the catcher lead-off & other bad ideas

[Izz]

Originally Posted by r0nster

I stand to be corrected but IF memory serves there is a setting somewhere that you can change from sabermatrics lineup to traditional. I think Sabormatrics is default. My thinking is traditional style lineup would change to prevent catchers from being the lead off hitter.

Traditional is default.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by r0nster

guys there is a setting for this as I mentioned above

... and neither setting prevents the #7 hitter from moving to leadoff when a replacement is needed.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Orcin

If the game used reason or logic or even a dice roll to decide the leadoff hitter, it would be a better system than the current system: player in lineup spot #1 unavailable? if yes, then put #7 hitter in #1 position. Surely the game can be programmed to make a better decision than that.

In my experience it doesn't and hasn't done so in four versions.

[bwburke94]

The traditional/sabermetric setting has NOTHING to do with the frequency of players moving from #7 to #1.

[NoOne]

i haven't noticed the 7 - 2 thing... i'll have to pay attention more. i keep total control over that stuff, though.

i think the suggestion to change that setting is just to see the new configuration that may or may not be better for you(plural). not for the substitution thing

the only way to avoid it without much effort is to use the 7day lineups and never sim more than a week at a time. you can predict when your players will need a rest long before it occurs. you just have to keep an eye out for oddities like double headers and extra inning games.

edit... bah it does change the lineup, the first box scores i checked were just lucky i guess.

yeah, the 7th batter moves to 1st or 2nd spot if subbed. tried swapping 7th with better and worse, and it still happened. that's some weak tea, lol. really glad i micromanage this stuff.

i think the 7th batter is supposed to have speed and baserunning - depending on where you look. although i don't share this opinion, maybe they are assuming it. still not a good method, though.

[realstar]

Originally Posted by RchW

I always check the AI vs my lineup choices, pretty well on a game by game basis and have not had an AI have C bat leadoff since v12.

I always check, too. When I'm playing against AI (usually by the day), I never have lineup issues. But in the online league I'm playing we sim by the week & 7-day doesn't cover for when players are tired, which is the only time this ever happens for me anymore.

The issue still stands, however because AI will make lousy lineups whenever it can, almost as if it's sabotaging. But I'm fairly certain the reason is that I'm fighting AI by sometimes choosing good fielders over batters: placing players in positions that conflict with AI. Letting AI create depth charts confirms this in many situations (70-80%).

I often put up to 20-25 position players on a minor league team (approx: 3 catchers, 12 infielders, 9 outfielders) & the depth charts get filled this way. 2nd & 3rd players in each position are playing every 2nd or 3rd day depending on how good they are & if they are younger & need training.

But AI experiments with young players too much for my taste, clearly choosing to train batters over putting a fielder where he obviously should go. So I fix those & tighten 7-day down to completely disallow AI & take full control. This is what I call "fighting the AI" & consequently I win many more games than if I let the AI "sabotage" my teams for training purposes.

Players get playing time anyway, so training happens. The catcher in the lead off is just one of many weak decisions AI makes, in terms of game-by-game over year long training. Obviously the game is not made for in-game managing, but rather is oriented to train players over long term.

Apparently most people don't care if their minor league teams win games. Most people only care about training the best players to become superstars. This goes with the business model, as opposed to the managing model. This is why it's called "out of the park."

My beef is that there's no baseball managing computer game (called "in the park" ) with the level of data which OOTP offers, or I would switch in a hot second.

[realstar]

Originally Posted by SteveP

When the leadoff guy takes the day off, the AI will replace him with the guy who hits 3rd, 5th or 7th. It's unclear how they AI decides which to use. However, the guy who normally bats 5th is often a pretty good choice, and the guy who normally bats 3rd is usually an OK choice. Since the catcher often bats 7th in a AI lineup, you do see the catcher batting leadoff from time to time.

Markus has rejected the notion of trying to prevent this from happening. And it probably is more annoying to see than it is harmful to the team.

Yeah it's an esthetic thing. Choosing traditional over sabermetric is also partially esthetic. When I choose traditional I want it to be traditional. But the game overrides traditional lineups with its overly simplistic lineup algorithm that is too eager to substitute players with some power. That's DH thinking, def not traditional. There's a reason why half of MLB is not DH. OOTP seems to have missed that point. That some spectators still want to see traditional baseball.

