Morale and form?

[Galeno]

Originally Posted by DaveHorn

Your morale and form sort of sounds like what we call intangibles.

v5 and v6 had intangibles for players they had ratings in their

Loyalty - primarily impacted their $ demands
Desire for winner - impacted which teams they'd play for
Cluth - impacted how they did in "clutch" situations

Now, what these intangibles mean in the game is a long long source of debate, particularly clutch. I have no idea if these things exist in v7.

Yeah, it's something like that. But the variable (morale) is not constant, depending not only on the player peculiarities (we can call them the player's "personality") but also, or mainly, on their mood. Their personalities affect the way they react to external factors (like winning streaks or even the relationship with other players and the manager).

So, yes, the intangibles are things that have a impact in the diretion I am asking about. But they are not mood, not variable, but constant. And persons are not constant, and baseball players should not be constant too .

The mood factor is a great aspect of the FM series. Hope OOTP2006 will include it.

[rudel.dietrich]

Baseball does not need a form score. A form score in football is a quick attempt at trying to stretch a uniform rating over several different jobs out on the pitch.
You have very limited stats and some posistions have almost no statistical data at all to carry from the game. Thus form is a way of measuring how well a player did at his job in the context of how the team did overall.
It has its uses but they are limited by the fact that there is no quanative measure to some of the things a player does on the field.
There is also no comparisons against other form scores.
You may have one team dominate another and the losing team will have scores in the 6-7 ranges while the winning team has scores int he 8-9 ranges.
What makes up the game between a 7 and an 8?
What about a 6 and a 9?
I watch alot of football and I could not really tell you by reading a box score.

In baseball you do not need these things. Every player carries away from the game a quanative statisic that can be directly compared to other players.
Also given enough of a sample size you will see that players and teams dominate in certain statisical areas or who have combinations of certain stats are worth more runs and wins to their teams than others.
Also in baseball you only have two jobs.

To produce runs
To prevent runs

Add to this that there is not much of a team dependent component, most of the time it is one player trying to produce runs against one player trying to prevent runs (first the pitcher then usualy one fielder)


Thus it is very easy to derive the data you need from raw statistics and does away with the need for a few simple measurements of ability.

So to boil it down, I just said a very long version of what treedom said.
You can get what you need from a simple game line.
The more you watch and follow the game the better you get at analyizing statisical data and being able to tell you had a good week, good month, good year and good career.
From there you can compare players and see which players are more valuable than others and predict which players are more likely to be more valuable than others.

And there my friend is the bare base of what you do in this game.
All you do is constantly compare players against one another until you assemble a team that you think will win more than any other.
Tied to that is better using your resources to get better players cheaper than lesser players who cost more.
And by cost I do not just mean money. If you can get them younger that is always a good thing, and you when you can draft them later in the draft you expand your draft options by drafting smarter.

[Long_Long_Name]

You can see form through "hot or not", although I think that morale and health would be nice FM features to have.

[Galeno]

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Baseball does not need a form score. A form score in football is a quick attempt at trying to stretch a uniform rating over several different jobs out on the pitch.
You have very limited stats and some posistions have almost no statistical data at all to carry from the game. Thus form is a way of measuring how well a player did at his job in the context of how the team did overall.
It has its uses but they are limited by the fact that there is no quanative measure to some of the things a player does on the field.
There is also no comparisons against other form scores.
You may have one team dominate another and the losing team will have scores in the 6-7 ranges while the winning team has scores int he 8-9 ranges.
What makes up the game between a 7 and an 8?
What about a 6 and a 9?
I watch alot of football and I could not really tell you by reading a box score.

In baseball you do not need these things. Every player carries away from the game a quanative statisic that can be directly compared to other players.
Also given enough of a sample size you will see that players and teams dominate in certain statisical areas or who have combinations of certain stats are worth more runs and wins to their teams than others.
Also in baseball you only have two jobs.

To produce runs
To prevent runs

Add to this that there is not much of a team dependent component, most of the time it is one player trying to produce runs against one player trying to prevent runs (first the pitcher then usualy one fielder)


Thus it is very easy to derive the data you need from raw statistics and does away with the need for a few simple measurements of ability.

So to boil it down, I just said a very long version of what treedom said.
You can get what you need from a simple game line.
The more you watch and follow the game the better you get at analyizing statisical data and being able to tell you had a good week, good month, good year and good career.
From there you can compare players and see which players are more valuable than others and predict which players are more likely to be more valuable than others.

