Alright boyz, here we go (OOTP6 Thoughts!)

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Huck,

I'm not checking the World Series, just LDS and LCS. I'll go doublecheck again, but I've only found a handful so far. the Yanks/Mariners in 2001, the Indians vs the Yanks in '97, and the Twins vs the Tigers in '87. That's been it, so far. I'll get back to you with more.

Alright, here's a list of every "upset" I've found in LDS/LCS play the last 25 years. I've defined 'upset' as a team being at least 10 games worse than their opponent (since that's primarily what we're looking at in OOTP):

2003:

Chicago (88-74) over Atlanta (101-61)
Florida finished 9.5 games worse, so I'll ignore that for now.

2001:

New York A (88-74) over Seattle (116-46)

1997:

Cleveland (86-75) over Baltimore (98-64)
Cleveland (86-75) over NYA (96-66)

1996:

Baltimore (88-74) over Cleveland (99-63)

1995: ignored due to strike year

1987: Minnesota (85-77) over Detroit (98-64)

1981: ignored due to strike year

1973: New York N (82-79) over Cincinnati (99-63)

That's everybody, through 1970.

7 times in 34 years, a team that was exactly 10 games or worse has managed to defeat their opponent, not counting World Series matchups. There were a few examples of teams that were 7 and 8 games worse winning, as well as the 9.5 game discrepancy between Florida and San Francisco last year, but there were just as many examples of that going the other way, if not more.

I'll say it again. 7 times in 34 years. It doesn't happen IRL with anything close to the regularity that it does in OOTP. Now, I will admit that I missed the 2nd 1997 occurrence, and the 2003 Cubs when I went through the results the first time, but that's still only two additional examples.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Random thought...

There's an old baseball adage that every team will win 50 games and lose 50 games........

The person who came up with that was obviously not a Tigers fan.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

That's not counting the World Series. I'm done for now as I've got work to do. However, I want to clarify that I'm doing this study not as a defense of OOTP but as an indictment of the MLB playoff system. I've got plenty of issues with OOTP, but a much bigger one with 5 and 7 game series being used to decide things in a sport with a 162 game season.

I agree, I have more serious issues with the game as well. I simply don't want to see this dismissed, as it is clearly out of whack, and it does influence at least some people's enjoyment of the game. Should the better team win every single time? Clearly not, but at the same time, if it's only happened 7 times in 34 years in real life, seeing it happen, say, 20 times in a 15 year span in OOTP is clearly out of whack.

[TRO]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Im seeing a bad mix of guys with great speed and no stealing ability and guys with moderate speed and great stealing ability. Not that a few of these guys arnt around but theyre are very few guys with great speed and great stealing ability.

Speed and Stealing should not correlate. I see no problem with a 100 speed guy with 0 Stealing ability.

Just because somebody it fast, doesn't mean he knows how to read a pitcher. The same goes for the new "baserunning instincts" rating.

[Eaglesfan27]

My thoughts are: I'm glad I see this thread as I just got home and this lets me know it is out Downloading now!

[CraigSca]

I'm all ears for suggestions.

As part of this, I'll look at the management decisions made by the field management AI. Perhaps there's no urgency on the AI's part to keep the best players in for the majority of the time? Maybe the fifth starter is getting too many starts? Again, I haven't really looked into this in great detail...but if anyone sees anything they find troubling (besides the final results), I'd love to hear it.

-Craig

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

Does that mean then, that the game should change its algorithms of love for the playoffs and make that majority of 10+ better teams always win the series?

"the majority" and "always" are either redundant, or incongruous with one another. If a 10+ team always wins, then that's not "just" the majority.

That said, I don't want to see the game change to where it becomes a matter of matching up the win/loss totals and picking a winner that way. That wouldn't be any fun either.

But you have people who put in a lot of work in building their dynasty-level teams, something capable of winning 105 games, and there starts to be a "what's the point?" mentality when they consistently lose in the playoffs.

Even just from a sales standpoint, it should be clear why that isn't a good thing.

[b]I would assume that the same engine is at work in both regular season and playoffs in OOTP6, which makes this even more interesting. Shouldn't this all just be built in to happen "correctly"?[/quote]

I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here.

