Production drop-off in playoffs

[krownroyal83]

Is it possible that some players can't handle the pressure of post-season baseball. I had a player in my game who was almost certainly going to win league MVP and had a .336 avg. but stunk it up in the playoffs batting .182. A career .208 in the playoffs and .278 in the regular season. This guy is a stud in the regular season but terrible in the playoffs

[Brad K]

Small sample size.

Also it's like he's facing better pitching.

But mostly small sample size.

[Sweed]

There is no "clutch" in OOTP. There are hot and cold streaks that can have some affect. In my experience it takes a lot to trigger either a hot or cold streak
while it doesn't take much to break them and go back to normal. Hot and cold though would only affect a current situation, they're not going to make a guy always slump in the playoffs.

As far as your guy? Well it is the playoffs, and like real life, a player isn't going to be feasting on below average pitchers. Some guys will have better luck then others. BABIP might be one place to look to try to get a handle on what is happening. IOW is he putting the ball in play but hitting it right at someone?

[MathBandit]

It's definitely a thing.

Just like how Mookie Betts just can't handle day games in June- since 2017 his wRC+ in June Day Games per season has been 22, 124, 88, 250, -57, 39. Corey Seager has the same issue with May Night Games since 2017, with per-season 107, 93, and 7 the last three years in those games. Matt Olson infamously struggles to hit in stadiums with retractable roofs, with per-season wRC+ of 29, 81, 88, 165, 46, 161, 106, and 100 in his career. Gerrit Cole has a FIP above 5.00 two of the last three years in Day games in May or June.

Or, maybe when you look at tiny samples you will see all sorts of random statistical noise and it doesn't actually mean there is a causation there.

[rhacer]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

It's definitely a thing.

Just like how Mookie Betts just can't handle day games in June- since 2017 his wRC+ in June Day Games per season has been 22, 124, 88, 250, -57, 39. Corey Seager has the same issue with May Night Games since 2017, with per-season 107, 93, and 7 the last three years in those games. Matt Olson infamously struggles to hit in stadiums with retractable roofs, with per-season wRC+ of 29, 81, 88, 165, 46, 161, 106, and 100 in his career. Gerrit Cole has a FIP above 5.00 two of the last three years in Day games in May or June.

Or, maybe when you look at tiny samples you will see all sorts of random statistical noise and it doesn't actually mean there is a causation there.

This is fantastic.

[Brad K]

Elvio Jiminez for the Hall Of Fame. And Drew Maggi. Both career .333 hitters.

[jcard]

Does everyone feel better about themselves, now that they condescendingly regurgitated sabermetric orthodoxy in response to what was an honest question?

Moreover, the question was about OOTP, not real-life baseball. It is hardly heretical to ask the OP’s question regarding a sport simulation game. For example, in FM, FHM, and EHM there are mental ratings that impact the ability to perform in big games, etc.

I have seen no documented information or evidence to suggest that there is a type of clutch factor in OOTP. At the same time, while a reasonable starting point, blithely assuming that the OOTP engine always models in practice accepted analytical thought is a fraught default attitude.

Generally speaking, the deliberate opacity in the descriptions of several aspects of the game are sufficient to in many cases preclude the averment of beliefs as facts so regularly undertaken on this forum.

[krownroyal83]

Originally Posted by Sweed

There is no "clutch" in OOTP. There are hot and cold streaks that can have some affect. In my experience it takes a lot to trigger either a hot or cold streak
while it doesn't take much to break them and go back to normal. Hot and cold though would only affect a current situation, they're not going to make a guy always slump in the playoffs.

As far as your guy? Well it is the playoffs, and like real life, a player isn't going to be feasting on below average pitchers. Some guys will have better luck then others. BABIP might be one place to look to try to get a handle on what is happening. IOW is he putting the ball in play but hitting it right at someone?

Thanks

[krownroyal83]

Originally Posted by jcard

Does everyone feel better about themselves, now that they condescendingly regurgitated sabermetric orthodoxy in response to what was an honest question?

Moreover, the question was about OOTP, not real-life baseball. It is hardly heretical to ask the OP’s question regarding a sport simulation game. For example, in FM, FHM, and EHM there are mental ratings that impact the ability to perform in big games, etc.

