Starters v Relievers - Page 5

Joe Morgan · 05-25-2006, 01:50 PM

dola,

Since clearly the best way to get a feature implemented in the game is to throw a tantrum, I am going to come out and say that if there isn't a boost given to pitchers who throw in relief in the upcoming game, I will personally tell both Gastric Reflux and bababui to leave and I will post in their place.

Gastric ReFlux · 05-25-2006, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Morgan

dola,

Since clearly the best way to get a feature implemented in the game is to throw a tantrum, I am going to come out and say that if there isn't a boost given to pitchers who throw in relief in the upcoming game, I will personally tell both Gastric Reflux and bababui to leave and I will post in their place.

Eh, I wouldn't be missed I don't think. I'm not much in the way of quality contribution.

Joe Morgan · 05-25-2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

Eh, I wouldn't be missed I don't think. I'm not much in the way of quality contribution.

Yes, but bababui... now there is a poster that will be missed. I mean, look at all the off-topic remarks he makes in the OOTP forum. If he was just another slob like you or treedom, those remarks would be whisked away to their proper forum and eventually he would be warned. However, he is a Great Poster and can therefore post what he wants where he wants and therefore would be Greatly Missed.

bigcat · 05-25-2006, 02:59 PM

Ironically the starting / relief pitching thing seems to work pretty well in the arcade type games that are much loathed around here. Since you can see the pitcher's skill go down based on his receding endurance (the pitches slow down, aren't as sharp, etc..) and have to sub in a lesser pitcher until you get to your closer, you do get a feel for what a big league manager has to do. How long do you go with a fading star pitcher, when a fresh major league average arm is waiting, and how happy do you become when you hit the 9th and you trot out the closer and zip its like your starter was back in the 1st inning.
I've never had quite the same feeling in OOTP, since it seems like my pitcher just suddenly runs out of gas and I send in my best non-starter closer until he runs out of gas, then rinse and repeat.

tysok · 05-25-2006, 03:38 PM

I've been looking at this more and I'll share with whoever wants to read what I've been finding.

I looked at 2000, and 2005 starter vs. reliever stats.
In 2005 Relievers accounted for:
32.6% IP 31.4% Hs 32.9% BF 30.4% HR 31.6% Rs 38% BB 60.7% IBB 36.2% Ks 43.7% WP 29.9% 2B 31.5% 3B 32.2% GDP 35.6% ROE 28.4% Ws and 28.9% Ls .17 runs better than the league ERA.
In 2000 Relievers accounts for:
33.5% IP 32.4% Hs 33.7% BF 30.7% HR 32.4% Rs 37.5% BB 57.5% IBB 36.6% Ks 43% WP 30.8% 2B 31.4% 3B 33.9% GDP 33.8% ROE 30.8% Ws and 29.6% Ls .2 runs better than the league ERA.

BF=Batters faced - IBB=intentional walks - ROE=Runners on from error (in case anyone doesn't know)

According to these numbers, relievers are just as good as starters for the most part (they pitch basically 1/3 of the innings, face 1/3 of the hitters, and give up 1/3 of most stats). A couple numbers are a little high. On average they have a little less control, issuing more than the 1/3 of walks... but that's balanced by a higher share of Ks. What's big though is IBB... issuing almost double their fair share.

They do accumulate a comparative number of Wins and losses (1/3 innings, alomst 1/3 of wins and losses). I would like to see the in-game break down... see how everything compares with OOTP besides just ERA.
It looks to me (without any in-game data to look at) that the problem may be the AI and relief pitcher usage. Obviously in MLB relievers can be used as situation dictates (starters don't get that benefit, they face everyone) and pitch to situations as well (not facing the big slugger if they don't want to). In the memory of my experiences with OOTP I never received a lot of IBB (let alone from relievers). If the game is pitching differently (not walking a semi-slugger) they may end up with an ERA reflecting that lack of strategy.

If this is the case, then the band-aid option just doesn't work. Their ERA may drop to what is considered normal, but the rest of their accumulated stats will be thrown out of whack and there'll be another debate and complaint about other numbers.
The idea that batters get better as they see more pitches is taken into account (I think) by pitcher fatigue. As the pitcher tires he gets hit more often... so the game obviously takes away from his ratings as he gets more fatigued. Sometimes a real pitcher is replaced because the other team figured him out, not becuase he's actually tired... and occasionally a real pitcher that usually can't go more than 6 innings pitches a complete game.

