Player of the Game logic

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

Then consider yourself lucky, because others have, which is why this discussion crops up from time to time.

Then please define "clearly don't deserve it".

And on what are you basing your criteria for "Clearly don't deserve it."?

Until we know what the actual criteria in coding is, it doesn't make sense to say "clearly doesn't deserve it"

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Then please define "clearly don't deserve it".

And on what are you basing your criteria for "Clearly don't deserve it."?

Until we know what the actual criteria in coding is, it doesn't make sense to say "clearly doesn't deserve it"

See my earlier post about mop-up relievers in blowout games. If I remember, I'll post a screenshot tomorrow of a specific example.

[BusterKing]

Someone in this thread made the remark that if they couldn't get this POG right then it shouldn't be in the game. Well this feature isn't perfect, like many others, I find it fun to have and don't want it removed. You don't like it then don't look at it and ignore it. Simple solution.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by BusterKing

Someone in this thread made the remark that if they couldn't get this POG right then it shouldn't be in the game. Well this feature isn't perfect, like many others, I find it fun to have and don't want it removed. You don't like it then don't look at it and ignore it. Simple solution.

I'm the one who made the remark about it not being in the game, but that is not what I said at all. Here's what I said in a response to someone else ...

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

You're right, but if it's in the game, it's not unreasonable to ask for it to be better. I've never asked myself "why didn't so-and-so get POG?" either, but I have asked myself "why did so-and-so get POG?" The problem is that it's a little too common to see players getting it who clearly don't deserve it.

And players don't have clauses in their contracts because the POG doesn't exist in real life. So if we want to be nitpicky, then it should be removed all together instead of being poorly (IMO) implemented.

My point to the other person was that if we're going to talk about things that don't exist in real life, then we should start by talking about whether POG should exist in OOTP. I think it's pretty clear that I wasn't actually saying it actually needs to be taken out.

[BusterKing]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I'm the one who made the remark about it not being in the game, but that is not what I said at all. Here's what I said in a response to someone else ...



My point to the other person was that if we're going to talk about things that don't exist in real life, then we should start by talking about whether POG should exist in OOTP. I think it's pretty clear that I wasn't actually saying it actually needs to be taken out.

Well to me "it should be removed all together instead of being poorly (IMO) implemented" means to be taken out.

[TomVeal]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Then please define "clearly don't deserve it".

And on what are you basing your criteria for "Clearly don't deserve it."?

Until we know what the actual criteria in coding is, it doesn't make sense to say "clearly doesn't deserve it"

Obviously, "Player of the Game" ranks far down on the list of important OOTP features, but it's here and discussing it may be helpful, so long as nobody loses his temper.

On the meaning of "clearly didn't deserve it", the example that opened this thread is worth looking at. There OOTP awarded POTG to a losing pitcher who had given up two home runs, the only visible rationale being that his rather unimpressive Game Score (63) was one point higher than the winning pitcher's. We don't know what other players contributed, having neither the game log nor the box score, but it seems unlikely that Rodriguez had the best individual performance of the day by any criteria, and he obviously didn't contribute the most to a victory.

OOTP has some kind of internal POTG logic. Often it produces perfectly sensible results: A pitcher has an 80 Game Score, a batter goes 4 for 5 with two home runs, etc. More than occasionally, though, the choice looks marginal at best, and, as others have noted, there is a strong tendency to favor pitchers over position players.

Thinking about this issue further, it occurs to me that the suggestion of a WPA-based system has merit, since it would measure performance in a way that isn't tracked currently. The game already recalculates win probability after every play, so perhaps the programming wouldn't be too daunting.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by BusterKing

Well to me "it should be removed all together instead of being poorly (IMO) implemented" means to be taken out.

Again, I said "if we want to be nit-picky ...". In no way was I actually suggesting it should be taken out. I want it improved and left in.

[StLee]

For the example I posted, it's one of many.

In this particular example, it was a playoff game. In that case, in my opinion, there would be no way at all in real life that Rodriguez would be made PotG. I could pull up many more examples, sometime absurd, sometimes iffy. I don't think the example I used is one of the absurd results, but the human factor would never select Rodriguez for PotG.

