Poll: Overall Ratings for Pitchers

[battists]

Hey guys,

Posting this poll out of personal curiosity.

To clarify more, we've been discussing the overall ratings of pitcher in another thread, and this poll includes a few of the options we've been discussing. This doesn't mean these are the only possibilities, or that Markus will listen to us, but I was curious about what everyone thinks.

Steve

[Raidergoo]

It's rather comprehensive. Let me think about it.

[andymac]

I think that endurance should be part of the equation, just not nearly as big a part of it as it is currently. Of course, I actually think that the pitching model needs to be re-done (or at least 95% of pitchers should have starter type endurance) but that is another issue .

[thbroman]

Originally Posted by andymac

I think that endurance should be part of the equation, just not nearly as big a part of it as it is currently. Of course, I actually think that the pitching model needs to be re-done (or at least 95% of pitchers should have starter type endurance) but that is another issue .

I agree with this. As far as I can tell, the formula seems to place too much weight on endurence for both SP and MR. I wonder too whether stuff and movement are balanced properly. IMHO movement is the more significant criterion and should be given more prominence. I would appreciate hearing other opinions on this, though.

[Goodsox]

I voted for option 2 because I feel that endurance should not have too much of an impact on a pitcher's ability. There have been a number of times in the MLB that Starters in the minors become relief pitchers and vice-versa. I don't think this really does much to the pitcher's ability, in my opinion. I also don't think the endurance has too much of an effect if the pitcher is conditioned properly. I really think the game should allow you to work up endurance for pitchers in Spring Training. For example, if I want my closer in the rotation next year, I should be able to train him for that in Spring Training with realistic increases in endurance. You see these moves happen a lot in baseball and I think that OOTP could do a better job modeling this.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Goodsox

I voted for option 2 because I feel that endurance should not have too much of an impact on a pitcher's ability. There have been a number of times in the MLB that Starters in the minors become relief pitchers and vice-versa. I don't think this really does much to the pitcher's ability, in my opinion. I also don't think the endurance has too much of an effect if the pitcher is conditioned properly. I really think the game should allow you to work up endurance for pitchers in Spring Training. For example, if I want my closer in the rotation next year, I should be able to train him for that in Spring Training with realistic increases in endurance. You see these moves happen a lot in baseball and I think that OOTP could do a better job modeling this.

Yea, I have a lot of ideas about how pitchers can be modeled more realistically. I might have to write it up and post something about it today since these discussions are going on.

[Mr. Capo]

I agree that endurance is probably overly weighted in the formula, whatever that formula is, but I also submit that there's something haywire with pitcher ratings in general. In my experience:

A.) Some pitchers' overall rating looks too low to reflect their individual ratings, and

B.) Certain pitchers are consistently dramatic over-achievers based on their ratings.

Now personally, I don't consider these to be big problems. In fact, to me it is kind of fun. But for those looking for performance that is consistent with ratings, and ratings that are consistent with each other, there seems to be a flaw.

I'm playing a league that uses Arod-Garlon's random debut DB, and I have replayed the same five-year span several times. The same dozen or so pitchers dominate repeatedly, and in not all cases do the ratings suggest that they should. There are some who are consistently among the top 10 in many major pitching categories year after year, with overall ratings in the 20s and 30s. As I've said, this doesn't particularly bother me, but it's an anomaly that thought belongs in the mix in this thread.

[deadringer]

I voted for neither. This area is one of the biggest pet pieves of mine left in OOTP. I'd like to see the entire pitching system changed to include indivdual pitches. Each pitcher should have each of their pitches rated and should "learn" new pitches over their career.

[TNCubsFan]

I can see that each pitchers pitches are rated now, under the heading of stuff. If that pitcher has a Zito curve and fastball to back it up with a backdoor change. That pitcher has pretty good stuff. If they have an inconsitant slider, a short fastball, and good change; then they have not so good stuff. If they have a quality 4 and 2 seam fastball, a slider, and a change they sometimes give away because of a change in the arm action; that pitcher has ok stuff.

To me the biggest problem has been for a long time creating the different types of pitchers. That is why I voted on a level playing field option.

Also to buck the thought trend here, the reason your closer is so good is because he is laying it all out for one inning. Extend him for six and you wont have the same pitcher. Remember Gagne was a failed starter before he moved to the pen and blossomed.

