New Pitch Ratings Request

[Bazzer19]

While many of the changes suggested sound interesting, it seems to me this latest version of OOTP will continue to ignore the one true problem area with OOTP - pitching ratings. I think most users of this series continue to find the enigmatic 'stuff, movement, and control' ratings very dissatisfying, and the importance (or lack thereof) of velocity and pitch selection downright absurd. Don't get me wrong, the game engine currently spits out very realistic results, but I would like to see such results pumped out by a more realistic (and intelligible) framework.

In reality each pitch (fastball, curve, change, etc) has its own effectiveness, and could thus have a corresponding rating. The cumulative effectiveness of each pitch should define a pitcher's success. In real life most starters need 2 good pitches, and most great ones have 3 or more. Every pitcher has more and less effective pitches they throw, with according success. Not all pitches are born equal.

Therefore, I propose the current set of 'pitches thrown' be expanded to include a rating for each pitch. This rating could be based on an intelligent combination of the other current ratings (fastball = stuff + velocity, with movement and control factoring in for a small part too, curveball = movement + control, with a very little influence from stuff, etc.). Additionally, the effectiveness of each pitch should combine, such that a pitcher with effective pitch combinations can handle facing batters multiple times (as a starter should), whereas a pitcher with only one pitch may be relegated to bullpen work.

In real life there are any number of successful combinations (fastball/change, fastball/splitter, change/curve, and you name it), and the point is not that any particular combination need be more effective than another, just that the combination itself Is what makes the pitcher effective.

I recognize that deriving such ratings from currently available stats is next to impossible, but deriving them from currently available OOTP ratings is not nearly so elusive. As stated above, each type of pitch bears obvious relation to certain current ratings, and I am sure intelligent formulae can be invented to recreate this.

If such a change were implemented, I would also like to see each pitch develop independently with a current and talent ratings model. Pitchers should be able to learn new pitches, and develop the ones they have. Controls should be in place to encourage the use of certain pitches to improve the chances of development, especially in the minors. Pitching coaches could even be better at teaching certain pitches. Catchers could even be better or worse at calling games. All of these things would better mimic real baseball.

I recognize that individual pitch effectiveness is currently meaningless on the AB-by-AB game engine, but if OOTP truly transforms to a pitch-by-pitch engine, it should be feasible and important. I hope the complexity of such a change is not so overwhelming that the benefits of realism are outweighed. Thanks for your attention,

-Ben

eMLB Baltimore Orioles
2009 eMLB World Champions

[attackemu]

I think this is an outstanding idea, and would also lend a lot more utility to the pitching coach.

[SDtwin]

Sounds great. I would love to see a pitcher's pitches correlate to his ratings. Individual pitch effectiveness is crucial to any pitcher IRL

[sfgiants88]

I will play the spoiler and will respectfully disagree with you on this one.

You make some fantastic points. However, I feel the sheer complexity of such a system will overwhelm many casual gamers. Even as a fairly advanced gamer, I certainly would not want to micromanage the individual pitches for every single hurler in my entire organization. Scouting players would become very labor intensive; almost a chore.

[Bazzer19]

I wouldn't at all mind if this was an optional game engine 'upgrade', such as moving to DIPS was in OOTP 6...so we're agreed it would be better included right?

[kq76]

I'd like pitch arsenals to mean more too. I'm not sure I really care how, but it would be nice to read that player X has a good fastball, an okay changeup, a lousy curveball, while his slider is his "out pitch", and that the development of his pitches effects his overall ability. The more I learn about the differences in pitches the more I'm fascinated by them. It would be really nice to focus on them a bit more. For the longest time Ks meant nothing in OOTP, but now they do. Hopefully we'll see the same with pitch arsenals.

BTW, that was a great post, Bazzer19. You should post more often.

[DougWyatt]

Great post & concept. But I wouldn't encourage this (YET). I assume your talking about putting them into the engine, otherwise the ratings would just be eyecandy. So ....

My concerns

1. The engine currently takes into account the pitchers command of his pitches. But it sees them as a group, not individual pitches.

2. The engine has reached a state of impressive realism, and this could compromised with a change of engine direction like this.

3. As posted earlier, the micro-managing would be ridiculous. Especially for the casual gamer. IE :
3a. Teaching new pitches
3b. Eventually sliders would be demanded for how often a pitcher uses each pitch.
3c. Scouting would become more tedious.

4. You may have to include ALL players. As I would assume the engine would need the batter to have a rating to reach the end result.
4a. This would mean batters would need ratings against EACH pitch. (More micro-managing & tedious scouting).
*** I'm not sure this is a must - but it wouldn't be long until gamers would be begging for it. Who wouldn't want to be able to bring Pedro Cerano as a pinch hitter against the other teams fireballing closer !

