OOTP6 needs home field advantage in it - Page 2

Single A Rookie · 12-29-2003, 07:46 PM

I'm not arguing that there ISN'T such a thing as "home field" - but rather that if you implement it in the game then you are awarding it to 100% of the teams.. and that to me isn't right.

Home field can be a combination of developing a team to your park, and having the last out... strategically that is important.

As to basketball... correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't home team have the last change similar to hockey? Doesn't that mean that the home team always has the matchups they desire on the court?

If sleeping at home etc... worked 100% of the time, then I don't have a problem with it being adding to the game... but I seem to recall stories of owners forcing their teams to sleep in hotels when at home in order to enforce a "team spirit" as well - especially when a team isn't winning at home.

Right now I look at my league, and see that playing at home already shows an advantage for most teams... why do people feel the need to increase the advantage artificially?

If this IS implemented, then I pray Gastric ReFlux's idea of it being OPTIONAL is used.... for those who think all it will do is twist stats...

Doctor Drew · 12-29-2003, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Le Grande Orange

If that were the case, I'd expect virtually all teams to do poorly on the road, since, as you claim, the teams are geared soley to their own parks. Given the rather large variety in park layout, particularly in earlier years, that would seem a natural consequence of your theory. The numbers however don't bear that out.

Just to chime in, wouldn't this assumption support the fact you mentioned earlier, that good teams had a smaller "home field advantage", and bad teams had a better one? A team that could do well anywhere is a good team, whereas one that can only win in one park will have a good advantage at home, but not be a good team overall...

Crapshoot · 12-30-2003, 01:17 PM

To add to this, Im of the belief that home field is a result of better knoweldge of the park, a more tailored team, and the advantage of batting last- to put in a variable that expressly gives a home field advantage seems a bit like batching to me - simply putting in numbers to get a desired result. I would prefer if it were implemented in a way that was less obvious- perhaps the home team is more likely to play that ball of the wall correctly, or more likely to accept the low bounce of the infield- in either case, it should contribute to their greater winning percentage at home.

Gastric ReFlux · 12-30-2003, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aadik
To add to this, Im of the belief that home field is a result of better knoweldge of the park, a more tailored team, and the advantage of batting last

Would you care to explain the homecourt advantage of NBA teams in line with that reasoning?

rcbuss · 12-30-2003, 02:12 PM

in the NBA, it's probably the officiating

Single A Rookie · 12-30-2003, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gastric ReFlux
Would you care to explain the homecourt advantage of NBA teams in line with that reasoning?

In the NBA the home team doesn't have fans trying to distract them through clear backboards...

Seriously though... can you explain the 17% of teams that play better on the road?

BleacherBum · 12-30-2003, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Seriously though... can you explain the 17% of teams that play better on the road? [/B]

The home court advantage is not so overwhelming that we would expect every team to have a better record at home. In fact, the data provided in support of home field advantage makes this clear - the advantage is in the +/- 5-10% range.

So, it is reasonable expect that some teams will buck the trend, and win more games on the road. If you like, spend some time running a probability analysis and you could get a predicition on how many teams this would be. That effort would get you a more complete explanation (as you requested). I suspect 17% would fall within the expected range for the sample size the NBA provides.

Le Grande Orange · 12-30-2003, 08:39 PM

The simplest way to see that something is out of whack in OOTP with regards to home and away records is to look at the cumulative totals from 100 years or so of a league.

The OOTP results will show approximately 50% of the teams had better home winning percentages in a season, while 50% had better away percentages in a season. As I mentioned earlier, MLB totals for a similar time period show 83% of teams finished with a better home percentage, and only 17% finished a season with a better away percentage.

Given this huge disparity in results, I don't see how anyone could argue that the OOTP numbers are accurate.

BleacherBum is correct, their is a wide variability in home and away records from year to year; one shouldn't be surprised by this. However, even given this, in terms of whether a team had a better home percentage than road, there is some pretty solid consistency in MLB.

Consider the 1901-2002 MLB time period of the AL and NL. There are 102 seasons in this sample. Of those 102 years, there were only 3 years in which 50% of teams had a better home percentage and 50% of teams had a better away percentage (1917, 1923, and 1948). EVERY other year (all 99 of them) had a HIGHER percentage of teams finishing with a better home percentage. The next lowest percentage of teams doing better at home in a season is 56%; there were 26 years which had the percentage of teams doing better at home between 56-79%. This means there are 73 seasons in which 75% or more of teams finished with a better home percentage (and 12 of those seasons had EVERY major league team doing better at home).

