Depth Chart still not working correctly?

[BillyBuck]

Hey fellas! Is anyone else still having problems with the depth chart not working correctly? I have the new 5.12 patch - but in one of my online leagues I just had a sub start back to back games for the same player/position and he's only set at 7% vs RH+DH. Both back to back games were against a RH/SP with a DH.

Am I nutz or is something still goofy here??

[Steve Kuffrey]

Is it possible that the "alarm" is pre-mature? Wouldn't it be more prudent to see how more than a two game sampling is played out? Is the commish also using the same "updated" patch?

[Karl Marx]

This is happening Steve.... my backup catcher is set at 20% and I've seen him play back to back on more than one occasion.... looks like we're going to need some numbers to back this up, but it is happening.

[Steve Kuffrey]

But what I am wanting to see is over the course of a season and what his numbers are like, if he starts 2 then doesn't start again for 20 then I don't see the problem. Maybe the back-to-back starts are in part due to the player he is starting in place of being tired. But if he starts 2 misses 5 starts 2 and his % is low then maybe there is a problem. I'm not saying that this is working flawlessly, but saying he started back-to-back is not telling me it is broken unless it happens all the time.

[Henry]

The "20%" as you know, means 20% of the games - but does NOT necessarily mean "every fifth game". Fatigue, injuries, and the interrelationships of players who back up more than one positon can all effect this when looked at for a short number of games.

Again, let's not turn these players into "robotrons" that are too predictable which would then defeat the strength of the game.

[Steve Kuffrey]

Originally posted by Henry
The "20%" as you know, means 20% of the games - but does NOT necessarily mean "every fifth game". Fatigue, injuries, and the interrelationships of players who back up more than one positon can all effect this when looked at for a short number of games.

Again, let's not turn these players into "robotrons" that are too predictable which would then defeat the strength of the game.

Which is exactly why you need to look at a season or so and see "how much"(what percentage) a player is playing if he is "close" within a few games of what the "exact" percentage would be then I'd say it is working fine(as some variance needs to be allowed for), but if he is set for 20% and barring huge injuries is starting 100+ games then something is wrong.

[BillyBuck]

Okay I understand what you are saying, fellas.

Steve - yes the commish has 5.12 as well.

But I need to get the numbers out of my head - I do think incorrectly. When I have it set at 10%, I expect to have them start about every 10th game. Well, I obviously need to stop thinking that way. I see your point, Steve and Henry.

I do have one more question, though, becuz I never knew this for sure and it's kind of important to know:

Does the CPU automatically (eventually) sub for a tired player if you have someone listed as his backup? If the answer is yes, does it matter if you have a starting pctg entered or can you leave it at zero and the CPU will still sub when the player is tired?

Did that make sense?

[Henry]

Yep (I think LOL

0% will sub if, and only if, the primary player is tired or injured, unless of course, you also have him listed as a defensive backup.

[Sudy Nym]

Posted by Henry, 07/10/03:
The "20%" as you know, means 20% of the games - but does NOT necessarily mean "every fifth game".

Markus Heinsohn, from the 5.11 patch notes, 06/16/03:
- Changed depth chart starting percentage logic. Example: A utility player has a 20%
starting percentage. Instead of having a 20% chance in each game to start, he'll now
start every fifth game.

?

So this wasn't fixed? Obviously not, or we wouldn't still be being told that "20% doesn't mean 1 in 5." Unless I'm missing something- but if not, I'm rather confused.

[Steve Kuffrey]

It doesn't mean that he will start every X(whatever %) game it means that over the course of the season he will start "roughly" that percentage of the teams games.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by Steve Kuffrey
It doesn't mean that he will start every X(whatever %) game it means that over the course of the season he will start "roughly" that percentage of the teams games.

Steve, it's not the end of the world or anything, but I can't find any plausible way I can take "he'll now start every fifth game" mean "he will start roughly" 20% of the games.

[Sudy Nym]

It doesn't mean that he will start every X(whatever %) game it means that over the course of the season he will start "roughly" that percentage of the teams games.

Yes, that was the definition that we all understood prior to the 5.11 patch. But were Markus's words in the 5.11 notes then incorrect? Because I was very excited that the depth charts would, for once, offer me a reliable way to set up my internet league rosters. Do I need for 20% to mean "every fifth game"? No- but "20% of the season's games" is a little vague and not at all effective- especially if you tinker with these percentages all the time, like I do. You can't determine how often a player should start without some fairly complex math. That's what I thought the 5.11 patch changed.

[Steve Kuffrey]

Ok, I just ran a one season very quick test and here are the results:

-Injuries were off
-Fatigue on
-Players listed as backup at only one position and listed at the same % in each lineup
-Human owned team
-Straight sim of season
-Each number listed is "% of games started"

Catcher-20% backup
Starter-76.5%
Backup-23.5%

Firstbase-10% backup
Starter-86%
Backup-14%

Secondbase-40% backup
Starter-69%
Backup-31%(seemed a bit low)

Thirdbase-10% backup
Starter-88%
Backup-12%

Shortstop-50% backup
Starter-51%
Backup-49%

Overall the numbers look good, acceptable "to me", however I did not look to see the exact breakdown of when each player played.

