Issue with bases taken by runners, and with OOTP modeling in general

[Markus Heinsohn]

In order to increase the size of the text, do this:
1) go to the folder where OOTP is installed
2) select the folder of your skin that you use, for example \ootp\data\brown green
3) Delete the file skin.bin
4) go to the folder \style_sets\game_screen inside of the skin folder
5) open the file pbp_text.ss with a text editor
6) Inside this file, edit the parameters of font_x_sz and font_y_sz to 16 each
7) Save the file and launch OOTP

The first time you load the game it will take longer, since the game is rebuilding the skin.

Adding printing is basically impossible, but you can open all reports in the external browser (button at the bottom) and print from there.

Hope that helps!

[Beach23BoyP]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

I guess it's a matter of taste (I really do prefer the OOTP screens compared to Puresim for example), but I'll take a look at it for OOTP 2007. By the way, what do you mean with "inability to see the entire PBP box" anyway? I see a whole box

Your "webcast" screen is fabulous! I absolutely love it myself. I much prefer it over anything from the past in any BB sim. I think it is a solo player's dream.

With regard to being able to see the entire pbp box, I think he's referring to the text being displayed on the far left in 6.5. If you remember I hated that and wanted the option of having it where it was in 5.0. You complied and allowed it to go back to the bottom center.

When the "complete pbp" is displayed the "font" becomes way too small IMO. I much prefer the largeer font and the "scrolling".

BTW, I'd like to see the "pitch locations" tightened up a bit in the webcast screen. And I'd like a bit more attention paid to the "results of the batted ball reflecting the pitch location" a bit more.

Finally, I did prefer the 6.5 broadcast screen over 2006's -- however, I never use it. And your 2006 interface is light-years ahead of PS. It's just too bad that some (no, a few) of these guys here just couldn't stick with it long enough to understand how simple it really is.

[RonCo]

I'm finding that when I have a runner on second base and there is an infielder's fielding error on the following play, the runner almost always takes two bases even when (from the batter's point of view) it is a one-base error. Thus, the batter ends up on first base and the runner scores.

I haven't started keeping detailed records yet on how often this happens, but I'm guessing upwards of 50% of the time at least. My problem with this narrow issue is this: I believe that with a runner on second and a grounder to the infield that results in an infield error, the runner takes one base probably about 80% of the time. The runner taking the extra base pretty much only happens in a few situations: a hit-and-run play, a slow grounder through the fielder's legs that dies in the shallow outfield, maybe with two outs and a very fast runner, etc. Also, if you really want to get precise about it (and I do), when there is a grounder to the third baseman or shortstop and the error is a flub where the fielder keeps the ball in front of him, the runner will usually advance zero bases - certainly not two (which I've seen).

You may be surprised, though.

I don't know the exact answer to how often a runner at second scores on an infield error, but I have seen data that says a runner on second scores on a single something above 60% of the time. I agree that an error that keeps a ball in front of the infielder would logically keep the runner from scoring a majority of the time. But looking at ll errors, I wouldn't be surprised to find that hard data would show a 40% scoring rate on infield errors in this situation. Data is stranger than opinon at times.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

That is exactly what I did! I spent weeks to analyze Retrosheet data and wrote tons of analyzing tools before even starting to code the new game engine (which is coded 100% from scratch). Maybe there are still a few small bugs left, but the overall system is as good as it gets.

Batters ARE reaching base on dropped pop fouls...

And pitchers ARE attempting to bunt for a base hit with a runner on third base only....

[Questdog]

I think part of the problem with these issues is that the PBP engine does not always do a good job of explaining what the Game Engine has done...

[Syd Thrift]

The biggest issue I have with the play by play is that a lot of the time the "great" plays it describes actually sound like bad fielding. The "he moves right, he moves left, he MAKES THE CATCH! UNBELIEVABLE!" thing... that's what a guy who isn't very good at judging a fly ball would do. A great fielder is going to take an obvious hit and turn it into an out. I think this is something we as a community could fix by changing the play by play, but still.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Maybe there are still a few small bugs left, but the overall system is as good as it gets.

Wow, that is an unbelievably brash statement. Granted, I'm pretty happy with most of OOTP, but you need to buy Diamond Mind and then spend a few dozen hours playing out games and studying game logs. Look at the strategic decisions made within that game engine, and compare those with your Retrosheet data. Then see what you can do to combine elements of that game engine with what you've already achieved with OOTP. Then you will probably have an overall system for simulating games that is as good as it gets.

I honestly believe that the only thing holding back OOTP from becoming the most dominant product on the market is that the development crew is not familiar enough with the hard-core baseball simulation engines that have preceded it. These other games have had decades of development to become incredibly realistic and accurate when it comes down to the results of every pitch. The focus isn't on totals and frequencies. It's on that plus getting it right in every conceivable game situation, based on the count, the number of outs, etc.

OOTP already has a huge advantage in many other areas, but the game engine itself is the last obstacle. If you guys would study games like Diamond Mind and Strat-O-Matic, or you at least brought someone on board who comes from that kind of background, then maybe you could combine the best of all worlds. You would take a ton of business away from these other games.

[kagnew35]

[quote=Markus Heinsohn]In order to increase the size of the text, do this:
1) go to the folder where OOTP is installed
2) select the folder of your skin that you use, for example \ootp\data\brown green
3) Delete the file skin.bin
4) go to the folder \style_sets\game_screen inside of the skin folder
5) open the file pbp_text.ss with a text editor
6) Inside this file, edit the parameters of font_x_sz and font_y_sz to 16 each
7) Save the file and launch OOTP

The first time you load the game it will take longer, since the game is rebuilding the skin.

Adding printing is basically impossible, but you can open all reports in the external browser (button at the bottom) and print from there.