I highly doubt you'll ever see numbers in OOTP even remotely comparable to this.

Here are the actual year-by-year numbers. The list is generated by comparing a team's home winning percetage to its away winning percentage, and noting whether the home is better, the away is better, or if both are the same. The "PCT." column shows the percentage of MLB teams for that season which finished with a better home winning percentage.

Code:

         NATIONAL       AMERICAN         TOTAL         PCT.
        H   A  Same    H   A  Same     H   A  Same      
1901    8   0   0      8   0   0      16   0   0     100.00%
1902    5   1   2      8   0   0      13   1   2      81.25%
1903    7   1   0      8   0   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1904    7   1   0      7   1   0      14   2   0      87.50%
1905    7   1   0      8   0   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1906    6   2   0      7   1   0      13   3   0      81.25%
1907    8   0   0      7   1   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1908    6   2   0      6   2   0      12   4   0      75.00%
1909    5   3   0      8   0   0      13   3   0      81.25%
1910    8   0   0      8   0   0      16   0   0     100.00%
1911    5   3   0      7   1   0      12   4   0      75.00%
1912    5   3   0      5   3   0      10   6   0      62.50%
1913    6   2   0      6   2   0      12   4   0      75.00%
1914    7   1   0      7   1   0      14   2   0      87.50%
1915    8   0   0      6   2   0      14   2   0      87.50%
1916    7   1   0      8   0   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1917    3   4   1      5   3   0       8   7   1      50.00%
1918    8   0   0      6   2   0      14   2   0      87.50%
1919    8   0   0      8   0   0      16   0   0     100.00%
1920    8   0   0      8   0   0      16   0   0     100.00%
1921    8   0   0      8   0   0      16   0   0     100.00%
1922    6   2   0      8   0   0      14   2   0      87.50%
1923    3   5   0      5   3   0       8   8   0      50.00%
1924    6   1   1      7   1   0      13   2   1      81.25%
1925    8   0   0      8   0   0      16   0   0     100.00%
1926    8   0   0      7   1   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1927    7   1   0      8   0   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1928    7   1   0      5   3   0      12   4   0      75.00%
1929    7   1   0      8   0   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1930    8   0   0      8   0   0      16   0   0     100.00%
1931    8   0   0      8   0   0      16   0   0     100.00%
1932    8   0   0      7   1   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1933    8   0   0      7   1   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1934    8   0   0      8   0   0      16   0   0     100.00%
1935    8   0   0      6   2   0      14   2   0      87.50%
1936    7   1   0      8   0   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1937    5   3   0      7   1   0      12   4   0      75.00%
1938    4   4   0      8   0   0      12   4   0      75.00%
1939    8   0   0      5   3   0      13   3   0      81.25%
1940    4   4   0      7   0   1      11   4   1      68.75%
1941    7   1   0      7   1   0      14   2   0      87.50%
1942    7   1   0      6   2   0      13   3   0      81.25%
1943    8   0   0      7   1   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1944    5   3   0      7   1   0      12   4   0      75.00%
1945    7   1   0      8   0   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1946    7   0   1      8   0   0      15   0   1      93.75%
1947    8   0   0      4   3   1      12   3   1      75.00%
1948    3   5   0      5   2   1       8   7   1      50.00%
1949    6   2   0      8   0   0      14   2   0      87.50%
1950    8   0   0      7   1   0      15   1   0      93.75%
1951    7   0   1      5   3   0      12   3   1      75.00%
1952    6   2   0      8   0   0      14   2   0      87.50%
1953    7   1   0      2   5   1       9   6   1      56.25%
1954    5   3   0      7   1   0      12   4   0      75.00%
1955    8   0   0      8   0   0      16   0   0     100.00%
1956    8   0   0      6   2   0      14   2   0      87.50%
1957    4   3   1      6   1   1      10   4   2      62.50%
1958    7   1   0      7   1   0      14   2   0      87.50%
1959    8   0   0      6   1   1      14   1   1      87.50%
1960    8   0   0      6   2   0      14   2   0      87.50%
1961    7   1   0      9   1   0      16   2   0      88.89%
1962    9   0   1      7   3   0      16   3   1      80.00%
1963   10   0   0      9   1   0      19   1   0      95.00%
1964    8   1   1      8   1   1      16   2   2      80.00%
1965   10   0   0      9   0   1      19   0   1      95.00%
1966    8   1   1      8   2   0      16   3   1      80.00%
1967    9   1   0      8   2   0      17   3   0      85.00%
1968    4   4   2      8   2   0      12   6   2      60.00%
1969    9   3   0     12   0   0      21   3   0      87.50%
1970    9   3   0     11   0   1      20   3   1      83.33%
1971    9   2   1      7   5   0      16   7   1      66.67%
1972    4   7   1     11   1   0      15   8   1      62.50%
1973   11   0   1     10   2   0      21   2   1      87.50%
1974   11   1   0     10   0   2      21   1   2      87.50%
1975   12   0   0      8   3   1      20   3   1      83.33%
1976    9   3   0      8   3   1      17   6   1      70.83%
1977   12   0   0     11   3   0      23   3   0      88.46%
1978   12   0   0     14   0   0      26   0   0     100.00%
1979    9   3   0     12   2   0      21   5   0      80.77%
1980   11   1   0     10   3   1      21   4   1      80.77%
1981    8   4   0     10   4   0      18   8   0      69.23%
1982    7   3   2     13   1   0      20   4   2      76.92%
1983   10   2   0     11   1   2      21   3   2      80.77%
1984    9   3   0     11   3   0      20   6   0      76.92%
1985   11   1   0     14   0   0      25   1   0      96.15%
1986    9   2   1     12   2   0      21   4   1      80.77%
1987   11   0   1     12   2   0      23   2   1      88.46%
1988   10   2   0     13   1   0      23   3   0      88.46%
1989   12   0   0     14   0   0      26   0   0     100.00%
1990   10   2   0     11   3   0      21   5   0      80.77%
1991   11   0   1     11   3   0      22   3   1      84.62%
1992   11   1   0     12   2   0      23   3   0      88.46%
1993   11   3   0     13   1   0      24   4   0      85.71%
1994    7   7   0      9   5   0      16  12   0      57.14%
1995    9   4   1     12   1   1      21   5   2      75.00%
1996   12   2   0      9   5   0      21   7   0      75.00%
1997   13   1   0      8   4   2      21   5   2      75.00%
1998   16   0   0     10   3   1      26   3   1      86.67%
1999   13   3   0      9   5   0      22   8   0      73.33%
2000   16   0   0     12   2   0      28   2   0      93.33%
2001   11   4   1      9   5   0      20   9   1      66.67%
2002   14   1   1     13   1   0      27   2   1      90.00%
------------------------------------------------------------
     826 147  23     850 150  20    1676 297  43      83.13%

