Difference between "adjust" and "weaken"

[Brad K]

The meaning of "weaken" is obvious. What does adjust mean? I've never seen anyone mention that adjust includes increasing the ratings of players. Does that ever happen? That would explain the difference between adjust and weaken.

But since I've never seen it mentioned it seems adjust always means weaken and weaken always means weaken. Except with some difference. What is it?

If adjust includes both weaken and increasing the ratings of some players, is the weaken component of adjust the same as weaken or is it something else.

[pstrickert]

Per Markus:

When a player is below the "adjust" limit, his ratings will be adjusted towards the league average, the less playing time he had the more the ratings get adjusted. If a player is below the "weaken" limit, the ratings will also be adjusted, but not towards league average but rather towards replacement level, so that these players end up with rather low ratings.

[thehef]

A good discussion from awhile back:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

When a player is below the "adjust" limit, his ratings will be adjusted towards the league average, the less playing time he had the more the ratings get adjusted. If a player is below the "weaken" limit, the ratings will also be adjusted, but not towards league average but rather towards replacement level, so that these players end up with rather low ratings.

Originally Posted by Spritze

... the batting settings may not apply to pitchers.

Originally Posted by thehef

What's still not clear - to me, anyway - is what, if anything, these settings do to guys with low AB's or IP's who - rather than putting up great numbers - perform terribly. Are they bumped up to towards they league average (if within the Adjust threshold) or the replacement level (if under the Weaken threshold)? For examples, a guy who goes 2-for-25, striking out 18 times, and a guy who pitches 6 innings and gives up 17 runs...

Originally Posted by pstrickert

I could be wrong, but I've operated from the assumption that those players were "bumped up" toward league average or replacement level.

Originally Posted by Spritze

I too believe bumping can happen in an upwards direction. It appears to happen.

[Reed]

I my experience, they are never bumped up.
Also, if you “bumped up” players, then your pitchers and subs would be batting league average and to make your total league stats correct you would have to really tone down your star players and everyone would be playing close to league average.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Reed

I my experience, they are never bumped up.
Also, if you “bumped up” players, then your pitchers and subs would be batting league average and to make your total league stats correct you would have to really tone down your star players and everyone would be playing close to league average.

I think the bumping up, if it occurs, is to make possible, for example, a guy who batted 0-for-8 with 7 strikeouts to actually make contact and get a hit once in awhile. Not to turn him into a .300 hitter, but maybe a .180 or .200 one. That's my guess; I don't know for sure.

And I don't believe it would apply to pitchers, at least not to a large extent. There's no reason to bump up or down a pitcher with, say, 40 at bats. Even if he's a .300 hitter OOTP is not going to use him more than IRL (like it would an un-adjusted hitter) because his pitching role & ratings will dictate how much he plays. That he doesn't play the field will keep him from getting 300+ at bats. At least that's my understanding.

[Brad K]

I've had the game consider some good hitting pitchers as two way players and use them as pinch hitters.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I've had the game consider some good hitting pitchers as two way players and use them as pinch hitters.

Any idea if the frequency of that is more so than in real life? There have been some good-hitting pitchers that have made some PH appearances. Don Drysdale and Fernando quickly come to mind.

[Reed]

In the dead ball era I had a couple pitchers like Rube Waddell play 2 ways. It is not frequent but it does occur sometimes. Of course you have to have allow 2 way players selected on the stats/AI tab.

[Brad K]

I wish I could remember who they were. I checked at the time and they got some PH appearances. Certainly if that happened they didn't get a big penalty on the weaken calculation.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Certainly if that happened they didn't get a big penalty on the weaken calculation.

And they shouldn't, IMO. If I'm replaying the 1965 Dodgers, I want Drysdale hitting like did IRL, as one of the best hitters on the team

[Reed]

Originally Posted by thehef

And they shouldn't, IMO. If I'm replaying the 1965 Dodgers, I want Drysdale hitting like did IRL, as one of the best hitters on the team

Well you could lower the default setting to 100 I suppose. But that would bring in other issues.

