the catcher lead-off & other bad ideas

[realstar]

Originally Posted by NoOne

no matter what large portions will be unhappy with how each category is implemented. there is too much subjectivity involved in what a "best" lineup is.

is some of it more reputable than other bits of info, sure, but most is not known with certainty.

the only way is to make the depth charts more functional. add lineup slot along with when to sub. all other spots move up or down one - 2 drop down boxes. this is extremely easy to code too.

Cactcher backup1 = "start every 3rd day" and "8th in lineup" from drop down boxes.

problem solved. no more need for the AI.

manager changing your lineuip? tick "prevent ai from changing roster."

problem solved.


(not 100% certain if it is that checkbox or "lock strategy"... i assume it's the previous rather than the latter for obvious reasons, but they are both checked in my games, and i don't care to figure it out.)

I agree with this even more, & then something occurs. Overall types (sabermetric vs traditional etc) are more for gamers simming entire seasons. What NoOne says is closer to the point for field manager types like me who want to get into depth charts & closer to the field game. The suggestions are spot on. Let's hire you for chief developer & get on with this thing. lol

[realstar]

i can find plenty of evidence that minimizes the tradiotional weight that is applied to speed at the top of the lineup, but it's still a sliding scale of 2 factors (or more). an obp that is .XXX larger can outweigh any possible speed difference, but it's a horizon... a curve... theoretically you can find the breakeven point for any variables given. you can find a point where a speed differential outweighs a .050 obp difference between 2 players... it may or may not be realistic, but you can find it. that calculated value isn't meant to be chiseled in stone, but merely a best guess from the equation and how the data was collected etc... it is comparing apples and oranges after converting them both to pears.... or somethign like that.

you say it ruins lineups and there is no sense or reason to them. try simming the same year over and over again maybe 20-50 times with the AI lineup. then, repeat with your lineup. turn off trading, injuries and development - ensure the same players are used and they don't change randomly. finally, compare runs scored. otherwise, it's just a guess as to it being a ruined lineup.

you can test different things while following this general setup. test 2 different substitution lineups - the ai's choice and your choice. a large enough sample will provide you with an answer. otherwise, you can't say with certainty that ootp is using terrible lineups.

at this time, so many concepts of baeball are based on faith and the eye-test. neither of these things are acceptable as evidence.

The difference is approaching baseball by numbers of games or each game at a time. IRL each game plays out as more important than several games because you're in the game, not standing back & looking at several games. Some people (statisticians) are objectively looking at the big picture & making claims. But people on the field can't do that in the middle of a game. So the difference in opinion--no argument, no sentiment, no conservative vs progressive--is about how much a person wants to play a cpu immersed in one game as opposed to how much another person wants to stay objective & make decisions that way. The former person should be assumed to be out of place playing a game called Out Of The Park on a computer which allows simming several games at once. Yet where is that former person supposed to go for simming one pitch at a time & trying to immerse? There is nowhere else because no game with the historical/current data OOTP offers exists for us. In other words, we only want the data because we would use it to try to immerse in a simulation that gives us the feeling we are playing/managing a real game. At which point, all the objective stats over full seasons is less important, or rather is only important to supply the gamer with a base upon which to sim this real life experience.

The only way to immerse is to temporarily forget about full year stats--e.g. use long term stats with a limit on how important they are. The cutting off point, as you so well put it, is in batting orders. That is where the field manager is, or should be allowed to use their field insight, their real-time experience (gut instinct, whatever you want to call it) to make the final decisions on how at least the batting is going to proceed. It's limited, as there are many other things that happen in the course of a game. I find myself fighting AI in OOTP (compromising) by allowing AI to control most decisions during in-game play (in one game, playing it out, pitch by pitch) in order to get a feeling that a real game is happening: in order to have some random, or semi-random things occur (actually some things based on stats). But when it comes to substitutions, I take more control. This requires going into Options mid-game & turning AI control of play off to make certain substitutions & then turning AI back on to allow the game to give me some interesting twists.