I would really like to see in-game numbers along these lines (I can't get it because OOTP5 has ceased to function for me, no idea what's wrong with it).

Gastric ReFlux · 05-25-2006, 03:52 PM

Erm, let's see if we can break this down in a better fashion, than simply looking at percentages.

These are for 2005

Code:

	Starters	Relievers
H/9in	9.33		8.81
BB/9in	2.91		3.70
K/9in	6.04		7.20
HR/9in	1.08		0.97

Need to calculate other numbers, but if that pattern holds what we see is this:

Relievers strikeout more batters per 9 innings. Presuming BABIP remains constant between the two groups, hits per 9 innings will drop and it does.

Relievers give up few homers per 9 innings than starters.

The band-aid approach as it's being informally called would look to boost relievers ratings in stuff and movement, and perhaps leave the control rating alone.

RonCo · 05-25-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Morgan

No it doesn't. The data you put forth suggests that relievers are exactly the same as starters when they actually should be better to reflect reality. Although with Tangotiger's data it appears that what should really happen is that there ought to be a boost given to anybody who appears in relief.

Sheesh...

Assuming that's actually him, Tangotiger himself just said that it's obvious that a team's best pitchers are their starters (see post #65 in this thread). He also said that when they throw in relief, the sub-par pitchers (relative to the higher-quality starters) wind up with ERA's about .80 better than starters. I completely agree with that.

The beauty in modeling is to find the proper cause of a result. Determine the cause correctly, and build a proper model around that, and suddenly the results become stable. I suggest that if the cause of relief pitchers ERA's being better than starters is that relief pitchers are fundamentally better than starters, then giving relief pitchers a ratings boost is a great idea. If, however, they are not fundamentally better ptchers than starters, as TangoTiger (again, assuming) said, then I suggest there is a better approach to model the scenario that will get us to our shared goal of relief pitchers with lower ERAs than starters (on the whole).

mlyons · 05-25-2006, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonCo

Sheesh...

Assuming that's actually him, Tangotiger himself just said that it's obvious that a team's best pitchers are their starters (see post #65 in this thread). He also said that when they throw in relief, the sub-par pitchers (relative to the higher-quality starters) wind up with ERA's about .80 better than starters. I completely agree with that.

The beauty in modeling is to find the proper cause of a result. Determine the cause correctly, and build a proper model around that, and suddenly the results become stable. I suggest that if the cause of relief pitchers ERA's being better than starters is that relief pitchers are fundamentally better than starters, then giving relief pitchers a ratings boost is a great idea. If, however, they are not fundamentally better ptchers than starters, as TangoTiger (again, assuming) said, then I suggest there is a better approach to model the scenario that will get us to our shared goal of relief pitchers with lower ERAs than starters (on the whole).

The problem is that you're misunderstanding what people are suggesting. The idea isn't to boost the ratings of the certain set of players designated as "relievers". It's to boost the ratings of any pitcher who enters a game in relief. If you feel like converting your ace starting pitcher into a closer, he should perform better (albeit in a quarter of the innings) in his relief role. If you feel like taking your long reliever and converting him to a starter, he should perform worse.

In other words, it's not a player-specific ratings boost that's being suggested; it's a situation-specific ratings boost.

Gastric ReFlux · 05-25-2006, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RonCo

Sheesh...

Assuming that's actually him, Tangotiger himself just said that it's obvious that a team's best pitchers are their starters (see post #65 in this thread). He also said that when they throw in relief, the sub-par pitchers (relative to the higher-quality starters) wind up with ERA's about .80 better than starters. I completely agree with that.

The beauty in modeling is to find the proper cause of a result. Determine the cause correctly, and build a proper model around that, and suddenly the results become stable. I suggest that if the cause of relief pitchers ERA's being better than starters is that relief pitchers are fundamentally better than starters, then giving relief pitchers a ratings boost is a great idea. If, however, they are not fundamentally better ptchers than starters, as TangoTiger (again, assuming) said, then I suggest there is a better approach to model the scenario that will get us to our shared goal of relief pitchers with lower ERAs than starters (on the whole).