[Suicane75]

Quick question, I'd like to see some stats on how leagues in OOTP that don't have the wildcard vs leagues that do have the wild card stack up as far as the underdog winning. My general feeling is that with the Wild Card in effect the number of upsets will always be out of whack for the simple fact that they're are more chances for the underdog to win. I will never be useing the wildcard so I can't be of any help to that.

[kingnebwsu]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And I think that's what Ben's most irked about. Not so much a 93 win team knocking off a 96 win team with regularity - 3 wins, in different divisions, isn't statistically significant - but instead a 91 win team routinely knocking off a 105 win team. That simply doesn't happen in real life with the regularity it does in OOTP.

Exactly. I've complained/whined/given examples of this many times before. I can't tell you how many times I've had three 20-game winners, scored 900-1100 runs, had great defense, and then lost in the first round of the playoffs. Not 3-2 first round losses, more like 3-1 and even sometimes the 3-0 dreaded sweep. I was hoping the new engine would fix whatever was causing this problem, which is why I bought OOTP 6. If my postseason issues still exist, it will be the last version of OOTP I purchase.

It's not that I expect to win every season, or that I want the team with the best record to win every season...it's that I want to see results that accurately reflect a team's ability to win. I hope the new game gives me that. I know the Marlins, Angels, 1990's Braves, etc. But speaking strictly in OOTP's universe, when my team has a hitting advantage at EVERY position in the lineup AND with every pitcher, and I lose the series in 3 or 4 games...that's just ridiculous.

I haven't fiddled with OOTP 6 enough to make a determination. I'm sure I'll play at least a decade or so with my transferred OOTP 5 career, but hopefully I see postseason results that more suit what I want to see out of the game.

This is something I did about 30 years into my OOTP 5 career. I figured out how the WS champs did in their respective leagues and here were my results...

#1 RECORD-6
#2 RECORD-7
#3 RECORD-10
WILD CARD-8

Those numbers seem to indicate a toss-up mentality to the postseason. Of course, these numbers don't mean much without other indicators, but it does show some of what my problem is.

(Shrug) hopefully the new engine and other modifications make it so the 100+ win teams don't get bounced/swept in the first round.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by TRO

Speed and Stealing should not correlate. I see no problem with a 100 speed guy with 0 Stealing ability.

Just because somebody it fast, doesn't mean he knows how to read a pitcher. The same goes for the new "baserunning instincts" rating.

I'm not saying they should correlate 100% of the time, but the fact that nearly every fast guy has no ability to steal and nearly every guy with the ability to steal is not fast is disturbing. There are very guys who are both fast and can steal.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Yeah, i worded it wrong. It is an approxomate number of wild pitches, but still, to have 0 wild pitches for a guy whose control is 0 is a little off. All of my complaints aside I am pretty immersed in the game at the moment.

I don't see a problem with that. Just because a pitcher doesn't have much control doesn't always have to mean he will throw a lot of wild piitches. Unless he is Rick Ankiel wild most major league pitchers, even the ones who walk a ton of guys, can pretty much always put it where the catcher can catch it. Most wild pitches are from breaking balls in the dirt and those can come from pitchers with great control.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'll say it again. 7 times in 34 years. It doesn't happen IRL with anything close to the regularity that it does in OOTP. Now, I will admit that I missed the 2nd 1997 occurrence, and the 2003 Cubs when I went through the results the first time, but that's still only two additional examples.

How many times has a team with 10 or more wins more than their opponent won their series?

What I am getting at - are upsets more frequent or is the disparity in wins amongst playoff teams greater in OOTP than IRL? If there are more series involving teams with greater than 10 wins disparity then it follows that there should be a greater number of these upsets occuring.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I'm all ears for suggestions.

As part of this, I'll look at the management decisions made by the field management AI. Perhaps there's no urgency on the AI's part to keep the best players in for the majority of the time? Maybe the fifth starter is getting too many starts? Again, I haven't really looked into this in great detail...but if anyone sees anything they find troubling (besides the final results), I'd love to hear it.