For example, I want to know what AI thinks should be a pitcher sub, so I leave it on. But I know from OOTP experience that it wont sub my better fielding catcher until it's often too late (sabotage!) so I put him in manually. Believe it or not, a better fielding catcher will make pitchers perform better, which can be vital to winning close games: not allowing the starter/bullpen to throw away leads. I find this too often to be a disturbing facet of OOTP & I've given it a pet name: the "catch up algorithm." I hate the catch up algorithm because it feels like a long term stat got in the way of real-time managing: where stupid decisions are made during a game in order for AI to be sure to have its balanced stats at the end of the season. (All the ratings, thus the performances, are based in one way or another on full season stats. Even though those stats are tangled up with full team performances in complex ways. Which is, of course, the inherent problem with player stats: how much is it actually the player? ) I'm so used to this happening (throwing away leads) that I can predict it during the course of a game. Consequently, I'm on guard for it & if I play games this way, warding off the algorithm from making poor close game decisions, I win, win, win. Basically I've figured out a cheat. (exploited a weakness in the computer game) But I never meant to cheat. (Please, your honor! )All I was trying to do was overcome what seemed like a weakness in allowing baseball performances to be based (to play out) completely on stats. All I was doing was behaving like a good manager.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by realstar

For example, I want to know what AI thinks should be a pitcher sub, so I leave it on. But I know from OOTP experience that it wont sub my better fielding catcher until it's often too late (sabotage!) so I put him in manually.

I'm baffled by this: are you suggesting that the AI isn't acting realistically when it doesn't sub your starting catcher late in the game? Frankly, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I have never seen a major league team do that on a regular basis.

[bwburke94]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

I'm baffled by this: are you suggesting that the AI isn't acting realistically when it doesn't sub your starting catcher late in the game? Frankly, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I have never seen a major league team do that on a regular basis.

More realistically, the guy hasn't gone into strategy settings and changed when defensive replacements come in.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

More realistically, the guy hasn't gone into strategy settings and changed when defensive replacements come in.

While this may be true I have found that this mechanic seems a bit "buggy" or random. I set mine to use defensive replacements with any lead from the 8th inning on. I have observed many simmed games where those replacements aren't used even though the conditions are met.

I've also seen instances where the AI brings in the defensive replacement for the 8th inning in a close game & then pinch hits for him the next time he is up even though the team still has the lead.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

While this may be true I have found that this mechanic seems a bit "buggy" or random. I set mine to use defensive replacements with any lead from the 8th inning on. I have observed many simmed games where those replacements aren't used even though the conditions are met.

I've also seen instances where the AI brings in the defensive replacement for the 8th inning in a close game & then pinch hits for him the next time he is up even though the team still has the lead.

was it a controlling manager? or possibly a very high reputation manager of any type?

they expect more control. more so with controlling, obviously. i have seen a normal coach take control of lineups and pitching staff.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by NoOne

was it a controlling manager? or possibly a very high reputation manager of any type?

they expect more control. more so with controlling, obviously. i have seen a normal coach take control of lineups and pitching staff.

To be honest I don't know. I thought the mechanics worked such that if you could set the lineups & depth chart then you had control and if not then the manager has control. I'll keep an eye out in the future to see although it is something I'm pretty sure I have observed in every sim I've done.


LOL I just realized I've been playing as "manager & GM" so that explanation isn't a possibility.

[realstar]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

I'm baffled by this: are you suggesting that the AI isn't acting realistically when it doesn't sub your starting catcher late in the game? Frankly, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I have never seen a major league team do that on a regular basis.