Remember what I said about stadium effects, Ronco?

That's what Joe Morgan is suggesting here, when a pitcher enters the game in relief, he receives a modification to his ratings.

We're not saying to make relief pitchers better rated, we're saying to make a situational modification, like stadium effects, upon the ratings.

RonCo · 05-25-2006, 04:13 PM

I understand what you're suggesting.

andymac · 05-25-2006, 04:16 PM

I think OOTP has a simple fundamental problem that needs be fixed before you can really fix this problem.

OOTP basically determines at creation whether a pitcher will be a starter or a reliever. IRL, this is determined by the quality of the pitcher (i.e. better pitchers tend to become starters). There are other determinents such as pitch types, injury history, etc, but the main determinant is simply ability. Until that changes I'm not sure that the reliever/starter issue will be able to be fully addressed.

RonCo · 05-25-2006, 04:19 PM

How about this...give every pitcher (starter and reliever) a tiny boost against anyone they haven't faced yet that game. Then the next time they face that batter, take the boost away. Then the third time against any batter, penalize the pitcher... and the fourth time penalize the pitcher more.

I think this gets closer to the process of batter learning that I've seen described. Retrosheet has a study up that describes this situation.

The result would be that pitchers who throw in relief will always be boosted, and starters will lose their stuff. Though, if really pressed I would prefer everyone start on equal footing--their ratings, and then pitchers lose something against hiiters they've faced previously (or batters gain over the course of the game against that pitcher).

RonCo · 05-25-2006, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andymac

I think OOTP has a simple fundamental problem that needs be fixed before you can really fix this problem.

OOTP basically determines at creation whether a pitcher will be a starter or a reliever. IRL, this is determined by the quality of the pitcher (i.e. better pitchers tend to become starters). There are other determinents such as pitch types, injury history, etc, but the main determinant is simply ability. Until that changes I'm not sure that the reliever/starter issue will be able to be fully addressed.

Andymac gets it.

RonCo · 05-25-2006, 04:20 PM

http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/SmithD/batlearn.pdf

mrbill · 05-25-2006, 04:21 PM

Just to add a tangent to this discussion.

Has anyone watched McCarthy try to make some starts while Contreras was out?

He has been working as a reliever this season, and has not worked on his endurance. The end result is that he's only gone 4 innings in his two starts because he "hasn't worked his endurance up yet".

That's how I imagine starters and relievers working, at least the transition from one to the other, from an endurance perspective.

andymac · 05-25-2006, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbill

That's how I imagine starters and relievers working, at least the transition from one to the other, from an endurance perspective.

Same here, I have entertained the idea of writing up a big article on the way I think all of the dynamics should work but havn't done it yet.

tysok · 05-25-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

Erm, let's see if we can break this down in a better fashion, than simply looking at percentages.

These are for 2005

Code:

	Starters	Relievers
H/9in	9.33		8.81
BB/9in	2.91		3.70
K/9in	6.04		7.20
HR/9in	1.08		0.97

Need to calculate other numbers, but if that pattern holds what we see is this:

Relievers strikeout more batters per 9 innings. Presuming BABIP remains constant between the two groups, hits per 9 innings will drop and it does.

Relievers give up few homers per 9 innings than starters.

The band-aid approach as it's being informally called would look to boost relievers ratings in stuff and movement, and perhaps leave the control rating alone.

Okay, you said the same thing (save for IBB) that I did but in a more baseball statistical way... probably better for everyone to understand. And definately in a better format. Just to give those same numbers for 2000:
starters - relivers
H/9: 9.58 - 9.1
HR/9: 1.24 - 1.09
K/9: 6.22 - 7.14
BB/9: 3.57 - 4.25

Anyhow, how does the in-game stats compare?

As for starter/relief usage I went through 2000 and pulled out 18 pitchers that fit a criteria (basically at least 10 games started and 20 appearances in relief). On average they followed that pattern, 1.27 runs better in relief with lower BAA, more Ks and more BBs. But they were wildly erratic, Three 3 runs better in relief and two more than 1 run better as starters. Very tiny pool, but just general information.

tangotiger · 05-25-2006, 07:09 PM

On average, anyone who enters the relief role should get a boost. However, as described in the book, a career-starter who makes emergency relief appearnance gets NO boost. And may in fact drop in performance. We can all guess the reason.

