Home Field Advantage?? - Page 2

mtw · 05-07-2002, 06:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Steve Kuffrey:
[QUOTE]]Agreed....

We don't need multiple topics on this.

We are not going to make this adjustment to the game.<hr /></blockquote>This seems overly hostile. With multiple, time-spaced threads, it seems that this is a feature that is "in demand" by a significant segment of the OOTP4 community and would bear serious consideration.

Especially when there is the brilliant suggestion of restructuring the unrealistic anti-5+ game winning streak factor as a "home field advantage". Or just eliminating the anti-winning streak factor altogether and not adding any artifical game modifiers would be fine, too (or making such artifical modifiers optional).

[ 05-07-2002, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: mtw ]

Steve Kuffrey · 05-07-2002, 07:00 AM

Hostile? Not sure where that came from? Goes to show that you can read into type what isn't there face to face.

No hostility present....

mtw · 05-07-2002, 07:24 AM

I meant the "official" response to making the change in the game, not necessarily the tone of the post.

If there is a demand for Home Field advantage, why wouldn't Markus look at including it? (I'm not saying how much of a demand there is, only that hypothetically if there was a significant demand beyond a few posters in 3 threads, it seems good policy to please the masses.)

Besides, since OOTP4 already has a very similar arbitrary (and much less realistic IMO) factor in it's game calcs, why not make the anti-5+ game winning streak into a Home Field Advantage. If the effect is small, as described by Markus, then it would have the same effect of reducing the likelihood of long winning streaks while at the same time increasing the likelihood of the home team winning (a demonstrated reality of MLB) without "unbalancing" the game. Since the last at-bat does not seem to provide "home field" advantage in OOTP4, a controlled, artificial boost could help mimic reality.

Or better yet, get rid of ALL arbitrary factors and let the players decide the game!

Scott Vibert · 05-07-2002, 07:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mtw:
This seems overly hostile. With multiple, time-spaced threads, it seems that this is a feature that is "in demand" by a significant segment of the OOTP4 community and would bear serious consideration.
Actually there are two active threads on this and only one other and the three or four people asking for the feature end up being shouted out in each one by the three or four people who don't see it as necessary... that would lead me to say that the vast majority of the people here don't care or don't see it as a major issue.

Especially when there is the brilliant suggestion of restructuring the unrealistic anti-5+ game winning streak factor as a "home field advantage". Or just eliminating the anti-winning streak factor altogether and not adding any artifical game modifiers would be fine, too (or making such artifical modifiers optional).

I really haven't seen the "streak" factor have much of an effect in my recently completed season I had multiple 12 game winning streaks by several different clubs. It sounds like you had a streak or two end at five games and of course attributed it to that effect (I'd doubt this was the only thing that killed your streak (which doesn't say it didn't help)... keep in mind the "streak-busting" rating supposedly only impacts the starting pitcher and was supposed to be slight enough not to turn Pedro to Darren Oliver (although scary thing is that might not have been bad in some starts this year <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ). (BTW, the factor wasn't supposed to come into play until the 6th game, so your definition should probably say 6+ game win streak factor) I still stand by the belief that this is a small enough factor that it wouldn't have been noticed if it hadn't been mentioned in an early review as "a great thing".
<hr /></blockquote>In any event most of the ideas of how to adjust for the homefield involve the whole sale editing of ratings by giving players a boost at home and an equal sized decrease on the road, with the idea that the playing time would probably balance out. This is something that I don't see as an acceptable change... Here are some stats:

I took one team (Boston) and used the three year averages (1999-2001) of each pitcher on the squad the results are presented here:
* 3 year splits missing last years stats presented

