06/08 Update: New injury-related features in OOTP 12

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by cdheer

You are confusing unknown with random.

Yes, there are lots of random parts of baseball. That's why we play the games, and it's why your "Excel" comment is sort of meaningless.

That doesn't mean the game should be full of made-up, unquantifiable nonsense. Should Markus add code to change the results of games based on phases of the moon? Of course not, because we can all agree that they have nothing to do with actual baseball results.

So then the question is, does "rust" actually exist and does it affect player performance in a material way? I don't think -- or at least, I cannot find with 30 seconds of googling -- that anyone has done an in-depth study on this, so we're left with anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is awful, as a rule.

Stats are just for measuring and (in some cases) trying to predict what actually happens. A game based on stats is not automatically dry. In fact, I'd argue this is a significant difference between OOTP and, say, DMB: OOTP sims a world, and there's plenty of random variation bundled in so that you CAN'T just "run a spreadsheet."

You don't need to add made-up mysticism.

All I can say is thank goodness Markus isn't going down the path of no "human variables". No features unless proven with some study leaves us with no...
rust
coaches
scouts
work ethic
personality

You may think there is plenty of variation built in but if you base it solely on numbers than whoever plays the highest rated players the most is going to win more times than not. What would be the reason to play the lower rated guy? You certainly don't play him because the higher rated guy is in a slump and the lower rated guy is hot because the higher rated gut is still more likely to have the dice roll go his way. He has to there are no other variables.

No need to ever play a hunch while playing "no variables OOTP". 30 rated Joe is hot, seeing the ball well, and hitting .350 over the last 10 games. I'm still not starting him though because even though 75 rated Bill is hitting .190 over the last 15 games it doesn't mean a thing. Bill still has a better chance of getting a hit no matter what. He could even be coming back from a year long injury and not swung a bat in competition other than two rehab starts at AAA in the last 12 months. Wait a minute that's not true, there is no rust, so there is no need to get his timing back, which means he didn't need to rehab. He can just come back and play as though he was never gone. No thanks.

Again this stuff is already in the game and has been for years (thanks Markus). The effects are subtle and add just enough doubt that you wonder in the example above if it wouldn't be better to start 30 rated Joe over 75 rated Bill. If these effects weren't so subtle it would have been discovered long ago and banged on, quit rightly so, as a game breaker. The amount of time they have been in the game without comment on these boards is testament in itself that they either
(A) work as intended and don't break the game or
(B) never really existed at all but only have a placebo effect because Markus only told us they were there while never even coding the "feature"

Either way they can make you ignore the ratings you are seeing and contemplate that "human behavior" may also need to be figured into how you run your team. This is a good thing.

[Doc_Brown]

Originally Posted by Sweed

All I can say is thank goodness Markus isn't going down the path of no "human variables". No features unless proven with some study leaves us with no...
rust
coaches
scouts
work ethic
personality

You may think there is plenty of variation built in but if you base it solely on numbers than whoever plays the highest rated players the most is going to win more times than not. What would be the reason to play the lower rated guy? You certainly don't play him because the higher rated guy is in a slump and the lower rated guy is hot because the higher rated gut is still more likely to have the dice roll go his way. He has to there are no other variables.

No need to ever play a hunch while playing "no variables OOTP". 30 rated Joe is hot, seeing the ball well, and hitting .350 over the last 10 games. I'm still not starting him though because even though 75 rated Bill is hitting .190 over the last 15 games it doesn't mean a thing. Bill still has a better chance of getting a hit no matter what. He could even be coming back from a year long injury and not swung a bat in competition other than two rehab starts at AAA in the last 12 months. Wait a minute that's not true, there is no rust, so there is no need to get his timing back, which means he didn't need to rehab. He can just come back and play as though he was never gone. No thanks.

