Over and under performing players - Markus please look

[robc]

Markus, I thought I would ask this in a separate thread because I would really like the answer and I think others would be interested in too. Also, you have been generaous answering questions lately and I'm hoping you can answer this one too.

If there anything in the engine that makes a player over or under perform on a particular day?

For example, is a pitcher's performance strictly based on his ratings and random chance each outing, or does the engine sometimes determine pitcher X is going to perform better or worse than his ratings?

The main reason I ask is that if a pitcher is getting shelled and it is just their ratings and random chance, there is no need to pull him in the 3rd inning because he is just as likely to bounce back the next inning. If the engine does 'downgrade' a player's ratings sometimes than the human player may want to yank him.

A related question would also be about hot and cold streaks. Random chance and ratings or are players sometimes given a boost or penalized?

Thanks for any info you can give on this.

Rob

[trendon]

Great question.

Also, to expand on the original question, if there is some sort of mechanism in the game's engine for this, can a pitcher "slated" to have a good day have that plan derailed?

For instance, the game decides Joe Smith is feeling fantastic! Two outs into the game, though, five runs are on the board after a grand slam. Can he take an about face? Can players in a ****ty mood/streak pull out of it with one great play?

Or is it all numbers?

Even further, are hitters susceptible to (or better against) certain types of pitches?

[endgame]

I'll give props to the idea of the question, but any resulting answer rather demystifies a process and allows decision-making tools that simply aren't available in mainstream RL. I can't imagine that the question, at its root, isn't the same question we ask, albeit in a rather metaphorical manner, any given day with our players and that, in RL, managers and management ask about theirs. So in my mind, the question posed is better than answers posited.

[UWHabs]

Yeah, I doubt we'll get a real answer, but given that the simulator is likely meant to somewhat equate to real life, I wouldn't be suprised if there were hidden "hot or cold" modifiers in play. So, if a starter gives up 7 through 2 innings, I wouldn't be surprised if he was internally fatigued before he shows up in the game as fatigued.

So if my pretty decent LF who hit .300 last year hits .125 in April, I'll do like I'd do in real life - move him down in the lineup, sit him out a few games, etc... until he gets out of his "funk". Whether that exists in real life or he was just an RNG victim, I dunno.

[robc]

Originally Posted by endgame

I'll give props to the idea of the question, but any resulting answer rather demystifies a process and allows decision-making tools that simply aren't available in mainstream RL. I can't imagine that the question, at its root, isn't the same question we ask, albeit in a rather metaphorical manner, any given day with our players and that, in RL, managers and management ask about theirs. So in my mind, the question posed is better than answers posited.

I re-read my post directly below and it may sound like a bit of a rant about what you said. I don't mean it that way, I just don't know how else to put it.

I understand your point. You like some mystery and don't think it is realistic to necessarily know some of the information. I think that may be true in some cases. To me, this isn't one of them. In real life, you can tell if a player isn't hitting well because his mechanics are messed up, or is unlucky. If the guy is hitting the ball hard but getting robbed, a low .avg may not be his fault (kind of like getting a string of unlucky numbers but having good ratings in the game).

For me (not everyone I guess), it makes the game less appealing if I don't know what information has merit to be used for decision making. I'm not a player who likes to make up stories to explain the in game behavior and the only immersion factor I care about is does the game behave realistically and in a logical way.

I hope Markus considers answering it. If he does maybe it is best if he puts a little spoiler warning above it so people can skip it if they don't want to know.

Rob

[Amazin' Blue]

I have wondered about this as well. Currently, my theory is that hot streaks and cold streaks really do seem to have an impact on the performance (internal ratings?) of a player.

However, I also don't notice any pattern of pitchers "having it" or not on a given day. Therefore (I play every inning) I don't usually pull an ace who's off to a bad start. In my experience, such a pitcher more often than not recovers and throws four or five good innings.

I wish that weren't true.

One thing that I miss from my days playing APBA baseball for Windows was that pitchers having a great game (e.g. a shutout through 6 or 7 innings) would improve ratings-wise through the game. This was reflected before your very eyes.