Basically the game has not been created to afford in-game managing. But rather it's made for training superstars, for business purposes. The former would require more baseball managing (the game) complexity.

My guess is developers were aware of this from the beginning & they named the game appropriately Out Of The Park because they saw how much more complex it would need to be to address in-game managing. As IRL, business priorities conflict with in-game managing priorities.

OOTP favors on the business side & consequently we get a business model that is more complex than any other cpu baseball game. Personally, I find taking care of business aspects of the game the annoying part. When I'm working in the depth charts is when I'm in my element & truly enjoying the game. But it always feels odd because I'm fighting AI every step of the way. I guess that's actually realistic (fighting against the businessmen) for field managers anyway.

[realstar]

Originally Posted by landru22

I simply don't understand why the AI just doesn't choose the best lineup from the players available for that day. Having the catcher, or any other slow-footed and often bad obpct guy, bat leadoff is beyond me. This is one of my few pet peeves about this otherwise great game.

Would a real-life manager choose his daily line-up this way? "Hmm, let's see... Speedy Gonzales has the day off today, so I think I'll bat my catcher Tom the Turtle leadoff because he normally bats 7th." I don't think so!

LOL ---> Spot on & thank you for saying.

[realstar]

Originally Posted by NoOne

i can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not, lol!

that's kinda my point, though. some people won't be happy even if the catcher batting leadoff is justified by some relevant metric(s), while others will be upset if they aren't.

a simple lineup model that is very predictable and produces fairly optimal lineups is all that can be expected. any expectation too specific will result in disappointment for most players. it's not important which exact way it's done.

if it's simple, you know you wont get some unintended product from a convoluted tangle of logic. it may not be a perfect lineup, but you avoid the craziness.

i've seen terrible hitters near the top of the order.. trust that this is not a subjective statemnt - e.g. sub-.200 hitter with better options on bench. i think it's coincidence when it's a catcher. (it's important to note that i don't care about a batter's position, just their offensive traits.)

i've noticed this happening recently while looking over a stacked team in the opposing league before the playoffs.

while an all-star capable player was on the bench a sub-.200 hitter with high power was batting 2nd. the only thing this guy was better at was his power rating, and the guy on the bench was actually a decent power hitter. it wasn't even an age thing... the chump was a 38y.o. FA signing the previous offseason.

First, i checked if multiple defensive positions were causing the odd lineup by removing the lesser ones. that didn't change anythign for me. then, i changed the ai lineup setting, and it produced a logical lineup, even if it was not how i would construct one. i'm not suggesting either ai setting, but rather changing it when you see something you don't like and you can always change it back.

thanks, I didn't try that. It didn't make sense to change to sabermetric when I wanted it more simplistic. (I always use traditional). But I will try it. Thanks for all this--very astute points about simplifying to avoid crazy results--because all your effort absolutely applies to the issue & it helps to know what happens with experimenting around. I very much agree that developers should "simplify" lineups & get rid of whatever it is that's making crazy lineup decisions. Of course you're right (all of you) who say AI chooses power hitters at the expense of choosing common sense: runners/contact/fielders. If nothing else, they should at least fix that, which I believe to be an oversimplification of in-game managing, in terms of not enough attention given to managing lineups. Why allow players to manage games if we're always fighting a lousy algorithm? Fighting the bad AI decisions then becomes part of playing the game & that is nowhere IMO. It turns into more of a computer game & less of a baseball simulation.

[ThePretender]

Sometimes you get a c who has excellent ba/obp skills and he's worth leading off. In one online leawgue I have an excellent defensive c with good obp and ba and a second c with better power numbers and poor defence. I lead off the good obp c and use the slugger closer to middle of lineup. He is my primary dh. Every 4 or so days I rotate them between c and dh. Saves me a spot on my roster since I don't need a backup c and I can have more platoons or something else instead of lousy backup c.

Not very catcher should lead off but there are certainly some who are good enough. Speed I find is overrated in front of sluggers - you can take your time rounding the bases on a hr. And I'm not worried about losing dh due to injury so to me its a great strategy to take advantage of when you have the right players for it.

[realstar]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

No I'm not [being sarcastic]. I'm asking, why shouldn't a catcher bat lead off if he has the ability?

