How About a Rationale for THIS AI Decision?

[TomVeal]

Occasionally I've posted examples of what seemed like irrational AI managing decisions, and someone has always managed to contrive a non-frivolous, if not necessarily wholly convincing, defense. Here's another challenge:

Late in a close game, the AI pinch hits for my shortstop. On the bench is a light hitting veteran rated 84 (on the 1-100 scale) at SS. He has high ratings, too, in all of the infield categories (range, arm, errors, turn DP) but almost no experience at second or third base (reflected in single digit ratings at those positions). Instead of bringing him in at shortstop, the AI puts him at 2B and moves my second baseman (very good there, a bit below mediocre elsewhere in the infield) to short.

In a blow-out game, I could see inserting a young infielder with lots of talent but limited experience into an unfamiliar position, but what justification is there in this instance?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by TomVeal

Occasionally I've posted examples of what seemed like irrational AI managing decisions, and someone has always managed to contrive a non-frivolous, if not necessarily wholly convincing, defense. Here's another challenge:

Late in a close game, the AI pinch hits for my shortstop. On the bench is a light hitting veteran rated 84 (on the 1-100 scale) at SS. He has high ratings, too, in all of the infield categories (range, arm, errors, turn DP) but almost no experience at second or third base (reflected in single digit ratings at those positions). Instead of bringing him in at shortstop, the AI puts him at 2B and moves my second baseman (very good there, a bit below mediocre elsewhere in the infield) to short.

In a blow-out game, I could see inserting a young infielder with lots of talent but limited experience into an unfamiliar position, but what justification is there in this instance?

None. I don't know who is defending such moves but if you read my post history you would see that I have been whining about defense, positions and the associated AI for several versions. Are you sure your previous instances were as clearly defined? Check David Limbaugh's most recent thread.

I suspect that the player in question may not have been listed as the backup SS. Why is another question. Can you check?

[SteveP]

IMO, there is no rationale for it. Supposedly, the AI attempts to optimize in-game fielding assignment decisions. However, it is impossible to see that happening when we look at specific instances.

I fix these whenever I see the AI doing this, and I will do it for both teams in a game (which is a reason I play as commissioner). There is no other work-around.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by SteveP

IMO, there is no rationale for it. Supposedly, the AI attempts to optimize in-game fielding assignment decisions. However, it is impossible to see that happening when we look at specific instances.

I fix these whenever I see the AI doing this, and I will do it for both teams in a game (which is a reason I play as commissioner). There is no other work-around.

I think the AI may be tied to the depth chart. If the depth chart is incomplete or has circular references (ie the new starting 2B still listed as backup SS) then bizarre patterns should be expected.

Not defending it, trying to understand/explain it.

[Matt Arnold]

The AI does weird and mysterious things. Just checked in a bunch of improvements to substitution logic, so hopefully as of the next patch, issues like this will be gone.

[TLB1975]

Originally Posted by TomVeal

Occasionally I've posted examples of what seemed like irrational AI managing decisions, and someone has always managed to contrive a non-frivolous, if not necessarily wholly convincing, defense. Here's another challenge:

Late in a close game, the AI pinch hits for my shortstop. On the bench is a light hitting veteran rated 84 (on the 1-100 scale) at SS. He has high ratings, too, in all of the infield categories (range, arm, errors, turn DP) but almost no experience at second or third base (reflected in single digit ratings at those positions). Instead of bringing him in at shortstop, the AI puts him at 2B and moves my second baseman (very good there, a bit below mediocre elsewhere in the infield) to short.

I agree and share your frustration. I've seen this happen defensively, similar to your example, as well with usage of relievers. I've seen the AI, in a one run game in the 8th inning, have the (L) setup guy in to start the inning and then after he faces the first left handed batter, they will pull him and bring in the next lefty in the bullpen to face the next left handed batter. In essence, they replaced the (L) setup man with the (L) middle reliever to face a left handed hitter.

Best advice I can offer you is to keep doing what your doing which is bringing it up on the forums and the bug thread if applicable to help.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

The AI does weird and mysterious things. Just checked in a bunch of improvements to substitution logic, so hopefully as of the next patch, issues like this will be gone.

Any thought to having an in-game depth chart view? This is based on my guess that the depth chart affects substitutions in-game. Perhaps you can clarify.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by RchW

Any thought to having an in-game depth chart view? This is based on my guess that the depth chart affects substitutions in-game. Perhaps you can clarify.

We previously occasionally used the depth chart. Currently no plans to add the depth chart in-game, but we can think about that. More likely to come in next year than next week, though.

[SwedishChef]

newsflash, **** ain't perfect.

[bwburke94]

Substitution logic can never be perfect. There are so many minutia that need to be handled - don't double switch your last position player into the game if it's a defensive downgrade, don't pinch-run when trailing in the 9th except for the tying or go-ahead run, et cetera.

[Hoiles]

I see this happening too, for e.g. my starting LF is rated 6 there and 8 in RF, my starting RF is only rated there (hence forcing the first player to play in left), and my 4th outfielder (an inferior hitter) is rated 8 in LF and 6 in RF. When the 4th OF starts and gives the regular RF the day off, the AI just puts him in RF because he's the backup instead of switching everyone to their optimal position. It's not really a big deal but something a human wouldn't do.

I think it would be pretty much impossible to program all the possible AI decisions, so I just commend the OOTP staff for their ongoing work.

[endgame]

I can't complain, we won. But one particularly uncommon, but not rare, 'tactic' (using the term loosely) I've seen my manager implement is PH with my backup catcher and then leaving him in the game at, say, 3B. Granted, this is almost an exclusive late inning or extra inning move, but it makes me nervous. In fact, using him at all is a bit unnerving, whether he stays in the game or not.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

Substitution logic can never be perfect. There are so many minutia that need to be handled - don't double switch your last position player into the game if it's a defensive downgrade, don't pinch-run when trailing in the 9th except for the tying or go-ahead run, et cetera.

I think certain aspects of it can be made perfect, however-- such as, given the players who are in the game, optimizing defense.

So if Player A is a better SS than 2B, and Player B is a better 2B than SS (and is better than Player A at 2B while not as good at SS), one would never see, when the two are in the game, Player A at 2B with Player B at SS. Right now, the AI will make that type of mistake at times.

[BusterKing]

The different types of moves all need to be programmed in the game. It's like chess, eventually they will get it right. They should hire the chess programmer for this game, it would solve all of OOTP's logic problems:

"Houdini 3 is The Terminator among the many chess engines available at the moment. It is estimated that it has an unprecedented monstrous rating of 3335. In comparison, Magnus Carlsen recently landed a world record for humans on 2861. That means the computer program is expected to win 99 (!) out of 100 games against the world number one."

SOURCE: http://en.chessbase.com/post/nettavi...st-che-program

[BusterKing]

nm

[msupoke]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

I see this happening too, for e.g. my starting LF is rated 6 there and 8 in RF, my starting RF is only rated there (hence forcing the first player to play in left), and my 4th outfielder (an inferior hitter) is rated 8 in LF and 6 in RF. When the 4th OF starts and gives the regular RF the day off, the AI just puts him in RF because he's the backup instead of switching everyone to their optimal position. It's not really a big deal but something a human wouldn't do.

I think it would be pretty much impossible to program all the possible AI decisions, so I just commend the OOTP staff for their ongoing work.

This one is easy to fix, I think. Put your starting LF as the backup RF and your 4th OF as your backup LF. When the starting RF is tired, your LF will play RF, and your OF will play LF.