Also in the book, batters learn / pitchers tire, so the more they see each other, the bigger the advantage to the batter.

Starters must be better pitchers than relievers, on average. They get 2/3 of the IP, and the "leverage" of their outings are roughly those of the average reliever (1.00, if you follow my LI).

It's all based on expectations. The shorter the expected outing, the better prepared the pitcher is to enter as a reliever, then the better he will perform.

You need a "role adjustment", jsut as you would have a "positional adjustment" if you move a LF to CF.

I don't want to sound like a commercial, so if a mod wants to edit this part away, fine. Tables 79 through 84 seem perfectly appropriate to the discussion here:
http://www.insidethebook.com/cl.shtml

tysok · 05-25-2006, 09:18 PM

I was interested in finding the answer to my question. So I called my cousin, had him run a season and send me the file (for some reason my OOTP won't create or run a league, but it'll let me look at a league). We have OOTP5, so someone can let us know if there were any enhancements that might be relevant to these numbers. Anyhow... (drum roll? maybe not...) the data says everything checks out.

It's a small sample size of course, 1 full season but we can compare it to MLBs numbers for 2000 and 2005... Look previously for those seasons of MLB data.

Maybe there's some form of data dump that would make this easier, but I didn't see it. So I took each teams pitching report and copied and pasted, then broke the stats appart correctly for those who had both starts and relief appearances. I'm missing a small amount of data I think... I know I'm missing a little since I show 1 more loss than I do win but... what are ya gonna do.

Anyhow Starters for my OOTP5 season racked up the following stats:
9.47 H/9 6.21 K/9 3.15 BB/9 4.53 ERA
Relievers racked up:
9.14 H/9 7.13 K/9 3.92 BB/9 4.23 ERA

HRs weren't on the stat line with the rest, if they're there at all, which would have made it unmanagably hard for me to get this before Christmas.
I like the percents because I can compare other stats as well which can't fall nicely into the per 9 innings mark, like wins. My relievers accounted for 31.5% of all IP. They accounted for 30.6% of all wins and 28.8% of all losses. Close numbers that remind me of the MLB numbers earlier.

Since I was harping on IBB I wanted to check that.... but it doesn't seem the game keeps track of IBB per pitcher... which really sucked and I was sad.... but then I found that it does keep track per batter... so I was cheered up a little.

What did I find you might ask?
A grand total of 672 Intentional passes. That's considerably lower than the MLB totals for 2005 (1216) and 2000 (1210). I just don't know who issued the games IBB.

dougaiton · 05-26-2006, 09:27 AM

Could one problem be that OOTP will make any good reliever with decent endurance a starter? Anyone with an endurance over x will automatically become a starter if his ability is over y

05-25-2006, 01:50 PM	#81
Joe Morgan Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 273	dola, Since clearly the best way to get a feature implemented in the game is to throw a tantrum, I am going to come out and say that if there isn't a boost given to pitchers who throw in relief in the upcoming game, I will personally tell both Gastric Reflux and bababui to leave and I will post in their place. __________________ Clutch ability and veteran leadership are two of the most important intangibles that it takes to win.

05-25-2006, 03:52 PM	#86
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Erm, let's see if we can break this down in a better fashion, than simply looking at percentages. These are for 2005 Code: Starters Relievers H/9in 9.33 8.81 BB/9in 2.91 3.70 K/9in 6.04 7.20 HR/9in 1.08 0.97 Need to calculate other numbers, but if that pattern holds what we see is this: Relievers strikeout more batters per 9 innings. Presuming BABIP remains constant between the two groups, hits per 9 innings will drop and it does. Relievers give up few homers per 9 innings than starters. The band-aid approach as it's being informally called would look to boost relievers ratings in stuff and movement, and perhaps leave the control rating alone. Last edited by Gastric ReFlux; 05-25-2006 at 03:54 PM.

