Why should you ever pull a starter before he's tired?

[Amazin' Blue]

I've searched around for this but can't figure out the right way to phrase it. Or else nobody has asked before, though that seems hard to believe.

I've wondered about this for a while.

If I have a good pitcher who gets shelled in the first couple innings, is there anything in the game that impacts his confidence (or his ratings) for just the rest of that game? I usually pull these guys just to keep it realistic, but I've always wondered if it wouldn't be smarter to just leave them in assuming that fatigue is the only modifier on a pitcher's ability within one start.

Is that correct?

In real life, you can have a guy who just doesn't "have it" that day. Can't get the grip on the ball, hungover, whatever. Or you have a guy who gets lit up early and his confidence is shot so he just starts walking everybody or whatever.

But is this reflected in the game?

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Amazin' Blue

I've searched around for this but can't figure out the right way to phrase it. Or else nobody as asked before, though that seems hard to believe.

I've wondered about this for a while.

If I have a good pitcher who gets shelled in the first couple innings, is there anything in the game that impacts his confidence (or his ratings) for just their rest of that game? I usually pull these guys just to keep it realistic, but I've always wondered if it wouldn't be smarter to just leave them in assuming that fatigue is the only modifier on a pitcher's ability within on start.

Is that correct?

In real life, you can have a guy who just doesn't "have it" that day. Can't get the grip on the ball, hungover, whatever. Or you have a guy who gets lit up early and his confidence is shot so he just starts walking everybody or whatever.

But is this reflected in the game?

There is some sort of confidence mechanic in the game. This is actually what mound visits are supposed to help with. More times than not, if a pitcher is getting shelled, he isn't going to recover and should be removed

[Pelican]

Anecdotal, but that has been my experience. When I ask a starter who has been shelled to stay in there and take one for the team, sparing the bullpen, he almost always continues to suck. What I truly wonder is whether staying in after getting hit hard destroys his confidence going forward. Or maybe he just shakes it off?

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Anecdotal, but that has been my experience. When I ask a starter who has been shelled to stay in there and take one for the team, sparing the bullpen, he almost always continues to suck. What I truly wonder is whether staying in after getting hit hard destroys his confidence going forward. Or maybe he just shakes it off?

Easy way to find out - look at his next couple of starts - is he still getting shelled? or is he back to his usual self?

Of course then you'd have to consider other things too - maybe it's just a slump, maybe his talent is declining, maybe his mood is bad.....

[Brad K]

OOTP pulls struggling pitchers because that's what would happen real life. If it didn't happen people would complain OOTP wasn't realistic. Concerning whether there's a mechanism in the game that makes this a good move I don't know.

However if there is a "have a bad outing" mechanism then this is contrary to OOTP's devotion to randomness. So if they're really doing the "have a bad outing" routine then randomness is an exception not a principle. And there's no defense against not having caps and floors on player's annual performance so we don't have a guy hitting .320 one year and .179 the next.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

However if there is a "have a bad outing" mechanism then this is contrary to OOTP's devotion to randomness.

But it wouldn't be contrary to their devotion to modeling actual effects.

Pitchers do have bad outings where they don't have their "stuff". And sometimes they have good outings where they have great "stuff".

These variations in stuff are not the effects of RNG. I have simmed many leagues and have never seen a pitcher throw four no-hitters like Sandy Koufax, much less 7 like Ryan. For them, those no-hitters weren't just good RNG for 27 batters. Pitchers have some sort of unpredictable game-to-game variation in their stuff. When they are on, they are on for the whole game.

I have no idea how OOTP would model that, but it's also seems to be related to high-K games which is why I think, in OOTP terms, its some sort of game-by-game fluctuation in Stuff.

[Curve Ball Dave]

In real life a starter can begin the game being terrible and getting outs more from luck than skill. He gives up some runs and looks to be on the ropes to be pulled. Then he finally makes a good pitch and gets a big out. Suddenly his confidence is back, he feels invincible, and is lights out the rest of the game. I've seen it happen (and had it happen personally) many times.

The opposite can also be true and I've seen that many times as well. The pitcher is cruising right along, sometimes even has a no hitter going. Then he makes one bad pitch, maybe taken out of the park, and he falls to pieces. He gives up a bunch of runs so fast a reliever couldn't get warmed up fast enough.

OOTP models this pretty realistically. I see box scores and the starter gives up four runs in the first and then nothing the rest of the way. I've seen box scores where the starter was rolling right along until suddenly he's throwing batting practice.