I have seen no documented information or evidence to suggest that there is a type of clutch factor in OOTP. At the same time, while a reasonable starting point, blithely assuming that the OOTP engine always models in practice accepted analytical thought is a fraught default attitude.

Generally speaking, the deliberate opacity in the descriptions of several aspects of the game are sufficient to in many cases preclude the averment of beliefs as facts so regularly undertaken on this forum.

Thanks

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by jcard

Does everyone feel better about themselves, now that they condescendingly regurgitated sabermetric orthodoxy in response to what was an honest question?

Actually, no, everyone did not just condescendingly regurgitate sabermetric orthodoxy, and they did not blithely assume anything. The first few replies attempted to explain why the OP might be seeing the results described in OOTP, and those explanations are based on the actual conditions in question and how the sim works under those conditions. This comes from decades of combined experience with OOTP and a very thorough understanding of how the game engine works.

Just as in real life, in the OOTP post-season, players will often perform poorly in the playoffs because they are facing much better pitching and fielding, and they're doing that over a very limited number of games. The batter is facing the best teams and best pitchers in baseball, and those teams are often using shorter rotations and able to use their best pitchers and players due to days off during the series, so those factors are amplified.

In the OOTP context, that means a great hitter's ratings are often being compared to great pitchers' or great players' ratings to determine individual at-bat outcomes, and that is often going to reduce offensive output. That isn't always the end result, but it makes it harder for the batter to produce offensively. This is how OOTP actually works.

The OP should go and take a look at how the same batter has performed over his career during the regular season against the best teams in baseball. When you compare similar conditions against the best teams in baseball, you will consistently see the top players tend to perform much less effectively than they do against other teams that aren't as good. In the playoffs, that becomes obvious because you're seeing post-season stats. But it's not at all obvious during the regular season, where there is no easy way to see how the player has performed against the very best teams in the league. And, in the regular season, opposing teams don't have the additional benefits of the playoff rest schedule and the switches between home field locations.

There is simply no comparison between the circumstances and context of a playoff series versus those of a regular season, and when that context is simulated in OOTP over the much smaller sample size of playoff appearances over a player's career, that can easily add up to what appears to be huge underachievement. But it's simply the exact same game engine doing the exact same things that it does during the regular season, except that it's applied to a different context, sample size, and conditions.

[progen]

Originally Posted by krownroyal83

Is it possible that some players can't handle the pressure of post-season baseball. I had a player in my game who was almost certainly going to win league MVP and had a .336 avg. but stunk it up in the playoffs batting .182. A career .208 in the playoffs and .278 in the regular season. This guy is a stud in the regular season but terrible in the playoffs

Go no further than this year's NLCS and the infamous Nick Castellanos. After hitting a homer in the first game, he finished 0 for 23 with 11 strikeouts.

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by jcard

Generally speaking, the deliberate opacity in the descriptions of several aspects of the game are sufficient to in many cases preclude the averment of beliefs as facts so regularly undertaken on this forum.

Just so we're clear, in plain English the poster is suggesting that OOTP has been vague in order to prevent arguments about how the game engine works. Not sure if the comment is meant to be critical of OOTP, or more suggesting discussion is futile when we don't have all the facts.

I think discussion is healthy, even where there is a fair bit of speculation. After all, it's how we learn, even if we are learning that we don't really know the answer, and maybe aren't meant to know. A little mystery is good.

Methinks there will always be tension between users trying to understand why/how outcomes happen, and developers opening the hood to explain, but not too far. There's a happy medium here, where developers describe how a given feature is intended to work, in order that we users might respond with how that feature is working - or not working - in our sims.

I'm not a coder (though I am married to one - and she always says "you don't want to know and you wouldn't understand anyway"), so I have no interest in learning all of the secrets. And of course no one is going to tell the secrets, because that is the intellectual capital that makes the game valuable. I'm pleased that we users can tinker and fuss with myriad settings, in order to fine-tune the game. There's some trial and error here, as in any worthy scientific endeavor. Over the years, I seem to be getting closer to what works for me - only to be thrown back (or forward) by changes in the game!