Just look over those year-by-year numbers; the numbers in favour of doing better at home are huge. If these numbers were the records of a football team, it would be one hell of a champion!

By the way note how two of those 100% home better years had 26 out of 26 teams doing better at home! You'll NEVER see that happen in OOTP, since it has no home field advantage modelled whatsoever.

The final point is that, when comparing a 102 year career league done in OOTP to these actual MLB numbers, OOTP's final tallies of teams doing better at home should come reasonably close to the real world numbers. Currently, this is definitely NOT the case, and as a result this particular area is not being replicated in a statistically correct fashion.

Eugene Church · 01-01-2004, 12:35 PM

Le Grande Orange:

You are a very difficult person to debate...because you "cloud up" an issue with great research, great facts and excellent interpretation.

Skipaway · 01-02-2004, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Le Grande Orange
The simplest way to see that something is out of whack in OOTP with regards to home and away records is to look at the cumulative totals from 100 years or so of a league.

The OOTP results will show approximately 50% of the teams had better home winning percentages in a season, while 50% had better away percentages in a season. As I mentioned earlier, MLB totals for a similar time period show 83% of teams finished with a better home percentage, and only 17% finished a season with a better away percentage.

Given this huge disparity in results, I don't see how anyone could argue that the OOTP numbers are accurate.

I think what you tried to say here is meaningless in countering the points others made, unless teams are actively shaping their roster to fit the ballpark or vice versa like they do in real life. I'm sure most gamers and the AI wouldn't care much about that.