1) Catchers are almost never fast runners. Traditionally, you want a fast running contact hitter to get on base then power hitters to "clean up" & knock a hit to score the lead off hitter once he gets to scoring position. A fast runner can score from 1st base on a double. He can do a number of things to get into scoring position. He can bunt hit. He can steal 2nd and/or 3rd. He can bother the pitcher & cause weaker pitching. If he gets to 3rd before 2 outs, a power hitter can hit a long fly & the fast runner can tag up for a run. These strategies are based on traditional lineup managing. The other spot for a fast runner is 8th & then putting a good contact/power hitter in the leadoff: 8-9-1 strategy. 8th batter gets on, pitcher sacrifices him to 2nd, lead off batter singles him in. Doing both (fast runners in lead off & 8th positions) is the most common traditional lineup. Weakness batting 8th doesn't get pitched to as hard & has a chance to get on, so make sure he's fast & use 8-9-1 strategy above. A fast runner with a good eye to get on with a walk is also a strong strategy, depending on who's pitching. Contrary to some people's opinion, OOTP will interact between offense/defense. It's not only about how many home runs your sluggers hit this month.

Note: The above info doesn't apply nearly as much to DH/power hitting lineups (offense over defense thinking; high hitting/scoring games) as it does to games such as found, for example, in the 1960s, where one or two runs (as the only, or next to the only runs scored in a game) often makes the difference between winning or losing. It's a big difference between most of your games being 4-2, 2-1, 3-2, 2-0, 1-0 than leagues with most games scoring 7-5, 9-7, 6-4, 7-6, 10-9 etc. Obviously this is why we see catchers & other slow power hitters toward the top of the lineup or in other untraditional places in DH games more than in non-DH games. It probably isn't that much different, statistically to change out pitchers for DHs. But it makes a bigger psychological difference, including for pitchers/defensive position playing, when the lineup has less weak spots with which to contend. It all leads to these more offensive games. Maybe there should be more attention to separating (delineating) the two types: more drastic separation. If you're ever played outfield against a slug fest you know first hand about FATIGUE. But there's no stat for fatigue, so OOTP must add that somehow. How that is done becomes a controversial issue: more for simulation heads than for statistic heads.

2) Batters at top of lineup will get more at bats & supposedly tire more easily from that. Not sure if that's necessarily true IRL but I def feel OOTP doing that in-game. Do you want your ace catcher to tire quicker & take more days off, or worse to tire during a game & bat weaker? Don't forget that the catcher has the 2nd most tiring fielding position. But the real life reason a catcher is not put at the top of the order: takes a minute for him to take off his gear & that tends to annoy the umpire. The day we play a cpu game where we are witness to an umpire pissed off about waiting around for players is the day we will really be playing a simulation baseball game.

These are issues that apply to baseball simulation. Often the dispute is over whether or not people care about simulating baseball more/less than playing out a statistical fantasy of baseball. Obviously the challenge for a cpu game based on stats is to make it more realistic. Arguments for making such a game more statistical fall short of making sense when we already have the stats & are now looking for more realism.

Alternative views of batting orders dispute the above traditions. This is especially true with DH lineups. If you haven't joined the world in alternative lineup thinking, you haven't lived, as it were. The typical routine: switching up on the opposing teams expectations (OOTP will award you with good things if you do.. real life.. ? not sure) But IMO alternative means just that: changing from tradition. In other words, you have to experience tradition before you can be alternative. But of course, that fact is disputed, too. IMO everybody is jumping into alternative too quickly & I believe that is why we get crazy stuff going on in this game--e.g. not enough tradition first, before we start messing with alternatives.

Nonetheless, alternative lineups is always interesting. Consequently, things get weird before we get started, half the time. Maybe there should be an algorithm that keeps things more traditional during early season and/or at beginning of each series... during the 1st games opposing teams play each other during a season etc. Progressing into alternative ideas as the season progresses. That would be more realistic. But then some will want to challenge that by alternating earlier. Still, with a setup of traditional lineups on AI, gives managers a base to work with that can be depended upon. What's the point of alternative thinking if there's nothing traditional to work against?

Anyway, the catcher or power hitter can leadoff just as sanely as a contact/fast runner can bat 6th. Modern DH, sabermetric etc lineup concepts place more importance on a few, or two players in setups, regardless where that is in the lineup (upper or lower).