[billethius]

Originally Posted by andymac

I think that endurance should be part of the equation, just not nearly as big a part of it as it is currently. Of course, I actually think that the pitching model needs to be re-done (or at least 95% of pitchers should have starter type endurance) but that is another issue .

""

Originally Posted by Goodsox

I voted for option 2 because I feel that endurance should not have too much of an impact on a pitcher's ability. There have been a number of times in the MLB that Starters in the minors become relief pitchers and vice-versa. I don't think this really does much to the pitcher's ability, in my opinion. I also don't think the endurance has too much of an effect if the pitcher is conditioned properly. I really think the game should allow you to work up endurance for pitchers in Spring Training. For example, if I want my closer in the rotation next year, I should be able to train him for that in Spring Training with realistic increases in endurance. You see these moves happen a lot in baseball and I think that OOTP could do a better job modeling this.

The pitcher's ability absolutely changes when moved from a starter to a reliever. Because they're only going 1-3 innings every few days, relievers will put more effort into each pitch. That's why you see pitchers gain several mph upon the move to the bullpen. So if the model is going to rate everyone the same, something should account for the performance bump upon entering a relief role.

[cmdroverbite]

Originally Posted by TNCubsFan

Also to buck the thought trend here, the reason your closer is so good is because he is laying it all out for one inning. Extend him for six and you wont have the same pitcher. Remember Gagne was a failed starter before he moved to the pen and blossomed.

I think that that actually is evidence for what people are saying here. If there was a strict separation between the skills required of a starter and a closer, then Gagne couldn't have possibly made the transition, whereas in reality most relievers are ex-starters who at some point get switched over to the pen, usually because they can't learn a third pitch.

There are cases of guys getting drafted to be relievers (Huston Street is one, and I think that Trevor Hoffman may be another) but the vast majority of closers and middlemen are pitchers who aren't good enough to be in the rotation.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by TNCubsFan

Also to buck the thought trend here, the reason your closer is so good is because he is laying it all out for one inning. Extend him for six and you wont have the same pitcher. Remember Gagne was a failed starter before he moved to the pen and blossomed.

Exactly, and (if healthy) he could switch back to a starter tomorrow if the Dodgers thought that was best. It would take him some time to get the arm back to being able to throw 6 innings but probably not more than a month or two. Meanwhile his stuff isn't going to be as effective because he has to conserve his arm a bit. The pitcher model just isn't very realistic currently. Here is the short version of what I think needs changed.

- 95% of pitchers are created with an endurance rating that would allow them to throw enough pitches to start.
- Add an "arm fitness" rating which is dynamic. The rating determines what role their arm is currently conditioned for.
- Add a "training or betwen game workout" type option that could be adjusted for each pitcher. If a guy is in the rotation, this option would be "starter". If he is a middle reliever it would be "relief". Over time while training for a role, the pitchers' arm fitness would change towards that role. You could even add another rating that determines if and/or how long it takes each pitcher to adjust.
- The arm fitness & endurance rating (as well as how much they have been used recently) would combine to determine how long that guy could go if you put him in the game that day.
- The stuff rating & velocity of a pitcher should adjust along with his "arm fitness". If he is training to be a reliever, he should be able to throw a bit harder and with more movement because he doesn't have to pace himself, while if he is changing to become a starter his pitches are going to lose some effectivness in order to allow his arm to throw longer. Again, there could be another rating that controls just how much effectivness a pitcher loses/gains by switching roles.

[sporr]

Originally Posted by andymac

I think that endurance should be part of the equation, just not nearly as big a part of it as it is currently. Of course, I actually think that the pitching model needs to be re-done (or at least 95% of pitchers should have starter type endurance) but that is another issue .

I agree with all of this.

[fhomess]

Originally Posted by andymac

Here is the short version of what I think needs changed.
- 95% of pitchers are created with an endurance rating that would allow them to throw enough pitches to start.

Agree.

Originally Posted by andymac

- Add an "arm fitness" rating which is dynamic. The rating determines what role their arm is currently conditioned for.

Excellent idea.

Originally Posted by andymac

- Add a "training or betwen game workout" type option that could be adjusted for each pitcher. If a guy is in the rotation, this option would be "starter". If he is a middle reliever it would be "relief". Over time while training for a role, the pitchers' arm fitness would change towards that role. You could even add another rating that determines if and/or how long it takes each pitcher to adjust.