And there my friend is the bare base of what you do in this game.
All you do is constantly compare players against one another until you assemble a team that you think will win more than any other.
Tied to that is better using your resources to get better players cheaper than lesser players who cost more.
And by cost I do not just mean money. If you can get them younger that is always a good thing, and you when you can draft them later in the draft you expand your draft options by drafting smarter.

The definitive post on this issue. Thank you very much, Fallschirmjager. And all you guys. You convinced me. Form is not necessary in baseball.

But I agree with long long name. Morale would be great. And health too. I forgot to mention that. It's not very realistic to have only "tired" "rested" and "day-to-day". In the FM series, you got a percentage. So, there's different levels of tiredness.

[DaveHorn]

Originally Posted by Galeno

But I agree with long long name. Morale would be great. And health too. I forgot to mention that. It's not very realistic to have only "tired" "rested" and "day-to-day". In the FM series, you got a percentage. So, there's different levels of tiredness.

We do have durability, which isn't constant, but changes rarely and generally just gets worse as the player ages.

It would be interesting to see things like loyalty, desire for winner not remain constant for a player. A player's loyalty and the desire for playing for a winner can and often change in real life.

[Mattymo]

Originally Posted by jm47048

Accorind to Urban Legend, a cubs fan tried to take his pet goat to a game, and he was not allowed in. He then said may the cubs never again be in the world series, and they have not been there since.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was a woman who had the goat. I've been told that she put a hex on the cubs that they will not win a title until every employee of the organization had passed away (I have no idea if that has happened yet). Makes the curse of the bambino look like child's play.

[Carlton_Willey]

Originally Posted by Galeno

The definitive post on this issue. Thank you very much, Fallschirmjager. And all you guys. You convinced me. Form is not necessary in baseball.

But I agree with long long name. Morale would be great. And health too. I forgot to mention that. It's not very realistic to have only "tired" "rested" and "day-to-day". In the FM series, you got a percentage. So, there's different levels of tiredness.

I"ve played CM in earlier versions and, of course, OOTP, so I'm familiar with the numeric health ratings you're referring to.

Once again, the differences in the sports is why the percentages are not needed (with one obvious exception). In soccer, players go all out in each game and rarely play more than two games/fixtures per week. That's because they get exhausted from 90 minutes of running. No baseball player runs for 90 minutes during a game. Soccer players aren't expected to play every fixture on the schedule. Baseball teams often play a game every day, and lots of guys play every day. So they recover much faster than a soccer player. Even by noon of the day following a night game, most starters are out there again, if need be. So there simply is no need for an 'exhaustion' factor for position players.

In CM, players drop from 100% fitness levels to 75 or so at the end of the game. They shouldn't be used again until they recover to 100 after a few days. As I mentioned above, in OOTP every postion player not injured would be back at 100% by the next morning, so there's no need for the rating.

The exception is pitchers. They need to rest after throwing. Starters usually rest at least four days between starts and relievers need rest too. The game does show which pitchers are available and which are too tired to perform at all.

As to morale, again not using it for baseball is a difference in the sports. Getting pumped up is more a football matter--both American and the rest of the world. Baseball is more low key, and getting hyper usually inhibits performance and rather than helping. Again, the morale ratings of CM aren't useful for baseball where players are expected to start every game.

So those two differences plus the statitistic issues already so well-addressed are why the games are so different.

[Galeno]

Originally Posted by Carlton_Willey

I"ve played CM in earlier versions and, of course, OOTP, so I'm familiar with the numeric health ratings you're referring to.

Once again, the differences in the sports is why the percentages are not needed (with one obvious exception). In soccer, players go all out in each game and rarely play more than two games/fixtures per week. That's because they get exhausted from 90 minutes of running. No baseball player runs for 90 minutes during a game. Soccer players aren't expected to play every fixture on the schedule. Baseball teams often play a game every day, and lots of guys play every day. So they recover much faster than a soccer player. Even by noon of the day following a night game, most starters are out there again, if need be. So there simply is no need for an 'exhaustion' factor for position players.

In CM, players drop from 100% fitness levels to 75 or so at the end of the game. They shouldn't be used again until they recover to 100 after a few days. As I mentioned above, in OOTP every postion player not injured would be back at 100% by the next morning, so there's no need for the rating.

The exception is pitchers. They need to rest after throwing. Starters usually rest at least four days between starts and relievers need rest too. The game does show which pitchers are available and which are too tired to perform at all.

As to morale, again not using it for baseball is a difference in the sports. Getting pumped up is more a football matter--both American and the rest of the world. Baseball is more low key, and getting hyper usually inhibits performance and rather than helping. Again, the morale ratings of CM aren't useful for baseball where players are expected to start every game.