[realstar]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Sometimes you get a c who has excellent ba/obp skills and he's worth leading off. In one online leawgue I have an excellent defensive c with good obp and ba and a second c with better power numbers and poor defence. I lead off the good obp c and use the slugger closer to middle of lineup. He is my primary dh. Every 4 or so days I rotate them between c and dh. Saves me a spot on my roster since I don't need a backup c and I can have more platoons or something else instead of lousy backup c.

Not very catcher should lead off but there are certainly some who are good enough. Speed I find is overrated in front of sluggers - you can take your time rounding the bases on a hr. And I'm not worried about losing dh due to injury so to me its a great strategy to take advantage of when you have the right players for it.

With all due respect to everything you are saying the OP was about how AI makes poor decisions, sometimes which is a ridiculous catcher leading off: not this interestingly complex method of DH lineups you are using. The catcher found leading off in my (the original poster) situations were put there because AI was making weak lineup decisions, which has been found to be a problem with OOTP for a long time. So thanks for this great lineup concept you've given, which I will keep in mind for my own use. Seriously. Especially if I find myself managing a team with plenty of HR sluggers & a home park that encourages home runs. I just want to make sure we haven't got off track with the original beef.

[realstar]

i think the biggest reason why people don't like a catcher up top is the overvalueing of small percentages like speed and/or a need to cling to tradition. the latter is a common phenomenom. it's difficult for a person to admit that something they have believed in for decades might be wrong. people's egos and misplaced feelings get in the way of progress.

And yet this attitude of progress (financials, sabermetrics) over tradition is what has caused a lack of attention to tradition, leading to lousy batting order in the most prestigious cpu baseball simulation in the world.

Sabermetric percentages aren't everything, & that is not all sentimental tradition. It's common sense. Have you ever tried to field a team with no speed? OOTP awards you with lots of wasted hits if you do.

But the term "wasted hits" means much less to DH heads, than to traditional baseball thinking, because you have less weak batting getting in the way of your slug fests. Stats ("small percentages") have a different meaning depending on DH or not. Especially when considering that DH is about taking away low scoring, highly defensive games (considered "boring") & replacing them with high scoring, highly offensive games. (no pun intended)

[realstar]

Originally Posted by NoOne

i haven't noticed the 7 - 2 thing... i'll have to pay attention more. i keep total control over that stuff, though.

i think the suggestion to change that setting is just to see the new configuration that may or may not be better for you(plural). not for the substitution thing

the only way to avoid it without much effort is to use the 7day lineups and never sim more than a week at a time. you can predict when your players will need a rest long before it occurs. you just have to keep an eye out for oddities like double headers and extra inning games.

edit... bah it does change the lineup, the first box scores i checked were just lucky i guess.

yeah, the 7th batter moves to 1st or 2nd spot if subbed. tried swapping 7th with better and worse, and it still happened. that's some weak tea, lol. really glad i micromanage this stuff.

i think the 7th batter is supposed to have speed and baserunning - depending on where you look. although i don't share this opinion, maybe they are assuming it. still not a good method, though.

Excellent post. Not even if the leadoff is tired, but every time they are subbed. Like AI wants to sabotage an order, but really is just a weak algorithm that overrides any common sense. Since when is #7 a runner? I usually (traditionally) put my mid-order contact/runner in the #6 spot & then a slow power hitter (slower than #4 power hitter) in the #7 spot. But this only for non-DH. DH is like anything goes. Nothing is set in stone, nothing to depend on, everything crazy out; the more alternative the better. Which is the point. OOTP doesn't give enough attention (respect) to tradition & the result is one sided alt. Of course the reason is that tradition asks for more simulation than stat fantasy ball, which requires more elaborate programming from developers.

Def needs to be a priority fix. Gad. I knew there was something screwy about batting orders but I didn't realize it was this lame.

Note: I'm not making the above criticisms of lack of respect for tradition from a personal (emotional) place. It's actually an alternative thing for me to be doing. As I'm a boomer who dealt first hand with conservatives in the USA back in the day. Yeah there have always been conservatives in baseball & it's an athletic sport after all, so we expect conservative thinking from athletic coaches/adjudicators more often than not, just like we expect more conservatism than not in the military. Again, it's alternative for me to join with conservative/traditional thinking. But what's right is right & when it comes to making a cpu game more realistic simulation we boomers have to swallow our pride--all the things we did to get them to allow the Pirates to make a rock song their anthem, one example--and face the fact that alternative shifts have sometimes gone over the top.

