jim Palmer leaps first into my mind.

He was before my time and I have only seen a couple actual games of his on ESPN Classic, but going by reputation and what others who watched him pitch in person have told me...Sandy Koufax.

Steve Rogers was a guy that just seemed to be able to put his curve where he willed whenever I saw him pitch in the early 80s.....so he is my wild card call, here.

Did I hit .333?

[VanillaGorilla]

I really like this delineation of the two.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

I'll bite....

Jim Palmer leaps first into my mind.

He was before my time and I have only seen a couple actual games of his on ESPN Classic, but going by reputation and what others who watched him pitch in person have told me...Sandy Koufax.

Steve Rogers was a guy that just seemed to be able to put his curve where he willed whenever I saw him pitch in the early 80s.....so he is my wild card call, here.

Did I hit .333?

What about Halladay?

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by RchW

What about Halladay?

Notice that I left myself a blank....

I spent quite a bit of time thinking about what Curt said, re command of the curve, and jogged through my memory banks and thought hard about everyone that came to mind (except for Palmer...he was an instapick). Honestly, Halladay didn't come to mind and I didn't consider him, until now.

Since there are only four, I am going to maintain my reserve selection, for now ( I have one non-HOFer CYA winner from the 70s that I just can't shake out of my head).

I know Whitey Ford had a legendary hook, but I have never seen an actual game of his. So for the purposes of gaging command, I have no basis to make a call on Ford.

You have my gears turning on Halladay, now. Good one.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Notice that I left myself a blank....

I spent quite a bit of time thinking about what Curt said, re command of the curve, and jogged through my memory banks and thought hard about everyone that came to mind (except for Palmer...he was an instapick). Honestly, Halladay didn't come to mind and I didn't consider him, until now.

Since there are only four, I am going to maintain my reserve selection, for now ( I have one non-HOFer CYA winner from the 70s that I just can't shake out of my head).

I know Whitey Ford had a legendary hook, but I have never seen an actual game of his. So for the purposes of gaging command, I have no basis to make a call on Ford.

You have my gears turning on Halladay, now. Good one.

Well Halladay comes to mind as another one-pitch X 6 flavors like Curt's fastball.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by RchW

Well Halladay comes to mind as another one-pitch X 6 flavors like Curt's fastball.

I did have Cliff Lee come to mind. I am a HUGE fan of his. Being such a huge fan, I thought my objectivity would cloud my judgment.

Yeah, I just typed that last sentence, and I decided against editing out my newly minted Berra-ism. lol

Since you mentioned Halladay, and he is an absolute surgeon, I thought about him and Lee. I honestly feel that as far as "command of the curve ball", as it is being discussed here, Lee has more and more often. So, I can't put Halladay in my fourth slot. Results are results, and Halladay has had better results more often than Lee, over his career, but that isn't the conversation.

On a side note, how sick has the Phillie starting staff been since 2009? You would be hard pressed to find one with more talent in the 1,2,3, and 4 slots north of Atlanta in the last 100 years.

Anyhow, no, I am not putting Halladay in that 4th slot.

And thanks for contributing to the hijacking of your own thread. I don't feel quite so guilty because of your participation.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

And thanks for contributing to the hijacking of your own thread. I don't feel quite so guilty because of your participation.

I'm cool with the whole thread. I learned a thing or two.

[gehrig38]

Understand this, there is a difference in Roy Halladay being able to throw his curve for strikes, and being able to move it side to side. He doesn't intentionally do the latter, almost no one in existence does, or did. You speed it up, slow it down, put it at the top of the zone, bounced it below, but's if you think about this, a true curve is 12-6, you cannot physically make it go side to side.I used to think of the strike zone like a slot machine looking top down, three slots, the ONLY pitches I ever wanted in the middle slot were my curve and split, I never, in my life, attempted to throw a fastball down the middle.
Sliders, cutters, yes you can control them side to side, hell Maddux showed me, not intentionally, how insane a backdoor slider to a LHH was and I could throw it with my eyes closed to about an 8 inch wide swathe of plate when I had it, and I did alot early on. Late in my career I started to learn (from Varitek) the front door slider to righties, that Mariano started using so much.