I don't think there is an end to this debate, since nobody here is really trying to figure out the potential impact on roster constructions and other reasonable causes. I don't think anyone would be willing to do intensive studies on players that got traded and see how they do in the same field as home team and visiting team players?

Without these studies, how do we know what to implement?

Chappy · 01-02-2004, 11:28 AM

I would at least like to see a slider in OOTP6, as suggested earlier.

Maybe the best solution would be to work on the game's 9th inning logic (it may or may not need work, I don't know if the teams know how to take advantage of having the last at bats or not) and add a small travel fatigue factor to simulate the effects of travel and being on the road. Each player could have travel affect them differently; most players would take a small hit, while others wouldn't play any differently at all. And, as is the case in real life, a few guys could actually play better on the road.

Then, after these are implemented we could test home winning pct vs road winning pct and see if the numbers are closer to real life. If not, adjustments could be made.

Le Grande Orange · 01-02-2004, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipaway
... unless teams are actively shaping their roster to fit the ballpark or vice versa like they do in real life ... since nobody here is really trying to figure out the potential impact on roster constructions and other reasonable causes.

Personally, I find it VERY hard to believe that tailoring a team to its home park is responsible for ALL of the numbers I posted earlier. Certainly, it would be a part, but to attribute all of the difference in home and away performance to roster tailoring is rather farfetched to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipaway
Without these studies, how do we know what to implement?

I think BleacherBum hit upon the best answer earlier when he posted the home and away splits in batting average and runs scored. Probably all that needs to be done is to raise home batting averages slightly and lower away ones slightly, and over the course of the season this small adjustment would likely produce the desired result.

If BleacherBum could post more of those home/away batting splits, it would be possible to determine the actual historical differential.

Le Grande Orange · 01-02-2004, 08:39 PM

Okay, a few more numbers to peruse.

These cover the NL and AL from 1901-60; what's nice about this is that for those 60 years both leagues remained in constant size at 8 teams apiece. This makes it possible to not only break down home and away performance in overall terms, but also by each individual position of finish.

Below are the cumulative totals for each position of finish, with the league cumulative totals summarized at the bottom of each table. What's interesting here is that there is a definite difference between the leagues over this 60 year sample.

Definition of terms:

"W%" is the percentage of more wins at home a team had than would've been expected by its overall winning percentage. This is determined by taking the numers of wins actually achieved at home and dividing by the anticipated number of wins at home (this is determined by taking the overall winning percentage and multiplying it by the number of home games played).

For example, for 1st place NL teams, the overall winning percentage is .6367; multiplying this by the total number of home games played (3063 wins + 1528 losses = 4591 games total) yields 2923. First place NL teams actually won 3063 games at home; 3063/2923 = 1.0479, which in percentage terms equals 4.79%. Thus, first place NL teams won 4.79% more games at home than their overall winning percentage would suggest they should've won.

"Pct Diff" is simply the home winning percentage minus the away winning percentage. First place NL teams had a home winning percentage which was .0613 higher than their away winning percentage.

Code:

NATIONAL LEAGUE, 1901-1960

         W     L     Pct    H W   H L   H Pct   A W   A L  A Pct    W %  Pct Diff
 1st   5813  3317  .6367   3063  1528  .6672   2750  1789  .6059   4.79   .0613
 2nd   5386  3740  .5902   2869  1702  .6277   2517  2038  .5526   6.35   .0751
 3rd   5100  4003  .5603   2746  1830  .6001   2354  2173  .5200   7.11   .0801
 4th   4766  4348  .5229   2606  1964  .5702   2160  2384  .4754   9.05   .0949
 5th   4418  4671  .4861   2419  2124  .5325   1999  2547  .4397   9.54   .0927
 6th   4030  5076  .4426   2209  2341  .4855   1821  2735  .3997   9.70   .0858
 7th   3687  5390  .4062   2021  2457  .4513   1666  2933  .3623  11.11   .0891
 8th   3222  5877  .3541   1806  2737  .3975   1416  3140  .3108  12.26   .0867
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 36422 36422  .5000  19739 16683  .5420  16683 19739  .4580   8.39   .0839