I really prefer how some other games handle players with limited at bats and I made this suggestion a few years ago. They pretty much base the rating on their real life numbers but if they exceed their real life at bats by more than x% then their rating drops to replacement level.

[Brad K]

Old Time Baseball's method is when a player gets ahead of his ABs to injure him for a day or two.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Reed

I my experience, they are never bumped up.
Also, if you “bumped up” players, then your pitchers and subs would be batting league average and to make your total league stats correct you would have to really tone down your star players and everyone would be playing close to league average.

If the data has a guy hitting .310 on 290 ABs that data is considered unreliable and his rating is adjusted downward. The unreliable argument can be just as reasonably applied to a guy hitting .150 on 290 ABs.

[jcard]

The real issue is that the adjust penalty is too severe. As I recently stated in a thread in the Bug Reports sub-forum, initial impressions suggested and subsequent testing evidenced that it uses a baseline that is slightly below replacement level (thus, not average). This leaves a user with a SophieÂ’s Choice (particularly with single-year recalc games) between a) having useful bench players but some small sample heroes and b) reigning in outlets but at the cost of sacrificing any depth on rosters. Lukas had made recent comments about:
1. The importance of the relative ratings of players to other those of other players in determining outcomes
2. The specific importance of the adjust function because of how it changes those relative ratings among players
3. The adjust penalty was meant to use an average player baseline

He then gave a reply to my post that first acknowledged that there was indeed something to at least look into regarding a disconnect between the operation and stated intent of the adjust penalty, followed by a most-likely case “solution” that tells you all you need to know about the commitment of the developers to devoting any resources to fixing (let alone improving) the actual mechanics of the game:

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

As to the main suggestion here, I can try to remember to mention this to Markus at some point in the OOTP23 dev cycle, but if we change anything here I would guess it's more likely to be the wording of the blurb than the regression itself.

[Brad K]

I had forgotten about that thread. Thanks for mentioning it here. It's highly relevant to this thread.

[Brad K]

Do I remember correctly that with 3 year recalc the adjust/weaken number are multiplied by 3? If so a player with 899 ABs over three year is adjusted. Why? If 300 ABs is a reliable sample size playing 1 year recalc why wouldn't 300 ABs be a good sample size over three years?

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Do I remember correctly that with 3 year recalc the adjust/weaken number are multiplied by 3? If so a player with 899 ABs over three year is adjusted. Why? If 300 ABs is a reliable sample size playing 1 year recalc why wouldn't 300 ABs be a good sample size over three years?

My understanding (of this very murky subject, so I might be incorrect) is that the guy in your example would be every-so-slightly adjusted. His 899 AB's would be what they are, and the 1 AB needed to get him to 900 would be adjusted... A guy with, say, 500 AB's would have 400 AB's that were adjusted.

Again, I could be wrong but I think that's what Garlon indicated in another thread when he wrote this:

Originally Posted by Garlon

When you use 5yr recalc with my suggestion of 200/67 for batters the game sums all of the player stats from the focus season, plus the two years before and after and checks if the sum of the AB is 200*5 = 1000 total AB. If a player had 900 AB over those seasons then OOTP will take those 900 AB and add in another 100 adjusted AB to make the 1000 AB and then create the ratings. So in a given season a player may have only had 125 AB, but as long as they had 1000 or more AB across 5 seasons there will be no adjustment made because they meet the requirement.

[Brad K]

If the setting is one year recalc and a player has 250 ABs he gets 50 ABs adjusted down. If instead of getting those 250 ABs in one year he had them spread over three years and three year recalc is selected he gets 650 ABs adjusted down.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Brad K

If the setting is one year recalc and a player has 250 ABs he gets 50 ABs adjusted down. If instead of getting those 250 ABs in one year he had them spread over three years and three year recalc is selected he gets 650 ABs adjusted down.

That's my understanding... based upon how Garlon explained it.

[Brad K]

I sure hope it's been explained wrong.