05-25-2006, 04:16 PM	#91
andymac Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Effingham, IL Posts: 5,725	I think OOTP has a simple fundamental problem that needs be fixed before you can really fix this problem. OOTP basically determines at creation whether a pitcher will be a starter or a reliever. IRL, this is determined by the quality of the pitcher (i.e. better pitchers tend to become starters). There are other determinents such as pitch types, injury history, etc, but the main determinant is simply ability. Until that changes I'm not sure that the reliever/starter issue will be able to be fully addressed. __________________ June Madness: Links FTB: andymac

05-25-2006, 04:19 PM	#92
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,502	How about this...give every pitcher (starter and reliever) a tiny boost against anyone they haven't faced yet that game. Then the next time they face that batter, take the boost away. Then the third time against any batter, penalize the pitcher... and the fourth time penalize the pitcher more. I think this gets closer to the process of batter learning that I've seen described. Retrosheet has a study up that describes this situation. The result would be that pitchers who throw in relief will always be boosted, and starters will lose their stuff. Though, if really pressed I would prefer everyone start on equal footing--their ratings, and then pitchers lose something against hiiters they've faced previously (or batters gain over the course of the game against that pitcher). Last edited by RonCo; 05-25-2006 at 04:22 PM.

05-25-2006, 04:21 PM	#95
mrbill All Star Reserve Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: LA, CA Posts: 982	Just to add a tangent to this discussion. Has anyone watched McCarthy try to make some starts while Contreras was out? He has been working as a reliever this season, and has not worked on his endurance. The end result is that he's only gone 4 innings in his two starts because he "hasn't worked his endurance up yet". That's how I imagine starters and relievers working, at least the transition from one to the other, from an endurance perspective. __________________ UBL - Best Online League Evar! - Los Angeles Dodgers: 25 seasons, 13 NL West titles, 4 WC, 8 NL Titles, 5-time Champs LBB v5 league (retired) - Detroit Tigers/Commish: 19 seasons, 18 straight AL Central titles, 2006, 2008, 2014, 2015 Champs! NGBL v6 league (dead) - Texas Rangers: 10 seasons, 4 AL South titles, 2 Wild Cards, one WS app

05-25-2006, 02:59 PM	#84
bigcat Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 190	Ironically the starting / relief pitching thing seems to work pretty well in the arcade type games that are much loathed around here. Since you can see the pitcher's skill go down based on his receding endurance (the pitches slow down, aren't as sharp, etc..) and have to sub in a lesser pitcher until you get to your closer, you do get a feel for what a big league manager has to do. How long do you go with a fading star pitcher, when a fresh major league average arm is waiting, and how happy do you become when you hit the 9th and you trot out the closer and zip its like your starter was back in the 1st inning. I've never had quite the same feeling in OOTP, since it seems like my pitcher just suddenly runs out of gas and I send in my best non-starter closer until he runs out of gas, then rinse and repeat.

05-25-2006, 03:38 PM	#85
tysok Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,925	I've been looking at this more and I'll share with whoever wants to read what I've been finding. I looked at 2000, and 2005 starter vs. reliever stats. In 2005 Relievers accounted for: 32.6% IP 31.4% Hs 32.9% BF 30.4% HR 31.6% Rs 38% BB 60.7% IBB 36.2% Ks 43.7% WP 29.9% 2B 31.5% 3B 32.2% GDP 35.6% ROE 28.4% Ws and 28.9% Ls .17 runs better than the league ERA. In 2000 Relievers accounts for: 33.5% IP 32.4% Hs 33.7% BF 30.7% HR 32.4% Rs 37.5% BB 57.5% IBB 36.6% Ks 43% WP 30.8% 2B 31.4% 3B 33.9% GDP 33.8% ROE 30.8% Ws and 29.6% Ls .2 runs better than the league ERA. BF=Batters faced - IBB=intentional walks - ROE=Runners on from error (in case anyone doesn't know) According to these numbers, relievers are just as good as starters for the most part (they pitch basically 1/3 of the innings, face 1/3 of the hitters, and give up 1/3 of most stats). A couple numbers are a little high. On average they have a little less control, issuing more than the 1/3 of walks... but that's balanced by a higher share of Ks. What's big though is IBB... issuing almost double their fair share. They do accumulate a comparative number of Wins and losses (1/3 innings, alomst 1/3 of wins and losses). I would like to see the in-game break down... see how everything compares with OOTP besides just ERA. It looks to me (without any in-game data to look at) that the problem may be the AI and relief pitcher usage. Obviously in MLB relievers can be used as situation dictates (starters don't get that benefit, they face everyone) and pitch to situations as well (not facing the big slugger if they don't want to). In the memory of my experiences with OOTP I never received a lot of IBB (let alone from relievers). If the game is pitching differently (not walking a semi-slugger) they may end up with an ERA reflecting that lack of strategy. If this is the case, then the band-aid option just doesn't work. Their ERA may drop to what is considered normal, but the rest of their accumulated stats will be thrown out of whack and there'll be another debate and complaint about other numbers. The idea that batters get better as they see more pitches is taken into account (I think) by pitcher fatigue. As the pitcher tires he gets hit more often... so the game obviously takes away from his ratings as he gets more fatigued. Sometimes a real pitcher is replaced because the other team figured him out, not becuase he's actually tired... and occasionally a real pitcher that usually can't go more than 6 innings pitches a complete game. I would really like to see in-game numbers along these lines (I can't get it because OOTP5 has ceased to function for me, no idea what's wrong with it).