AMERICAN LEAGUE, 1901-1960

         W     L     Pct    H W   H L  H Pct    A W   A L  A Pct    W %  Pct Diff
 1st   5814  3275  .6397   3150  1420  .6893   2664  1855  .5895   7.75   .0998
 2nd   5378  3714  .5915   2914  1640  .6399   2464  2074  .5430   8.18   .0969
 3rd   5078  4032  .5574   2778  1793  .6077   2300  2239  .5067   9.03   .1010
 4th   4755  4326  .5236   2580  1978  .5660   2175  2348  .4809   8.10   .0852
 5th   4451  4622  .4906   2424  2109  .5347   2027  2513  .4465   9.00   .0883
 6th   4086  4991  .4501   2263  2259  .5004   1823  2732  .4002  11.17   .1002
 7th   3689  5396  .4061   2074  2452  .4582   1615  2944  .3542  12.85   .1040
 8th   3104  5999  .3410   1731  2790  .3829   1373  3209  .2997  12.29   .0832
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 36355 36355  .5000  19914 16441  .5478  16441 19914  .4522   9.55   .0955

It is interesting to see a considerable difference exhibited between the two leagues, particularly in the first three positions of finish and their percentage differentials.

Doctor Drew · 01-04-2004, 11:27 AM

Consider:

In a league with everything else equal (50% home, 50% away), ONE team builds themselves completely tailored to their home park. They do this in such a way that they are much more effective at home, but much less effective on the road. I don't think we need to argue the potential for this to happen, it's fairly common, and possible. This ONE team will have a better home WP than road WP. BUT, when they play on the road, that will improve every other teams' home WP, and when teams play them at their park, it will lower those teams' road WP. Just ONE team can skew the whole league in this very simple way. If multiple teams attempt to become better home teams, this only further increases the skew.

smolen22 · 01-04-2004, 11:42 AM

I think the bigger question to ask here is: is the AI built in such a way that a computer GM will take park effects into account? The statistical arguments so far have pitted the MLB against a simmed league with computer GMs at the helm. If the computer GMs aren't taking park effects into account this comparision isn't a fair one.
Is the park ignorant Computer going to stack a lineup with power hitters in the Astrodome? Is it going to put a solid bat, no glove CFer in the Polo grounds? Is it merely looking at over-all star ratings?
If the AI completely ignores these things, than it makes perfect sense that teams W/L at home and on the road is about even. Since there is no good reason for a team to performer better anywhere.
The solution to that wouldn't be tweaking the ratings at home, it would be building a better AI. A ratings tweak at home would simply scew things in a league controlled by humans, who do take park effects into account. And that is a dangerous thing indeed.

Le Grande Orange · 01-04-2004, 04:10 PM

That assumes that constructing a team for your home park has that much of an effect.

Personally, I find some are putting FAR too much emphasis on this, as if it explains all the differences. Given the numbers of 100 years of MLB, I find that very difficult to swallow.

Not only that, but consider that the fence distances in parks were NOT static; often, they changed quite a bit over the years, and sometimes even year-to-year. How could one construct a team tailored to one's own park if the fences changed every couple of years?

Tailoring a team is PART of the explanation, but you're going to have to dig up a lot of evidence for me to believe that the numbers posted by BleacherBum and myself are ONLY caused by GM's tailoring their teams to their home parks.

draven085 · 01-04-2004, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor Drew
Consider:

In a league with everything else equal (50% home, 50% away), ONE team builds themselves completely tailored to their home park. They do this in such a way that they are much more effective at home, but much less effective on the road. I don't think we need to argue the potential for this to happen, it's fairly common, and possible. This ONE team will have a better home WP than road WP. BUT, when they play on the road, that will improve every other teams' home WP, and when teams play them at their park, it will lower those teams' road WP. Just ONE team can skew the whole league in this very simple way. If multiple teams attempt to become better home teams, this only further increases the skew.

You're drastically exaggerating how much teams build for their home park. I think that many times clubs are fooled by the influence of their own park. Take Jason Moyer's favorite example, the Phillies. Phils management apparently thinks they have a really good pitching staff. What they don't realize is that The Vet makes their pitchers look a lot better than they are by producing nice looking ERAs. The problem is that their pitchers' ERAs aren't that much better than the league average at The Vet. Because of their pitchers' pretty ERAs the Phils assume their pitching is good enough to win and don't do anything to upgrade a staff that isn't nearly as good as it appears at first glance. Many teams with extreme parks fall into this type of trap.