I can't say OOTP is "unrealistic" because what is reality? In one week of real MLB baseball we see things that make us want to say, "this game is so unrealistic."

[Amazin' Blue]

Originally Posted by Brad K

OOTP pulls struggling pitchers because that's what would happen real life. If it didn't happen people would complain OOTP wasn't realistic. Concerning whether there's a mechanism in the game that makes this a good move I don't know.

However if there is a "have a bad outing" mechanism then this is contrary to OOTP's devotion to randomness. So if they're really doing the "have a bad outing" routine then randomness is an exception not a principle. And there's no defense against not having caps and floors on player's annual performance so we don't have a guy hitting .320 one year and .179 the next.

Just to be clear I'm a "sim every at bat" type. So I'm talking about making the managerial decision to pull my starter.

It kind of takes some of the fun out of it thinking (as I always have) "meh, it's just an algorithm, just cuz he's given up 5 runs in the first inning doesn't change the likelihood that he'll be great for the next 4 innings."

And, that's really not how baseball works. Yes, sometimes guys recover... but more often than not they don't (at least to the naked eye). Think of all time times a starter is left in when he's getting shelled so they can rest the bullpen, it usually doesn't go well!

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

But it wouldn't be contrary to their devotion to modeling actual effects.

When have they done this?

Besides, if they did then they have to walk back the statement that each at bat is a stand alone event based purely on RNG interacting with ratings.

[thehef]

IRL - the modern game - one of the main reasons starters get pulled before they are tired is because of the "3rd time through the order" thing. As for relievers, it just seems to be pretty standard for them to not often pitch more than an inning.

Two reasons I do historical OOTP replays of bygone eras

[Pelican]

In some of my historical season replays from the Thirties, I have actually tried to change pitching staff use, by dialing back on pitcher stamina a bit, allowing use of closers. I use four SP and six RP on a typical 25-man roster. But the SP still “want” to compete games, and there are not many natural closers (meaning that most of the RP are simply failed SP, with mediocre ratings). Maybe over several seasons with these modified settings closers would evolve, and SP would be happy to go seven innings? Because (I think) of the way Negro League pitchers were used (typically a few innings nearly every day), integrating the game in the 1930’s does provide a group of guys who can effectively go three or four solid innings - middle relievers, today. But the teams using this new approach don’t seem to enjoy any advantage over teams taking the traditional route.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

When have they done this?

Besides, if they did then they have to walk back the statement that each at bat is a stand alone event based purely on RNG interacting with ratings.

Well, they just recently (in OOTP) fixed it so that a pitcher can be treated as a starter even if he has only one pitch... if that pitch is a knuckleball.

Anyway, if you had game-to-game stuff fluctuations such that a pitcher is just as likely to be "on" as "off", it could arguably be neutral with regards to the overall ratings based on the season.

Pitchers literally have a "stuff" rating. There's nothing sacrosant that prevents a pitchers stuff from unpredictably being up or down 5% (or whatever) for any given game and that, the longer he pitches, the more evident it could become (via text pbp or something like that).

He's getting shelled in the 4th, you make a mound visit and the pitcher says, "I just don't have it today" and then you know.

[Brad K]

I don't see that allowing a one pitch SP is contrary to randomness.

I agree that the good day and bad day SP situation could be made neutral concerning overall performance.

If they would continue the idea randomness sometimes doesn't produce plausible outcomes then they could have floors and caps on annual performance. Their argument against that is that we could know when a player is going to be better or worse. Yet that's exactly the effect of the good day and bad day situation with SPs.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Their argument against that is that we could know when a player is going to be better or worse. Yet that's exactly the effect of the good day and bad day situation with SPs.

True, but you wouldn't know it before he started the game. You'd find out as he's getting shelled and you would realize "oh, this isn't just an unlucky streak... he's off today" so you might pull him a little earlier than normal.

It's literally how it is in the real world. Pitchers aren't robots. Like everyone else, they have good days and bad days.

[Amazin' Blue]

Originally Posted by uruguru

True, but you wouldn't know it before he started the game. You'd find out as he's getting shelled and you would realize "oh, this isn't just an unlucky streak... he's off today" so you might pull him a little earlier than normal.

It's literally how it is in the real world. Pitchers aren't robots. Like everyone else, they have good days and bad days.