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">
Name Hm Av Hm ERA Hm IP Rd Av Rd ERA Rd IP
Arrojo .295 5.48 226.2 .243 2.31 190.0
Banks* .000 0.00 4.0 .192 1.35 6.2
Burkett .297 5.30 231.0 .253 3.43 270.0
Castillo .257 4.61 125.0 .227 3.31 149.2
Crawford .288 6.21 29.0 .237 2.50 36.0
Fossum .211 4.01 24.2 .312 5.95 19.2
Garces* .221 3.86 35.0 .217 3.94 32.0
Hermanson .274 3.95 305.2 .277 3.98 301.0
Lowe .254 2.70 146.2 .241 3.09 145.2
Martinez .196 2.16 270.1 .182 1.85 276.2
Oliver .290 5.48 213.2 .303 2.70 244.2
Urbina* .243 3.25 36.0 .217 4.11 30.2
Wakefield .275 4.58 232.0 .248 5.00 236.0
Wallace* .279 4.84 22.1 .192 2.25 28.0</pre><hr /></blockquote>Before you complain "well Fenway is a hitters park" notice that the pitcher who've spent significant amounts of the time shown not on the Sox (Burkett, Castillo, Hermanson, Oliver, Urbina, Wallace) show no evidence of being better at home either.

You'll also notice some pitchers (Arrojo, Burkett, Castillo, Oliver) do indeed have a big enough split between times pitching at home and times pitching on the road to skew the statistical results.

Then there was this simple comparision:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Peter Bergstrom:
For what it's worth, Diamond Mind Baseball models Home Field Advantage. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Face it, men, we need it!<hr /></blockquote>For what? The game produces realistic enough stats, and win loss records? Why introduce an artificial, and potentially results skewing (for individual players) rating for the sake of two fairly insignificant win - loss splits? To me this really isn't necessary.

And even if it was necessary how do you measure and introduce this rating. (Adjusting the pitchers doesn't seem appropriate) Last year Boston, Toronto, Baltimore, Cleveland, Seattle, Anaheim, Atlanta, Houston, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and San Diego all did better on the road, than they did at home. Does this mean these teams need negative adjustments to their "home field advantage" factor just to offset the gains they showed on the road.

Heck Atlanta made the playoffs without even winning half of their home games, so just how significant is the home field advantage in the major leagues, if you can make the playoffs without winning the majority of their own home games.

In the end all the stats balance out and are fairly good without this artificial factor.

Edit - This reminds me of what my mother used to say: If Diamond Mind Baseball jumped off a bridge would you? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

In the end most people will point to a familiarity with the grounds as being the primary cause of the homefiled advantage. This I can understand and about the only homefield advantage modifier I could get behind would be like this:

Look I agree homefield advantage in real life is a factor (not as big a deal as you seem to believe though), however, to weaken the simulation in other respects just to bolster two fairly insignificant statistical values is a cost that isn't worth paying in my opinion. Does it really matter how many games team A won at home?, NO, what matters is how many they won overall.

The only type of homefield advantage that would seem realisitc to add to me is a very small one, and it would be attached to the teams stadium screen. The main home field advantage in MLB is familiarity with the park and its ground rules and the lay of the land. So each stadium could have a small factor (0-9) that reflected how much the home field would benefit the home team in that stadium. The effect of this factor would be a fraction of a percentage add to the chance of a favorable outcome to the home team on close plays. By setting it to 0 for all teams no team would have to deal with it, by setting it to 9 all teams would have the maximum benefit to their home parks, but it would still be a small effect.

This factor would impact the home team favorably only slightly on close plays where familiarity with the field might give them a split second advantage getting to the ball or robbing that homerun.. and it wouldn't effect stats drastically or result in unrealistic home/road stats breakdowns for players.. but this is about the only home field advantage factor I could support in OOTP...

In any event I'd be fine without it.

BTW - I certainly wouldn't complain about losing all the "arbitrary" ratings... I wasn't a huge fan of the clutch rating either, but as long as its a small impact it won't bother me too much either...

[ 05-07-2002, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: ScottVib ]

DreamTeams · 05-07-2002, 08:13 AM

I see your point ScottVib. I like the idea of attaching this tiny factor to the ballpark to mimic park familiarity. Sounds really cool. But wouldn't that affect any team or player that plays in that park home or away?

Scott Vibert · 05-07-2002, 08:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by DreamTeams:
But wouldn't that affect any team or player that plays in that park home or away?<hr /></blockquote>It could (as any such homefield modifier would), but in this case only on the few close plays that are already randomly decided by the game here we would tweak the chance of the outcome showing up in the home teams favor by a (very) small margin and the impact should be extremely slight.. thus avoiding the chance of signifcantly skewing the results for each individual player..