-Craig

I would suspect it's a combination of factors, but the two you've already mentioned jump out at me the most:

1) The lack of 'true' homefield advantage. Look at the 2002 Angels and the "ThunderStix" their fans employed. Yes, those are pro athletes who should be able to block out distractions, but that's just an incredible level of noise to deal with if you're a visiting team. OOTP can't model the noise, obviously, but the effect of home field in the playoffs is clearly important.

2) You may have hit on something above, with the regular season algorithm for player substitution being used in the playoffs, when it shouldn't be.

3) Don't I remember something about OOTP's difficulty artificially increasing against humans controlling really good teams, to keep the challenge factor high? Not saying that needs to be removed (if it is, in fact, present), but when combined with the other two, I can see how it might be exacerbating the problem.

[sttfrk]

I'd hate to see a home field advantage factor added. If anything, I'd rather see the AI teams build their teams with some regard to their home stadium. This, more than anything, would give a "home field" advantage and should translate to a higher home field winning percentage in both the regular season and playoffs.

To artificially add a home field advantage would drastically reduce realism IMO.

As for the game, well I'm on a stupid terminal at work and can't install it there and am heading out after work to meet some friends at the local pub. Hope to have it downloaded and installed before midnight.

Please keep posting your thoughts, making the work day go by that much more quickly!

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Masked

How many times has a team with 10 or more wins more than their opponent won their series?

What I am getting at - are upsets more frequent or is the disparity in wins amongst playoff teams greater in OOTP than IRL? If there are more series involving teams with greater than 10 wins disparity then it follows that there should be a greater number of these upsets occuring.

That's a good question. Give me twenty minutes or so, and I'll look that information up.

[primelord]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

1) The lack of 'true' homefield advantage. Look at the 2002 Angels and the "ThunderStix" their fans employed. Yes, those are pro athletes who should be able to block out distractions, but that's just an incredible level of noise to deal with if you're a visiting team. OOTP can't model the noise, obviously, but the effect of home field in the playoffs is clearly important.

I thought it was all due to the rally monkey.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

"the majority" and "always" are either redundant, or incongruous with one another. If a 10+ team always wins, then that's not "just" the majority.

That said, I don't want to see the game change to where it becomes a matter of matching up the win/loss totals and picking a winner that way. That wouldn't be any fun either.

But you have people who put in a lot of work in building their dynasty-level teams, something capable of winning 105 games, and there starts to be a "what's the point?" mentality when they consistently lose in the playoffs.

Even just from a sales standpoint, it should be clear why that isn't a good thing.

I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here.

We must run in different FOFC circles, because my posts, in the majority, always, though almost without fail, certainly more than occasionaly, contain a bit of word fun.

With that said (actually, written) what is being purported here is that a team 10+ games ahead will win. 7 times in the last 34 years this has been false. That tells me that people that desire real world BB need to have the playoff system tooled to a more simple resolution. If you have 10+ wins, you will win.

As far as my second quote, i was trying to point out that if the game was able to produce a team over the season that was 10+ in games, this team should obviously be better and the normal game engine should handle it properly. It obviously doesn't.

[Ben E Lou]

Where do I get that schedule generator? My team is off on Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday one week.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by TRO

Speed and Stealing should not correlate. I see no problem with a 100 speed guy with 0 Stealing ability. Just because somebody it fast, doesn't mean he knows how to read a pitcher. The same goes for the new "baserunning instincts" rating.

But which one is determining success at stealing bases? That's the key question.

In previous versions, you could have a guy with E-speed and A-stealing and, if you ran him agressively, have him steal 30 bases easily. It was as if the stealing rating trumped the speed rating. That doesn't seem right. It seems like one should be a modifier for the other, not a replacement.

I can think of fast guys who don't know how to steal, but I have a lot of trouble thinking of anyone in real life who's consider very slow but steals a lot of bases. There may be slow guys who can read pitchers, anticipate moves, etc. But those guys still don't get many steals, because they're just not fast enough. So I don't mind OOTP generating guys with low-speed, high-stealing ability. I just don't want to see those guys running wild.

[sttfrk]

but when it comes to playoffs, shouldn't we really be looking at the won/loss records of each team's top 3 starters?!?