05-25-2006, 04:13 PM	#90
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,502	I understand what you're suggesting.

05-25-2006, 04:20 PM	#94
RonCo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,502	http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/SmithD/batlearn.pdf

05-25-2006, 07:09 PM	#98
tangotiger Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 33	On average, anyone who enters the relief role should get a boost. However, as described in the book, a career-starter who makes emergency relief appearnance gets NO boost. And may in fact drop in performance. We can all guess the reason. Also in the book, batters learn / pitchers tire, so the more they see each other, the bigger the advantage to the batter. Starters must be better pitchers than relievers, on average. They get 2/3 of the IP, and the "leverage" of their outings are roughly those of the average reliever (1.00, if you follow my LI). It's all based on expectations. The shorter the expected outing, the better prepared the pitcher is to enter as a reliever, then the better he will perform. You need a "role adjustment", jsut as you would have a "positional adjustment" if you move a LF to CF. I don't want to sound like a commercial, so if a mod wants to edit this part away, fine. Tables 79 through 84 seem perfectly appropriate to the discussion here: http://www.insidethebook.com/cl.shtml __________________ THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball http://www.InsideTheBook.com Last edited by tangotiger; 05-25-2006 at 07:12 PM.

05-25-2006, 09:18 PM	#99
tysok Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,925	I was interested in finding the answer to my question. So I called my cousin, had him run a season and send me the file (for some reason my OOTP won't create or run a league, but it'll let me look at a league). We have OOTP5, so someone can let us know if there were any enhancements that might be relevant to these numbers. Anyhow... (drum roll? maybe not...) the data says everything checks out. It's a small sample size of course, 1 full season but we can compare it to MLBs numbers for 2000 and 2005... Look previously for those seasons of MLB data. Maybe there's some form of data dump that would make this easier, but I didn't see it. So I took each teams pitching report and copied and pasted, then broke the stats appart correctly for those who had both starts and relief appearances. I'm missing a small amount of data I think... I know I'm missing a little since I show 1 more loss than I do win but... what are ya gonna do. Anyhow Starters for my OOTP5 season racked up the following stats: 9.47 H/9 6.21 K/9 3.15 BB/9 4.53 ERA Relievers racked up: 9.14 H/9 7.13 K/9 3.92 BB/9 4.23 ERA HRs weren't on the stat line with the rest, if they're there at all, which would have made it unmanagably hard for me to get this before Christmas. I like the percents because I can compare other stats as well which can't fall nicely into the per 9 innings mark, like wins. My relievers accounted for 31.5% of all IP. They accounted for 30.6% of all wins and 28.8% of all losses. Close numbers that remind me of the MLB numbers earlier. Since I was harping on IBB I wanted to check that.... but it doesn't seem the game keeps track of IBB per pitcher... which really sucked and I was sad.... but then I found that it does keep track per batter... so I was cheered up a little. What did I find you might ask? A grand total of 672 Intentional passes. That's considerably lower than the MLB totals for 2005 (1216) and 2000 (1210). I just don't know who issued the games IBB.

05-26-2006, 09:27 AM	#100
dougaiton Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Location: Posts: 3,414	Could one problem be that OOTP will make any good reliever with decent endurance a starter? Anyone with an endurance over x will automatically become a starter if his ability is over y __________________ tThis shower of clowns My park-adjusted, historically split Born in '69 league file! (also at Joe's wonderful site +BBSC)