That's part of the reason why I am asking if it's possible for an option for the user (ME) to choose the PotG. When I write my dynasty reports, I often do select a different player for the award; I just don't post the box score. There are too many times when the losing pitcher, who did not have a game anymore outstanding than the winning pitcher and most certainly didn't have anything better than the batter who went 1 for 3 with a walk and the game-winning two-run homer in the bottom of the ninth had. That's the point of creating this thread. I don't think the PotG feature is broken, but I think it should get better.

[StLee]

Another playoff game (manually scheduled as a playoff game in the schedule for my preseason tournament):




Pitcher on the losing team gives up four runs. Yes, had two hits, but those produced no runs. PotG? Never.
Gomez for Montreal had the game-tying homer in the 8th. Decent offensive numbers.

I can post these all day.

[TomVeal]

There's an argument to be made for Rodriguez, who ended the game with a walk-off home run, but Wood is a definite no. His pitching was nothing special, and he gave up the tying runs. And his offensive performance wasn't even his own team's best.

[Walsh06]

I do agree that it needs some fine tuning. My starting pitcher seems to win more often than anyone else and this is after mediocre performances. A few strikeouts, a few runs given up similar to the screenshot. Something I would not consider player of the game worthy.

[MightyVotto]

I disagree that the logic in selecting the game MVP tends to favor pitchers. I think that's determined more by your league's weight toward offense or pitching. I'm currently playing a historical league in 1936. I started in 1920. Early on, pitching certainly dominated the performance charts. Now, though, hitting is certainly more prevalent, which is accurate.

The only thing I don't like about the POG selection is when someone from the losing team happens to get it. I know that's subjective, but I find it annoying. I won but your guy was the POG. What about my guy who had a greater impact on the actual victory?

I think it generally works well, though. I probably agree with the choice 9 times out of 10.

[StLee]

I'm just wondering if there could be a formula (algorithm? not sure of the terminology here) where PotG can be weighted with extra points for team's victory or game-winning hit.

Also, does anyone know how the pitcher "game score" is calculated?

[BIG17EASY]

I've always assumed that pitcher game score used the baseball-reference formula: Play Index Glossary | Baseball-Reference.com

I just had this POG five minutes ago. No way Heath Bell deserves POG. Did he pitch well? Of course. Were his contributions more significant than those of Wright, D'Arnaud, Drury or Bruce? No way.

[TomVeal]

From the box score, I infer that d'Arnaud was responsible for a go-ahead run in the fourth and the winning run in the sixth. He's pretty obviously the Player of the Game.

[StLee]

Here's another game I just played. The PotG was a relief pitcher on the team that lost by three runs. W-T-B-G?!?

I'll stand by my original post. The PotG needs to be tweaked to give better results!

[BusterKing]

I agree that too many times the POTG is from the losing team. I can see it happened if there was an exceptional performance but otherwise it should mostly be given to a player on the winning team.

[tomwolf2008]

Originally Posted by StLee

I'm just wondering if there could be a formula (algorithm? not sure of the terminology here) where PotG can be weighted with extra points for team's victory or game-winning hit.

WPA will do this, hence why OOTP needs it in the future

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by TomVeal

From the box score, I infer that d'Arnaud was responsible for a go-ahead run in the fourth and the winning run in the sixth. He's pretty obviously the Player of the Game.

Yes, I checked the game log after I posted that. D'Arnaud had the go-ahead RBI in the 4th and his RBI in the 6th gave the Mets a 4-2 lead, which ended up being the critical RBI since they won 4-3. I'd say he's probably most deserving. The bigger point is that Bell is no better than a distant fifth in line for POG, and quite possibly even lower than that.

[jabrown6940]

Originally Posted by StLee

Here's another game I just played. The PotG was a relief pitcher on the team that lost by three runs. W-T-B-G?!?

I'll stand by my original post. The PotG needs to be tweaked to give better results!

I don't know if Layne deserved POG, but if he pitches like this all the time I need him in my bullpen.