Maybe the 100 win team had all 5 of their starters win 15 games with the bullpen picking up the rest while the 90 win team had 3 18-20 game winners with 12 game winners as their 4th and 5th starters.

Just seems odd that we are only looking at the overall record to determine playoff success...

I mean what if my 85 win team has 3 good lefthanded starters and the 100 win team only managed 20 wins against lefties?!?

Just too many other factors to look at than overall record alone. Again, IMHO.

Thanks.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Where do I get that schedule generator? My team is off on Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday one week.

Can I get that schedule in real life?

[lynchjm24]

What the hell is the deal with the menus?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

But which one is determining success at stealing bases? That's the key question.

In previous versions, you could have a guy with E-speed and A-stealing and, if you ran him agressively, have him steal 30 bases easily. It was as if the stealing rating trumped the speed rating. That doesn't seem right. It seems like one should be a modifier for the other, not a replacement.

I can think of fast guys who don't know how to steal, but I have a lot of trouble thinking of anyone in real life who's consider very slow but steals a lot of bases. There may be slow guys who can read pitchers, anticipate moves, etc. But those guys still don't get many steals, because they're just not fast enough. So I don't mind OOTP generating guys with low-speed, high-stealing ability. I just don't want to see those guys running wild.

Has there ever been a slow, base stealer? Really? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of one. Sure, someone may grab 10 bags and be slow, but I just don't know of any slow baseballers. Speed is a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT condition for stealing a lot of bases.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Has there ever been a slow, base stealer? Really? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't think of one. Sure, someone may grab 10 bags and be slow, but I just don't know of any slow baseballers. Speed is a NECESSARY, but not SUFFICIENT condition for stealing a lot of bases.

Right. But those guys do exist in OOTP (or at least in v5), which is the problem.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Right. But those guys do exist in OOTP (or at least in v5), which is the problem.

And I agree, that is a problem.

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by sttfrk

but when it comes to playoffs, shouldn't we really be looking at the won/loss records of each team's top 3 starters?!?

Maybe the 100 win team had all 5 of their starters win 15 games with the bullpen picking up the rest while the 90 win team had 3 18-20 game winners with 12 game winners as their 4th and 5th starters.

Just seems odd that we are only looking at the overall record to determine playoff success...

I mean what if my 85 win team has 3 good lefthanded starters and the 100 win team only managed 20 wins against lefties?!?

Just too much other factors to look at than overall record alone. Again, IMHO.

Thanks.

To me, the point that is being made is that it appears IRL (smartass john) the team with 10+ wins will be the victor.

However, i think the figure that was used (7 in 34 years) has to be coupled with the number of times teams have met that had 10 games separating them. IOW, if the facts came out that 7 times in 34 years teams that were 10- won, but there were only 14 games that had teams that were this far apart playing, this changes things a bit.

[Alan T]

I think I saw Cecil Fielder steal a base once. No throw from the catcher. I think he caught everyone by suprise.

[henry296]

Rafael Palmeiro already has a stolen based this year and makes him on pace for 20 this season.

[SackAttack]

2001:
Seattle (116-46) over Cleveland (91-71)

1998:
New York A (114-48) over Cleveland (89-73)
New York A (114-48) over Texas (88-74)
Atlanta (106-56) over Chicago (90-73)

1997:
Atlanta (101-61) over Houston (84-78)

1995:

Cleveland (100-44) over Seattle (79-66)
Cleveland (100-44) over Boston (86-58)

*Note: I include '95 in this analysis, despite the strike year, only because Cleveland was overwhelmingly better than either of those two teams, even despite the shortened schedule. Atlanta was also 13 games better than their LDS opponent (and won), but that's more a reflection of how weak the NL West was that year with LA and Colorado, so I'm ignoring that.