BleacherBum · 01-05-2004, 01:09 AM

Just for fun, here's some different ideas on this subject that I ran across...

A study of various individual statistics points to the strikeout/walk ratio as the stat that improves the most for the home team. This suggests that the pitchers are benefitting in some way. Possibly due to mound familiarity, or just the comfort of preparing for that start at home.

The belief that umpiring may favor the home team, because of some influence that the home crowd has on the umpire's psyche. If true, this would contribute to the walk/strikeout advantage noted above, among other advantages, of course.

An experiment involving professional football players in the UK showed a 50% rise in testosterone levels before a home game, but no real change before playing at another team's ground or prior to a training session. Testosterone does have affects on the brain related to spatial ability.

Apparently, in the film "The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg" Greenberg talked about how in 1940 the main reason for the Tigers success (they won the Pennant) was the fact that they were stealing signs. They only did this at home as they had a guy in the upper deck bleachers of Briggs Stadium with binoculars giving them signals. Greenberg said that he and Rudy York were getting fat HR numbers during this time.

This one reminds me of the recent revelation by that guy from Minnesota who would turn on the fans behind home plate in the Metrodome when the Twins were at bat.

- - -

Seriously though, the one constant in any discussion is that the home field advantage is not questioned - it clearly does exist. So how about we see something in the game to model this? How this should be done in the game sure has been heavily debated. But ultimately, how its done doesn't matter as long as the statistical results are reasonable, and there is plenty of MLB data available to work with to get to a good result.

Heck, without the home field advantage, what is the reward for having the best record in the leauge? In OOTP, there is no advantage to playing at home, which likely adds to the number of "upsets" we see in the early playoff rounds.

Le Grande Orange · 01-05-2004, 03:32 AM

One other thought with regards to the tailoring of teams to their individual home parks.

How does this work when the team in question is changing parks that year? This has happened a number of times in MLB history, where teams have left an older park to play at a newer facility during the season. Which park do you tailor your team for - the new one or the old one?

Also, what about the Cleveland Indians of 1937-46, who split their home games during each of these seasons between Municipal Stadium and League Park? How does tailoring work in that case?

Chappy · 01-05-2004, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Le Grande Orange
Also, what about the Cleveland Indians of 1937-46, who split their home games during each of these seasons between Municipal Stadium and League Park? How does tailoring work in that case?

Are there two parks more different than the two parks the Expos were in last season and will be in this season? Of course, I don't think the Expos played particularly well in San Juan so that probably doesn't help your argument...

12-30-2003, 01:17 PM	#23
Crapshoot Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: watching: DArwin's missing link in action Posts: 3,112	To add to this, Im of the belief that home field is a result of better knoweldge of the park, a more tailored team, and the advantage of batting last- to put in a variable that expressly gives a home field advantage seems a bit like batching to me - simply putting in numbers to get a desired result. I would prefer if it were implemented in a way that was less obvious- perhaps the home team is more likely to play that ball of the wall correctly, or more likely to accept the low bounce of the infield- in either case, it should contribute to their greater winning percentage at home. __________________ Senior Senor Member of the OOTP Boards Pittsburgh Playmates- OTBL

12-30-2003, 02:12 PM	#25
rcbuss Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mauston, WI Posts: 226	in the NBA, it's probably the officiating __________________ Robert C Buss FOBL Mauston Mad Cows

01-02-2004, 11:28 AM	#31
Chappy Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 2,721	I would at least like to see a slider in OOTP6, as suggested earlier. Maybe the best solution would be to work on the game's 9th inning logic (it may or may not need work, I don't know if the teams know how to take advantage of having the last at bats or not) and add a small travel fatigue factor to simulate the effects of travel and being on the road. Each player could have travel affect them differently; most players would take a small hit, while others wouldn't play any differently at all. And, as is the case in real life, a few guys could actually play better on the road. Then, after these are implemented we could test home winning pct vs road winning pct and see if the numbers are closer to real life. If not, adjustments could be made. __________________ NPBL - Pennsylvania Freedom AFBL - North Carolina Aviators MLB-Pro - Kansas City Royals