Likewise, if a pitcher got shelled you would see his ratings drop after that 5 run inning.

I really miss this sense that these are real players with volatile emotions that impact their play.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by UWHabs

Yeah, I doubt we'll get a real answer, but given that the simulator is likely meant to somewhat equate to real life, I wouldn't be suprised if there were hidden "hot or cold" modifiers in play. So, if a starter gives up 7 through 2 innings, I wouldn't be surprised if he was internally fatigued before he shows up in the game as fatigued.

So if my pretty decent LF who hit .300 last year hits .125 in April, I'll do like I'd do in real life - move him down in the lineup, sit him out a few games, etc... until he gets out of his "funk". Whether that exists in real life or he was just an RNG victim, I dunno.

I'd be very very surprised if there were. I can't see anything that causes it in the game, and can't see any reason why it would be. I can only guess it would be a nightmare to try and program.

[trendon]

On a sidenote, I now want to play Bases Loaded II.

When Angel got his biorhythm up ... watch out, suckas!

[DCG12]

I agree with endgame on this one, the less I know about the game engine in this case the better. If we know all the ins and outs then the game is nothing more than a spreadsheet where all we do is stick with the player who has the highest ratings.

I prefer to manage as if it were real life and if that means going to my bullpen to try and keep a game close so be it. Or if my stud left fielder is 2 for his last 25 maybe a day off will help. I guess I just don't see the fun in knowing that my ace gave up 6 runs in the first 2 innings because of bad dice rolls and he won't give up 6 more in the 3rd and 4th because his ratings are too good.

[robc]

Originally Posted by DCG12

I agree with endgame on this one, the less I know about the game engine in this case the better. If we know all the ins and outs then the game is nothing more than a spreadsheet where all we do is stick with the player who has the highest ratings.

I prefer to manage as if it were real life and if that means going to my bullpen to try and keep a game close so be it. Or if my stud left fielder is 2 for his last 25 maybe a day off will help. I guess I just don't see the fun in knowing that my ace gave up 6 runs in the first 2 innings because of bad dice rolls and he won't give up 6 more in the 3rd and 4th because his ratings are too good.

No matter whether bad or good days are programmed in, random chance will always be possible. That is just the way random numbers work. So, even if we know bad days are programmed in and our ace gives up 6 in the first inning, we don't know whether it is due to random chance or they are having a programmed bad day. He may bounce back and he may not.

My guess is that bad days are not programmed in. So, I typically leave in my pitcher. You can get a lot of variance without needing to program it in. Even through a whole season there can be a large variance in stats for players with identical ratings. The thing is with games, we don't know if they behave realistically or not. We don't know how sophisticated they are. To me, OOTP is just a strategy game in a baseball world.

Take a game like Civilization. If you didn't know enough information to play the game, it wouldn't be as fun. Does the Barracks let you build troops faster, more experienced troops, increase defense? If the game developer didn't tell us we wouldn't be able to make smart choices.

I know I'm probably not going to change any minds here. You probably don't know why I would want to know just like I don't understand why you don't want to know.

My guess is there are things you like to know about how the game works, we just have our lines drawn in different spots.

[robc]

In any case, if Markus doesn't want to release this information it would be appreciated if he could post here that he doesn't want to so I don't keep checking hoping for an answer.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by robc

No matter whether bad or good days are programmed in, random chance will always be possible. That is just the way random numbers work.

I know I'm picking nits here but your comment is wrong. For random chance to exist no programmed result can be in place. They are mutually exclusive.

That's why I'm quite sure that no external good day bad day programming exists

[robc]

Originally Posted by RchW

I know I'm picking nits here but your comment is wrong. For random chance to exist no programmed result can be in place. They are mutually exclusive.

That's why I'm quite sure that no external good day bad day programming exists

There is no doubt that games like this use random numbers and probablility of events to generate their results. What I mean by a 'programmed bad day' is that a players ratings are reduced from their norm for that day (or series of days). Random chance still comes into play, it is just more likely the player would perform poorly with reduced ratings. It would still be possible for them to have a great day (unless their ratings were reduced so low it is mathmatically impossible).

