Home Field Bug still Present in 4.0c - Page 2

blynch10 · 04-03-2002, 05:17 PM

If the league home winning percentage averages out to what ever percentage at the time, you have to figure there are a number of teams well over the average and a number way below the average.

At home Seattle went 53-25 while the Reds went 26-53.
Away Seattle went 59-21 and the Reds were 39-41(Tampa was a god awful 25-56).

The good teams are gonna win more often no matter if they are home or away. The bad teams are gonnna lose no matter if they are home or away.

Peter Bergstrom · 04-04-2002, 04:06 AM

[quote]The good teams are gonna win more often no matter if they are home or away. The bad teams are gonnna lose no matter if they are home or away. <hr></blockquote>

Check your figures. Last year teams won 55% of home games. And that hasn't varied much through the years.

[quote]In the end all the stats balance out and are fairly good without this artificial factor.
<hr></blockquote>

It's not an artificial factor. Ironic that OOTP includes such nebulous variables as 'Clutch Rating' or 'Team Leadership' and neglects a proven and quantifiable factor like Home Field Advantage.

It weakens the claim to 'simulation'.

blynch10 · 04-04-2002, 05:28 AM

Well I went to sportsline for last year standings and they are differnt then what ESPN shows. I still don't come up with a 55% home winning percentage for all the teams. Even averaging all the teams together it's around 52%. Maybe you have better stats then I can find.

From sportsline it looks like:
12 teams were 55% or above last year.
6 teams were 50% to right below 55%
12 teams were below 50% at home.

Away teams:
5 above 55%
7 between 50 and 55%
18 below 50%

Might as well add a variable to make teams play worse on the road to even out anything added to make a home field advantage.

I'm only going by what I can find on the internet right now so maybe all of these are wrong...since ESPN and Sportsline differ.

More teams win at home then on the road. That looks to be true as of last year. But to say there is a certain percentage that teams should win at home is hard to say. What about the teams that can't win at home or on the road. They are just bad teams and shouldn't be given any modifiers to make them play better at home.

I think clutch hitting and leadership really shouldn't be a factor either, but it is already in the game and can't do anything about that.

Hammer755 · 04-04-2002, 05:42 AM

[quote]Originally posted by blynch10:
Well I went to sportsline for last year standings and they are differnt then what ESPN shows. I still don't come up with a 55% home winning percentage for all the teams. Even averaging all the teams together it's around 52%. Maybe you have better stats then I can find.

<hr></blockquote>

ESPN does not have the entire 2001 season in their stangings. I got my info from Sportsline as well.

VT Os fan · 04-04-2002, 06:16 AM

[quote]Originally posted by BleacherBum:
3) Stadium. Consider factors such as playing surface, dimensions, foul territory, altitude, weather. These all have an impact on elements of the game. But none of them automatically give an advantage to the home team. The advantage comes in tailoring your team to benefit from your home park. So, the engine could certainly account for stadium factors, and if it does that's great. But to get a home benefit, you have to build a team with these factors in mind. (e.g. lefty power in Yankee stadium, pitching and speed on a large turf park, etc.) So realizing this advantage falls on the GM, not on the game engine. <hr></blockquote>

That is a large factor of HFA in baseball.

Something else that has not been discussed in this thread is the groundskeeping crew. I've heard that this can account for 5 wins per season... slightly angling the dirt along the lines to push bunted balls foul or fair, cutting the infield grass to make it faster or slower, adding extra sand or water around first base to slow base stealers, etc.... the particulars dependent on the characteristics of the home and visiting sides. Now the 5 wins per season may be an exageration. And in a 162 game season if you can get 100 wins, that's a 5% advantage which is arguably not statistically significant.

The grounds crew is a factor, but probably not statistically significant. The biggest factor is probably tailoring the ball club to the park (or if you are modern club building an new park, tailoring the park to the club). And the fact that the last at-bat gives an advantage to the home team.

Any change to the game should not involve artificial inflation of home team abilities, but should involve improvements to the GM AI to get players that fit the field and the manager AI to take advantage of the last at-bat.

Scott Vibert · 04-04-2002, 07:10 AM

[quote]Originally posted by Peter Bergstrom:


It's not an artificial factor. Ironic that OOTP includes such nebulous variables as 'Clutch Rating' or 'Team Leadership' and neglects a proven and quantifiable factor like Home Field Advantage.

It weakens the claim to 'simulation'.<hr></blockquote>

You have conviently ignored the statistical presentation that proved that your idea to adjust pitchers ratings for the home team as inaccurate and wrong. Other than presenting and repeating your 55% statistic you haven't presented anything to support the change you proposed to give the home field advantage.

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.

And it would have less of an impact on the simulation then globally adjusting the ratings for the pitchers of the home and road teams as you proposed (and the stats just don't back it up).

For what its worth I wasn't a fan of the "clutch" rating being added either, fortunately the effect has in very small so I can live with it... blanketly changing the pitchers ratings as you proposed is something that I wouldn't be willing to deal with.