1990:

Oakland (103-59) over Boston (88-74)

1989:

Oakland (99-63) over Toronto (89-73)

1988:

Oakland (104-58) over Boston (89-73)

1986:

New York N (108-54) over Houston (96-66)

1984:

Detroit (104-58) over Kansas City (84-78)

1981: ignored due to strike year (the slate of games was simply too short, even though the A's WERE 10+ better than the Royals that year, and beat them in the playoffs)

1979:

Baltimore (102-57) over California (88-74)

1975:

Cincinnati (108-54) over Pittsburgh (92-69)

1974:

Los Angeles (102-60) over Pittsburgh (88-74)

1970:

Baltimore (108-54) over Minnesota (98-64)
Cincinnati (102-60) over Pittsburgh (89-73)

Again, going back 34 years. I count 17 times (ignoring '81 and Atlanta in '95)) one team was 10+ games better and, and won the LDS or LCS. This ignores the World Series. You could argue against the two Cleveland examples from '95, I suppose, but that still leaves 15 times it happened, compared with 7 times it went the other way.

Does it happen? Sure, I've never argued against that. It's simply the *frequency* with which it happens in OOTP compared to real life that's troubling.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I think I saw Cecil Fielder steal a base once. No throw from the catcher. I think he caught everyone by suprise.

He did in fact steal a base. In fact, I think he holds the record for most games before recording a first stolen base.

Of course in OOTP, he could just study base-stealing techniques, work his way to E/A speed and then lead the league.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

With that said (actually, written) what is being purported here is that a team 10+ games ahead will win. 7 times in the last 34 years this has been false.

No, no. Will *generally* win. I've never argued that it always happens that way - simply that the underdog wins much less frequently in "real life" than it seems to in OOTP, and if we're looking for an accurate simulation of the sport, then that needs to be looked at.

I'm not suggesting the underdog should never win, but I AM suggesting that there are just a few too many examples in OOTP of teams that should be dominant becoming the Atlanta Braves of their particular era.

[lynchjm24]

Is anyone else having a problem reading anything on the screen? I've tried all the skins...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Where do I get that schedule generator? My team is off on Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday one week.

Ahem.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Dola - regarding home field advantage...

I'd like to see this in the game as well, to some degree. I think the numbers and the exact influence still need to be worked out, but there have been some interesting conversations regarding this on the OOTP boards that shed some light on this.

Based on the numbers from baseball-reference.com, in the last 9 years (since the wildcard), the home team has won 151 of 296 playoff games. It probably would be a little different if you threw out all the sweeps that occur, but I really don't think homefield advantage is that sufficient of a number. It might make a difference in the 7th game of a series, or even the 5th game in a best of 5, but besides that it's irrelevant, IMO.

[Ksyrup]

Try this:

http://newrepublic.silvergriffin.com...0generator.zip

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by sttfrk

I'd hate to see a home field advantage factor added. If anything, I'd rather see the AI teams build their teams with some regard to their home stadium. This, more than anything, would give a "home field" advantage and should translate to a higher home field winning percentage in both the regular season and playoffs.

I think I remember seeing a study regarding home field advantage in baseball - apparently, it exposes itself at generally the same rate whether a team has had the same home stadium for 25+ years or if they just moved into the stadium that year. That wouldn't completely dispell the fact that teams built for their particular stadium have an advantage, but it would lend credence that other, more tangible factors play a greater role in home field advantage.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Ahem.

Do a search on Stickware - it's an excellent utility that writes directly into OOTP format.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Try this:

http://newrepublic.silvergriffin.com...0generator.zip

Thanks!

Does this sucker only work for 3-division leagues?

[Suicane75]

Skydog, do you think perhaps we could add links to some of the better and most usefull OOTP add ons in the All Inclusive thread? I know there are roster sets, stadium sets, Databases and what not that really add a new dimension to the game but I really hate having to sift thru the other board.

[HighandOutside]

Lynch,

Go back to the first page of this thread...the answer is there.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Thanks!

Does this sucker only work for 3-division leagues?

I don't think so. It should work for 2 and 4 division leagues, at least. I know I've used it in a basic 12-20 team, 2 divisions per league set up.

The only thing I'm not sure of is whether the generator that is at that link is the most up to date version. I just searched for it and posted it. I'm not sure where I got my version.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by General Mike

Based on the numbers from baseball-reference.com, in the last 9 years (since the wildcard), the home team has won 151 of 296 playoff games. It probably would be a little different if you threw out all the sweeps that occur, but I really don't think homefield advantage is that sufficient of a number. It might make a difference in the 7th game of a series, or even the 5th game in a best of 5, but besides that it's irrelevant, IMO.

