Fielding Bug - Page 2

swampdragon · 05-05-2016, 06:41 PM

This looks like the same thing, but there is a tiny variation. I've only been using the players who played a lot at a position to go by, so that experience ratings would not come into play. Using those, we have :
SS: Toporcer, STL 52, Cooney STL 51, Gerber SLB 51, LaMotte SLB 49
3B Bell STL 50, Robertson SLB 46

At least there is some variance. The previous seasons I looked at didn't have any. But all 7 of them are in a narrow range between 46-52, rather than the wide ranges that existed before. I assume this is a 100 point scale instead of 20-80. If it was a 20-80 scale they'd likely all be 50s. I think there's a problem.

The biggest reason I'm concerned is DIPS. Pitchers have no component for holding down hits other than strikeouts and walks. It always appeared before that a team's ability to hold down BABIP was accounted for in the defensive ratings. The teams that allowed fewer runs had much better individual defensive ratings than the teams that allowed more. If you don't do that, then there will be very little difference in run prevention ability among the teams, and the only thing that matters for position players will be offense. I don't know what formula was used before or how you did it, but I liked the output, which is the important thing. The farther back in history you go, the more important these differentiations become, because these old time pitchers had very few walks and strikeouts.

Spritze · 05-05-2016, 06:55 PM

It is a display issue not a ratings issue. Fielders follow their ratings not what is displayed on screen.

The numbers displayed changed not the ratings.

I suspect someone saw the too high ratings on the screen display and changed it too much.

Spritze · 05-05-2016, 09:53 PM

After a few hours of going over this stuff it really does appear that there is not as much difference between mlb fielders as one might expect. The current actual ratings look fine. The vast majority of players are within 10% of average either over or under. The Ozzie Smith types are still within 20% of average.

The displayed ratings may be off though. The actual ratings in the table shown earlier look to be correct. The ratings displayed in some earlier versions were too high, the ratings currently displayed are too low.

David Watts · 05-06-2016, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spritze

after a few hours of going over this stuff it really does appear that there is not as much difference between mlb fielders as one might expect. The current actual ratings look fine. The vast majority of players are within 10% of average either over or under. The ozzie smith types are still within 20% of average.

The displayed ratings may be off though. The actual ratings in the table shown earlier look to be correct. The ratings displayed in some earlier versions were too high, the ratings currently displayed are too low.

nm

swampdragon · 05-06-2016, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spritze

After a few hours of going over this stuff it really does appear that there is not as much difference between mlb fielders as one might expect. The current actual ratings look fine. The vast majority of players are within 10% of average either over or under. The Ozzie Smith types are still within 20% of average.

The displayed ratings may be off though. The actual ratings in the table shown earlier look to be correct. The ratings displayed in some earlier versions were too high, the ratings currently displayed are too low.

The important thing is the spread, With the system being used for pitching, you're going to have to have big differences between the fielders to replicate runs allowed. The old system did about as good a job as could be done when restricted to the Lahman database for ratings. You're fixing something that wasn't broken. In the process, you're going to break historical replay.

Spritze · 05-06-2016, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swampdragon

The important thing is the spread, With the system being used for pitching, you're going to have to have big differences between the fielders to replicate runs allowed. The old system did about as good a job as could be done when restricted to the Lahman database for ratings. You're fixing something that wasn't broken. In the process, you're going to break historical replay.

To repeat. The ratings themselves have not changed! Only the display of those ratings. Sheesh. I give up.

David Watts · 05-06-2016, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spritze

To repeat. The ratings themselves have not changed! Only the display of those ratings. Sheesh. I give up.

My question to this, what does the AI use to make decisions...the displayed or the real ratings? Just curious. I pay no attention to ratings, so a lot of this stuff is over my head.

Spritze · 05-06-2016, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by david watts

my question to this, what does the ai use to make decisions...the displayed or the real ratings? Just curious. I pay no attention to ratings, so a lot of this stuff is over my head.

real !!!!

swampdragon · 05-06-2016, 11:08 AM

On what screen can I find these real ratings? Because the ones I can see all indicate that there has been a major change.

Matt Arnold · 05-06-2016, 11:58 AM

It's possible there's some sort of import issue. We'll poke around a little more.

MightyVotto · 05-10-2016, 12:51 PM

It looks like the new patch fixed the ratings for outfielders in single season replay leagues from before 1954. Using a scale of 1-100, the outfield ratings display for players from 1 - 100 as they used to prior to the previous patch. The infielders, though, are still not giving a full range of fielding ratings.