That's actually a good point & thank you for saying it, Joe. I'm taking way too much control to call it realistic when it comes to wanting to always sub catchers in late innings when the game is close. But there is a reason for this. It's because in simming games (where I'm not in-game taking control) the game will make ridiculous choices that sometimes seem like it's sabotaging my team, especially with regard to pitching subs & the bullpen throwing away leads. I believe this is the result of (at least it feels like) an algorithm that supports the idea of the team behind making a big effort to catch up. Again, the over-simplification of AI that doesn't take into consideration the finer details of defensive playing & strategy may be the culprit. Close scores in late games are when things get very touchy, especially for defense. Hence, my reaction to try and compensate by making a strong defensive catcher replacement the rule. But you are right, it's hardly ever done IRL. In actuality, the defense team digs in & makes the extra effort (depending on the team/players.. lol). In actuality, pitchers are under the greatest pressure then, which obviously is the whole point of relievers. Maybe I'm just having trouble figuring out how to read the quality of relievers in OOTP. For that matter, maybe that's every manager's problem. The ones who get that together are really doing something & they're the ones who win more games.

[realstar]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

I've...seen instances where the AI brings in the defensive replacement for the 8th inning in a close game & then pinch hits for him the next time he is up even though the team still has the lead.

This statement should be posted prominently in the OOTP development office. If only to remind developers of the scam they are inadvertantly perpetrating on some of the consumers who buy their product under the assumption they are buying a baseball field managing simulation game. Maybe it doesn't matter much; it's a cheap enough game & nobody is getting ripped off that much. But look at all the interest intricately posted all over this forum. It makes you wonder if developers aren't dismayed by it; would've preferred the game be played by people interested only in simming full seasons to see how teams/players turn out, as opposed to all this in-depth game by game managing interest. The reason being that they'd never any intention of creating a game complex enough for that degree of simulation, and the name of the game reveals this fact.

OOTP is slanted for power hitters & against defensive common sense. Whenever you try to focus on defense you are consequently fighting the AI. The only times this fighting doesn't seem to occur are the periodic times AI randomly allows defensive control. My guess is that, more often than not (or always), fielding plays are chosen randomly without relation to fielders' statistical ability. It's questionable whether hits, other than home runs, are anything but random, in terms of what kind of hit & where. It's an easy enough thing to fein, while the excuse is easily found (truth evaded) in how so many different things occur IRL (hitting/fielding-wise) that making it random works out enough to avoid any legitimate criticism. I believe all of it is a reflection of the weaknesses commonly found in defensive statistics. Basically, we are fools to think there is any actual simulation going on & therefore our efforts to field manage are mostly in our imaginations. But you can't say they didn't warn us beforehand. It's called Out Of The Park. Those of us who try to bring the game back into the park are consequently Out Of Our Minds... or OOOM. . . . lol

[realstar]

The following is from a private mail correspondence between me & the commish of an online league...

What worries me most about OOTP in general is the lack of scouting accuracy regarding fielding. I'm constantly looking into BNN for past stats to scope out who the best fielders are because the scouts often get it wrong. Fielding stats don't exist for previous years anywhere else. WTF is that? Like the game developers are deliberately hiding fielding. It makes me wonder if it's because they didn't program much of the game around it. 3B is an important position, maybe the most important (it used to be in old tyme ball because of the inside game--aka small ball) --All in all, it seems to be a lot of guessing work, waiting to see when stats come in. Whereas IRL it would be very clear at practice who can field.

REPEAT: it seems to be a lot of guessing work, waiting to see when stats come in. Whereas IRL it would be very clear at practice who can field.

The solution to this problem is to add a training feature (some cpu games in the past had this.. can't remember which). It could be placed chronologically in Spring Training & then continue throughout the season. It would be linked to player development, enhancing (really replacing) this feature. (OOTP player development is overrated & undoubtedly so in order to make up for the lack of look-see in a stats based game which itself allows for blind gambling--e.g. fantasy baseball).

This training/fielding feature would be mostly fielding based (a new idea for OOTP) & would avoid scouts so managers could get a bird's eye view of players ability on the field. I don't suppose this will ever be instituted, however by OOTP developers. They seem content with this mostly (souped up) fantasy based game we have here. Fantasy baseball with more statistical detail, that is.