Again this stuff is already in the game and has been for years (thanks Markus). The effects are subtle and add just enough doubt that you wonder in the example above if it wouldn't be better to start 30 rated Joe over 75 rated Bill. If these effects weren't so subtle it would have been discovered long ago and banged on, quit rightly so, as a game breaker. The amount of time they have been in the game without comment on these boards is testament in itself that they either
(A) work as intended and don't break the game or
(B) never really existed at all but only have a placebo effect because Markus only told us they were there while never even coding the "feature"

Either way they can make you ignore the ratings you are seeing and contemplate that "human behavior" may also need to be figured into how you run your team. This is a good thing.

Completely agree, there would be no point playing the game if that happened and I doubt we'd be on OOTP12, if that was the case.

[cdheer]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I'll take "false dilemmas" for $500, Alex.

The discussion is not whether to make the game basic and adding in phases of the moon. That's a downright absurd argument. The question is whether or not to add things which have not been quantified but which baseball people believe does exist. Rust is really IMO way over at the "it probably exists" end of the spectrum, really. The only thing I can think of which is further to the leftward "documented to be real" end of this spectrum is streakiness/slumpiness, which has been proven to exist in baseball by Fangraphs and the Curve Ball book. Coaches having an effect, clutch hitting (which is also in the game), morale, and so on are further over to the right end, and stuff like phases of the moon are so far over to the right as to not even be in this conversation.

I was not suggesting that rust should not be in the game; I was merely saying that the argument that "if coaches, managers and players think it's there, then it's there" is silly. I was also arguing that leaving things out that may not exist doesn't make OOTP a "dry" game.

[Syd Thrift]

So your fallacy was a false analogy, then? Because I have yet to hear a coach, scout, or baseball pundit state that cycles of the moon have an effect on the game. Joe Morgan, who is basically the Oprah Winfrey of baseball woo, hasn't even said this.

Personally, I am of the opinion that it's a game. I say, put in all the little things like this in there, and in the event someone studies them and finds everything is explainable without their existence, take them out. The game isn't going to go to heck because there are small mods in there for streakiness or coaching or morale.

[cdheer]

Originally Posted by Sweed

All I can say is thank goodness Markus isn't going down the path of no "human variables". No features unless proven with some study leaves us with no...
rust

I'm OK with rust, at least for now, because it seems logical enough. If a study were to demonstrate that it doesn't seem to exist, though, I'd want it out. Wouldn't you?

coaches
scouts

Well, that depends. Certainly you rely on scouts, and I don't think you could argue that all scouts are created equal. That makes sense.

As for coaches...I dunno. Do hitting coaches, for example, really make a difference? I don't know. By and large most players, especially veterans, seem to regress to the mean throughout their careers, regardless of changes in hitting coaches. Maybe they do have an impact, but it's hard to see buried in random variations. Or maybe only a few do.

But if they didn't, why on Earth would you want them to in OOTP?

work ethic
personality

Can you tell me how much of a difference those things really make? Again, it seems logical, but I wonder.

You may think there is plenty of variation built in but if you base it solely on numbers than whoever plays the highest rated players the most is going to win more times than not.

Sure. And in real life, whoever plays the best players the most is going to win, more often than not. Honestly I don't understand what you're saying, here.

What would be the reason to play the lower rated guy? You certainly don't play him because the higher rated guy is in a slump and the lower rated guy is hot because the higher rated gut is still more likely to have the dice roll go his way. He has to there are no other variables.

Well, yeah. And again, unless there's an underlying injury or something, that's pretty much how real life baseball works, too. Slumps/hot streaks are random variations, nothing more. The fact that someone is "hot" does NOT mean he is, for some mysterious, unknown portion of time, more likely to hit well going forwards. Slumps and hit streaks are not predictive.

I want OOTP to work as close to reality as possible. We can argue all day long whether item A or item B really exist, but IF you found out they did not, would you REALLY want them in the game?

[cdheer]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

So your fallacy was a false analogy, then? Because I have yet to hear a coach, scout, or baseball pundit state that cycles of the moon have an effect on the game. Joe Morgan, who is basically the Oprah Winfrey of baseball woo, hasn't even said this.

