Depth Chart still not working correctly? - Page 4

clarnzz · 07-12-2003, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Henry
slic brings up a good point... maybe the solution to this is to provide an option for game-by-game lineups for online leagues.

That would be awesome Henry.

If that was a fairly easy addition I am sure it would be a very well received one and could even be easier than having to jerk around with the substitution AI.

clarnzz · 07-12-2003, 09:25 AM

P.S. I did think of one fairly big problem regarding this and that it's sometimes hard to predict exactly which pitchers you will face for a coming sim cycle, so you could probably end up shooting yourself in the foot more than ya help yourself. I.E. scheduling a lineup vs. LH for a day and a RH starts.

Steve Kuffrey · 07-12-2003, 09:27 AM

obaslg,

First of all my "test" was as I stated a QUICK test that I think I ran at 1 or 2 in the morning and ALL that I looked for was %, nothing more and nothing less. I was not going to stay up and analyze each lineup to see if XZY player played what number games at that time.

Secondly, it "MAY VERY WELL" work 25% = 1 game out of every 4, I personally have not looked for that EXACT thing but I will.

obaslg · 07-12-2003, 09:53 AM

My only point about the old thread is that everyone who participated, including Markus, Scott, Kurtis, and (I thought) Henry, was discussing the depth chart system as if it is now the "start exactly every fifth day" system Markus told us it is. The statements in this thread about "could be interpreted either way," etc., don't make any sense to me in that context.

Steve Kuffrey · 07-12-2003, 10:06 AM

Ok, I ran a 30 game test here are the % that I had for each player/position in each lineup type:

Catcher 20%
Firstbase 10%
Secondbase 20%
Thirdbase 30%
Shortstop 40%

Injuries-off
Fatigue-on
Human owned team

Catcher (20%) backup started 6/30=20% 7,8,13,21,22,26
Firstbase (10%) backup started 2/30=7% 9,11
Secondbase (20%) backup started 4/30=13% 3,4,18,23
Thirdbase (30%) backup started 10/30=33% 4,6,9,10,11,14,19,22,24,25,28
Shortstop (40%) backup started 10/30=33% 5,8,9,13,15,18,21,24,27,30

Looks as though this could use a tweak, most numbers were close but could be better IMO.

Henry · 07-12-2003, 10:41 AM

I just spent the morning testing as well... did it from a different angle though and confirmed that lefty-righty splits play into this as well. This is probably the biggest reason some percentages don't work - AND - why it can't always be every Xth game.

Two catchers; Lozano, primary and a switch hitter, and Chatham, his backup and a RH hitter. Set Chatham to sub 10% ofthe time.

Looked at games in April in detail. Here's the results;

Code:

Game			Pitcher
1	Lozano		
2	Lozano		
3	> Chatham	lefthander
4	Lozano		
5	Lozano		
6	> Chatham	lefthander
7	Lozano		
8	Lozano		
9	> Chatham	
10	Lozano		
11	Lozano		
12	Lozano		
13	> Chatham	lefthander
14	Lozano		
15	Lozano		
16	Lozano		
17	Lozano		
18	Lozano		
19	Lozano		
20	Lozano		
21	Lozano		
22	> Chatham	
23	> Chatham	lefthander
24	Lozano		
25	> Chatham	
26	> Chatham	lefthander
27	Lozano		
28	Lozano

Here is a case (and it wouldn't be an isolated one) where the team face 5 left handed starting pitchers in the month - which represents almost 20% of the games. The 10% setting, thus, cannot work since the L/R game code obviously takes precedence over the percentage setting.

Chatham was inserted into the 9th game (close to the 10% setting) and the 25th game (again, close to the 10% setting). So I think we can say this coding works. It might be argued that if the player is already over his set percentage, you might want to skip his "scheduled" day.

Why Chatham played in the 22nd game against a RH pitcher is probably because Lozano was tired - he had played in 8 games straight.

I think if you looked at any combination of players or percentages under the same measurements, you would find the same thing.

Now... is this a bad system ?

Henry

obaslg · 07-12-2003, 10:52 AM

BillyBuck's issue, as I understand it, was not that this system is bad, the game is bad, the testers are bad, Markus is bad, or God is bad, and it would really help us all if .400 people would stop being so defensive.

BillyBuck's issue, as I understand it, was basically this: "We were told that the system worked a certain way in v.5. That was proven wrong, the mistake was admitted, and we were told that 5.12 fixed the problem. However, I noticed something that may indicate the problem is still there. Does anyone know for sure?"