[realstar]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

More realistically, the guy hasn't gone into strategy settings and changed when defensive replacements come in.

On the contrary, I use manual strategy (locked) as a rule & the settings are always gradated toward demanding pitcher/position pinch hitting subs in late/close innings, including very high demands for pinch runners as well as high demands for yanking starters/relievers (fast).

But I wil tell you what I think is really happening in OOTP. The game is not geared for gamer control. It wants the gamer to allow the AI to make decisions, particularly with regard to batting orders & pitching choices. Proof of this comes in the form of how much better a team will play when the gamer lets go of control.

Try it for yourself. Take full control of batting orders and pitching rotation/bullpen for several weeks managing a border line team. (Make it Cleveland ...lol) The test wont work for a team doing very well already, especially one that dominates offensively in a DH league. So do it for like the Dodgers or White Sox, who traditionally used a lot of defensive managing finesse in close games where pitchers, bullpens, fast runners stealing, strong defensive players made a big difference in close, low scoring games.

Run full games without going in (or you can watch in-game but don't take control). Watch the team experience trouble as AI screws up what you thought was a finely tuned bullpen & batting orders you created specifically in 7-game, strategy with control that doesn't necessarily match your manager's strategy etc. It's all about how you're decisions are not good enough, according to AI. The reason being obviously that you trusted player ratings (or scouting ratings: worse) and/or you trusted statistics & then created your finely tuned depth charts, batting orders & pitching staff & arrangements without taking into consideration the OOTP program which wants you to not take control, so it can do its stuff of field managing itself (in a power hitting biased way), so you can relieve yourself of all that tedious business and stay out of the park.

You can even get fed up & try to take control before the damn AI throws away yet another lead, by taking over & putting in what will surely be a better reliever than AI has selected, or you can pinch a runner, put in a pinch hitter etc. Every time, the AI will sabotage you. THEN....

Release control of everything. Set 7-day to off and allow AI to control all batting order decisions. Run the AI to allow your manager to create your depth charts and your entire pitching staff. Watch as you start winning game after game & everything is suddenly going right... even though AI has put your catcher in the lead off & all kinds of dubious looking batting order decisions. WTF is this? you will ask.

It's the game making evaluations on your managing skills. Notice how the game evaluates your managing at the end of the season by giving you a score. (I think it's 1-100). But wait... I thought the best (and only) true judgement of a good manager is winning games. Yeah, but apparently OOTP doesn't agree with that. It wants to teach you how to manage, like it's ChessMaster. It wants to evaluate your batting order & pitching staff/rotation decisions & score you on it.

IMO that is essentially the problem with this game. With these evaluation/teaching algorithms in place, there is no way to show your stuff as a field manager. You will always be evaluated according to what the AI thinks is a good batting order & if you don't set up your batting order according to what AI thinks is a good batting order, you will be penalized with things like wasted hits & bullpens that throw away leads. No matter what you do in-game, the penalizing for your batting order & pitching staff arrangements being different than AI's strict idea of the proper ones will override everything.

Basically, the teaching algorithm (for kids?) is what screws everything up for in depth, user field managing. I've been playing OOTP for years & it never changes. Take control & get screwed. Let go & watch the game get way luckier than you ever could taking control. It gets to the point where you're afraid to make any decisions because you know they'll get sabotaged (penalized) for not being the weird (power hitter biased) decisions the game is programmed to make. You can get lucky sometimes, obviously by hitting on what the AI thinks is ok. But like I said, that only happens when you're playing an offensively dominating type of team. Or when you just happen to get lucky by hitting on a particular batting order.

The problem is that the teaching algorithm is too strict. This has improved slightly in recent versions. This year I can play the Dodgers & not have to worry too much. Obviously because they were winners recently. But what about taking a challenge by heavily controlling a normally struggling team? It's a difficult proposition and that's why my weird methods (see cheats in above post) of substituting catcher & what not is what I resort to.