[realstar]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I also really don't think that maybe 1 extra PA a game will add much more wear and tear. For catchers, that comes from playing defense, not offense.

It's a combination. Especially if a batter gets on base & then into running situations. Why separate one from the other? Because sabermetrics wants stats to rule over real life fatigue, for which there is no stat?

OOTP has an algorithm, although also too simplistic to be fully simulation, that puts stress on batters at the top of the order. Not sure what it is, but I feel it. The simplicity of that algorithm somehow puts too much importance on one or two PAs. Again, this is because the game is predicting the effects of PAs over long term & algorithms based on long term inadvertently wreak havoc on single games. This has been the main problem with OOTP from the beginning.

The core AI is corrupt because it's based on long term first & then tries to mediate single games, when the core AI should be based on single games with long term occurring naturally. This is essentially the difference between Fantasy Baseball, which uses gambling over long term as its core AI, & Simulation Baseball, which must use single games (actually each pitch) for its core AI in order to simulate real baseball. The main problem with OOTP being called simulation is that it always used entire seasons to shape its AI: more fantasy than simulation. All of the problems with field managing comes from this initial mistake in development.

[realstar]

Originally Posted by NoOne

besides a lack of talent, i don't see any reason. just like you.

some people are more... traditional. i think that's the pc term

stewie griffin's anxiously spoken quote sums up alot of people: "There's something wrong wth the house. I don't like change!"

it's like the world being flat... you can't speak out against it because that's the way it's always been and the mob will get angry and confused.

i have a semi-retired sports writer near me named <something> Green(e). the guy is just a angry old man who hates change. he writes these terribly misinformed editorials and uses falsely made definitions to take shots at newer statistical metrics. his articles are teeming with logical fallacies and personal insecurties.

he does not care about understanding, he just hates it because it's new, and more importantly he does not understand it, whether intentionally or subconsciously. a rational person admits that some of the new stats are flawed as well as some of the traditional stats and accepts the good ones regardless of origin or comfort level.

there is no "right" side. no one is trying to replace anything or get rid of anything. these misperception is part of the problem. it's merely progress with a couple steps backward on occasion.

Oh man, Too much switcheroo. Your comment is loaded with attitude against tradition. Just because I have a quote by Drysdale about the lack of camaraderie & fan love that was his opinion doesn't mean I'm complaining like your reporter friend, who sounds like an idiot. Again, the professional game is still divided 50/50. It's too easy to point at angry old men & use that as a standard for assuming progress is underrated.

When you say it's about balance, that is making sense. But look at the venue you've chosen to make this comment in: a beef about ridiculous use of batting orders as a result of weak cpu AI. Then you couple your sensible "balance is better" with a picture of an angry idiot. Nothing about progressive idiots, too?

Obviously your comment is biased on the side of progressives with this justification that tradition can't keep up. But it's not about tradition keeping up (except with your stubborn friend, who isn't everybody). In this case, it's about a player/spectator who wanted to watch a traditional NL styled game in 2015. Why shouldn't we be allowed to see traditional baseball? Because progress in statistics makes us look foolish in terms of fractions of percentages? Not a strong enough reason, actually.

[bwburke94]

Would it be best if the lineup selection would be a three-way choice, traditional/modern/sabermetric instead of traditional/sabermetric?

"Traditional" would be the pre-expansion method of lineup construction, with the 2 hole going to a bat-control guy and whatnot.
"Modern" would be the 2010s method of lineup construction, not quite full sabermetric but avoiding the flaws inherent in traditional lineups.
"Sabermetric" would be the complete "bat the best hitters 1/2/4, pitcher eighth" strategy Joe Maddon and similar managers have been using.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by realstar

Oh man, Too much switcheroo. Your comment is loaded with attitude against tradition. Just because I have a quote by Drysdale about the lack of camaraderie & fan love that was his opinion doesn't mean I'm complaining like your reporter friend, who sounds like an idiot. Again, the professional game is still divided 50/50. It's too easy to point at angry old men & use that as a standard for assuming progress is underrated.