Peter Bergstrom · 05-07-2002, 08:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I agree with your figures Peter, but the last-at-bat more than covers for this statistic... remember we're talking about a turn-based game here, not a clock-based game. <hr /></blockquote>Therefore, accumulated season stats from the game should bear out the force of this factor. My- inexhaustive- sampling showed that the home/away split averages out to roughly 50-50. Sorry, this doesn't reflect reality.

Scott Vibert · 05-07-2002, 09:07 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Peter Bergstrom:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />I agree with your figures Peter, but the last-at-bat more than covers for this statistic... remember we're talking about a turn-based game here, not a clock-based game. <hr /></blockquote>Therefore, accumulated season stats from the game should bear out the force of this factor. My- inexhaustive- sampling showed that the home/away split averages out to roughly 50-50. Sorry, this doesn't reflect reality.<hr /></blockquote>Do you recall your last suggestion to change all home team pitchers ratings so that they perform better at home? (I keep posting these stats since you've never responded to them and keep harping on statements indicating players perform better at home than on the road)

How can you support that notion when basic research indicates that this is not reflective of reality? Even worse it could skew stats, as they do not necessarily balance out over the course of a season as you stated that it would:

From the Earlier Threads

I took one team (Boston) and used the three year averages (1999-2001) of each pitcher on the squad the results are presented here:
* 3 year splits missing last years stats presented

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">
Name Hm Av Hm ERA Hm IP Rd Av Rd ERA Rd IP
Arrojo .295 5.48 226.2 .243 2.31 190.0
Banks* .000 0.00 4.0 .192 1.35 6.2
Burkett .297 5.30 231.0 .253 3.43 270.0
Castillo .257 4.61 125.0 .227 3.31 149.2
Crawford .288 6.21 29.0 .237 2.50 36.0
Fossum .211 4.01 24.2 .312 5.95 19.2
Garces* .221 3.86 35.0 .217 3.94 32.0
Hermanson .274 3.95 305.2 .277 3.98 301.0
Lowe .254 2.70 146.2 .241 3.09 145.2
Martinez .196 2.16 270.1 .182 1.85 276.2
Oliver .290 5.48 213.2 .303 2.70 244.2
Urbina* .243 3.25 36.0 .217 4.11 30.2
Wakefield .275 4.58 232.0 .248 5.00 236.0
Wallace* .279 4.84 22.1 .192 2.25 28.0</pre><hr /></blockquote>Before you complain "well Fenway is a hitters park" notice that the pitcher who've spent significant amounts of the time shown not on the Sox (Burkett, Castillo, Hermanson, Oliver, Urbina, Wallace) show no evidence of being better at home either.

You'll also notice some pitchers (Arrojo, Burkett, Castillo, Oliver) do indeed have a big enough split between times pitching at home and times pitching on the road to skew the statistical results.

Henry · 05-07-2002, 09:14 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Peter Bergstrom:
Therefore, accumulated season stats from the game should bear out the force of this factor. My- inexhaustive- sampling showed that the home/away split averages out to roughly 50-50. Sorry, this doesn't reflect reality.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>I would suggest we're no where near knowing whether the game duplicates a 50-50 split or a 55-45 split. I haven't looked into it, I imagine most have not, and your investigation - by your own word - is not exhaustive.

One thing I've learned about this game - is just when you think you've uncovered something based on a dozen seasons - you go over it again and get a different set of numbers. That's not to say the game is necessarilty right, but is to say that we have to have a significant examination of results before drawing conclusions.

To mtw,
I also have to agree with Scott that a half dozen of you who feel strongly about this issue can't be taken as a "sizable percentage of the community". I understand you feel strongly about it - but before Markus seriously considers anything, I would want to know that the "majority" of people felt that way. And besides, since it's Markus' creation - he has a "veto" available simply on the fact it belongs to him

[ 05-07-2002, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Henry ]

Peter Bergstrom · 05-07-2002, 09:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Do you recall your last suggestion to change all home team pitchers ratings so that they perform better at home? (I keep posting these stats since you've never responded to them and keep harping on statements indicating players perform better at home than on the road)
<hr /></blockquote>Teams score fractionally more runs at home and fractionally fewer runs on the road per game. It doesn't matter how you do it; whether raising/lowering pitcher ratings or batter ratings or 'special events'.