Now...is that a bad question?

If you go back to the old thread I linked and read Scott's response, you'll see what I think is a far more appropriate way to address .400 customers politely looking for help.

In response to your rhetorical question though: I couldn't quite tell what your test was. Was Chatham listed as the starter v.L? - it looks that way. It looks like the depth chart was different for lefties and righties - what exactly was it?

Henry · 07-12-2003, 11:11 AM

obaslg,

Unfortunately, it seems the OOTP staff isn't given the same freedom customers have. My question "is this bad" certainly WAS NOT intended to be sarcastic. It was an honest question.

You have to remember that I am a customer too - and it is difficult to state my feeling on a subject without seemingly representing OOTP. Looking at my test, it seems to satisfy what I would want the game to do. Apparently, there are some that feel it should do more.

Am I wrong for asking if this system is bad - to initiate a conversation why it is or isn't ?

Yes, Chatham was listed as a starter v.L but that was part of my point. My question would be does everyone understand this? If I remove Chatham from the lineup, then he appears in 3 games (9, 22 and 25) (10%).

Again I ask, is this bad ?

obaslg · 07-12-2003, 11:34 AM

I did take your question as rhetorical/sarcastic - I apologize.

I know that you're a customer as well, but on this issue you seem to speaking more in your other role. And I don't think that we should have freedom to be jerks to you all - I don't think BillyBuck or I have been.

Re: your test, it's pretty surprising. It looks like a roll-the-dice kind of system - that is, even if you consider fatigue as a factor, the backup didn't start every 10th game. Lazano started 13 straight games v.R. That's contrary to what Steve and I found in our tests. It's also contrary to what Markus said.

I personally never had a problem with the old, roll-the-dice sub system - I just want to know which we have.

deh34 · 07-12-2003, 11:47 AM

This isn't just an online league problem. For solo players who don't play every single game themselves, this is a problem for them too. And in response to Slic's understanding comments, part of the fun of this game is being able to run 20 seasons and see guys get into the HoF and all that stuff. Just because I want to sim a month at a time to move along quicker doesn't mean I don't want/need a reliable depth chart system. I would say this problem affects more than the small % of online consumers.

From reading all of this, what I can make out is that the only real problem left is the lefty/righty split in the depth charts.

07-12-2003, 09:27 AM	#63
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	obaslg, First of all my "test" was as I stated a QUICK test that I think I ran at 1 or 2 in the morning and ALL that I looked for was %, nothing more and nothing less. I was not going to stay up and analyze each lineup to see if XZY player played what number games at that time. Secondly, it "MAY VERY WELL" work 25% = 1 game out of every 4, I personally have not looked for that EXACT thing but I will. __________________ 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

07-12-2003, 09:53 AM	#64
obaslg All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 887	My only point about the old thread is that everyone who participated, including Markus, Scott, Kurtis, and (I thought) Henry, was discussing the depth chart system as if it is now the "start exactly every fifth day" system Markus told us it is. The statements in this thread about "could be interpreted either way," etc., don't make any sense to me in that context. __________________ Realy good musition of many insterments, including the hyperbolic vitriol.

07-12-2003, 10:06 AM	#65
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	Ok, I ran a 30 game test here are the % that I had for each player/position in each lineup type: Catcher 20% Firstbase 10% Secondbase 20% Thirdbase 30% Shortstop 40% Injuries-off Fatigue-on Human owned team Catcher (20%) backup started 6/30=20% 7,8,13,21,22,26 Firstbase (10%) backup started 2/30=7% 9,11 Secondbase (20%) backup started 4/30=13% 3,4,18,23 Thirdbase (30%) backup started 10/30=33% 4,6,9,10,11,14,19,22,24,25,28 Shortstop (40%) backup started 10/30=33% 5,8,9,13,15,18,21,24,27,30 Looks as though this could use a tweak, most numbers were close but could be better IMO. __________________ 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