Hope that helps![/quote


I feel like Jimmy Cagney as George M Cohan in Yankee, Doodle Dandy, where else can you go in and talk the the head guy and get results.

Markus many thanks for taking tthe time for my personal problem and solving it.

Drop in to Duffys Tavern sometime when u need a break and I'll buy you a few.

[Eugene Church]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

The biggest issue I have with the play by play is that a lot of the time the "great" plays it describes actually sound like bad fielding. The "he moves right, he moves left, he MAKES THE CATCH! UNBELIEVABLE!" thing... that's what a guy who isn't very good at judging a fly ball would do. A great fielder is going to take an obvious hit and turn it into an out. I think this is something we as a community could fix by changing the play by play, but still.

The Text Team does not have access to "great plays". They apparently are hard coded in the game by Marcus.

Markus has stated in this thread, that play frequency has been addressed in V2006. It could be I am mistaken about how often an exceptional play is made in a game.

In my experience of keeping score, I have found only 1-3 "very good" plays in a game. I mark an asterisk by the play entry, when a tough out is made. It seems that OOTPB has at least 5 in a game.

Markus is the one who has done the research and I yield to his knowledge.

If there are more double plays...1-2-3...Pitcher to Catcher to First Base...in V2006, then that will be a good indication that the play frequencies are more accurate. As an old pitcher, this is an easy double play...almost automatic on a fairly hard hit ball back to the mound...also 5-2-3, 6-2-3, 4-2-3 and 3-2-3 double plays are easy when the infield is in and the ball is hit right to them. Hope to see more of them completed in V2006. They rarely happened in previous versions.

[Syd Thrift]

It's not so much the frequency of the plays but how they're announced. Running back and forth because you misjudged a fly ball isn't a "great play" - it might be a great save of what was about to be a horrible play, but it certainly isn't great. Climbing the ladder to catch a scorcher into left-center, though, is a great play that I pretty much never see. Or picking up a Baltimore chop barehanded and rifling it to first just ahead of a runner. Or timing your leap against the wall to rob someone of a homerun. Or (and now HERE is a play I haven't seen yet) charging in to take a grounder with eyes as a right fielder and throwing out the (slow) batter at first base.

FWIW, I see quite a few bases-loaded double plays, particularly on ground balls back to the pitcher. I haven't done a study, mind you...

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I honestly believe that the only thing holding back OOTP from becoming the most dominant product on the market is that the development crew is not familiar enough with the hard-core baseball simulation engines that have preceded it. These other games have had decades of development to become incredibly realistic and accurate when it comes down to the results of every pitch. The focus isn't on totals and frequencies. It's on that plus getting it right in every conceivable game situation, based on the count, the number of outs, etc.

OOTP already has a huge advantage in many other areas, but the game engine itself is the last obstacle. If you guys would study games like Diamond Mind and Strat-O-Matic, or you at least brought someone on board who comes from that kind of background, then maybe you could combine the best of all worlds. You would take a ton of business away from these other games.

Agreed. DMB, IMHO, sets the standard for PBP (on a pitch by pitch basis). OOTP tries hard, but the PBP feels so "raw" compared to DMB's smoothness. That said, I think Markus wants to get it right. I'd be surprised if the next version is not vastly improved.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

It's not so much the frequency of the plays but how they're announced. Running back and forth because you misjudged a fly ball isn't a "great play" - it might be a great save of what was about to be a horrible play, but it certainly isn't great. Climbing the ladder to catch a scorcher into left-center, though, is a great play that I pretty much never see. Or picking up a Baltimore chop barehanded and rifling it to first just ahead of a runner. Or timing your leap against the wall to rob someone of a homerun. Or (and now HERE is a play I haven't seen yet) charging in to take a grounder with eyes as a right fielder and throwing out the (slow) batter at first base.

FWIW, I see quite a few bases-loaded double plays, particularly on ground balls back to the pitcher. I haven't done a study, mind you...

Here's a play that you may not have seen yet, Syd, but it's in there, and I could not believe it when I saw it: Jose Canseco's "that's using his head" home run assist play. To refresh memory, I went to Wikipedia:

"During the 1993 campaign, Canseco received unwanted attention for two on-field debacles that occurred within days of each other. On May 26, during a game against the Cleveland Indians, Carlos Martínez hit a fly ball that Canseco lost in the lights as he was crossing the warning track. The ball hit him in the head and bounced over the wall for a home run. After the incident, the Harrisburg Heat offered him a soccer contract." [The other debacle was asking his manager, Kevin Kennedy, to let him pitch the eighth inning of a runaway loss to the Boston Red Sox; he injured his arm, underwent Tommy John surgery, and was lost for the remainder of the season.]

Your post reminded me of seeing that play in OOTP 2006; I just went searching for it in the XML file and found it:

<TEXT_OBJECT id="5726" text="he is after it...(nl)at the track...(nl)AND THE BALL HITS HIS HEAD...(nl)AND OVER THE WALL! HOME RUN!(nl)Wow, unbelievable!" />

Whatever else is said in this thread, you can't fault OOTP for not trying to come up with some interesting PbP! Now that I have seen it once, however, I hope not see it again for quite a few seasons.

[Eugene Church]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

FWIW, I see quite a few bases-loaded double plays, particularly on ground balls back to the pitcher. I haven't done a study, mind you...

Great news. Glad to hear that Markus has fixed this area of the game.

I am waiting for the final patch and then I will jump in with both feet in V2006 and really learn the game.

Haven't played it much since the first day of release.

Looks like most of the major flaws have been fixed now.

[Eugene Church]

Markus, thanks for taking the time to respond here the forum.

And thanks for the third patch, too.