At any rate, it all comes out in the wash. Over time, players will play a commensurate number of games at home and on the road. Provided the ratings are tweaked symmetrically, the statistical purity of the game remains unblemished. IOW, I don't think this skews the statistical results- long term.

Scott Vibert · 05-07-2002, 09:34 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Peter Bergstrom:

At any rate, it all comes out in the wash. Over time, players will play a commensurate number of games at home and on the road. Provided the ratings are tweaked symmetrically, the statistical purity of the game remains unblemished. IOW, I don't think this skews the statistical results- long term.<hr /></blockquote>That depends on your definition of long term... in the stats I presented above some players still have statistically significant differences after 3 years of stats.... at the very least altering ratings in that fashion would impact players year to year stats in a significant enough way to impact results....

That is why I'd stay away from altering ratings and towards a more subtle impact caused by the stadium... as this is where the major source of the home field advantage lies in baseball..

mtw · 05-07-2002, 10:12 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Henry:
To mtw,
I also have to agree with Scott that a half dozen of you who feel strongly about this issue can't be taken as a "sizable percentage of the community". I understand you feel strongly about it - but before Markus seriously considers anything, I would want to know that the "majority" of people felt that way. And besides, since it's Markus' creation - he has a "veto" available simply on the fact it belongs to him

<hr /></blockquote>As I tried to clarify in my follow-up post (before being pounded on by the heavyweights) I wasn't trying to intimate that there was a significant portion of users who wanted home field advantage-only that it should bear serious consideration if there were many who wanted it.

Further, I also tried to make clear that I wasn't in favor of a home field advantage so much as I wanted the artificial "anti-6+ game winning streak factor" (thanks to ScottVib for the clarification) eliminated. I don't particularly care about home field advantage, but I'd rather have that than the purely arbitrary "anti-6+ game win streak" factor.

BTW--My guess is that if the OOTP users were polled, you'd find that there are a good number who feel that home field advantage would be an appropriate factor for the game. I don't know if it would be more than 50%, but I'd bet it's more than a few.

gohorns98 · 05-07-2002, 10:20 AM

One way that home field advantage plays out IRL is the fact that teams are tailored toward their home field. Take the Texas Rangers for example. The have a great offensive team, and they play in an offensive park. This shows up in the stats as the Rangers scoring more runs then almost all other teams. BUT, when the Rangers go on the road and play in other parks this "advantage" is taken away.

This is played out in OOTP through the ball park factors. Sure you could gather the best home run hitters in baseball, and not hit that many home runs because your ballpark factors show that you play in a pitcher friendly park. Therefore no home field advantage. I have found that in order for me to have an advantage at home in OOTP I must get a team that fits my home ball park. I believe this is the same in real life.

Maple Leafs · 05-07-2002, 10:22 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Henry:
mtw,

As I said, the turn based environment of the home team batting last already provides a home team advantage...<hr /></blockquote>Does this mean that the computer AI makes strategy decisions based on whether they are home or away?

My observations are that the computer will be more likely to use a closer in extra innings when they're at home, which is correct strategy. Otherwise, I don't see any differences in how they manage in the top vs. bottom of an inning.

J P Falcon · 05-07-2002, 11:31 AM

My final thought on this... Let's suppose for arguments sake that Markus did install some modification to incorporate homefield advantage...My question is, how will you, as a player, know when it is working or not? Since you now will lose a certain amount of games in away parks, how will you see any significant changes?.... some of you forget that you have to play 81 games in the other fellas yard so whatever advantage you had at home will now become your disadvantage on the road...perhaps you wanted home field advantage for your team but no away field disadvantage when you play in an AI controlled park. Would that be a fair implementation of the game?...I think not...so as these elements balance out, the whole notion of incorporating it into the game is a complete waste of time.

