2 Major Post 5.10 issues

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally posted by HolyCow98
Here is my opinion...two things...the way OOTP 5 handles fatigue and what kind of schedule you have....

Well, this means it should be REALLY interesting to see what the results are from historical leagues that actually use the historical schedules, especially considering their fairly common doubleheaders and the often strange scattering and/or clustering of off days.

Boy, I wish there was a schedule importer. I'd love to see some test numbers from this...

[HolyCow98]

To clarify just a bit....

If I had schedule where a team had one day off for a month...then the starters would generally see alot more days off...

If a team had say 3 or more days off...guys who should be playing every day were....

I am working on starting a league tonight....and I'm going to use a real schedule...to see what happens....I'll let you know...I'm still trying to pick a year that I want to start in...

Regardless...I will run some sample sims...probably 10 season of just the AI simming with a real schedule and see what kind of results come up with that.

[mtw]

All of my tests in 5.10 and seasons played in 5.01 have used a 154-game, modern-style schedule, with 18 off days, none back-to-back, and a 3-day All-Star break. Some teams would play as many as 20 days in a row, but more common are 10 to 13 staright day stretches.

By way of comparison, the 2003 Chicago Cubs have 2 stretches of 20 straight game days (5/9-5/28 and 6/24-7/13), and play on 33 of 34 days from 6/10-7/13. They have 16 off-days plus a 4-day All-Star break and play 162-games from 3/31 to 9/28. So, they play more games with fewer off days.

In any season I have played or simmed (again, using this schedule), with the exception of AI teams that had no depth behind a particular position player, no player has started more than 146 games, 3 players 145 games, and several at 144 and increasing down the line. This sampling encompasses the three tests I ran after 5.10, three "played seasons" using 5.01 and 4 "test" seasons using 5.01. There were a few players who played 154 games, but only because there was no depth behind that player at his position.

For those of you who have run tests, if you have used a similar modern-style schedule and come up with some players starting 162 games with depth at that position, then I am at a loss. I can't think of anything other than fatigue, injuries, or the depth chart to account for players taking games off, and these seem to be handled as advertised in my league. The schedule may be a variable, but even the OOTP5 generator has teams playing 15-20 games in a row, as does the included MLB schedule.

Please know, I am not saying the majority of players should be playing 162 games a year (154 in my case). Just to see 1-3 would be nice, gradually increasing to a peak for "everyday" of around 150 (142-144 in my league) games started. Right now, the highest games started in my league is right at where I feel the average should be, and the average is 4-6 games below where I feel it should be.

[HolyCow98]

I am definately seeing what you are talking about...but I still believe it has alot to do with the schedule..of course mine are based on 162 games seasons and not 154...

I only say that because I am seeing both things happening...The game handles fatigue and tired players in a way that well see some guys getting 5 days off in a month at times if they are playing in a month where they are on a long stretch of games and the get a day off before going on another long stretch of games...

[mtw]

I just simmed three seasons in the default OOTP5 league. Hadn't touched it until now. With it's real-life schedule and players (with aliases), I figured it would be a good testing subject.

Results:

In the three seasons, the top 5 games started were 162, 159,157, 153, 152 (*3). The players who started 162, 159, 157 games had no backup for most or all of the season (all played 3B BTW), and were forced to start that many games. The 153 (a 1B) played w/o backup for about half of the season. The vast majority of "every day" players started between 146 and 150 games. Thus, I am now very comfortable that my initial observations were correct that the issue does lie in the fatigue/depth use logic. Again, I will stress my opinion that some players should have the potential to play 162 games and not because the AI has no other option.