I actually don't think it takes nearly as long for a starter to adjust to the pen as it does for a reliever to adjust to the rotation. This should be reflected in the game if this is implemented.

The only major difference is how long it takes the pitcher to warm up before he's ready to pitch, and OOTP2006 doesn't have the warm up option anymore, right?

Originally Posted by andymac

- The arm fitness & endurance rating (as well as how much they have been used recently) would combine to determine how long that guy could go if you put him in the game that day.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by andymac

- The stuff rating & velocity of a pitcher should adjust along with his "arm fitness". If he is training to be a reliever, he should be able to throw a bit harder and with more movement because he doesn't have to pace himself, while if he is changing to become a starter his pitches are going to lose some effectivness in order to allow his arm to throw longer. Again, there could be another rating that controls just how much effectivness a pitcher loses/gains by switching roles.

I don't think an increase in movement necessarily comes with an increase in velocity. Movement is generated by the ability to put spin on the ball as well as the nature of that spin. Throwing harder doesn't necessarily accomplish this, although it can. I agree that the amount of change to all the pitchers ratings would have to be different depending on the pitcher. Also, it has to be consistent throughout his career.

If Markus is going to code all this, then it's probably best to assign every pitcher separate ratings for starting and relieving. As the pitcher transitions, the ratings would take an initial hit due to adjustment, then gradually move towards the ratings for the new role. The different ratings would be invisible to the end user (except in Edit mode).

[Goodsox]

Originally Posted by billethius

""



The pitcher's ability absolutely changes when moved from a starter to a reliever. Because they're only going 1-3 innings every few days, relievers will put more effort into each pitch. That's why you see pitchers gain several mph upon the move to the bullpen. So if the model is going to rate everyone the same, something should account for the performance bump upon entering a relief role.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound like it had absolutely no effect. However, I think OOTP gives way too much weight to endurance. I agree that a performance bump maybe should happen when moving to the bullpen or a slight decrease when becoming a starter. However, there should be exceptions (John Smoltz) that do not suffer any performance changes.

[1998 Yankees]

Given Andymac's suggestions for the future as valid, I voted to keep the current model as it is. If you are going to have an SP role, I want to know how that pitcher is going to do in that role and endurance is a big part of that. No sense having him rated as great as a starter based on stuff, movement, and control but unable to go more than 2 or 3 innings. I like the idea that a pitcher's ratings can jump if you discover that he is more suited for another role; i.e., the bullpen.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by fhomess

As the pitcher transitions, the ratings would take an initial hit due to adjustment, then gradually move towards the ratings for the new role. The different ratings would be invisible to the end user (except in Edit mode).

I don't know why the ratings would take an initial hit, I don't think the transition itself hurts the pitcher's ability. His stuff and length of effectiveness should simply adjust (over time) to his new roll.

*edit* - Although I could see the ratings hit happening occasionally to a pitcher if they just don't handle change very well but it shouldn't be something that happens often.

[Dark Horse]

i voted for the first option. Although, i agree in the current model Endurance plays too big a factor. Endurance only be a factor on an "all things being equal" basis.

If you have two pitchers in the 80/80/80 range and one has Endurance of 85 and the other 55, the one with the 85 should be considered better. But in a solo fictional league i have going i have a 19 year old that pitches like the 2006 version of Roger Clemens. He's rated 100/85/67 but because he has a 49 Endurance he has a 46 Overall Rating.

Meanwhile in the same league there is a pitcher rated 62/76/68. He has good but not great rating and he's nowhere near as good as the Rocket clone. But, because he has a 76, he has a 75 Overall rating.

Originally Posted by andymac

Exactly, and (if healthy) he could switch back to a starter tomorrow if the Dodgers thought that was best. It would take him some time to get the arm back to being able to throw 6 innings but probably not more than a month or two. Meanwhile his stuff isn't going to be as effective because he has to conserve his arm a bit.

i agree that pitchers (in most cases) should be able to switch back and forth between starting and relieving. And it should take to time to build, for lack of a better word "arm strength". But i wouldn't want change his stuff/movement/control ratings just because that "arm strength" hadn't built up yet. The only thing that should suffer is his endurance. If a pitcher starts before his arm is properly "stretched out" he loses effectiveness because he's tired.