It was an exaggeration to make a point, and I'm relatively certain you know that.

I think we're saying the same thing: if it's real, put it in; if it's not, take it out; if we're not sure, it depends. We're just quibbling over which thing goes into which category.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Sweed

All I can say is thank goodness Markus isn't going down the path of no "human variables". No features unless proven with some study leaves us with no...
rust
coaches
scouts
work ethic
personality

You may think there is plenty of variation built in but if you base it solely on numbers than whoever plays the highest rated players the most is going to win more times than not. What would be the reason to play the lower rated guy? You certainly don't play him because the higher rated guy is in a slump and the lower rated guy is hot because the higher rated gut is still more likely to have the dice roll go his way. He has to there are no other variables.

No need to ever play a hunch while playing "no variables OOTP". 30 rated Joe is hot, seeing the ball well, and hitting .350 over the last 10 games. I'm still not starting him though because even though 75 rated Bill is hitting .190 over the last 15 games it doesn't mean a thing. Bill still has a better chance of getting a hit no matter what. He could even be coming back from a year long injury and not swung a bat in competition other than two rehab starts at AAA in the last 12 months. Wait a minute that's not true, there is no rust, so there is no need to get his timing back, which means he didn't need to rehab. He can just come back and play as though he was never gone. No thanks.

Again this stuff is already in the game and has been for years (thanks Markus). The effects are subtle and add just enough doubt that you wonder in the example above if it wouldn't be better to start 30 rated Joe over 75 rated Bill. If these effects weren't so subtle it would have been discovered long ago and banged on, quit rightly so, as a game breaker. The amount of time they have been in the game without comment on these boards is testament in itself that they either
(A) work as intended and don't break the game or
(B) never really existed at all but only have a placebo effect because Markus only told us they were there while never even coding the "feature"

Either way they can make you ignore the ratings you are seeing and contemplate that "human behavior" may also need to be figured into how you run your team. This is a good thing.

Agree...

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Sweed

All I can say is thank goodness Markus isn't going down the path of no "human variables". No features unless proven with some study leaves us with no...
rust
coaches
scouts
work ethic
personality

You may think there is plenty of variation built in but if you base it solely on numbers than whoever plays the highest rated players the most is going to win more times than not. What would be the reason to play the lower rated guy? You certainly don't play him because the higher rated guy is in a slump and the lower rated guy is hot because the higher rated gut is still more likely to have the dice roll go his way. He has to there are no other variables.

No need to ever play a hunch while playing "no variables OOTP". 30 rated Joe is hot, seeing the ball well, and hitting .350 over the last 10 games. I'm still not starting him though because even though 75 rated Bill is hitting .190 over the last 15 games it doesn't mean a thing. Bill still has a better chance of getting a hit no matter what. He could even be coming back from a year long injury and not swung a bat in competition other than two rehab starts at AAA in the last 12 months. Wait a minute that's not true, there is no rust, so there is no need to get his timing back, which means he didn't need to rehab. He can just come back and play as though he was never gone. No thanks.

Again this stuff is already in the game and has been for years (thanks Markus). The effects are subtle and add just enough doubt that you wonder in the example above if it wouldn't be better to start 30 rated Joe over 75 rated Bill. If these effects weren't so subtle it would have been discovered long ago and banged on, quit rightly so, as a game breaker. The amount of time they have been in the game without comment on these boards is testament in itself that they either
(A) work as intended and don't break the game or
(B) never really existed at all but only have a placebo effect because Markus only told us they were there while never even coding the "feature"

Either way they can make you ignore the ratings you are seeing and contemplate that "human behavior" may also need to be figured into how you run your team. This is a good thing.

That is it, in a not so small nut shell.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by cdheer

I'm OK with rust, at least for now, because it seems logical enough. If a study were to demonstrate that it doesn't seem to exist, though, I'd want it out. Wouldn't you?