As an aside, I noticed that all of the MLB players entering the 2003 season at age 36 were drooling 1* vegetables by the end of the 2005 season, with the exception of the immortal alias of Steve Reed, who kept his 4* at age 39, Larry Walker's alias at 2.5* w/ only a slight drop in 2005 at age 38, and John Smoltz's alias (currently a 2.5* at age 38 who will be a drooling 1* vegetable by the end of 2006 at his current rate of decline)--it is very unlikely any of these guys will have 20 year careers though. Also, I am excluding those like Bonds, RJohnson, RClemens, GMaddux who retired after 2003 or 2004 rather than try for HoF numbers; Clemens, Maddux, and Johnson were 1* players when they hung them up. Sammy Sosa's alias is on the Red Sox bench as a 1.5*star 5th OF at age 36, and most of the other 34-or 35-yo star's of 2003 (Alomar, Piazza, Bagwell, Biggio, Olerud, etc.) are well on their way to 1* "emergency free agent filler" or "DFH" (designated fungo hitter) status for 2006. I would expect to see this in OOTP4, but based on the pub and the posts in this forum, I thought OOTP5 addressed the aging and retirement issues, or am I seeing a "fluke" in the system? (I haven't gotten far enough along in my usual league to notice this before now.)

[HolyCow98]

As far as the retirement thing...I'm seeing some guys last longer than I remember in V 3 and 4 but I'm seeing alot of great players go down sooner as well....I've only gotter past 10 seasons in one league that I still have on my HD so I'm not sure if one league is enough to base anything on...

I'm definately feeling that the players get tired much easier than in the past...which do to that with "most" schedules you will find that not many guys will play every game...I still think it is a combingation of the faster fatigue combined with the amount of games played via the schedule...

Since I haven't played far enough into any league (20+years) to base a strong opinion on the player development curve for the older guys...based on the one league I simmed in over 10 seasons, I got the impression the average career length is going to be much lower, but I have seen some guy who were still going pretty good at the age of 40-44......

This is one of those topics that I don't think will ever have everyone happy....

It would be very nice if we had some kind of settings we could set regarding fatigue, other than just off or on...or have a new rating, maybe similar to the injury rating, like a conditioning rating or something, that would give some kind of indication of who may be the truly everday guys...

[mtw]

I've just begun my fourth season in my "usual" league. Now that I'm playing close attention to games played, it's becoming clear where the issue lies. Players fatigue much too quickly.

Through 18 games, which includes three off days, the last off day being six days before the current day, my 28-yo CF, 31-yo 3B, and 34-yo CF are all fatigued. Averaging six games a week for the first 3 weeks, and already being fatigued on April 28 before the day-to-day grind really sets in, it's no wonder they are missing a minimum 10 starts a year. Even for the 34-yo, I think it's extreme with the number of off days he's had and the fact it's only April 28.

Looking around the rest of the league, there are also many other fatigued players already.

IMO fatigue definitely needs to be scaled back, and even better to have an individual player scale or rating implemented.

[woburn]

Maybe I was thinking about this wrong, but I think the issue of "too many days off" for starters is simply due to how the AI sets the depth charts.

Example: Solo league, AI Center field depth chart:
Starter
Substitute (set to 6%)

My impression of this was that the Sub would be put into the starting lineup 6% of the time - regardless of when the starter may or may not be fatigued.

Example 2: Solo leauge, AI Right field depth chart
Starter
Sub #1 (set to 10%)
Sub #2 (set to 1%)
Sub #3 (set to 1%)

Therefore, wouldn't this starter only play 88% of the time?

I'm not sure how the Sub #1 percentages are set. Outside of catcher, I see this ranging from 3% to 10% for AI lineups.
(looking further, it does seem like the top players get "subbed for" less)

Then it seems that any player on the bench gets put into the depth charts wherever they are qualified to play. Like above, there were a couple more guys who could play RF, so they were tacked on as well.

So at the minimum, having a 3% sub would mean the starter would start 157 of 162 games. In the case above, with subs 12% of the time, the starter would only start 142 of 162.

(yes, assuming it was the same vs RHP and LHP).

[HolyCow98]

Yeah...MTW...I get the same feeling as well on fatigue....

It "looks" like the players get fatigued a good amount quicker...then in the past...and almost like they don't get as much rest from a day off as well anymore...but that may just be me..