Still, it always leads to that point where you have to let go & allow AI to make a month of decisions to get things on track. The problem with that is how it's no longer managing simulation for the gamer & turns into playing the AI for results: not realistic enough. But the reason being that there has been too much AI put into the game, as I stated before.

The game put too much fantasy full-season player development & gambling on dubious scouting decisions into its AI. Instead of creating players straight-up with stats & then allowing those honest statistics to play out the season naturally, with no league balancing act. The problem with that being how single games are affected by long term synthesis of players & their developments. You never have a game with player ratings (abilities) working out unaffected. Everything is tainted with the full season development of players. "Due" becomes a bigger factor than is realistic.

When I first complained about this years ago, I was told to turn scouting off, which I did. But sketchy scouting on fielding ability continued regardless. I attributed that to the difficulty of scouting fielding according to stats, which are sketchy on fielding (range factor, for example). But I kept thinking about how IRL it's not difficult to see how good a fielder is. So from this, we see why AI is biased toward power hitters: it's the easiest stat to read (to program effectively). Of course this is why fantasy baseball gambling has so little fielding and, at worst, is only about accumulating power hitters & ace pitchers with lots of strikeouts.

We wanted a game that gave us the straight truth on player ability so we could manage those players without anything getting in the way. But that's not what we get. Instead we get all this teaching evaluation junk & rewards not really in the game (bronze/silver). AI that has its own idea what is correct which disallows the user to show how well they can field manage, getting penalized for perfectly good batting orders!

The game wants you to stay out of the park, making trades, listening to supposedly dubious scouts while trying to make sense of it, working around stupid scouting reports & then managing the boring business stuff, while AI controls the field manager's stuff. If you don't do as you're told, you will be penalized & you'll be fighting an uphill battle every time you try to think for yourself.

Think about it. It had to do it this way if it was going to allow full seasons to be simmed using the AI for all managing. You can't have it both ways. If you wanna play a game that lets the gamer play in the park, the core program would have to be different, with no AI evaluating any managing decisions & with a greater programming emphasis on what happens on the field, play by play, since what happens on the field is the real game of baseball, not what happens in the GM/owners' offices.

The evaluation part apparently comes from this full season simming ability. Again, for gamers who want in depth, field managing experience the core program would have to be straight up player ratings (no scouting nonsense) & no balancing act for full seasons.

The balancing algorithm is apparently for keeping radical things from happening. The more simplistic program would have none of that. Only player ratings. Then play out your games & whatever happens, happens naturally. With no evaluation, no penalizing of the gamer's decisions, not corralling of the full season stats.

The turning on/off of historical doesn't stop this corralling of players, balancing the stats. It only varies it, more or less corralling. The game is not a free field managing experience. Instead it's about allowing gamer to make top end decisions (trading, ticketing etc) while AI contains field managing & applies random plays which are balanced in the end by a full season statistical synthesizer. That full season statistical synthesizer is what gets in the way of gamers trying to take full (free) control of batting orders & pitching staffs.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

Would it be best if the lineup selection would be a three-way choice, traditional/modern/sabermetric instead of traditional/sabermetric?

"Traditional" would be the pre-expansion method of lineup construction, with the 2 hole going to a bat-control guy and whatnot.
"Modern" would be the 2010s method of lineup construction, not quite full sabermetric but avoiding the flaws inherent in traditional lineups.
"Sabermetric" would be the complete "bat the best hitters 1/2/4, pitcher eighth" strategy Joe Maddon and similar managers have been using.

I like that. 2 options simply aren't enough for this. But I'm afraid I don't fully understand what you mean by modern as opposed to the other two. Can you give some examples of what it might do differently than the other two?