Sure if you can show a study that determines it doesn't exist I'd be for taking it out. However, until the day comes where teams cancel spring training for the veterans and just put them in the opening day lineup I'm going to believe they go there for a reason. If there is no rust the only reason to have ST would be to look at new players to the club. You already know what the vets can do so why bother them, let 'em rest.

Well, that depends. Certainly you rely on scouts, and I don't think you could argue that all scouts are created equal. That makes sense.

The question isn't if scouts vary in ability the question is how was it quantified to work in OOTP? What study was done to prove a scouts ability?
There is no question some scouts are better than others and though we can't quantify it we leave it to Markus to model in a way that works in the game to mimic real life, just like rust.

As for coaches...I dunno. Do hitting coaches, for example, really make a difference? I don't know. By and large most players, especially veterans, seem to regress to the mean throughout their careers, regardless of changes in hitting coaches. Maybe they do have an impact, but it's hard to see buried in random variations. Or maybe only a few do.

But if they didn't, why on Earth would you want them to in OOTP?

To tell you the truth I'd take out coaches before I'd take out rust. I think coaching is an individual thing and varies on results from player to player. I don't know how OOTP does it under the hood though so it makes it hard to comment. I'd like to think OOTP combines the coaches skill with the players work ethic at a rate that decreases with age, as veterans are less likely to make changes, to determine effect. Like most\all(?) variables Markus has added to the game it is going to be a subtle influence. You're not going to turn Maury Wills into Hank Aaron.

I want them in because they may have a subtle influence while not unbalancing the game and add something else for me to have to think about. Don't you think when a real GM is watching the hitting coach sign the contract he is also wondering if it is money well spent? I want that same feeling.

work ethic
personality (added by me to make it clear what this question is dealing with)

Can you tell me how much of a difference those things really make? Again, it seems logical, but I wonder.

No, and that is the point of it being there. Does leadership make a difference? IRL you ask yourself that and most probably believe there is some truth to it. In "no-variable OOTP" there is no wondering. Hire a team of Man-Rams and Milton Bradleys and go win some titles. In "non-variable OOTP" I promise they won't be a distraction.

Sure. And in real life, whoever plays the best players the most is going to win, more often than not. Honestly I don't understand what you're saying, here. Well, yeah. And again, unless there's an underlying injury or something, that's pretty much how real life baseball works, too. Slumps/hot streaks are random variations, nothing more. The fact that someone is "hot" does NOT mean he is, for some mysterious, unknown portion of time, more likely to hit well going forwards. Slumps and hit streaks are not predictive.

Well, you kind of broke down the paragraph giving two comments to one thought. Maybe that's why you didn't get what I was saying? To make it clear... IRL marginal player is hot. It's not imagined nor predicted or predictable, he is simply hitting way over his head for the last 10 games. Opposite for the normal starter.. He is cold. It's not imagined nor predicted or predictable, for the last month this career .290 hitter is batting .150 and can't seem to get out of it. IRL a manager has to decide if he plays the hot hand until it fizzles out or if he plays the "cold" career .290 hitter. In "no variable OOTP" there no decision to be made. You play the .290 guy because on every dice roll he is a .290 hitter everyday no matter if he's batting .390 or .125 and the marginal player, on every dice roll, is always a .230 hitter no matter if he's hitting .200 or .320.

I want OOTP to work as close to reality as possible. We can argue all day long whether item A or item B really exist, but IF you found out they did not, would you REALLY want them in the game?

If I found out, like clutch (a provable point using situational studies) they didn't exist? Sure take them out. I would then argue that when a human trait (personality, work ethic, leadership etc) is added by Markus instead of arguing you can't prove it don't add it we should instead leave it in until it can be proven it doesn't exist and then remove it. Or through testing of the game prove it somehow breaks the game by being too much of an influence. Acceptable?