[Sudy Nym]

I don't really have any doubt (or problem) when it comes to the functionality of the depth charts (and I hope that I don't need to), but rather their reliability and ease of use.

I expect that rate of play is balanced for the most part, but I'm sure that many of us could do with some assurance- those of us who don't have the time or the will to look through a player's records to make sure that he is getting steady playing time. Does 20% need to be off-off-off-off-playing-off-off-off-off-playing? No, it doesn't- and I agree that that wouldn't be realistic. However, I don't think that it can be off-off-playing-playing-off-off-off-off-playing-off-off-off-off-off-off-off-off-playing-off-off. And some have been suggesting that it just might very well be. That's not realistic, either- not for a platoon, a routine defensive fill-in, or say, a back-up catcher.

When I say "ease of use," how many people can, off the top of their heads, forecast how much playing time a player will get when set at 22% with 79 games remaining in the season? With a "one out every five" (for 20%, of course- not 22) system, it's much easier to set our depth charts on the fly and not look back- that's what I was hoping that the 5.11 patch added.

[The Last Word Period]

Originally posted by Sudy Nym
Yes, that was the definition that we all understood prior to the 5.11 patch. But were Markus's words in the 5.11 notes then incorrect? Because I was very excited that the depth charts would, for once, offer me a reliable way to set up my internet league rosters. Do I need for 20% to mean "every fifth game"? No- but "20% of the season's games" is a little vague and not at all effective- especially if you tinker with these percentages all the time, like I do. You can't determine how often a player should start without some fairly complex math. That's what I thought the 5.11 patch changed.......

Oh please, would you just quit crying already? Have you ran your OWN numbers for a season, did the collating, perused box scores, did some number crunching, (oh wait, that is complex math..right?) taken the time to do some of this work yourself? If not, why?

Is it possible that you are unwilling to do the work yourself and find it easier to complain, and whine? Stop tinkering and do the grunt work yourself. Take the time you waste complaining and put it to good use. Do your own research and compare it to what Kuffrey has.


Mr. Kuffrey did some quick numbers for you. Those numbers look pretty close for one season, bet you could expound on that and do a few more yourself, and you know what? I bet you see some trends........over a 50 to 100 yr simulation. ( OOPS, math isn't your strong suit.)

I mean it doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to see that you can do this yourself. But then ease of use is tantamount isn't it?

You want ease of use? I can recommend a couple of games for you.

Try Animal Crossing or Pokemon, they are a bit easier to understand, and you don't have to sit at a computer trying to understand simple mathematics and english.

Stop wasting your oxygen and my bandwidth with this whiny why isn't it this way......crap. And for all you that just love to flame , feel free.

I am surprised Mr. Kuffrey hasn't told you all to shut up and just play the damn game. I would. There is a point where you guys are not making the game better, you are making it worse.

Find something that the game needs to mature to a different level, not this picayune bull**** you are all crying about now.

If Kuffrey isn't white haired and a grumpy old man yet, he will be after dealing with you simpletons.

You don't get paid enough to deal with idiots , Steve. You should ask for a raise.

After reading these replies , I sure would.



TLWP

[Henry]

Catcher-20% backup
Starter-76.5%
Backup-23.5%

Firstbase-10% backup
Starter-86%
Backup-14%

Secondbase-40% backup
Starter-69%
Backup-31%(seemed a bit low)

Thirdbase-10% backup
Starter-88%
Backup-12%

Shortstop-50% backup
Starter-51%
Backup-49%

Based on the above, I can't see any room for complaints. If you want "more" accuracy, or if you want patterns to the way these percentages are accumulated, I can't see how that can be done without managing the games yourself. Your comment about tweaking the percentages seems to be into "micro-managing" to me without actaully playing out the games - then expecting the results to come out the same as if you had.

Your statement about "still not fixed"... at this point I would have to say that was based on you meaning it's "still not fixed to how I want it to work". It's certainly not "broke" based on Steve's results.

[Kevin]

TLWP needs to drink less coffee or risk the fanboy tag.

[MiddleGA]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
Steve, it's not the end of the world or anything, but I can't find any plausible way I can take "he'll now start every fifth game" mean "he will start roughly" 20% of the games.

Nor can I.

Steve may very well be correct about what the current situation is but it is definitely different than what the note in question indicated to me.

[Steve Kuffrey]

So am I understanding that those questioning the fact of whether or not this part of the game is working correcting were under the impression that when the depth chart numbers were entered that how they were "played out" would be more of a predictable pattern? In other words 25% meant that in a 4 game series the player would more often than not start 1 game. I'm just trying to clarify.......

[Henry]

Building on Steve's comments...

1. The original concern, and resulting request, was to change 20% to mean "plays in 20% of the games" rather than "20% chance of playing". That was done and works.

2. If some now want "further" control over how backups are used, then this is a new request - and must be discussed with offered ideas, and followup discussions the same way we handle all other ideas.

And please, let's try and be somewhat flexible on the literary translation of a stated comment. This is a limited size organization, and we don't have a team of technical/marketing writiers to go over every published statement with a fine toothed comb to insure there is no misunderstandings.

Yes, this board is massive, but anyone following the discussions that occur here have a pretty accurate idea of what the enhancements were intended to do - and that can't be replaced by refering to a 10 word statement of the enhancement in an announcement.

Henry