01-02-2004, 08:39 PM	#33
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,644	Okay, a few more numbers to peruse. These cover the NL and AL from 1901-60; what's nice about this is that for those 60 years both leagues remained in constant size at 8 teams apiece. This makes it possible to not only break down home and away performance in overall terms, but also by each individual position of finish. Below are the cumulative totals for each position of finish, with the league cumulative totals summarized at the bottom of each table. What's interesting here is that there is a definite difference between the leagues over this 60 year sample. Definition of terms: "W%" is the percentage of more wins at home a team had than would've been expected by its overall winning percentage. This is determined by taking the numers of wins actually achieved at home and dividing by the anticipated number of wins at home (this is determined by taking the overall winning percentage and multiplying it by the number of home games played). For example, for 1st place NL teams, the overall winning percentage is .6367; multiplying this by the total number of home games played (3063 wins + 1528 losses = 4591 games total) yields 2923. First place NL teams actually won 3063 games at home; 3063/2923 = 1.0479, which in percentage terms equals 4.79%. Thus, first place NL teams won 4.79% more games at home than their overall winning percentage would suggest they should've won. "Pct Diff" is simply the home winning percentage minus the away winning percentage. First place NL teams had a home winning percentage which was .0613 higher than their away winning percentage. Code: NATIONAL LEAGUE, 1901-1960 W L Pct H W H L H Pct A W A L A Pct W % Pct Diff 1st 5813 3317 .6367 3063 1528 .6672 2750 1789 .6059 4.79 .0613 2nd 5386 3740 .5902 2869 1702 .6277 2517 2038 .5526 6.35 .0751 3rd 5100 4003 .5603 2746 1830 .6001 2354 2173 .5200 7.11 .0801 4th 4766 4348 .5229 2606 1964 .5702 2160 2384 .4754 9.05 .0949 5th 4418 4671 .4861 2419 2124 .5325 1999 2547 .4397 9.54 .0927 6th 4030 5076 .4426 2209 2341 .4855 1821 2735 .3997 9.70 .0858 7th 3687 5390 .4062 2021 2457 .4513 1666 2933 .3623 11.11 .0891 8th 3222 5877 .3541 1806 2737 .3975 1416 3140 .3108 12.26 .0867 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 36422 36422 .5000 19739 16683 .5420 16683 19739 .4580 8.39 .0839 AMERICAN LEAGUE, 1901-1960 W L Pct H W H L H Pct A W A L A Pct W % Pct Diff 1st 5814 3275 .6397 3150 1420 .6893 2664 1855 .5895 7.75 .0998 2nd 5378 3714 .5915 2914 1640 .6399 2464 2074 .5430 8.18 .0969 3rd 5078 4032 .5574 2778 1793 .6077 2300 2239 .5067 9.03 .1010 4th 4755 4326 .5236 2580 1978 .5660 2175 2348 .4809 8.10 .0852 5th 4451 4622 .4906 2424 2109 .5347 2027 2513 .4465 9.00 .0883 6th 4086 4991 .4501 2263 2259 .5004 1823 2732 .4002 11.17 .1002 7th 3689 5396 .4061 2074 2452 .4582 1615 2944 .3542 12.85 .1040 8th 3104 5999 .3410 1731 2790 .3829 1373 3209 .2997 12.29 .0832 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 36355 36355 .5000 19914 16441 .5478 16441 19914 .4522 9.55 .0955 It is interesting to see a considerable difference exhibited between the two leagues, particularly in the first three positions of finish and their percentage differentials.

01-05-2004, 01:09 AM	#38
BleacherBum All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 672	Just for fun, here's some different ideas on this subject that I ran across... A study of various individual statistics points to the strikeout/walk ratio as the stat that improves the most for the home team. This suggests that the pitchers are benefitting in some way. Possibly due to mound familiarity, or just the comfort of preparing for that start at home. The belief that umpiring may favor the home team, because of some influence that the home crowd has on the umpire's psyche. If true, this would contribute to the walk/strikeout advantage noted above, among other advantages, of course. An experiment involving professional football players in the UK showed a 50% rise in testosterone levels before a home game, but no real change before playing at another team's ground or prior to a training session. Testosterone does have affects on the brain related to spatial ability. Apparently, in the film "The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg" Greenberg talked about how in 1940 the main reason for the Tigers success (they won the Pennant) was the fact that they were stealing signs. They only did this at home as they had a guy in the upper deck bleachers of Briggs Stadium with binoculars giving them signals. Greenberg said that he and Rudy York were getting fat HR numbers during this time. This one reminds me of the recent revelation by that guy from Minnesota who would turn on the fans behind home plate in the Metrodome when the Twins were at bat. - - - Seriously though, the one constant in any discussion is that the home field advantage is not questioned - it clearly does exist. So how about we see something in the game to model this? How this should be done in the game sure has been heavily debated. But ultimately, how its done doesn't matter as long as the statistical results are reasonable, and there is plenty of MLB data available to work with to get to a good result. Heck, without the home field advantage, what is the reward for having the best record in the leauge? In OOTP, there is no advantage to playing at home, which likely adds to the number of "upsets" we see in the early playoff rounds. __________________ Right Field Sucks!