When you say it's about balance, that is making sense. But look at the venue you've chosen to make this comment in: a beef about ridiculous use of batting orders as a result of weak cpu AI. Then you couple your sensible "balance is better" with a picture of an angry idiot. Nothing about progressive idiots, too?

Obviously your comment is biased on the side of progressives with this justification that tradition can't keep up. But it's not about tradition keeping up (except with your stubborn friend, who isn't everybody). In this case, it's about a player/spectator who wanted to watch a traditional NL styled game in 2015. Why shouldn't we be allowed to see traditional baseball? Because progress in statistics makes us look foolish in terms of fractions of percentages? Not a strong enough reason, actually.

EDIT: i read where you were quoting me from... i think you lost perspective and i forgot before i typed this mess below. my post was about why a catcher that could qualify as a leadoff or top of the order batter should not be considered. i think that context got lost. so, that is why i poop on a traditionalist and not mention a sabermetrician.... it wasn't relative. someone doesn't bat a good catcher at the top due to 'traditional' rationals, not for reasons found in sabermetrics, because position is not considered and it shouldn't be. obviously some positions are more likely to bat in obp or power spots more than others.... if we were talking about a flawed sabermatricians thoughts, i'd use an example of them doing something without reason - i wouldn't have to look far. in general, people are not very objective.

------------------------------

Before the long-wind: you, me, whoever just has to work around the AI. there isn't a one-size-fits-all anyway. no matter what, it will do somethign you, or i, will consider wrong. so, don't let it frustrate you too much.

first of all, i put emphasis on things that merit it (includes personal opinions that may or may not be right), and not becaue they are "traditional" or "progressive." those labels mean nothing to me. if new evidence shows i have placed an improper weight on something, i accept it and move on. i hope that clears up any supposed bias.

i think there is a misconception about the goal or methods of sabermetrics. anyone who thinks it's trying to change the game is misunderstanding or fearful. the goal is that through better understanding we can make better decisions. there is all sorts of untapped information out there that will be extremely helpful. sometimes the pepole creating somethgn new do a bad job... that's the key to using newer things. filtering out the nonsense and poorly executed ideas from good knowledge.

the way oakland makes use of these new concepts vs. a large market team will be different. it is not a one-way only avenue. too many misuse, misrepresent or misinterpret what it is actually telling you.

i am definitely biased toward progress as opposed to stagnation and dogmatic thinking, but i am using this word differently and not as a label for sabermetrics. i stick to the broader dictionary term on not some baseball or political nonsense. if a traditional statistic is more predictive than a newer one... it's better... no emotion or bias required. i am biased toward reality and trusting when something has a stronger correlation that it is better.

i even say specifically in the post that i don't pick a side. i find value in both schools of thought. i did point out a nutball on one side, and there are equivalent nutballs on the other side, too. they are mirror images. unwilling to accept when change is better or just assuming so without cause. pseudo intellectuals or old crumudgeons, LoL, both are terrible.

i can criticize many new metrics as well as traditional ones. some can even be described as retarded. many have an excessive amount of subjectivity involved, and i cannot understand how anyone educated in math or sciences could do such a thing on purpose or without greater control and uniformity in implementation or data collection.

the main resistance to new metrics is because some contradict older statistics or concepts about the game and emotions and ego get in the way. some of which are easily proven to be false, like the idea of "protection" in a lineup or that stealing is only beneficial if you are successful 75-80% (not exact, look it up) of the time... these things can be calculated and known... some people just don't have the technical background to understand or the willingness to understand. lineups are not fully studies yet in the correct or best way, yet. so, we can't say anythign absolute about them.

i ignore speed and baserunning almost completely, and i consitently lead the league in runs. does this prove anything... not a dam* thing. but, it should make you think twice about it's importance and want to study it more rather than assuming something because it seems obvious and older generations believed in it without using any objective facts to back up the weight they placed on it.

if after exhaustive study speed and baserunnign is X% of the pie for a leadoff hitter, than i accept that. there is not comprehensive study that i know of, yet.

progress is always a good thing. a wolf in progress's clothing is not progress. it's silly to think that tradition or newer metrics have a monopoly on logic. it's silly to draw a line in the sand in the first palce! anyone who is absolute about one or the other is severely flawed in their thinking. some metrics are just better thought out than others. like oba+ vs obp, and don't get me started on OPS. what a retarded statistic that is. no logic and very little thought was put into OPS. i have an idea, lets just addd BA to WP and call it "WPBA++ Amazing Super Number One Stat!." i think i hit one of each there, but i dont really care becaue i do not distinguish between the schools of though... they are both resources of informations with various strengths and weaknesses, and sometimes a bit of something illogical.