[Qwerty75]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Sure if you can show a study that determines it doesn't exist I'd be for taking it out. However, until the day comes where teams cancel spring training for the veterans and just put them in the opening day lineup I'm going to believe they go there for a reason. If there is no rust the only reason to have ST would be to look at new players to the club. You already know what the vets can do so why bother them, let 'em rest.




The question isn't if scouts vary in ability the question is how was it quantified to work in OOTP? What study was done to prove a scouts ability?
There is no question some scouts are better than others and though we can't quantify it we leave it to Markus to model in a way that works in the game to mimic real life, just like rust.




To tell you the truth I'd take out coaches before I'd take out rust. I think coaching is an individual thing and varies on results from player to player. I don't know how OOTP does it under the hood though so it makes it hard to comment. I'd like to think OOTP combines the coaches skill with the players work ethic at a rate that decreases with age, as veterans are less likely to make changes, to determine effect. Like most\all(?) variables Markus has added to the game it is going to be a subtle influence. You're not going to turn Maury Wills into Hank Aaron.

I want them in because they may have a subtle influence while not unbalancing the game and add something else for me to have to think about. Don't you think when a real GM is watching the hitting coach sign the contract he is also wondering if it is money well spent? I want that same feeling.





No, and that is the point of it being there. Does leadership make a difference? IRL you ask yourself that and most probably believe there is some truth to it. In "no-variable OOTP" there is no wondering. Hire a team of Man-Rams and Milton Bradleys and go win some titles. In "non-variable OOTP" I promise they won't be a distraction.




Well, you kind of broke down the paragraph giving two comments to one thought. Maybe that's why you didn't get what I was saying? To make it clear... IRL marginal player is hot. It's not imagined nor predicted or predictable, he is simply hitting way over his head for the last 10 games. Opposite for the normal starter.. He is cold. It's not imagined nor predicted or predictable, for the last month this career .290 hitter is batting .150 and can't seem to get out of it. IRL a manager has to decide if he plays the hot hand until it fizzles out or if he plays the "cold" career .290 hitter. In "no variable OOTP" there no decision to be made. You play the .290 guy because on every dice roll he is a .290 hitter everyday no matter if he's batting .390 or .125 and the marginal player, on every dice roll, is always a .230 hitter no matter if he's hitting .200 or .320.



If I found out, like clutch (a provable point using situational studies) they didn't exist? Sure take them out. I would then argue that when a human trait (personality, work ethic, leadership etc) is added by Markus instead of arguing you can't prove it don't add it we should instead leave it in until it can be proven it doesn't exist and then remove it. Or through testing of the game prove it somehow breaks the game by being too much of an influence. Acceptable?

Kind of getting off topic, but didn't Bill James hint that there was evidence for hitting in the clutch as a skill based on looking at situational stats for, among others, David Ortiz in his mid-aughts heyday? I remember reading the release of a teaser of this hypothesis that was to precede a book release, so I assumed we'd hear more about his findings later, but I haven't heard anything since about a James study supporting the existence of clutch hitting, and I don't want to pay the money to get a subscription to his online website. Was this all just a mirage?

Edit: This article is what I'm referring to.

[Qwerty75]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I'll take "false dilemmas" for $500, Alex.

The discussion is not whether to make the game basic and adding in phases of the moon. That's a downright absurd argument. The question is whether or not to add things which have not been quantified but which baseball people believe does exist. Rust is really IMO way over at the "it probably exists" end of the spectrum, really. The only thing I can think of which is further to the leftward "documented to be real" end of this spectrum is streakiness/slumpiness, which has been proven to exist in baseball by Fangraphs and the Curve Ball book. Coaches having an effect, clutch hitting (which is also in the game), morale, and so on are further over to the right end, and stuff like phases of the moon are so far over to the right as to not even be in this conversation.

Could you explain how you understand this to work in the game, as I haven't heard this claim from anyone else? I have a hunch that Intelligence correlates to good performance in the clutch, but don't have really anything solid to base that on.