Originally Posted by andymac

The pitcher model just isn't very realistic currently. Here is the short version of what I think needs changed.

- 95% of pitchers are created with an endurance rating that would allow them to throw enough pitches to start.

i agree. In addition each pitcher would have a Relief Pitcher rating which would either be Yes or No. All this says is whether the pitcher's arm can handle the day in day out workload that a reliever has. Most pitchers can handle the reliever role. But some can't. Their arms can't "bounce back".

Originally Posted by andymac

- Add a "training or betwen game workout" type option that could be adjusted for each pitcher. If a guy is in the rotation, this option would be "starter". If he is a middle reliever it would be "relief". Over time while training for a role, the pitchers' arm fitness would change towards that role. You could even add another rating that determines if and/or how long it takes each pitcher to adjust.

Went out of order. But instead having that option. Just give the pitcher the position you want him to have; either starter or reliever. Those are the only two positions their are. Pitchers that are starters will automatically workout as starter. And relievers the same. The difference between starter and reliever with respect to readiness to handle a particular role is how often he's pitched in the last five games.

Originally Posted by andymac

- Add an "arm fitness" rating which is dynamic. The rating determines what role their arm is currently conditioned for.

All this is the pitcher’s rest status on the current game. But, yes, if you change a pitcher to be a starter, but he threw 20 pitches two days ago and 30 pitches three days ago. This his arm fitness or rest status should be very low and he shouldn’t be starting any time soon. At the same time, if you change a pitcher to be a starter, but he threw 98 two days ago, then his rest status should be very low and he shouldn’t be able to pitch in relief any time soon.

Originally Posted by andymac

- The stuff rating & velocity of a pitcher should adjust along with his "arm fitness". If he is training to be a reliever, he should be able to throw a bit harder and with more movement because he doesn't have to pace himself, while if he is changing to become a starter his pitches are going to lose some effectivness in order to allow his arm to throw longer. Again, there could be another rating that controls just how much effectivness a pitcher loses/gains by switching roles.

i disagree with this completely. The pitcher’s ratings should not change because his role changes. And, really this is where fatigue should play a major factor. A starter after so many pitches should gradually fatigue and should rating points that way. A reliever will come in (in most cases) at full strength and never have to lose anything because of fatigue.

i know that pitchers will often times have better statistics, but its not because their stuff is SO much better. It’s the advantage of being in the role. For instance:

- Starters are expected to give teams, at least five innings. So if a starter doesn’t have his best stuff he may have to suffer through five or more innings to save his bullpen or because the bullpen is already tired. If a reliever (with the exception of closers) doesn’t have his best stuff, the manager is gonna’ come get him. A MR can come into a game and walk a batter then gives up a double. The manager can and will get him out and bring another reliever. If the next pitcher comes in and strands the runners, that pitcher’s ERA is 0.00. But a starter is not going to get that type of help until the middle innings.

- Starters have to pitch to everybody in the opposition’s lineup. And they have to do it at least twice. A manager can spot relievers to face only certain batters. A mediocre reliever isn’t gonna’ face Albert Pujols more than once. And, in that instance, he’s probably gonna’ be ordered to walk him, either intentionally or unintentionally. A mediocre reliever will often pitch more often with a platoon advantage. So if you have a mediocre LHP and he’s a starter facing the Cardinals he may have to pitch to Pujols and Rolens with a man on first and second with nobody out in the third inning. But if you take that same mediocre LHP and put him in the bullpen, he’s only gonna’ face LHBs and MAYBE some light hitting RHBs.

[battists]

Honestly, I think it's very unlikely that Markus would revamp the entire pitching model for this coming version, which is what would be involved in adding specific pitch ratings, or implementing many of the excellent suggestions in this thread. This is why, in my initial posts, I limited myself to the very basic notion of removing endurance from the overall rating calculation.

But, feel free to carry on. I'm not Markus. But, I also didn't want to give anyone the impression that Markus told me "Yeah, let's tear down the whole thing and start from scratch, just tell me what you want to do."

Steve

[RonCo]

A rewrite of the system to include individual pitches and dynamic stamna is the only option that makes functional sense. Anything else is just hiding the problem under a different rug.