'Allow Starts in Relief' default setting

[thehef]

Perhaps this has been addressed & discussed elsewhere. I dunno...

At any rate, I was noticing that in OOTP for 1959 and 1960 seasons, as examples, the default settings for "Allow Starters in Relief" is No. However, in looking at actual stats, this was clearly not the case, as in real life nearly all of the top starters on each team made relief appearances. In fact, if you look at the top performers as listed on retrosheet, you'd be hard-pressed to find a starter that did not appear in relief at least 4 or 5 times...

It looks to be '61-'62 where the transition occurred, as shown by these numbers of the average number of relief appearances made by the top 20 starters (as per retrosheet):

1925, 7.3
1935, 6.9
1945, 6.2

1955, 4.3
1956, 4.1
1957, 4.9
1958, 4.2
1959, 5.1
1960, 4.5
1961, 2.4
1962, 1.8
1963, 1.6
1964, 2.0
1965, 2.5
1966, 1.4

1975, 0.9
1985, 0.2

So maybe this needs to be looked at... Perhaps - in order to differentiate between usage in eras - instead of a simple Yes/No option, the choices should be something like Frequently, Sometimes, Rarely, Very Rarely... Thoughts?

[Spritze]

The default of Yes used to last until 1960. It was removed due to gamer complaints. I argued against its removal but others (idjits all) carried the day.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Spritze

The default of Yes used to last until 1960. That would seem to make sense... It was removed due to gamer complaints. That would seem to not... I argued against its removal but others (idjits all) carried the day. Well, at least we have the ability to override a questionable decision by manually changing it... but it sure seems that the complaining gamers should be the ones manually changing reasonably accurate historical default settings, not the historical gamers who are looking for approximate historical accuracy...

At any rate, thanks for the background.

[mitchkenn]

Originally Posted by Spritze

The default of Yes used to last until 1960. It was removed due to gamer complaints. I argued against its removal but others (idjits all) carried the day.

well, they wrong.
Should go along the lines TheHef listed if you're doing historicals.
If not, this easy enough to change.
i say, go back to the way it was ... (and the choir sings ... .)

[Spritze]

The gamers could not abide starters pitching in relief as the history they lived through only went back to 2012 or so. They never heard of such a thing.

[thehef]

Take the 1959 Dodgers as an example: All 8 of Drysdale's relief appearances could be said to be in-between starts while part of the rotation. Same with all five of Podres' relief apps, 6 of Koufax' 12, 5 of Craig's 12, 5 of McDevitt's 17, 1 of Stan Williams' 20 (and none of Larry Sherry's 14). That's a total of 30 relief appearances by Dodger pitchers who were part of the rotation at the time, which is roughly equivalent to the number of appearances of one back-end reliever.

So, by OOTP defaulting these years to Allow Starts in Relief = No, it's like taking away a member of the pitching staff.

[Orcin]

Unfortunately, the OOTP AI does not make the same logical intelligent choices that Walter Alston would make. Instead, it will burn its starters in relief during blowout games and then start Larry Sherry in an important game because no one else is available.

To be fair, we need an AI that can manage its pitching staff intelligently if you want to replicate history. Otherwise, you just make it even easier to beat.

[Spritze]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Unfortunately, the OOTP AI does not make the same logical intelligent choices that Walter Alston would make. Instead, it will burn its starters in relief during blowout games and then start Larry Sherry in an important game because no one else is available. I ain't never seen this occur and I use starters as relievers every year I play.

To be fair, we need an AI that can manage its pitching staff intelligently if you want to replicate history. Otherwise, you just make it even easier to beat.

I find that the AI = Walter Alston 93.7% of the time. Give or take.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Spritze

I ain't never seen this occur and I use starters as relievers every year I play... I find that the AI = Walter Alston 93.7% of the time. Give or take.

Small sample size - just replayed the 1960 season with Allow Starters in Relief set to Y - and I'm finding that the stats of starting pitchers look a lot like they did in real life, in that most SP's appeared in anywhere from a few to several games in relief, and also accumulated what look like normal numbers of starts. In addition, it just so happens that in my 1960 test league, four NL teams went down to the last day of the season, and then a best-of-3 playoff (scheduled edited by me for that) was required. Going into that last day of the season, and then - for the two teams that played in the best-of-3 playoffs - there was more pitcher fatigue that you'd expect at any random point earlier in the regular season, but pretty much what you'd expect in a down-to-the-wire pennant race of that era.