04-04-2002, 05:42 AM	#24
Hammer755 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 2,348	[quote]Originally posted by blynch10: <strong>Well I went to sportsline for last year standings and they are differnt then what ESPN shows. I still don't come up with a 55% home winning percentage for all the teams. Even averaging all the teams together it's around 52%. Maybe you have better stats then I can find. </strong><hr></blockquote> ESPN does not have the entire 2001 season in their stangings. I got my info from Sportsline as well.

04-04-2002, 06:16 AM	#25
VT Os fan Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Virginia Tech (Blacksburg, Virginia) Posts: 226	[quote]Originally posted by BleacherBum: 3) Stadium. Consider factors such as playing surface, dimensions, foul territory, altitude, weather. These all have an impact on elements of the game. But none of them automatically give an advantage to the home team. <strong>The advantage comes in tailoring your team to benefit from your home park. </strong>So, the engine could certainly account for stadium factors, and if it does that's great. But to get a home benefit, you have to build a team with these factors in mind. (e.g. lefty power in Yankee stadium, pitching and speed on a large turf park, etc.) So realizing this advantage falls on the GM, not on the game engine. <hr></blockquote> That is a large factor of HFA in baseball. Something else that has not been discussed in this thread is the groundskeeping crew. I've heard that this can account for 5 wins per season... slightly angling the dirt along the lines to push bunted balls foul or fair, cutting the infield grass to make it faster or slower, adding extra sand or water around first base to slow base stealers, etc.... the particulars dependent on the characteristics of the home and visiting sides. Now the 5 wins per season may be an exageration. And in a 162 game season if you can get 100 wins, that's a 5% advantage which is arguably not statistically significant. The grounds crew is a factor, but probably not statistically significant. The biggest factor is probably tailoring the ball club to the park (or if you are modern club building an new park, tailoring the park to the club). And the fact that the last at-bat gives an advantage to the home team. Any change to the game should not involve artificial inflation of home team abilities, but should involve improvements to the GM AI to get players that fit the field and the manager AI to take advantage of the last at-bat. __________________ "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." -- Ayn Rand

04-04-2002, 07:10 AM	#26
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,249	[quote]Originally posted by Peter Bergstrom: <strong> It's not an artificial factor. Ironic that OOTP includes such nebulous variables as 'Clutch Rating' or 'Team Leadership' and neglects a proven and quantifiable factor like Home Field Advantage. It weakens the claim to 'simulation'.</strong><hr></blockquote> You have conviently ignored the statistical presentation that proved that your idea to adjust pitchers ratings for the home team as inaccurate and wrong. Other than presenting and repeating your 55% statistic you haven't presented anything to support the change you proposed to give the home field advantage. 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. And it would have less of an impact on the simulation then globally adjusting the ratings for the pitchers of the home and road teams as you proposed (and the stats just don't back it up). For what its worth I wasn't a fan of the "clutch" rating being added either, fortunately the effect has in very small so I can live with it... blanketly changing the pitchers ratings as you proposed is something that I wouldn't be willing to deal with.

04-03-2002, 05:17 PM	#21
blynch10 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 273	If the league home winning percentage averages out to what ever percentage at the time, you have to figure there are a number of teams well over the average and a number way below the average. At home Seattle went 53-25 while the Reds went 26-53. Away Seattle went 59-21 and the Reds were 39-41(Tampa was a god awful 25-56). The good teams are gonna win more often no matter if they are home or away. The bad teams are gonnna lose no matter if they are home or away.

04-04-2002, 04:06 AM	#22
Peter Bergstrom Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 27	[quote]The good teams are gonna win more often no matter if they are home or away. The bad teams are gonnna lose no matter if they are home or away. <hr></blockquote> Check your figures. Last year teams won 55% of home games. And that hasn't varied much through the years. [quote]In the end all the stats balance out and are fairly good without this artificial factor. <hr></blockquote> It's not an artificial factor. Ironic that OOTP includes such nebulous variables as 'Clutch Rating' or 'Team Leadership' and neglects a proven and quantifiable factor like Home Field Advantage. It weakens the claim to 'simulation'.

04-04-2002, 05:28 AM	#23
blynch10 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 273	Well I went to sportsline for last year standings and they are differnt then what ESPN shows. I still don't come up with a 55% home winning percentage for all the teams. Even averaging all the teams together it's around 52%. Maybe you have better stats then I can find. From sportsline it looks like: 12 teams were 55% or above last year. 6 teams were 50% to right below 55% 12 teams were below 50% at home. Away teams: 5 above 55% 7 between 50 and 55% 18 below 50% Might as well add a variable to make teams play worse on the road to even out anything added to make a home field advantage. I'm only going by what I can find on the internet right now so maybe all of these are wrong...since ESPN and Sportsline differ. More teams win at home then on the road. That looks to be true as of last year. But to say there is a certain percentage that teams should win at home is hard to say. What about the teams that can't win at home or on the road. They are just bad teams and shouldn't be given any modifiers to make them play better at home. I think clutch hitting and leadership really shouldn't be a factor either, but it is already in the game and can't do anything about that.