5. Yet another noisemaker for the fans to beg for : Catchers ratings for calling games. I've heard this here and there; but I would suspect that it would increase with this feature.

6. Question - If the pitches are to be derived from the existing ratings - what is the point ? In reality, they'd just be eye-candy.

I realize that some of my concerns would actually make for more realistic gaming - and may even seem like "pros" instead of "cons". But the point I'm making is that I think it may be too complex at this point. In the future - of course; I would completely support your ideas.

-- But they're building a completely new game engine NOW; now is the perfect time to add this.
- Would've been true back when the project was getting started, but I'd assume that things have progressed to far to add this, As this would be a huge change to the engine.

[dasperp]

I like the idea, but am not sure it is feasible. One thing in this vein i would like to see though is a relationship between pitch type and GB/FB ratio. I've seen a ton of guys in my league with sinkers who are extreme flyball pitchers, which just does not correspond to real life. Also, guys who are able to be good despite low k rates (low stuff rating) should generally be groundball pitchers.

[bp_]

I like this idea as well but the points about micromanaging players is a vaild concern as it would be fairly time intensive and not everyone wants to spend that much time. If added pitches, better command, velocity, etc was game generated (like it is now in the player development model where there is a talent rating and an actual skill rating) it might be a feature that would be accepted more universally.

What I like about the idea in general as it would make more sense in determining when to make your starting prospect a reliever in the minors or majors. If a pitcher doesn't develop a good third pitch by 24 or 25 yrs old and is still in AAA you might consider shifting that player to the pen.

[battists]

I like the idea.

I think the answer to the micromanagement point is to make it like ratings or scouts. If you don't like them, just turn them off. Have a switch, so that if the league is set to "differentiate between pitches", then the engine would store and display the ratings as described in the original post. If someone wants to micromanage it, those options/screens would be available.

No question, it's technically complicated. But then again, so is the game to begin with. Who are we to say what Markus can or cannot accomplish?

I know that I would love to see different pitches have more of an impact, and this would also make it possible for different pitching coaches to have more of an impact. Personally, I probably wouldn't take it to the point where batters have ratings against certain pitches, but we've all heard tales about the guy who throws 100 mph, but can't get anyone out because his other pitches stink. It would be cool to get little notes that say "Rod Smith is developing a curve ball!"

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

[sfgiants88]

Another difficulty would be for the roster creaters. It would be incredibly time consuming to include all pitches along with their effectiveness.

[x747aw]

Why not just have a new rating for "pitch selection" or "intelligence" or something along those lines. This rating could be used along with a multiplier for however many pitches a guy has to effect performance. ? It would also apply in how well pitchers make adjustments throughout a game.

In addition to this, it would be nice to have a rating having to do with "poise" - of course, this could just be considered to be part of "control" but I am thinking more along the lines of whether or not a pitcher lets walking a batter carry over to the next guy, etc.

It just seems to me that the "movement" rating is kind of redundant, as movement of pitches is pretty integral in what is called "stuff."

[BobBob]

This is a great idea and could very easily be implemented without changing the game much at all...


Instead of the current 3, we would see the following factors:

Velocity - (current 1-11 levels) VEL
Breaking - 1-100 BRK
Offspeed - 1-100 OFF
Control - 1-100
Ground Ball %

Offspeed and Breaking would be effected by the pitches -- )ie LOW offspeed if pitcher doesn't have a change-up.

These visable ratings would be used to calculate the DIPS variables presently displayed

i.e.

STUFF = VEL (50%), BRK and OFF (50%)
CONTROL = Control
MOVEMENT = GB% (STUFF + CON)

We wouldn't see these DIPS factors, only our scouts estimations of our pitchers velocity, and his breaking and offspeed abilities... this way velocity will count (a lot) but will still be overscouted, just like in real life. And you don't need to worry about assigning value to each and every pitch.

[Sublimity]

Originally Posted by x747aw

It just seems to me that the "movement" rating is kind of redundant, as movement of pitches is pretty integral in what is called "stuff."

That's just an issue with the naming. It took me a while to understand the three categories, too, but it goes back to the DIPS theory (and this is from limited understanding of it, so if someone wants to correct me, or add more meat to the skeleton, go for it).

The only three things a pitcher can control, independent of the defense behind him, are walks, strikeouts, and home runs. None of those things are at all affected by the players behind him. The strikeouts and walks also tell you balls that are put in play (if a player isn't walked or struck out, he has put the ball in play during the AB). That's where BABIP and the defensive prowess the game uses comes into play.

But that's why anything Markus adds will come back to three criteria -- walks, strikeouts, and home runs. Those are just the measuring sticks for pitchers when using a DIPS engine. Maybe he could come up with better names, but if you think of control, stuff, and movement in terms of walks, strikeouts, and home runs (as I've started to do, and those are the correlative names to properties) it'll make a lot more sense.

Hope that helps!