When I first saw your three options I thought you were going to suggest replacing traditional with small ball and add long ball. realstar, rightfully now that I think about it, was talking about how there are some differences between AL/DH/longball and NL/no-DH/small ball style lineup choices and I think it might be worth creating some AI for those options, but your three would probably be worth keeping too (I'm not sure what difference there'd be between traditional and small ball though). With 5 choices to choose from hopefully most users would be able to find at least one they liked.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by realstar

But I wil tell you what I think is really happening in OOTP. The game is not geared for gamer control. It wants the gamer to allow the AI to make decisions, particularly with regard to batting orders & pitching choices. Proof of this comes in the form of how much better a team will play when the gamer lets go of control.

Try it for yourself. Take full control of batting orders and pitching rotation/bullpen for several weeks managing a border line team. (Make it Cleveland ...lol) The test wont work for a team doing very well already, especially one that dominates offensively in a DH league. So do it for like the Dodgers or White Sox, who traditionally used a lot of defensive managing finesse in close games where pitchers, bullpens, fast runners stealing, strong defensive players made a big difference in close, low scoring games.

Run full games without going in (or you can watch in-game but don't take control). Watch the team experience trouble as AI screws up what you thought was a finely tuned bullpen & batting orders you created specifically in 7-game, strategy with control that doesn't necessarily match your manager's strategy etc. It's all about how you're decisions are not good enough, according to AI.

You can even get fed up & try to take control before the damn AI throws away yet another lead, by taking over & putting in what will surely be a better reliever than AI has selected, or you can pinch a runner, put in a pinch hitter etc. Every time, the AI will sabotage you. THEN....

Release control of everything. Set 7-day to off and allow AI to control all batting order decisions. Run the AI to allow your manager to create your depth charts and your entire pitching staff. Watch as you start winning game after game & everything is suddenly going right... even though AI has put your catcher in the lead off & all kinds of dubious looking batting order decisions. WTF is this? you will ask.

It's the game making evaluations on your managing skills. Notice how the game evaluates your managing at the end of the season by giving you a score. (I think it's 1-100). But wait... I thought the best (and only) true judgement of a good manager is winning games. Yeah, but apparently OOTP doesn't agree with that. It wants to teach you how to manage, like it's ChessMaster. It wants to evaluate your batting order & pitching staff/rotation decisions & score you on it.

IMO that is essentially the problem with this game. With these evaluation/teaching algorithms in place, there is no way to show your stuff as a field manager. You will always be evaluated according to what the AI thinks is a good batting order & if you don't set up your batting order according to what AI thinks is a good batting order, you will be penalized with things like wasted hits & bullpens that throw away leads. No matter what you do in-game, the penalizing for your batting order & pitching staff arrangements being different than AI's strict idea of the proper ones will override everything.

Basically, the teaching algorithm (for kids?) is what screws everything up for in depth, user field managing. I've been playing OOTP for years & it never changes. Take control & get screwed. Let go & watch the game get way luckier than you ever could taking control.

Wait... you are saying that the game penalizes you for managing? And it does this by changing the "dice roll" to a negative outcome?

EDIT: I am still trying to understand this... You are saying that the game has a "balancing algorithm" to make you lose when you don't sim full seasons?

[realstar]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Wait... you are saying that the game penalizes you for managing? And it does this by changing the "dice roll" to a negative outcome?

EDIT: I am still trying to understand this... You are saying that the game has a "balancing algorithm" to make you lose when you don't sim full seasons?

Note: Everything below & in my previous comment is theoretical. Obviously I don't have proof. Only the developers know the truth, and none of them are talking.

Yes. No. (not that simplistic) No. (not that simplistic) It penalizes you for taking control (your first sentence is closest, not the other two). Dice rolls are balanced by an overriding program. A balancing algorithm which (no) doesn't make you necessarily lose when you don't sim full seasons, only when you take control in a way that conflicts with the programmed set of algorithms designed to evaluate how well AI is managing teams automatically.