Thanks for looking that up. Based on those numbers, you're right - it seems home field advantage isn't the answer.

BTW - regarding my earlier listing of possibilities as to why the lesser team wins as many playoff series as they do - I don't know for a fact the AI does anything differently during the playoffs. I know the engine stays the same, but I'm not sure the AI manages any differently. However, I am skeptical that this would be the answer.

Really, do I think there's a problem here? Perhaps - I'd like to tie down exactly what the problem may be, rather than just saying it's broken. My initial opinion is that it's probably a combination of what people expect vs. what actually occurs and a slight tweak needed somewhere in the game.

I might even check Ben's beta almanac to see how often this is occurring in OOTP - so we have a common base to work from.

-Craig

[sttfrk]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I think I remember seeing a study regarding home field advantage in baseball - apparently, it exposes itself at generally the same rate whether a team has had the same home stadium for 25+ years or if they just moved into the stadium that year. That wouldn't completely dispell the fact that teams built for their particular stadium have an advantage, but it would lend credence that other, more tangible factors play a greater role in home field advantage.

hmmm... if the team was identical the last year in the old stadium and first year in the new stadium and had roughly the same home win%, then I'm inclined to agree there are other factors...

I think there's a lot of research that needs to be made here before adding anything to OOTP...

Unrelated... can we lower the roster limit from 25 to say 20 and have the AI teams respect the new limit and more importantly handle it?!?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Skydog, do you think perhaps we could add links to some of the better and most usefull OOTP add ons in the All Inclusive thread? I know there are roster sets, stadium sets, Databases and what not that really add a new dimension to the game but I really hate having to sift thru the other board.

If someone will gather them into one post for me, consider it done. Someone needs to make one post entitled "OOTP Add-ons and Utilities," and I'll create a link to that thread.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I might even check Ben's beta almanac to see how often this is occurring in OOTP - so we have a common base to work from.

No can do. I already took it down, and have redone the "LEAGUESITE" folder as well. Sorry When I left my office today, though, I left the computer at my desk running a 50-year sim. I was already planning to upload that on Monday to take a look at stuff anyway.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by sttfrk

I think there's a lot of research that needs to be made here before adding anything to OOTP...

On that I entirely agree I'd rather have it take longer and done right rather something off the cuff.

Regarding rosters - not something I personally tested, but I think there is the option to change the size of the active roster. Since I didn't personally test, I can't really vouch for any adjustments made to the AI.

-Craig

[Suicane75]

Still drafting and just noticed as I look for good bunters that there are no bunt ratings on the draft screen That is really not good. I NEED a 2 hole hitter!!!!!

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Thanks for looking that up. Based on those numbers, you're right - it seems home field advantage isn't the answer.

BTW - regarding my earlier listing of possibilities as to why the lesser team wins as many playoff series as they do - I don't know for a fact the AI does anything differently during the playoffs. I know the engine stays the same, but I'm not sure the AI manages any differently. However, I am skeptical that this would be the answer.

Really, do I think there's a problem here? Perhaps - I'd like to tie down exactly what the problem may be, rather than just saying it's broken. My initial opinion is that it's probably a combination of what people expect vs. what actually occurs and a slight tweak needed somewhere in the game.

I might even check Ben's beta almanac to see how often this is occurring in OOTP - so we have a common base to work from.

-Craig

Craig, I don't know how much of a role this plays during the playoffs, but I'm pretty sure the computer ends up throwing their starters on 3 days rest all the time, where as in real life, most pitchers take a big hit when they have to throw on less than full rest. This may have been changed in OOTP6, but I know in past versions, the fact that you could get away with a 3 man rotation instead of having to use their 4th starter in the playoffs had a big effect.

-Mike

[chrisj]

Although he's not pitching every two days like the guy mentioned earlier, I'm still seeing guys who can barely pitch 3 or 4 innings starting with the computer...

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by HighandOutside

Lynch,

Go back to the first page of this thread...the answer is there.

Thanks, I found it.