07-12-2003, 10:41 AM	#66
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	I just spent the morning testing as well... did it from a different angle though and confirmed that lefty-righty splits play into this as well. This is probably the biggest reason some percentages don't work - AND - why it can't always be every Xth game. Two catchers; Lozano, primary and a switch hitter, and Chatham, his backup and a RH hitter. Set Chatham to sub 10% ofthe time. Looked at games in April in detail. Here's the results; Code: Game Pitcher 1 Lozano 2 Lozano 3 > Chatham lefthander 4 Lozano 5 Lozano 6 > Chatham lefthander 7 Lozano 8 Lozano 9 > Chatham 10 Lozano 11 Lozano 12 Lozano 13 > Chatham lefthander 14 Lozano 15 Lozano 16 Lozano 17 Lozano 18 Lozano 19 Lozano 20 Lozano 21 Lozano 22 > Chatham 23 > Chatham lefthander 24 Lozano 25 > Chatham 26 > Chatham lefthander 27 Lozano 28 Lozano Here is a case (and it wouldn't be an isolated one) where the team face 5 left handed starting pitchers in the month - which represents almost 20% of the games. The 10% setting, thus, cannot work since the L/R game code obviously takes precedence over the percentage setting. Chatham was inserted into the 9th game (close to the 10% setting) and the 25th game (again, close to the 10% setting). So I think we can say this coding works. It might be argued that if the player is already over his set percentage, you might want to skip his "scheduled" day. Why Chatham played in the 22nd game against a RH pitcher is probably because Lozano was tired - he had played in 8 games straight. I think if you looked at any combination of players or percentages under the same measurements, you would find the same thing. Now... is this a bad system ? Henry

07-12-2003, 10:52 AM	#67
obaslg All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 887	BillyBuck's issue, as I understand it, was not that this system is bad, the game is bad, the testers are bad, Markus is bad, or God is bad, and it would really help us all if .400 people would stop being so defensive. BillyBuck's issue, as I understand it, was basically this: "We were told that the system worked a certain way in v.5. That was proven wrong, the mistake was admitted, and we were told that 5.12 fixed the problem. However, I noticed something that may indicate the problem is still there. Does anyone know for sure?" Now...is that a bad question? If you go back to the old thread I linked and read Scott's response, you'll see what I think is a far more appropriate way to address .400 customers politely looking for help. In response to your rhetorical question though: I couldn't quite tell what your test was. Was Chatham listed as the starter v.L? - it looks that way. It looks like the depth chart was different for lefties and righties - what exactly was it? __________________ Realy good musition of many insterments, including the hyperbolic vitriol.

07-12-2003, 09:25 AM	#62
clarnzz All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Following everyone off a cliff. Posts: 1,522	P.S. I did think of one fairly big problem regarding this and that it's sometimes hard to predict exactly which pitchers you will face for a coming sim cycle, so you could probably end up shooting yourself in the foot more than ya help yourself. I.E. scheduling a lineup vs. LH for a day and a RH starts.

07-12-2003, 11:11 AM	#68
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	obaslg, Unfortunately, it seems the OOTP staff isn't given the same freedom customers have. My question "is this bad" certainly WAS NOT intended to be sarcastic. It was an honest question. You have to remember that I am a customer too - and it is difficult to state my feeling on a subject without seemingly representing OOTP. Looking at my test, it seems to satisfy what I would want the game to do. Apparently, there are some that feel it should do more. Am I wrong for asking if this system is bad - to initiate a conversation why it is or isn't ? Yes, Chatham was listed as a starter v.L but that was part of my point. My question would be does everyone understand this? If I remove Chatham from the lineup, then he appears in 3 games (9, 22 and 25) (10%). Again I ask, is this bad ?

07-12-2003, 11:34 AM	#69
obaslg All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 887	I did take your question as rhetorical/sarcastic - I apologize. I know that you're a customer as well, but on this issue you seem to speaking more in your other role. And I don't think that we should have freedom to be jerks to you all - I don't think BillyBuck or I have been. Re: your test, it's pretty surprising. It looks like a roll-the-dice kind of system - that is, even if you consider fatigue as a factor, the backup didn't start every 10th game. Lazano started 13 straight games v.R. That's contrary to what Steve and I found in our tests. It's also contrary to what Markus said. I personally never had a problem with the old, roll-the-dice sub system - I just want to know which we have. __________________ Realy good musition of many insterments, including the hyperbolic vitriol.

07-12-2003, 11:47 AM	#70
deh34 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 120	This isn't just an online league problem. For solo players who don't play every single game themselves, this is a problem for them too. And in response to Slic's understanding comments, part of the fun of this game is being able to run 20 seasons and see guys get into the HoF and all that stuff. Just because I want to sim a month at a time to move along quicker doesn't mean I don't want/need a reliable depth chart system. I would say this problem affects more than the small % of online consumers. From reading all of this, what I can make out is that the only real problem left is the lefty/righty split in the depth charts.