In OOTP, the full season is balanced to keep statistics close to player statistical ability. Variations of each player's full season performance (away from pure statistics) occur when the player is traded and compatibility does/doesn't match. Trading changes each team's power rating & its AI managed "score" at end of seasons. (AI managed teams are also scored even though that is not revealed to gamers.) All of this is balanced with another program to keep teams from becoming radically changed which would make AI look bad & unrealistic. All of it is created by developers for the purpose of allowing gamers to sim full seasons quickly, to stay out of the park, as it were. In the process of that balancing program (statistical synthesizer: a synthesizer is a combination of algorithm programs), the game inadvertantly penalizes you when you take control on the field and in batting orders & pitching staffs. But only when your independent decisions vary greatly from what the AI is programmed to dictate are correct in-game substitutions, depth charts, batting orders & pitching staffs (rotation/bullpen arrangement) according to a power biased team. Two things in the game reveal this: 1) power ratings, 2) managing score at the end of the season. Two things that aren't necessary in a baseball simulation but are found in fantasy baseball cpu programs.

The problem with cracking jokes on the web is how you never get to hear anyone laughing at them. Only when someone quotes you and/or simply writes "lol" & that has gotta be a small percentage of the reality.

[realstar]

Originally Posted by kq76

I I thought you [meant] replacing traditional with small ball and add long ball. realstar, rightfully now that I think about it, was talking about how there are some differences between AL/DH/longball and NL/no-DH/small ball style lineup choices and I think it might be worth creating some AI for those options, but your three would probably be worth keeping too (I'm not sure what difference there'd be between traditional and small ball though). With 5 choices to choose from hopefully most users would be able to find at least one they liked.

Another great idea. So glad I started this thread. thx to all participating

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by realstar

Two things in the game reveal this: 1) power ratings, 2) managing score at the end of the season. Two things that aren't necessary in a baseball simulation but are found in fantasy baseball cpu programs.

The power ratings are merely a ranking of how each team is playing at a particular time. The season-end score is a combination of factors including financial management and team record compared to expectations. I don't see how either of these prove your theory.

I also don't see how the game is balancing in a fictional universe. What data set is it using to adjust results toward?

[NoOne]

i have my doubts about whether this game adheres to the law of independent results, too. however, it's possible that the 'rolls' were already made prior, so it only seems odd.

i think the general outcome of a single AB gets put into certain profiles and those adhere to probabilities, but that isn't the same nor is it a good practice, if it is done that way.

i saved a game before an AB, made a backup and exited the game. i restored the backup numerous times for that AB and got the same result 100 times over (no exagerration and excluding fielding errors, those are calculated after a ball goes into play).

it would be impossible for any data for an ab that never took place to reside in the backup. it was a fresh start to that AB everytime.

i was trying to get a 4hr game in ootp15, it happened during an early ab and i only tried that one 20-30times before i moved on, then it happened again 2 ab later. that AB i redid 100+times out of spite. i have a decent pc, but restoring a game 100times still took a heft chunk of time over 2 sittings, lol. i just couldn't believe that the result was predetermined.

luckily i don't play day-to-day so it isn't a concern for me anymore. even if the stats are somewhat shaped, they still fluctuate somewhat realistically from year-to-year. instead of tuning their engine, i think they took the easy path to make it realistic.

edit: i don't see what realstar sees though. there is no punishment by not subbing a catcher in late innings. this isn't as common as you believe it is. also, since the ai follows the same logic, it is an even playing field. they aren't making that substitution either. the whole immersion stuff is just personal opinion.

it's possible you start winning when the ai runs stuff becuase it is actually making better decisions relative to your team. if the talent distribution on your team fits their strategy better, you will perform better, and vice versa. also, watching a game or 50 isn't going to give you an answer one way or another. even a season. replay that season over and over again with each strategy - turning off trades, development and other factors that cause deviation not related to strategy. control all other factors and change the ai only. then you'll know better about how the varying ai strategies influences results.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by realstar

Note: Everything below & in my previous comment is theoretical. Obviously I don't have proof. Only the developers know the truth, and none of them are talking.