In other words, I found that AI - of which I have often been critical - pretty matched Walt Alston, Al Dark, Danny Murtaugh, Chuck Dressen at least 93.7% of the time.

So, I'm guessing that the issue - AI managing its pitching staff so unintelligently as to make the Allow SP in Relief option to be unusable - must have been addressed, either directly or inadvertently (perhaps over numerous instances of "improved AI"), at some point...

[Spritze]

Hopefully it was advertently addressed, otherwise it could return.

[DB930]

Is there a file I can edit to change the default, so that I don't have to keep remembering to change it manually in every league (and minor-league) in every game I ever create?

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Unfortunately, the OOTP AI does not make the same logical intelligent choices that Walter Alston would make....

To be fair, we need an AI that can manage its pitching staff intelligently if you want to replicate history. Otherwise, you just make it even easier to beat.

I just found a HIGHLY questionable use of a starter in relief. Here's the scenario:

- Dodgers vs Yankees, 1963 World Series
- Al Downing is NY's clear #1 starter, 25-9, 2.04, and on a hot streak of 40+ shutout innings.
- Whitey Ford is NY's clear #2, 20-10, 3.32, on neither a hot nor cold streak

In game one, NY leads 3-0 when Downing's scoreless streak is snapped on John Roseboro's 2-out RBI single in the top of 7th. Downing is then lifted (a questionable decision in and of itself given that Downing has given up just two hits and has a pitch count under 90) for Ford, who is scheduled to start game 2. This, despite the Yanks' bullpen being fully-rested and consisting of three relievers with an ERA under 2.00, 1 reliever under 3.00, the fifth-starter also under 3.00, and the last guy in the pen at a respectable 3.86. IOW, NY has a ready-to-rock bullpen. So bringing in Ford makes no sense.

I'll note that the Yankees' rotation as described above was the result of slight alterations by me, in that I put Downing in the #1 spot, and Ford in the #2 spot. The AI puts Downing in the #2 slot and Ford #1, but still lines them up to where Downing starts game 1 and Ford starts game 2 (which is logic that I don't understand because it's essentially the same thing: If your #'s 1 and 2 starters are both rested and you choose to start your #2 starter first, aren't you really saying that he is your #1 starter?) At any rate, I don't see how my minor tweaking would've caused this brain-dead decision. With a 3-1 lead in the 7th inning of game one, another ace scheduled to start game two, and a seriously stocked & rested bullpen, you go to the pen and save your ace for game two.

So this looks like an area where AI needs tweaking.

[Spritze]

Slight by hand alterations in AI rotations can have massive unintended consequences.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Spritze

Slight by hand alterations in AI rotations can have massive unintended consequences.

Not surprising. But, generally, they shouldn't.

On one hand, the only way to override (for example) questionable or undesirable AI postseason roster/rotation/batting order decisions is to make slight-by-hand alterations. OTOH, massive unintended consequences may result. So that should be fixed.

That said, I think my workaround for the time being is to disable Allow Starters in Relief during the postseason, and become more diligent in manually making pitching changes.

[Spritze]

Originally Posted by thehef

questionable .......decisions.

One mans questionable decision is another mans ex-wife.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Spritze

One mans questionable decision is another mans ex-wife.

No truer words ^^

Originally Posted by thehef

I just found a HIGHLY questionable use of a starter in relief. Here's the scenario:

- Dodgers vs Yankees, 1963 World Series
- Al Downing is NY's clear #1 starter, 25-9, 2.04, and on a hot streak of 40+ shutout innings.
- Whitey Ford is NY's clear #2, 20-10, 3.32, on neither a hot nor cold streak

In game one, NY leads 3-0 when Downing's scoreless streak is snapped on John Roseboro's 2-out RBI single in the top of 7th. Downing is then lifted (a questionable decision in and of itself given that Downing has given up just two hits and has a pitch count under 90) for Ford, who is scheduled to start game 2. This, despite the Yanks' bullpen being fully-rested and consisting of three relievers with an ERA under 2.00, 1 reliever under 3.00, the fifth-starter also under 3.00, and the last guy in the pen at a respectable 3.86. IOW, NY has a ready-to-rock bullpen. So bringing in Ford makes no sense.

