Do Away with Endurance Rating

[Mike Donlin]

There does not seem to be any justification for this rating besides convenience, and that is not enough to justify it.

(1) Is it real? In other words, has anyone shown that some pitchers are able to consistently face more batters without tiring than other pitchers?

(2) If it does exist, it is not how most present-day pitchers are divided between starters and relievers. My understanding is that it has to do with number of "out" or quality pitches. In other words, a pitcher who has only one or two out pitches will, in the course of facing the same batters during a game, eventually get figured out. That same pitcher, however, facing a batter only once per game, may well succeed.

(3) I could live with an endurance rating, maybe, but only if it were high enough for everyone to start. THEN comes the job of figuring out whether someone is a starter or reliever or closer, based on number of pitches, based on success, etc.

But as it is now it seems kind of clumsy and clunky.

[gmo]

I think an endurance "rating" is quite real in that at any time any (rested) pitcher cannot go out and pitch well for 85+ pitches in a start. But whether there is a real endurance "talent" seems a much better question. Surely there is, but the range between Livan Hernandez types who can seemingly just pitch forever and guys who cannot go very long at all is probably not really that great.

Agreed that pitches and their quality appears to be a major factor is SP vs RP, though endurance I would think is also a factor too to some degree. I would actually think it was a very good parameterization except that it seems so rigid in saying that after 90 pitches, 30 pitches, or whatever the pitcher starts "losing it" and that it should adapt more to the pitcher's current role. Agreed then the endurance rating is a bit clunky, but it seems like a major shift in the game to get away from it. How could it be changed in a big way but still relatively easily? Could it really be done without a big revamp to pitching overall?

[Mattymo]

I think endurance rating, or whatever term you want to use, is necessary, however, it makes no sense for a guy to be strong at pitcher number 99, then after that he's dead and cant go any longer. It would make more sense if, like in MVP Baseball for PS2 or XBox, he gradually got weaker as the game went on, based on how many pitches thrown, and how hard he's had to work. Then you could know if it's the beginning of the 7th inning and he's tiring, but ok for maybe one more inning. I hate wondering how much the guy has left in the tank.

[RchW]

I think it is as simple as total number of pitches. A pitcher throwing strikes effectively will by definition throw less pitches and seem to last deeper into games than a nibbler who goes 3-1 and 3-2 on a lot of batters.The big knock on modern pitching is that they don't throw strikes.

Later in games some pitchers maintain effectiveness longer than others. I've always had the impression that Pedro Martinez was a 6 or 7 inning pitcher with a big drop off after 90-100 pitches. I looked up some stats on Baseball reference.com and found that just about every decent starter last year was around 7 innings per start.

Thirty years ago guys like Carlton and Jenkins or Palmer rarely missed the strikezone so the batters went up swinging and they would go 9 innings on 90-110 pitches.

If you extend the same idea to relief pitchers say 100 pitches -25%(arbitrary value) for pitching several days in a row, they have 75 pitches to give. So a set up guy may appear in 5 of 6 games in a week 5X15 = 75 pitches. A closer may pitch a little less often say 4 of 6 games but may throw more pitches per appearance say 20 and you get 4X20 = 80.

Again I'm just picking these numbers out of the air but you could suggest a table something like

First 60 pitches 100%
Next 20 90%
Next 20 85%
Next 10 75%
Next 10 60%
Next 10 50%

Relievers may drop off at 40 pitches but the concept would work for relievers who are used a lot with some formula to restore pitches for days off.

[Elendil]

I think the endurance rating should be maintained, but implemented differently. Almost every pitcher IRL has the stamina to be a starter. The main reason relievers pitch fewer innings is that they pitch more often and warm up more. That takes its toll on an arm and means that you can pitch for fewer innings. OOTP2006 needs to implement warming-up for both AI and human teams to model this correctly.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by Mattymo

It would make more sense if, like in MVP Baseball for PS2 or XBox, he gradually got weaker as the game went on, based on how many pitches thrown, and how hard he's had to work.

This idea has merit. I'm reminded of my old Statis-Pro fast action cards, when you had to keep track of points assigned against a pitcher's stamina or staying power, i.e. 1 pt for a 1B, 2 for a 2B, etc.... I would rather see this sort of collective and cumulative effect on the pitcher that would then "trigger" the decision-making value in the manager style. Perhaps one style manager might be weighted toward letting a 60pt accumulation ride for yet another inning (or have a higher percentage chance ideally of doing so) and another might see a 60pt accumulation as a necessary replacement (or again, ideally a higher percentage chance of making that decision).

As I mentioned in another post, coupled with a specific pitcher this could be a great arena for developing Favorite Son status with some starters, or in Jestor's case an affinity for flamethrowers, etc... It's an area with great potential for a combination of both personality and strategy given a system that allows for dynamic rather than fixed and static reaction triggers.

[gmo]

I like the general idea of stuff (in general, not just that rating) trailing off in some way rather than being like a step-function that falls off at some number of pitches. But it is easy to make that even more complicated than something simple like losing X amount of stuff after Y pitches. How realistic it is I am not sure, however one could say that a guy on his 65th pitch overall but 35th of an inning should be more tired than when the same guy is on his 70th pitch but 1st of an inning.

[douga]

The Pro: From a tool to have available during the game the Endurance rating is much needed. To have a general idea of how long a pitcher can go is great. When I see a 10 I know I know that under normal conditions I don't need to worry about him going nine innings. If I see a 7, I have a general idea when to start checking on his status.

The Pro: I do know that a pitcher will become tired when he has reached his 'limit'. I do not know specifically what that limit is, but I have come to gauge it pretty well based on the Endurance rating. That is good because then it is more realistic and I have to keep checking with the pitcher to see if he is ok when it gets later in the game.

The Con: I do not know if there are any further effects besides just becoming tired. Or, should I say I do not know whether the Tired status is something that starts out with mild negatives to performance and gradually gets worse, or whether it is simply an 'on-off' static change in performace?
Pitcher's should gradually see their performance go down... I do not like thinking I can't have a pitcher get a complete game because he just hit his limit.

The Con: The Endurance rating should adjust based on whether you are starting a game or relieving. Maybe it does but it is just not published anywhere. For example, if a reliever starts a game, maybe his endurance increases by 4. And vice versa for a starter pitching in relief. When you change a pitcher's role from one to the other, I believe the endurance rating stays the same and it seems we have to edit it. That should be a function of the game itself, we should not be manually editing ratings.

[kq76]

Eek! I wouldn't want to do away with the endurance rating completely, but I do agree that it should be reworked and it alone should not determine whether a pitcher is a starter or a reliever. It's only common sense to me that some pitchers can throw more pitches than others before getting tired, so I wouldn't want to see it gotten rid of. But I think it's also common sense that a pitcher's role is not determined solely on their endurance. I have to imagine most relievers could go just as long as most starters if they were pitching against weaker batters. I'm not sure what exactly the determining factors usually are, but the "number of "out" or quality pitches" theory sounds good to me (if anyone knows of any articles on this, please post the links, I'd love to read them). I'd really like to see pitch selection be a factor in the game and this would certainly be one way of bringing it in.