This is what I'm driving at. This would really be a whole lot more fun and a lot more realistic.

Because as it stands (I assume), I could have Verlander give up 3 HR's in the first two innings (sadly not unrealistic!) but there would be no reason to pull him in OOTP if he's only thrown like 45 pitches. Because the odds are he's going to be better than any of my relievers over the next several innings.

But no manager on earth would actually leave even an ace in if he's given up like 8 ER's in the first two or three innings. They just figure it's not his day and get him out of there before he turns into the next Rick Ankiel, a permanent head case bound for the MLB Pitching equivalent of the looney bin!

[md40022]

Speaking as someone who manages out every game and have done it that way since forever, it does SEEM like there is something written into the game where a SP is just "off" on a given day. At the time guys seem to be "on" at times too.

I base this just off the feel I've gathered on this. There will occasionally be times where a SP who rates out as a good player just can't get anyone out and the walks and hard hit balls just seem to be one after another. To the OP's point, if every at-bat is a new set of randomness, leaving that SP in the game since he's normally good would seem to make sense........ but there just seems to be times that that SP can't get anyone out and yes I do pull him when that becomes evident.

Could there be some sort of hidden "confidence meter" rating for each player? Could there be some sort of hidden "consistency" rating for each player and depending on what that rating is would dictate how far his ratings could deviate from one start to the next? The developers have said in the past hot / cold streaks DO provide slight upticks or downticks to ratings. Could there be some type of hidden confidence or consistency rating that could do the same?

I don't know the answer to that, but I do know there are times here and there where a SP gets shelled to the point that it seems to be going beyond just randomness. And I'm not at all mad at that, I actually like it because it does resemble IRL. It's an interesting question being asked.

[yclept]

Originally Posted by Amazin' Blue

I've searched around for this but can't figure out the right way to phrase it. Or else nobody has asked before, though that seems hard to believe.

I've wondered about this for a while.

If I have a good pitcher who gets shelled in the first couple innings, is there anything in the game that impacts his confidence (or his ratings) for just the rest of that game? I usually pull these guys just to keep it realistic, but I've always wondered if it wouldn't be smarter to just leave them in assuming that fatigue is the only modifier on a pitcher's ability within one start.

Is that correct?

In real life, you can have a guy who just doesn't "have it" that day. Can't get the grip on the ball, hungover, whatever. Or you have a guy who gets lit up early and his confidence is shot so he just starts walking everybody or whatever.

But is this reflected in the game?

It is almost impossible to know but I think this part of the game is pretty realistic. The "randomness" that is probably baked into the programming is what makes it realistic.

In my own experience, I have seen ace pitchers who have "nothing" who still throw five scoreless innings because they keep wiggling in and out of trouble. On another night, that same pitcher might give up 4-5 runs. We have all had those games with pitchers that have "meh" stuff ratings who strike out 9 in 6 innings, right? We see the same randomness in MLB - a pitcher who can't get anyone out has an "unrealistic" strong start.

I think pulling an ace who has nothing early has some other benefits - namely, protecting them from the annoying random injury that could come up. But do I think an ace who has given up four runs in the first can bounce back to give you five innings? Yes. Do I think that same ace might give up three more runs in the second inning? Yes. That's the randomness of baseball and OOTP.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Well, they just recently (in OOTP) fixed it so that a pitcher can be treated as a starter even if he has only one pitch... if that pitch is a knuckleball.

.

This is NOT true. Nothing recent at all. It has been this way for many versions, likely 10+ years, at least.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

This is NOT true. Nothing recent at all. It has been this way for many versions, likely 10+ years, at least.

Ummm, no? I mean I literally posted screenshots in here of two identical pitchers with one pitch, a knuckleball. In OOTP 23 he was classified as "Bullpen Only" and in OOTP 24 he was classified as "Starter"

edit: here is the post I made some time ago on this: https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=347496

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Ummm, no? I mean I literally posted screenshots in here of two identical pitchers with one pitch, a knuckleball. In OOTP 23 he was classified as "Bullpen Only" and in OOTP 24 he was classified as "Starter"

edit: here is the post I made some time ago on this: https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=347496

A) You have been a member of this board for barely one year, so I do not value your opinions about the past.

B) Suggested Roles are merely that. I have had solid success ignoring that for many versions.

C) It is a poor assumption that anyone on this board reads you posts, let alone making demands that they do so.

All told, I find your arrogant ignorance to be appalling.