12-29-2003, 07:46 PM	#21
Single A Rookie Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 144	I'm not arguing that there ISN'T such a thing as "home field" - but rather that if you implement it in the game then you are awarding it to 100% of the teams.. and that to me isn't right. Home field can be a combination of developing a team to your park, and having the last out... strategically that is important. As to basketball... correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't home team have the last change similar to hockey? Doesn't that mean that the home team always has the matchups they desire on the court? If sleeping at home etc... worked 100% of the time, then I don't have a problem with it being adding to the game... but I seem to recall stories of owners forcing their teams to sleep in hotels when at home in order to enforce a "team spirit" as well - especially when a team isn't winning at home. Right now I look at my league, and see that playing at home already shows an advantage for most teams... why do people feel the need to increase the advantage artificially? If this IS implemented, then I pray Gastric ReFlux's idea of it being OPTIONAL is used.... for those who think all it will do is twist stats...

01-01-2004, 12:35 PM	#29
Eugene Church Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 36,191	Le Grande Orange: You are a very difficult person to debate...because you "cloud up" an issue with great research, great facts and excellent interpretation.

01-04-2004, 11:27 AM	#34
Doctor Drew Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 55	Consider: In a league with everything else equal (50% home, 50% away), ONE team builds themselves completely tailored to their home park. They do this in such a way that they are much more effective at home, but much less effective on the road. I don't think we need to argue the potential for this to happen, it's fairly common, and possible. This ONE team will have a better home WP than road WP. BUT, when they play on the road, that will improve every other teams' home WP, and when teams play them at their park, it will lower those teams' road WP. Just ONE team can skew the whole league in this very simple way. If multiple teams attempt to become better home teams, this only further increases the skew.

01-04-2004, 11:42 AM	#35
smolen22 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 36	I think the bigger question to ask here is: is the AI built in such a way that a computer GM will take park effects into account? The statistical arguments so far have pitted the MLB against a simmed league with computer GMs at the helm. If the computer GMs aren't taking park effects into account this comparision isn't a fair one. Is the park ignorant Computer going to stack a lineup with power hitters in the Astrodome? Is it going to put a solid bat, no glove CFer in the Polo grounds? Is it merely looking at over-all star ratings? If the AI completely ignores these things, than it makes perfect sense that teams W/L at home and on the road is about even. Since there is no good reason for a team to performer better anywhere. The solution to that wouldn't be tweaking the ratings at home, it would be building a better AI. A ratings tweak at home would simply scew things in a league controlled by humans, who do take park effects into account. And that is a dangerous thing indeed.

01-04-2004, 04:10 PM	#36
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,644	That assumes that constructing a team for your home park has that much of an effect. Personally, I find some are putting FAR too much emphasis on this, as if it explains all the differences. Given the numbers of 100 years of MLB, I find that very difficult to swallow. Not only that, but consider that the fence distances in parks were NOT static; often, they changed quite a bit over the years, and sometimes even year-to-year. How could one construct a team tailored to one's own park if the fences changed every couple of years? Tailoring a team is PART of the explanation, but you're going to have to dig up a lot of evidence for me to believe that the numbers posted by BleacherBum and myself are ONLY caused by GM's tailoring their teams to their home parks.

01-05-2004, 03:32 AM	#39
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,644	One other thought with regards to the tailoring of teams to their individual home parks. How does this work when the team in question is changing parks that year? This has happened a number of times in MLB history, where teams have left an older park to play at a newer facility during the season. Which park do you tailor your team for - the new one or the old one? Also, what about the Cleveland Indians of 1937-46, who split their home games during each of these seasons between Municipal Stadium and League Park? How does tailoring work in that case?