[ 05-08-2002, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: J P Falcon ]

05-07-2002, 06:55 AM	#21
mtw All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 653	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Steve Kuffrey: <strong>[QUOTE]]Agreed.... We don't need multiple topics on this. We are not going to make this adjustment to the game.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This seems overly hostile. With multiple, time-spaced threads, it seems that this is a feature that is "in demand" by a significant segment of the OOTP4 community and would bear serious consideration. Especially when there is the brilliant suggestion of restructuring the unrealistic anti-5+ game winning streak factor as a "home field advantage". Or just eliminating the anti-winning streak factor altogether and not adding any artifical game modifiers would be fine, too (or making such artifical modifiers optional). <small>[ 05-07-2002, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: mtw ]</small> __________________ Over-Zealous Apologist

05-07-2002, 07:00 AM	#22
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	Hostile? Not sure where that came from? Goes to show that you can read into type what isn't there face to face. No hostility present.... __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

05-07-2002, 07:24 AM	#23
mtw All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 653	I meant the "official" response to making the change in the game, not necessarily the tone of the post. If there is a demand for Home Field advantage, why wouldn't Markus look at including it? (I'm not saying how much of a demand there is, only that hypothetically if there was a significant demand beyond a few posters in 3 threads, it seems good policy to please the masses.) Besides, since OOTP4 already has a very similar arbitrary (and much less realistic IMO) factor in it's game calcs, why not make the anti-5+ game winning streak into a Home Field Advantage. If the effect is small, as described by Markus, then it would have the same effect of reducing the likelihood of long winning streaks while at the same time increasing the likelihood of the home team winning (a demonstrated reality of MLB) without "unbalancing" the game. Since the last at-bat does not seem to provide "home field" advantage in OOTP4, a controlled, artificial boost could help mimic reality. Or better yet, get rid of ALL arbitrary factors and let the players decide the game! __________________ Over-Zealous Apologist