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by progen

Go no further than this year's NLCS and the infamous Nick Castellanos. After hitting a homer in the first game, he finished 0 for 23 with 11 strikeouts.

Too soon.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

Actually, no, everyone did not just condescendingly regurgitate sabermetric orthodoxy, and they did not blithely assume anything. The first few replies attempted to explain why the OP might be seeing the results described in OOTP, and those explanations are based on the actual conditions in question and how the sim works under those conditions. This comes from decades of combined experience with OOTP and a very thorough understanding of how the game engine works.

Just as in real life, in the OOTP post-season, players will often perform poorly in the playoffs because they are facing much better pitching and fielding, and they're doing that over a very limited number of games. The batter is facing the best teams and best pitchers in baseball, and those teams are often using shorter rotations and able to use their best pitchers and players due to days off during the series, so those factors are amplified.

In the OOTP context, that means a great hitter's ratings are often being compared to great pitchers' or great players' ratings to determine individual at-bat outcomes, and that is often going to reduce offensive output. That isn't always the end result, but it makes it harder for the batter to produce offensively. This is how OOTP actually works.

The OP should go and take a look at how the same batter has performed over his career during the regular season against the best teams in baseball. When you compare similar conditions against the best teams in baseball, you will consistently see the top players tend to perform much less effectively than they do against other teams that aren't as good. In the playoffs, that becomes obvious because you're seeing post-season stats. But it's not at all obvious during the regular season, where there is no easy way to see how the player has performed against the very best teams in the league. And, in the regular season, opposing teams don't have the additional benefits of the playoff rest schedule and the switches between home field locations.

There is simply no comparison between the circumstances and context of a playoff series versus those of a regular season, and when that context is simulated in OOTP over the much smaller sample size of playoff appearances over a player's career, that can easily add up to what appears to be huge underachievement. But it's simply the exact same game engine doing the exact same things that it does during the regular season, except that it's applied to a different context, sample size, and conditions.

1. You and I apparently read those replies differently.

2. I hope you didn’t take the time to write the transcript of your TED talk on the obvious for my benefit. Wasn’t necessary, even if I would never claim to have…

3. “… a very thorough understanding of how the game engine works.” If you say so. Maybe I should close my eyes and tap my heels together three times when telling myself that.

[Pelican]

I can deal with [1] honest differences in interpretation; [2] sarcasm; but [3] mocking the Wizard of Oz is beyond the pale for me. Almost like mocking Ozzie Smith.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by jcard

1. You and I apparently read those replies differently.

2. I hope you didn’t take the time to write the transcript of your TED talk on the obvious for my benefit. Wasn’t necessary, even if I would never claim to have…

3. “… a very thorough understanding of how the game engine works.” If you say so. Maybe I should close my eyes and tap my heels together three times when telling myself that.

So the one that complains about condescension replies with condescension.

No surprise, your MO hasn't changed.

It does seem the OP did read my post differently than you as I received a "thanks". But then I guess your "deep thoughts" mind is the only one that can really understand what everyone else is saying. Too bad the OP doesn't have your reading ability so couldn't understand how I was insulting him.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Sweed

So the one that complains about condescension replies with condescension.

No surprise, your MO hasn't changed.

It does seem the OP did read my post differently than you as I received a "thanks". But then I guess your "deep thoughts" mind is the only one that can really understand what everyone else is saying. Too bad the OP doesn't have your reading ability so couldn't understand how I was insulting him.

I regret using the word “everyone” in my original comment. I thought it would be understood that I was referring to the replies where a certain amount of smarminess. That was an error on my part. For example, your early reply was NOT condescending at all. I took it for granted that it would be understood that I was not referring to the helpful replies (contrary to rumor, I do not claim to have unique insight into either others’ texts or minds). Anyway, my bad.

Actually, I do not disagree with anything that Charlie Hough said. It just was not necessary. I would say, upon reflection, that I was perhaps overly sensitive to the interpretation that I was being spoken to patronizingly. To the extent that impression reflected a reality that existed only in my head, I would agree that I could have responded in a better manner. Actually, whatever the case, I aim to hold myself to a higher standard. I am too often unsuccessful, but try to own it and do better.

