Team throws random guy in lineup

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by landru

I am mildly concerned about the weird leadoff hitters the AI comes up with, mainly with the catcher, for three reasons.

1. In just any situation this has rarely been done by a real life manager - so it sticks out as being odd.

2. For home team lineups the catcher has to take off his gear and quickly be the lead off hitter (I know it happens later in the game, but still...)

3. Does anybody want to see a dumpy catcher be the first batter gunning for a walk? *I* want to see a feisty, speedy batter revving up the offense! (No offense to any dumpy catchers in the audience)

if that catcher gunning for walks gets on base more often, then yes because i am not a baseball talking head stuck in the 80s.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by dkgo

if that catcher gunning for walks gets on base more often, then yes because i am not a baseball talking head stuck in the 80s.

lol

[The Wolf]

Since the worst a bad lineup can do is cost you is about one win a season, just use whatever lineup makes you the happiest.

Unless you are like me, and are optimizing your lineup like mad, because you will need that one win because of your pitching.

[Syd Thrift]

If memory serves, if you make a really dumb, anti-optimized lineup (like batting your pitcher leadoff or cleanup) it can cost more than 10 runs / 1 win but yeah, the real difference between a fully optimized lineup and one that just looks conventionally nice is 1 win *or less*. By and large, lineup construction simply does not mean a whole lot outside of wanting to ensure that your best players get the most PAs (which is probably the #1 argument for putting Byrd somewhere near the top of the lineup).

The Mets haven't hit Byrd leadoff not because he's not cut out for the job but because they've decided to hit him cleanup/5th instead. It's not at all uncommon for a manager who has a player who would do well in two separate roles to choose one at the expense of the other. That doesn't mean that another manager looking at things slightly differently wouldn't choose to emphasize the other role.

[Living Lejuhnd]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

If memory serves, if you make a really dumb, anti-optimized lineup (like batting your pitcher leadoff or cleanup) it can cost more than 10 runs / 1 win but yeah, the real difference between a fully optimized lineup and one that just looks conventionally nice is 1 win *or less*. By and large, lineup construction simply does not mean a whole lot outside of wanting to ensure that your best players get the most PAs (which is probably the #1 argument for putting Byrd somewhere near the top of the lineup).

The Mets haven't hit Byrd leadoff not because he's not cut out for the job but because they've decided to hit him cleanup/5th instead. It's not at all uncommon for a manager who has a player who would do well in two separate roles to choose one at the expense of the other. That doesn't mean that another manager looking at things slightly differently wouldn't choose to emphasize the other role.

I think the conclusion that we have to draw from this is that a game is not going to run on conventional baseball wisdom. Conventional baseball wisdom says that Byrd is not your standard leadoff hitter. Does that make sense? That's for the baseball gurus to argue about. But according to whatever algorithms are deciding these things in the game, under certain situations, with certain guys sitting out, the game thinks that Byrd at leadoff gives the team the best chance to win. Maybe he does, and maybe real life managers are too obtuse to consider this out of the box thinking.

I do however feel the Mo vs Robertson debate should be handled differently. When a longtime vet is under contract, unless he's terribly blowing it (in this case he clearly isn't) he should be starting in his expected role.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Living Lejuhnd

I think the conclusion that we have to draw from this is that a game is not going to run on conventional baseball wisdom. Conventional baseball wisdom says that Byrd is not your standard leadoff hitter. Does that make sense? That's for the baseball gurus to argue about. But according to whatever algorithms are deciding these things in the game, under certain situations, with certain guys sitting out, the game thinks that Byrd at leadoff gives the team the best chance to win. Maybe he does, and maybe real life managers are too obtuse to consider this out of the box thinking.

I do however feel the Mo vs Robertson debate should be handled differently. When a longtime vet is under contract, unless he's terribly blowing it (in this case he clearly isn't) he should be starting in his expected role.

I bet if you had AI Eval based more on stats (especially some weight to past years) Mo would be closing, He never was taken out the closer spot in my game.

[Living Lejuhnd]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

I bet if you had AI Eval based more on stats (especially some weight to past years) Mo would be closing, He never was taken out the closer spot in my game.

I left everything under default settings. What changes have you made?

The breakdown is 65/20/10/5: Ratings/Current Year Stats/Previous Year Stats/2 Years Ago Stats

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Living Lejuhnd

I left everything under default settings. What changes have you made?

The breakdown is 65/20/10/5: Ratings/Current Year Stats/Previous Year Stats/2 Years Ago Stats

Im currently using 25/25/25/25 with base OVR on AI Eval checked.

[Living Lejuhnd]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Im currently using 25/25/25/25 with base OVR on AI Eval checked.

Interesting. What do others do?

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by living lejuhnd

interesting. What do others do?

0/50/33/17

[dodger300]

0/66/27/7

[Living Lejuhnd]

Won't eliminating ratings from AI evaluation do big harm to the way the AI evaluates young big prospects who don't yet have a track record?

I feel like you'd have a much easier time trading for prospects since the AI evaluation of them is based solely on their stats from that current year and up to two years prior.

Am I missing something here?

[dodger300]

The AI still knows who their top prospects are. I play as the Dodgers, with trading on hard and neutral, and when I hit make this work know button I usually get the reply no one player, or they want Kershaw.

[cblacker]

Originally Posted by Living Lejuhnd

Won't eliminating ratings from AI evaluation do big harm to the way the AI evaluates young big prospects who don't yet have a track record?

I feel like you'd have a much easier time trading for prospects since the AI evaluation of them is based solely on their stats from that current year and up to two years prior.

Am I missing something here?

In the absence of sufficient stats to evaluate a player, the AI will use ratings even if you set the ratings portion of AI evaluation to '0'.

[Left-handed Badger]

Originally Posted by rpriske

Well, OBP is WAY more important than speed in a lead-off hitter...



... but as Wolf says, it actually doesn't matter very much.

I actually prefer speed at the bottom instead of the top. I figure you need to be more proactive at the bottom of the order generally. So, I get more value out of any low-OBP speedster that way. (except a #8 hitter in front of a pitcher, where as long as the guy can make it to 2nd base on the ensuing bunt, speed has no use-although high OBP in front of the pitcher= more bunt attempts for the pitcher= a little more offensive usefulness out of a useless hitter)