05-07-2002, 07:31 AM	#24
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,249	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by mtw: <strong>This seems overly hostile. With multiple, time-spaced threads, it seems that this is a feature that is "in demand" by a significant segment of the OOTP4 community and would bear serious consideration.</strong> Actually there are two active threads on this and only one other and the three or four people asking for the feature end up being shouted out in each one by the three or four people who don't see it as necessary... that would lead me to say that the vast majority of the people here don't care or don't see it as a major issue. <strong> Especially when there is the brilliant suggestion of restructuring the unrealistic anti-5+ game winning streak factor as a "home field advantage". Or just eliminating the anti-winning streak factor altogether and not adding any artifical game modifiers would be fine, too (or making such artifical modifiers optional). </strong> I really haven't seen the "streak" factor have much of an effect in my recently completed season I had multiple 12 game winning streaks by several different clubs. It sounds like you had a streak or two end at five games and of course attributed it to that effect (I'd doubt this was the only thing that killed your streak (which doesn't say it didn't help)... keep in mind the "streak-busting" rating supposedly only impacts the starting pitcher and was supposed to be slight enough not to turn Pedro to Darren Oliver (although scary thing is that might not have been bad in some starts this year <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ). (BTW, the factor wasn't supposed to come into play until the 6th game, so your definition should probably say 6+ game win streak factor) I still stand by the belief that this is a small enough factor that it wouldn't have been noticed if it hadn't been mentioned in an early review as "a great thing". </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In any event most of the ideas of how to adjust for the homefield involve the whole sale editing of ratings by giving players a boost at home and an equal sized decrease on the road, with the idea that the playing time would probably balance out. This is something that I don't see as an acceptable change... Here are some stats: I took one team (Boston) and used the three year averages (1999-2001) of each pitcher on the squad the results are presented here: * 3 year splits missing last years stats presented </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Name Hm Av Hm ERA Hm IP Rd Av Rd ERA Rd IP Arrojo .295 5.48 226.2 .243 2.31 190.0 Banks* .000 0.00 4.0 .192 1.35 6.2 Burkett .297 5.30 231.0 .253 3.43 270.0 Castillo .257 4.61 125.0 .227 3.31 149.2 Crawford .288 6.21 29.0 .237 2.50 36.0 Fossum .211 4.01 24.2 .312 5.95 19.2 Garces* .221 3.86 35.0 .217 3.94 32.0 Hermanson .274 3.95 305.2 .277 3.98 301.0 Lowe .254 2.70 146.2 .241 3.09 145.2 Martinez .196 2.16 270.1 .182 1.85 276.2 Oliver .290 5.48 213.2 .303 2.70 244.2 Urbina* .243 3.25 36.0 .217 4.11 30.2 Wakefield .275 4.58 232.0 .248 5.00 236.0 Wallace* .279 4.84 22.1 .192 2.25 28.0</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Before you complain "well Fenway is a hitters park" notice that the pitcher who've spent significant amounts of the time shown not on the Sox (Burkett, Castillo, Hermanson, Oliver, Urbina, Wallace) show no evidence of being better at home either. You'll also notice some pitchers (Arrojo, Burkett, Castillo, Oliver) do indeed have a big enough split between times pitching at home and times pitching on the road to skew the statistical results. Then there was this simple comparision: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Peter Bergstrom: <strong>For what it's worth, Diamond Mind Baseball models Home Field Advantage. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> Face it, men, we need it!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">For what? The game produces realistic enough stats, and win loss records? Why introduce an artificial, and potentially results skewing (for individual players) rating for the sake of two fairly insignificant win - loss splits? To me this really isn't necessary. And even if it was necessary how do you measure and introduce this rating. (Adjusting the pitchers doesn't seem appropriate) Last year Boston, Toronto, Baltimore, Cleveland, Seattle, Anaheim, Atlanta, Houston, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Los Angeles and San Diego all did better on the road, than they did at home. Does this mean these teams need negative adjustments to their "home field advantage" factor just to offset the gains they showed on the road. Heck Atlanta made the playoffs without even winning half of their home games, so just how significant is the home field advantage in the major leagues, if you can make the playoffs without winning the majority of their own home games. In the end all the stats balance out and are fairly good without this artificial factor. Edit - This reminds me of what my mother used to say: If Diamond Mind Baseball jumped off a bridge would you? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> In the end most people will point to a familiarity with the grounds as being the primary cause of the homefiled advantage. This I can understand and about the only homefield advantage modifier I could get behind would be like this: Look I agree homefield advantage in real life is a factor (not as big a deal as you seem to believe though), however, to weaken the simulation in other respects just to bolster two fairly insignificant statistical values is a cost that isn't worth paying in my opinion. Does it really matter how many games team A won at home?, NO, what matters is how many they won overall. The only type of homefield advantage that would seem realisitc to add to me is a very small one, and it would be attached to the teams stadium screen. The main home field advantage in MLB is familiarity with the park and its ground rules and the lay of the land. So each stadium could have a small factor (0-9) that reflected how much the home field would benefit the home team in that stadium. The effect of this factor would be a fraction of a percentage add to the chance of a favorable outcome to the home team on close plays. By setting it to 0 for all teams no team would have to deal with it, by setting it to 9 all teams would have the maximum benefit to their home parks, but it would still be a small effect. This factor would impact the home team favorably only slightly on close plays where familiarity with the field might give them a split second advantage getting to the ball or robbing that homerun.. and it wouldn't effect stats drastically or result in unrealistic home/road stats breakdowns for players.. but this is about the only home field advantage factor I could support in OOTP... In any event I'd be fine without it. BTW - I certainly wouldn't complain about losing all the "arbitrary" ratings... I wasn't a huge fan of the clutch rating either, but as long as its a small impact it won't bother me too much either... <small>[ 05-07-2002, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: ScottVib ]</small>

05-07-2002, 08:13 AM	#25
DreamTeams Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 2,522	I see your point ScottVib. I like the idea of attaching this tiny factor to the ballpark to mimic park familiarity. Sounds really cool. But wouldn't that affect any team or player that plays in that park home or away? __________________

05-07-2002, 08:31 AM	#26
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,249	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by DreamTeams: <strong>But wouldn't that affect any team or player that plays in that park home or away?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It could (as any such homefield modifier would), but in this case only on the few close plays that are already randomly decided by the game here we would tweak the chance of the outcome showing up in the home teams favor by a (very) small margin and the impact should be extremely slight.. thus avoiding the chance of signifcantly skewing the results for each individual player..