I'll note that the Yankees' rotation as described above was the result of slight alterations by me, in that I put Downing in the #1 spot, and Ford in the #2 spot. The AI puts Downing in the #2 slot and Ford #1, but still lines them up to where Downing starts game 1 and Ford starts game 2 (which is logic that I don't understand because it's essentially the same thing: If your #'s 1 and 2 starters are both rested and you choose to start your #2 starter first, aren't you really saying that he is your #1 starter?) At any rate, I don't see how my minor tweaking would've caused this brain-dead decision. With a 3-1 lead in the 7th inning of game one, another ace scheduled to start game two, and a seriously stocked & rested bullpen, you go to the pen and save your ace for game two.

I didn't like it when OOTP did this, so I CTR-ALT-DEL'd the game. Then, just for kicks, I let AI set NY's pitching rotation, which - as I noted above - was Ford as #1, Downing as #2, but with Downing slated to start game 1 and Ford slated to start game 2. And it just so happened that my game 1 redo played out very similarly to the original try: This time the Yankees led 2-1 in the top of 7th, with Downing nearing the 90 pitch mark. He got an out and then allowed a hit, and - sure enough - OOTP pulled him in favor of Ford. So, from this I can conclude that not only is it still a very questionable decision, but it also had nothing to do with me monkeying around with the Yankees' pitching rotation. And it is an AI area that definitely needs tweaking.

Also, what's up with AI ordering the rotation one way but determining starting pitchers for games in an order that does not jibe with the rotation order (as in the example above of the order being Ford #1 and Downing #2, but the pitchers slated to start in reverse order)? It's like there's complete disconnect between AI code that determines a) the rotation order, and b) who the next pitcher is. It makes no sense and it, too, should be fixed.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by thehef

Also, what's up with AI ordering the rotation one way but determining starting pitchers for games in an order that does not jibe with the rotation order (as in the example above of the order being Ford #1 and Downing #2, but the pitchers slated to start in reverse order)? It's like there's complete disconnect between AI code that determines a) the rotation order, and b) who the next pitcher is. It makes no sense and it, too, should be fixed.

I see this a lot when I have the setting at "start highest rested". It doesn't make sense.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I see this a lot when I have the setting at "start highest rested".

And in this case, while both pitchers were fully rested, Ford was actually the slightly more-rested pitcher (Downing had thrown 40 pitches 5 days ago, while Ford had thrown 85 pitches 6 days prior). So therefore, yes...

Originally Posted by Orcin

It doesn't make sense.

[bwburke94]

Originally Posted by thehef

And in this case, while both pitchers were fully rested, Ford was actually the slightly more-rested pitcher (Downing had thrown 40 pitches 5 days ago, while Ford had thrown 85 pitches 6 days prior). So therefore, yes...

Ford was clearly more rested by days, but was he more rested by percentage?

[NoOne]

i didn't necro it, but adding something:

"start highest rested" -- it really does adhere to specific and repeatable behaviours, if you take note of all the factors that matter.

it doesn't care about order *much*... it also considers rating of the player in addition to sport in the order.

e.g. if a better rated pitcher is 3rd, he may push #1 or #2 back a day if he and one of those 2 are both ~rested. it will go out of order for this reason when both pitchers are ~rested that particular day.

basically oddities will only occur if your stamina setting allows for high stamina guys to need 1 less day of recovery OR there was an off day for the entire team in the last 5 days. every day off allows the next 4 pitchers to pitch a game early, if you want. (one guy doesn't get the benefit - the one who is freshly recovered on the day off. occurs 5 times in a season for 1 pitcher and they get an entire extra start compared to the rest of the team. this is how you get 34-35-36 starts etc.

#5 won't usurp #1 in order even if slightly higher rated **double check that behaviour. i think they have to be within a couple spots in order for this behaviour to occur. 1 and 5 is too far apart, maybe?

being a bit more tired can cause a 'better' (not reference to spot in order) player to be passed over, too. i thnk around 94-95% and lower it will go with the "100%" guy even if not as highly rated. it may be relative to the gap in quality of the two players, too... i have not looked into this deeply.

it does work on cause and effect though. feedback from game will tell you exactly what it will choose to do.

i think 6days is 100% on any stamina setting, could be wrong. overworked after ~normal days doesn't go lower than ~88% ish or so? even if it dips to 82-84, 1 more day gets that to 100%. (i guess a shorter rotation may have some slightly different mechanics involved? that info is based on 5-man rotation settings)