Yes. No. (not that simplistic) No. (not that simplistic) It penalizes you for taking control (your first sentence is closest, not the other two). Dice rolls are balanced by an overriding program. A balancing algorithm which (no) doesn't make you necessarily lose when you don't sim full seasons, only when you take control in a way that conflicts with the programmed set of algorithms designed to evaluate how well AI is managing teams automatically.

In OOTP, the full season is balanced to keep statistics close to player statistical ability. Variations of each player's full season performance (away from pure statistics) occur when the player is traded and compatibility does/doesn't match. Trading changes each team's power rating & its AI managed "score" at end of seasons. (AI managed teams are also scored even though that is not revealed to gamers.) All of this is balanced with another program to keep teams from becoming radically changed which would make AI look bad & unrealistic. All of it is created by developers for the purpose of allowing gamers to sim full seasons quickly, to stay out of the park, as it were. In the process of that balancing program (statistical synthesizer: a synthesizer is a combination of algorithm programs), the game inadvertantly penalizes you when you take control on the field and in batting orders & pitching staffs. But only when your independent decisions vary greatly from what the AI is programmed to dictate are correct in-game substitutions, depth charts, batting orders & pitching staffs (rotation/bullpen arrangement) according to a power biased team. Two things in the game reveal this: 1) power ratings, 2) managing score at the end of the season. Two things that aren't necessary in a baseball simulation but are found in fantasy baseball cpu programs.

The problem with cracking jokes on the web is how you never get to hear anyone laughing at them. Only when someone quotes you and/or simply writes "lol" & that has gotta be a small percentage of the reality.

Well I assume this comment is not a joke but it is nonsense based on my experience of playing games out and simming over the last 11 years. If you did even a small amount of research you would find that the overwhelming evidence, which I don't completely buy, is that those who manage get better results. Put another way those who play games out tend to have more complaints about how easy it is to win and/or to dominate the AI. Those who play out games often present methods and strategies designed to reduce human advantage. That makes some sense. A baseball savvy human will do things that the AI can't. A human can work a hunch or take a chance that would cause the AI to be ridiculed and for the game to be criticized on the forum for poor AI (look at the threads!). Last but not least a human can very likely set a better lineup on a daily basis than the AI and probably manage marginal players better.

Whether I buy it or not the evidence is overwhelmingly opposite to what you claim.

With regard to simming, I can't claim that I sim seasons 100% but simming a season like an online league ie 1 week or 5 days at a time has become really difficult. I run leagues where I dominate with no apologies (10-25 WS in 30-75 seasons) and have experienced multiple seasons of missing the playoffs in v15 v16. I didn't get dumb suddenly; the AI and roster management got way better making the game a better challenge. I'd submit based on what I do with OOTP and what I read here that simming partial seasons to win is significantly more difficult than ever.

I realize this is just my opinion and worth no more than yours but I'd recommend reading some threads on results people are getting and consider whether your impression is supported by the evidence which overwhelmingly suggests managing games is advantage human.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by NoOne

i saved a game before an AB, made a backup and exited the game. i restored the backup numerous times for that AB and got the same result 100 times over (no exagerration and excluding fielding errors, those are calculated after a ball goes into play).

it would be impossible for any data for an ab that never took place to reside in the backup. it was a fresh start to that AB everytime.

Do you still have this save available?

[joefromchicago]

Realstar: Maybe I missed something, but what it seems like you're saying is that the AI does better than you do when you manage the games yourself. As a result, you conclude that the game somehow penalizes a player for managing the games rather than letting the AI do it.

I'm not convinced that's the only logical conclusion. Using Occam's Razor here (the simplest solution is usually correct), couldn't it be true that the AI is simply doing a better job of managing than you are? Not to put too fine a point on it, but maybe - just maybe - you're not as great a manager as you think you are.