Basically, back to the point:

1. OOTP simulates a lot of accepted analytical thinking, but not necessarily completely in either breadth (all aspects) or depth (any particular aspect fully).

2. Especially given mechanics of similar games, I think that the original post deserved better than it received from SOME of the replies.

3. I AM skeptical of any claims to deep insight into the game engine, though perhaps this is more owing to my personal feeling that any such holding on my part would be borne more of belief than fact (hence the self-deprecating ruby slippers analogy).

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by jcard

3. “… a very thorough understanding of how the game engine works.” If you say so. Maybe I should close my eyes and tap my heels together three times when telling myself that.

When you've played this sim for 20 years, were a beta tester for a number of years, and spent those 20 years sharing knowledge and insights with the community and the game's developers, come back and tell us how much you're skeptical of your own insights.

At any rate, I'm not looking to quarrel with anyone, and I see that you've realized that you might have been a bit hasty in your initial reaction or skepticism. But, at a certain point, people should probably take the time to look at other community members' profiles, the sheer number of posts they've made, the deep insights they've shared across countless threads, give them the benefit of the doubt.

No, as a Pyrrhonian skeptic in my own right, I don't expect anyone to take anything on faith. But there are some simple observations that can be made, some quick searches or research that can be done, some reviews of the game manual, and some simple data points that can be reviewed, and those can all help people place some initial trust in what they're reading.

However, lately, we're seeing a number of posts where everything from sincere replies by informed community members to the developers' intentions are being questioned without any evidence to support that skepticism. I've challenged that a couple of times, and I make no apologies for that. It's a two-way street, so if people want to be skeptical, they should start by looking at themselves first.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

When you've played this sim for 20 years, were a beta tester for a number of years, and spent those 20 years sharing knowledge and insights with the community and the game's developers, come back and tell us how much you're skeptical of your own insights.

At any rate, I'm not looking to quarrel with anyone, and I see that you've realized that you might have been a bit hasty in your initial reaction or skepticism. But, at a certain point, people should probably take the time to look at other community members' profiles, the sheer number of posts they've made, the deep insights they've shared across countless threads, give them the benefit of the doubt.



No, as a Pyrrhonian skeptic in my own right, I don't expect anyone to take anything on faith. But there are some simple observations that can be made, some quick searches or research that can be done, some reviews of the game manual, and some simple data points that can be reviewed, and those can all help people place some initial trust in what they're reading.

However, lately, we're seeing a number of posts where everything from sincere replies by informed community members to the developers' intentions are being questioned without any evidence to support that skepticism. I've challenged that a couple of times, and I make no apologies for that. It's a two-way street, so if people want to be skeptical, they should start by looking at themselves first.

I did (or at least intended to be understood as so doing) in the last paragraph of my preceding post.

You may very well extensively comprehend the game engine. Generally speaking, however, there are a lot of claims made on this forum that are at best anecdotally supported. Similarly, I put no stock in the number of posts made as indicative of anything more than interest and volition. It is admittedly, however, a fine line between when best-guess contributions serve or hinder the discourse. I sometimes wish greater discretion was practiced, not the least by myself.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by jcard

I did (or at least intended to be understood as so doing) in the last paragraph of my preceding post.

You may very well extensively comprehend the game engine. Generally speaking, however, there are a lot of claims made on this forum that are at best anecdotally supported. Similarly, I put no stock in the number of posts made as indicative of anything more than interest and volition. It is admittedly, however, a fine line between when best-guess contributions serve or hinder the discourse. I sometimes wish greater discretion was practiced, not the least by myself.

I would add that better documentation and description of many of the game mechanics would alleviate a lot of the confusion. For example, I have never seen an authoritative presentation of how TCR works. All players? Only players still developing? “Talent” is used interchangeably with “potential” on some screens / reports; is that also true for its usage in TCR? Is the delta in particular attributes, or simply a general across the board improvement or decline (making the player a better or worse version of his pre-change archetype)? Given the stochastic element inherent in baseball and the difficulty in isolating specific variables for regression, it is difficult (and time-intensive) to arrive at answers with confidence.