What part of that don't you agree with? Or now that I explained my thoughts a little better do you agree with what I said?

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by robc

In any case, if Markus doesn't want to release this information it would be appreciated if he could post here that he doesn't want to so I don't keep checking hoping for an answer.

robc, I believe you can subscribe to this thread. Click on Thread Tools for the menu.

[robc]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

robc, I believe you can subscribe to this thread. Click on Thread Tools for the menu.

Good point. I forgot about that! It still would be nice to get an official answer

[pstrickert]

I understand. I have no idea if Markus will post here or not. I do know Markus is about to be submerged in the beta testing process. Once that happens, it'll be hard to get his attention. He rarely comes up for air before the game's release. So to speak.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by DCG12

I agree with endgame on this one, the less I know about the game engine in this case the better. If we know all the ins and outs then the game is nothing more than a spreadsheet where all we do is stick with the player who has the highest ratings.

I prefer to manage as if it were real life and if that means going to my bullpen to try and keep a game close so be it. Or if my stud left fielder is 2 for his last 25 maybe a day off will help. I guess I just don't see the fun in knowing that my ace gave up 6 runs in the first 2 innings because of bad dice rolls and he won't give up 6 more in the 3rd and 4th because his ratings are too good.

I first saw the original post yesterday but didn't have time to respond. If I had it would have been along the same lines as endgame and DCG12.

To me the whole idea of OOTP, FM, or any sports sim is to try to simulate real life as best they can. The better illusion of reality the game creates the more I am going to enjoy it. I don't want to know the inner workings of OOTP, to me it would take away the fun.

I have said in the past and continue to be grateful to those that take the time to test to make sure stats etc are generated in a realistic manner(not just for OOTP but any sports game I play). This is a good thing as it adds to the realism. When guys try to break down the game to learn it's "secrets" it ruins it for me. Front Office Football multiplayer leagues is a good example from my perspective. I like the idea of it all but don't want to participate in it because some players try to play "real life football" while others are only trying to play "the game" ie use anything the engine allows to win. Both approaches are fine but the second saps out any enjoyment for me.

Having Markus answer this would take away from the illusion for me. If my guy struggles then I have to make a choice, and like real life, I make it based on what he has done in the past. If he's good he gets more latitude to set the ship right. If he's mediocre he may get a quick hook. If my pen has been abused over the last week, and is dead tired, he may have to stay out there and take his lumps while eating as many innings as he can. To me this is the fun of OOTP.

I'll agree to disagree with robc. He can play how he wants to. My preference would be Markus decline to answer as once out there the info tends to travel to places a spoiler tag won't be used. But it's Makus' decision he can do what he feels is best.

[robc]

I repect that people have different ways to play it than I do and I surely don't want it ruined for anyone. If Markus would be willing to PM me the answer, I promiss I would keep it to myself. I would like to enjoy the game as much as I can too. I just hate to factor things into my decison making process that have no bearing on the outsome. I can't think of an example at the moment, but I am sure there are things I wouldn't want to know about how the game works.

This will be my last post about this, unless someone has a specific question for me. I won't try and get Markus to answer anymore either. I will just hope for a PM from him about it

[MMA_Dave]

I too would like to know a bit more of what's under the hood, and I'm sure there are others. So, if Markus does deside to reveal, I'd appreciate it if it were posted in a spoiler block.

Also, I completely understand Markus' thinking if he does not wish to reveal "the man behind the curtain" as it were.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by robc

There is no doubt that games like this use random numbers and probablility of events to generate their results. What I mean by a 'programmed bad day' is that a players ratings are reduced from their norm for that day (or series of days). Random chance still comes into play, it is just more likely the player would perform poorly with reduced ratings. It would still be possible for them to have a great day (unless their ratings were reduced so low it is mathmatically impossible).

What part of that don't you agree with? Or now that I explained my thoughts a little better do you agree with what I said?

Players with day-to-day injuries have reduced ratings but there are no programmed reduced rating days or vice versa. That is the extent of my disagreement.