So those two differences plus the statitistic issues already so well-addressed are why the games are so different.

Thank you for the explanation.

I am very new to the game of baseball, but aren't there some positions in which the fatigue factor force the player to play less games then others? Like catchers. They use to rest more games then, say, a 1B, don't they? And even a healthy player doesn't play all the 182 games, isn't it?

[mrbill]

Originally Posted by Galeno

Thank you for the explanation.

I am very new to the game of baseball, but aren't there some positions in which the fatigue factor force the player to play less games then others? Like catchers. They use to rest more games then, say, a 1B, don't they? And even a healthy player doesn't play all the 182 games, isn't it?

I believe that previous OOTP versions had this, so I assume the next will as well. You're right though, there are some players that play all 162 games of the season without suffering for it. OOTP doesn't have players like this, everyone needs days off sometimes.

There's definitely a behind the scenes fatigue rating that goes down with a full game more than you recover overnight. Eventually , you need days off in the schedule or by missing a game to recover.

And, you must get a rating for how many days without rest you've played, and at some positions, it takes fewer days to qualify as "tired". Catcher is obvious, I rest my catcher every 6 or 7 games, but my DH once every 30 games.

[DrArbiter]

Originally Posted by Carlton_Willey

So there simply is no need for an 'exhaustion' factor for position players.

Of course, even in baseball there's a sense that players do sometimes get a day off -- very few players play all 162 games. Yeah, some of that's just to get the scrubs enough game action to keep them sharp in case of emergency, but it's also, I think, more of a case that baseball players tend to pick up a collection of "dings" from time to time that a day off works wonders for. So, for me, an injury model that generates these from time to time, as opposed to the "exhaustion"-based CM fatigue system, is probably closer to truth.

As to morale, again not using it for baseball is a difference in the sports. Getting pumped up is more a football matter--both American and the rest of the world. Baseball is more low key, and getting hyper usually inhibits performance and rather than helping.

This is true, though I've also thought of another difference. In my day job, one of my interests is how people behave in environments where they need to "coordinate". There are often several possible outcomes, some of which are better for everyone, and others which are worse for everyone. Yet, I can set up environments where everyone winds up in the "bad" outcome, but get stuck there because in order to get to the good outcome, everyone has to change their behavior, and, more than that, they have to do it all the time; if even one person fails to change, the change fails.

When you watch the flow of a football match, there's a lot of coordination among a successful side. When people go into this sort of a coordination environment with a positive attitude, they are more likely to wind up with a successful group outcome; when even some of them have doubts or have negative attitudes, the worse group outcomes are more likely. It only takes one guy playing with less than full confidence to bollix up what might have been a great scoring oppotunity, for example.

With baseball, that's much less relevant because of the structure of the game. There's not a lot of coordination of that sort in baseball. Yeah, you need to hit cutoff men and so forth -- but missing the cutoff man can be modeled at an individual level, whereas the group interaction of a side in soccer is much more significant.

[Carlton_Willey]

Originally Posted by Galeno

Thank you for the explanation.

I am very new to the game of baseball, but aren't there some positions in which the fatigue factor force the player to play less games then others? Like catchers. They use to rest more games then, say, a 1B, don't they? And even a healthy player doesn't play all the 182 games, isn't it?

Glad to help.

Yes, position players get tired, particularly catchers. In OOTP's prior versions, when a player gets tired, his name changes to pale yellow (If I remember right) on the selection screens. Simply replace him for the next game and all will be well.

The "minor dings" referred to above are in OOTP as well. They are shown as injuries with the player shown as, say 95% in pale yellow on his player card screen. As I said above, this is considered an injury in OOTP even though its minor and the player can perform in the game with little, if any, perceptible decline in performance.

The game does a good job of automatically using subs in the starting lineup to prevent the 'tired' condition. For me, I know I only get this problem if I have only one backup at a position, say shortstop, and that backup gets hurt, or has to play regularly at another position. Then the regular at shortstop will get tired because he is playing lots of games without rest. However, if the team has an off day, then this problem won't happen. As soon as a day off occurs, all the position players who are tired go back to 100%. So the schedule generally prevents this from happening.

As long as you keep backups for all positions, the game does a solid job of preventing the starters from tiring due to playing all the time.

[Carlton_Willey]

DrArbiter, I really like your discussion of morale in soccer, particularly the distinction of group versus individual in the two sports.

Baseball is more of a collection of individuals than a team sport.

[Twelvefield]

Yay, I get to use this pic again!



This guy from the movie "The Untouchables" would disagree with you.