I noticed with my own players that if I play them till they become tired (yellow) and then give them a day off, the amount of time it takes to get them back to yellow is a good bit shorter than it used to be...

[rogmax11]

Good stuff, guys!

This issue seems related (though skewed in the polar opposite direction) to a problem I saw in many leagues, namely that there were a plethora of players--including many catchers--who would routinely rack up 162 game seasons in defiance of normal fatigue expectations. Perhaps the current ado reflects an attempt to correct those excesses, with a resultant overswing too far the other direction.

I dont know what the answer is, aside from further tweaking, but mtw's suggestion of individual scaleability of fatigue sounds like a good idea.

[sixfour210]

Originally posted by chinaski
Missing 10+ games seems all to normal to me.

As of right now, there are only 18 players who have played in every game so far this year in MLB.

I'm sorry but where in the HECK did you get this statistic from? There are between 3-6 players on EACH team that have played in every game for their team.

[mtw]

Originally posted by woburn
Maybe I was thinking about this wrong, but I think the issue of "too many days off" for starters is simply due to how the AI sets the depth charts.

Absolutely depth plays a role in missing games, but this hasn't changed since OOTP4, and looking back through the numbers, players weren't missing as many games as they do now. Actually, I think players actually miss less time to depth substitutions now, at least the superstars, as their sub% is much lower now than in past versions, if I remember correctly. (A nice little tweak)

Originally posted by rogmax11
This issue seems related (though skewed in the polar opposite direction) to a problem I saw in many leagues, namely that there were a plethora of players--including many catchers--who would routinely rack up 162 game seasons in defiance of normal fatigue expectations. Perhaps the current ado reflects an attempt to correct those excesses, with a resultant overswing too far the other direction.

Agreed that players were on average playing too many games in OOTP4, but this was due to substitution logic where the substituted starter would come in to pinch hit in every close/late game, so the player would only start 145-150 games, but would play in 158-160.


Again, I'm just looking for a "spectrum of fatigue", where a few players can literally play every day, more can start 150-160 games per year, even more in the 145-155 game range, and some (especially older players) who need a day off every week, perhaps slightly more.

I would like eventually to see fatigue and depth use tied together, and for depth use to depend more on game events such that players who are in prolonged slumps are likely to get more days off on depth substitutions, and players who are hot are less likely to be substituted for, as well as key bench players getting more starts than lesser ones where the difference between the bench player and the starter isn't of great magnitude, and for young superstars or those in the "prime" of their career to only be subbed for when slumping badly. It would also be cool if fatigue could depend on a lot of factors such as consecutive games played, extra inning games, slumping/streaking (a sort of mental fatigue), time of year, etc. Players could have different tolerances for fatigue and recovery rates when getting a day off.

I'm sure Markus will work something like this in eventually, but for the time being I'd be happy just to see fatigue scaled back.

[Ksyrup]

On the SB issue, I posted about this last week and it was discussed some.

So...what's the answer? Is there something that can be done to make SBs higher? I have simmed approximately 225 years over the course of 4 or 5 careers, and 61 is the most SBs anyone has ever had in one season. Most years I'm lucky if the top base stealer gets 50.

The simply solution, it would seem to me, is to add SB to the ERA settings. If H&R and Bunting are there, I don't know why SB attempts or something of that nature would not be there.

This is a big issue for me, because it makes the game one-dimensional. Sure, as the GM/manager of my team, I can increase the SB attempts for my team manually, but that puts the AI at a disadvantage since it is obviously not accounting for the speed on its rosters. The 1980's Astros and Cardinals would have a hard time competing in a league which favors power and discounts speed.

Even putting aside historical accuracy concerns, I want the game to be able to be played in more than one way. If I decide to build my team around speed instead of power, then I'd likely end up with 5 of the top 7 guys in the league in SBs. That's not fun.

[mtw]

Well said. Adding SB's to the Era setting and forcing the AI teams to take that setting as the baseline for its Team Strategies would add a lot to historical game play IMO.