05-07-2002, 08:55 AM	#27
Peter Bergstrom Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 27	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree with your figures Peter, but the last-at-bat more than covers for this statistic... remember we're talking about a turn-based game here, not a clock-based game. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Therefore, accumulated season stats from the game should bear out the force of this factor. My- inexhaustive- sampling showed that the home/away split averages out to roughly 50-50. Sorry, this doesn't reflect reality.

05-07-2002, 09:07 AM	#28
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,249	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Peter Bergstrom: <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree with your figures Peter, but the last-at-bat more than covers for this statistic... remember we're talking about a turn-based game here, not a clock-based game. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Therefore, accumulated season stats from the game should bear out the force of this factor. My- inexhaustive- sampling showed that the home/away split averages out to roughly 50-50. Sorry, this doesn't reflect reality.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Do you recall your last suggestion to change all home team pitchers ratings so that they perform better at home? (I keep posting these stats since you've never responded to them and keep harping on statements indicating players perform better at home than on the road) How can you support that notion when basic research indicates that this is not reflective of reality? Even worse it could skew stats, as they do not necessarily balance out over the course of a season as you stated that it would: *From the Earlier Threads* I took one team (Boston) and used the three year averages (1999-2001) of each pitcher on the squad the results are presented here: * 3 year splits missing last years stats presented </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;"> Name Hm Av Hm ERA Hm IP Rd Av Rd ERA Rd IP Arrojo .295 5.48 226.2 .243 2.31 190.0 Banks* .000 0.00 4.0 .192 1.35 6.2 Burkett .297 5.30 231.0 .253 3.43 270.0 Castillo .257 4.61 125.0 .227 3.31 149.2 Crawford .288 6.21 29.0 .237 2.50 36.0 Fossum .211 4.01 24.2 .312 5.95 19.2 Garces* .221 3.86 35.0 .217 3.94 32.0 Hermanson .274 3.95 305.2 .277 3.98 301.0 Lowe .254 2.70 146.2 .241 3.09 145.2 Martinez .196 2.16 270.1 .182 1.85 276.2 Oliver .290 5.48 213.2 .303 2.70 244.2 Urbina* .243 3.25 36.0 .217 4.11 30.2 Wakefield .275 4.58 232.0 .248 5.00 236.0 Wallace* .279 4.84 22.1 .192 2.25 28.0</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Before you complain "well Fenway is a hitters park" notice that the pitcher who've spent significant amounts of the time shown not on the Sox (Burkett, Castillo, Hermanson, Oliver, Urbina, Wallace) show no evidence of being better at home either. You'll also notice some pitchers (Arrojo, Burkett, Castillo, Oliver) do indeed have a big enough split between times pitching at home and times pitching on the road to skew the statistical results.

05-07-2002, 09:14 AM	#29
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Peter Bergstrom: Therefore, accumulated season stats from the game should bear out the force of this factor. My- inexhaustive- sampling showed that the home/away split averages out to roughly 50-50. Sorry, this doesn't reflect reality.[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I would suggest we're no where near knowing whether the game duplicates a 50-50 split or a 55-45 split. I haven't looked into it, I imagine most have not, and your investigation - by your own word - is not exhaustive. One thing I've learned about this game - is just when you think you've uncovered something based on a dozen seasons - you go over it again and get a different set of numbers. That's not to say the game is necessarilty right, but is to say that we have to have a significant examination of results before drawing conclusions. To mtw, I also have to agree with Scott that a half dozen of you who feel strongly about this issue can't be taken as a "sizable percentage of the community". I understand you feel strongly about it - but before Markus seriously considers anything, I would want to know that the "majority" of people felt that way. And besides, since it's Markus' creation - he has a "veto" available simply on the fact it belongs to him <small>[ 05-07-2002, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Henry ]</small>

05-07-2002, 09:27 AM	#30
Peter Bergstrom Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 27	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Do you recall your last suggestion to change all home team pitchers ratings so that they perform better at home? (I keep posting these stats since you've never responded to them and keep harping on statements indicating players perform better at home than on the road) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Teams score fractionally more runs at home and fractionally fewer runs on the road per game. It doesn't matter how you do it; whether raising/lowering pitcher ratings or batter ratings or 'special events'. At any rate, it all comes out in the wash. Over time, players will play a commensurate number of games at home and on the road. Provided the ratings are tweaked symmetrically, the statistical purity of the game remains unblemished. IOW, I don't think this skews the statistical results- long term.