I tested 1927, 1947, 1953, and 1954. Infielders in the first three test years had a ceiling of around 68 for infield range, and there were 10 - 15 of these players. Beginning in 1954, the ratings once again are giving a full display of range from 1 - 100 as it had always previously done.

Good news about the outfield ratings. But the infield ratings for these years may still be affected by the previous patch bug.

Spritze · 05-10-2016, 01:50 PM

I'm pretty sure the infield fix did not make it into this patch but I'll ask? I did infielders the day after the OF'ers.

BTW it wasn't a patch error it was a Spritze error.

swampdragon · 05-10-2016, 06:20 PM

Confirmed. Outfield ratings seem to be fixed. Infield ratings are still broken.

05-05-2016, 06:41 PM	#21
swampdragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Lonely Mountain Posts: 2,506	This looks like the same thing, but there is a tiny variation. I've only been using the players who played a lot at a position to go by, so that experience ratings would not come into play. Using those, we have : SS: Toporcer, STL 52, Cooney STL 51, Gerber SLB 51, LaMotte SLB 49 3B Bell STL 50, Robertson SLB 46 At least there is some variance. The previous seasons I looked at didn't have any. But all 7 of them are in a narrow range between 46-52, rather than the wide ranges that existed before. I assume this is a 100 point scale instead of 20-80. If it was a 20-80 scale they'd likely all be 50s. I think there's a problem. The biggest reason I'm concerned is DIPS. Pitchers have no component for holding down hits other than strikeouts and walks. It always appeared before that a team's ability to hold down BABIP was accounted for in the defensive ratings. The teams that allowed fewer runs had much better individual defensive ratings than the teams that allowed more. If you don't do that, then there will be very little difference in run prevention ability among the teams, and the only thing that matters for position players will be offense. I don't know what formula was used before or how you did it, but I liked the output, which is the important thing. The farther back in history you go, the more important these differentiations become, because these old time pitchers had very few walks and strikeouts. __________________ “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." -- C.S. Lewis

05-05-2016, 06:55 PM	#22
Spritze OOTP Historical Czar Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bothell Wa Posts: 7,253	It is a display issue not a ratings issue. Fielders follow their ratings not what is displayed on screen. The numbers displayed changed not the ratings. I suspect someone saw the too high ratings on the screen display and changed it too much. __________________ It's madness, madness, I tell you! For the love of God, don't do it!

05-05-2016, 09:53 PM	#23
Spritze OOTP Historical Czar Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bothell Wa Posts: 7,253	After a few hours of going over this stuff it really does appear that there is not as much difference between mlb fielders as one might expect. The current actual ratings look fine. The vast majority of players are within 10% of average either over or under. The Ozzie Smith types are still within 20% of average. The displayed ratings may be off though. The actual ratings in the table shown earlier look to be correct. The ratings displayed in some earlier versions were too high, the ratings currently displayed are too low. __________________ It's madness, madness, I tell you! For the love of God, don't do it!

05-06-2016, 11:08 AM	#29
swampdragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Lonely Mountain Posts: 2,506	On what screen can I find these real ratings? Because the ones I can see all indicate that there has been a major change. __________________ “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." -- C.S. Lewis

05-10-2016, 01:50 PM	#32
Spritze OOTP Historical Czar Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Bothell Wa Posts: 7,253	I'm pretty sure the infield fix did not make it into this patch but I'll ask? I did infielders the day after the OF'ers. BTW it wasn't a patch error it was a Spritze error. __________________ It's madness, madness, I tell you! For the love of God, don't do it! Last edited by Spritze; 05-10-2016 at 01:52 PM.

05-06-2016, 11:58 AM	#30
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 16,243	It's possible there's some sort of import issue. We'll poke around a little more.

05-10-2016, 12:51 PM	#31
MightyVotto Minors (Double A) Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 127	It looks like the new patch fixed the ratings for outfielders in single season replay leagues from before 1954. Using a scale of 1-100, the outfield ratings display for players from 1 - 100 as they used to prior to the previous patch. The infielders, though, are still not giving a full range of fielding ratings. I tested 1927, 1947, 1953, and 1954. Infielders in the first three test years had a ceiling of around 68 for infield range, and there were 10 - 15 of these players. Beginning in 1954, the ratings once again are giving a full display of range from 1 - 100 as it had always previously done. Good news about the outfield ratings. But the infield ratings for these years may still be affected by the previous patch bug.

05-10-2016, 06:20 PM	#33
swampdragon Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: The Lonely Mountain Posts: 2,506	Confirmed. Outfield ratings seem to be fixed. Infield ratings are still broken. __________________ “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." -- C.S. Lewis