alot of your frustration can be sourced to a difference in opinion on certain things, and maybe some poor coding as well. you don't like what you see... maybe it has merit, maybe it doesn't - i wouldn't say either way without testing it (see couple paragraphs below).

a general way of thinking about this: your idea of what a lineup should be is just as suspect as mine or OotP's.

e.g. i can find evidence that supports putting power at the top. therefore it's not as crazy or stupid an idea as you make it out to be. (i don't like it either - doesn't matter). we merely don't like it wihtout proving anything.

i can find plenty of evidence that minimizes the tradiotional weight that is applied to speed at the top of the lineup, but it's still a sliding scale of 2 factors (or more). an obp that is .XXX larger can outweigh any possible speed difference, but it's a horizon... a curve... theoretically you can find the breakeven point for any variables given. you can find a point where a speed differential outweighs a .050 obp difference between 2 players... it may or may not be realistic, but you can find it. that calculated value isn't meant to be chiseled in stone, but merely a best guess from the equation and how the data was collected etc... it is comparing apples and oranges after converting them both to pears.... or somethign like that.

you say it ruins lineups and there is no sense or reason to them. try simming the same year over and over again maybe 20-50 times with the AI lineup. then, repeat with your lineup. turn off trading, injuries and development - ensure the same players are used and they don't change randomly. finally, compare runs scored. otherwise, it's just a guess as to it being a ruined lineup.

you can test different things while following this general setup. test 2 different substitution lineups - the ai's choice and your choice. a large enough sample will provide you with an answer. otherwise, you can't say with certainty that ootp is using terrible lineups.

at this time, so many concepts of baeball are based on faith and the eye-test. neither of these things are acceptable as evidence.

data data data --> inferences that are much better than before.

if you made my lineup, i'd think the same about you as you do about the AI. relative to the game we can answer this with a high degree of certainty. real life is another matter.

i get you want to see what you expect. i have this feeling about ootp on certain things, too. in some of these instances i learned that it was my perception that was off, and in other cases i still hate what ootp does.... LoL!!

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

Would it be best if the lineup selection would be a three-way choice, traditional/modern/sabermetric instead of traditional/sabermetric?

"Traditional" would be the pre-expansion method of lineup construction, with the 2 hole going to a bat-control guy and whatnot.
"Modern" would be the 2010s method of lineup construction, not quite full sabermetric but avoiding the flaws inherent in traditional lineups.
"Sabermetric" would be the complete "bat the best hitters 1/2/4, pitcher eighth" strategy Joe Maddon and similar managers have been using.

no matter what large portions will be unhappy with how each category is implemented. there is too much subjectivity involved in what a "best" lineup is.

is some of it more reputable than other bits of info, sure, but most is not known with certainty.

the only way is to make the depth charts more functional. add lineup slot along with when to sub. all other spots move up or down one - 2 drop down boxes. this is extremely easy to code too.

Cactcher backup1 = "start every 3rd day" and "8th in lineup" from drop down boxes.

problem solved. no more need for the AI.

manager changing your lineuip? tick "prevent ai from changing roster."

problem solved.


(not 100% certain if it is that checkbox or "lock strategy"... i assume it's the previous rather than the latter for obvious reasons, but they are both checked in my games, and i don't care to figure it out.)

[realstar]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

Would it be best if the lineup selection would be a three-way choice, traditional/modern/sabermetric instead of traditional/sabermetric?

"Traditional" would be the pre-expansion method of lineup construction, with the 2 hole going to a bat-control guy and whatnot.
"Modern" would be the 2010s method of lineup construction, not quite full sabermetric but avoiding the flaws inherent in traditional lineups.
"Sabermetric" would be the complete "bat the best hitters 1/2/4, pitcher eighth" strategy Joe Maddon and similar managers have been using.

I like this idea. More variety leads to more control. More variety gives field manager-type gamers the feeling that developers care about the technicalities of game-by-game playing, as opposed to simming entire seasons at once the way some gamers approach OOTP. The more distinct are the settings from each other gives us the feeling that settings aren't just a paint job.