05-07-2002, 09:34 AM	#31
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,249	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Peter Bergstrom: <strong> At any rate, it all comes out in the wash. Over time, players will play a commensurate number of games at home and on the road. Provided the ratings are tweaked symmetrically, the statistical purity of the game remains unblemished. IOW, I don't think this skews the statistical results- long term.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That depends on your definition of long term... in the stats I presented above some players still have statistically significant differences after 3 years of stats.... at the very least altering ratings in that fashion would impact players year to year stats in a significant enough way to impact results.... That is why I'd stay away from altering ratings and towards a more subtle impact caused by the stadium... as this is where the major source of the home field advantage lies in baseball..

05-07-2002, 10:12 AM	#32
mtw All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 653	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Henry: <strong>To mtw, I also have to agree with Scott that a half dozen of you who feel strongly about this issue can't be taken as a "sizable percentage of the community". I understand you feel strongly about it - but before Markus seriously considers anything, I would want to know that the "majority" of people felt that way. And besides, since it's Markus' creation - he has a "veto" available simply on the fact it belongs to him </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">As I tried to clarify in my follow-up post (before being pounded on by the heavyweights) I wasn't trying to intimate that there was a significant portion of users who wanted home field advantage-only that it should bear serious consideration if there were many who wanted it. Further, I also tried to make clear that I wasn't in favor of a home field advantage so much as I wanted the artificial "anti-6+ game winning streak factor" (thanks to ScottVib for the clarification) eliminated. I don't particularly care about home field advantage, but I'd rather have that than the purely arbitrary "anti-6+ game win streak" factor. BTW--My guess is that if the OOTP users were polled, you'd find that there are a good number who feel that home field advantage would be an appropriate factor for the game. I don't know if it would be more than 50%, but I'd bet it's more than a few. __________________ Over-Zealous Apologist

05-07-2002, 10:20 AM	#33
gohorns98 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Flower Mound, TX Posts: 194	One way that home field advantage plays out IRL is the fact that teams are tailored toward their home field. Take the Texas Rangers for example. The have a great offensive team, and they play in an offensive park. This shows up in the stats as the Rangers scoring more runs then almost all other teams. BUT, when the Rangers go on the road and play in other parks this "advantage" is taken away. This is played out in OOTP through the ball park factors. Sure you could gather the best home run hitters in baseball, and not hit that many home runs because your ballpark factors show that you play in a pitcher friendly park. Therefore no home field advantage. I have found that in order for me to have an advantage at home in OOTP I must get a team that fits my home ball park. I believe this is the same in real life.

05-07-2002, 10:22 AM	#34
Maple Leafs Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 234	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Henry: <strong>mtw, As I said, the turn based environment of the home team batting last already provides a home team advantage...</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Does this mean that the computer AI makes strategy decisions based on whether they are home or away? My observations are that the computer will be more likely to use a closer in extra innings when they're at home, which is correct strategy. Otherwise, I don't see any differences in how they manage in the top vs. bottom of an inning.

05-07-2002, 11:31 AM	#35
J P Falcon Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NJ Posts: 406	My final thought on this... Let's suppose for arguments sake that Markus did install some modification to incorporate homefield advantage...My question is, how will you, as a player, know when it is working or not? Since you now will lose a certain amount of games in away parks, how will you see any significant changes?.... some of you forget that you have to play 81 games in the other fellas yard so whatever advantage you had at home will now become your disadvantage on the road...perhaps you wanted home field advantage for your team but no away field disadvantage when you play in an AI controlled park. Would that be a fair implementation of the game?...I think not...so as these elements balance out, the whole notion of incorporating it into the game is a complete waste of time. <small>[ 05-08-2002, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: J P Falcon ]</small>