AI Line-up Issues/Realism

[Syd Thrift]

I do think the game generally tries not to move guys around in the lineup for fatigue reasons. This is pure confirmation bias I'm sure but I often see the opposite: I play through every game for every team (from the 7th inning on, I'm not an ANIMAL), which means I also see every single lineup. My experience is that sometimes I'll have a guy in the regular lineup hitting in a weird spot for... reasons, like maybe a guy is hitting above his weight and the team doesn't have a good #3 hitter so I'm trying him out in there, or maybe I've got a team where I do think they'd do the dumb move of putting a guy with good speed but little ability to get on base leadoff. A lot of the time the second the AI swaps someone in the lineup out for fatigue, boom, that guy goes and hits 8th. I know I had to lock one guy in particular into the #4 spot (who's a really good power hitter; I guess the game doesn't like his relative lack of contact and eye) because, like, if the 6 hole hitter has to sit because they're tired, the AI will gleefully push that guy down to like 7th.

I honestly don't think I see a *lot* of the AI just straight up putting a low-power guy at cleanup unless it has no other choices. April and September lineups can be weird with that though, especially September ones when you've got a couple call-ups in the lineup on a bad team and you really don't have anyone with better than average power. I think that even with the traditional lineups, it might try a liiiittle too hard to stick the highest rated player 4th regardless of their power profile.

[Trav876]

LOL. Juan Pierre hitting clean-up this game per the AI, as a fatigue sub...

[Pelican]

For historical replay, I mean anytime before the past decade, I would avoid the sabremetric alternative for lineups. I use "traditional", and don't seem to find singles hitters batting cleanup. And you won't have Kyle Schwarber batting leadoff! I'm much in favor - even today - of a fast guy with good OBP leading off, contact hitter second, best all-around hitter third, best power hitter cleanup, and so on. So, traditional, yeah.

Yes, the AI can come up with some head-scratcher lineups. When I have the time and the patience, I use the depth chart, in an effort to control which subs are inserted in the lineup, when a regular is fatigued. It is frustrating when I am going down the box scores, and realize that a weak hitter has been hitting third or fourth for a team for a week of losses. Probably, as Matt says, subbed in for an injured or tired legitimate cleanup hitter, and blocked from another lineup slot by my slotting players in certain spots. Creating alternate lineups is a solution; but it's labor-intensive. There are only so many hours in a day.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Trav876

LOL. Juan Pierre hitting clean-up this game per the AI, as a fatigue sub...

I’m more grossed out by Werewolves of London catching and hitting lead off. That said, swapping him and Pierre makes the lineup look OK from an aesthetic standpoint…

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

The decision that jumps out at me is the Yankees hitting Frankie Crosetti leadoff for all of 1939 and most of 1940 in spite of the fact that, you know, he couldn't hit (not sure why I remember this - think I might have taken a deep dive on Scooter Rizzuto's career at one point).

The only advantage I can see to this is a speedy low-strikeout batter who hits a lot of ground balls. Even if he can't hit that much over the season, a guy like that is inordinately helped by having one guaranteed at bat every game where the bases are empty.

Putting him 8th just means he's hitting into a lot more GIDP.

In the 40s, these decisions were made without the use of calculators, much less computer analysis.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by uruguru

The only advantage I can see to this is a speedy low-strikeout batter who hits a lot of ground balls. Even if he can't hit that much over the season, a guy like that is inordinately helped by having one guaranteed at bat every game where the bases are empty.

Putting him 8th just means he's hitting into a lot more GIDP.

In the 40s, these decisions were made without the use of calculators, much less computer analysis.

There were also things guys thought about how you built a lineup that we just don't believe in today. Leadoff was where you put guys with speed. You didn't really think so much about on-base percentage; I know Branch Rickey liked to talk about it but Branch Rickey was regarded as an incredible stat nerd for the times. The idea was, your leadoff guy figured out how to get himself on base, probably by changing his swing to slap at pitches.

Also, like, the second slot in the order was conceived of just completely differently than it is today. I enjoy playing in older eras in part because I get to make-believe that these things still matter. Your #2 hitter:

- Should have good bat control (i.e. doesn't strike out much, athough IRL that also meant knowing how to place-hit)

- Should be able to hit the ball to the right side of the infield (in OOTP terms, either they're a left-handed hitter or a spray/opposite field hitter if they bat right) in order to execute the hit-and-run (along with the low K rate)

- Should be a good bunter

- Unless you're blessed with a fast shortstop or second baseman who's hitting leadoff, should be a middle infielder themselves - here it does make a bit of sense: if you're batting your other MI 7th (catchers almost always hit 8th), you've got enough distance between 2nd and 7th in the order that you will rarely remove both of them for a pinch-hitter in the same inning

That's been pretty well subsumed in the modern dialogue with "put your 2nd or 3rd best hitter here". I'm sure the modern approach leads to more runs but all the rules associated with the traditional one, I don't know, make it more fun to play with.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

There were also things guys thought about how you built a lineup that we just don't believe in today. Leadoff was where you put guys with speed. You didn't really think so much about on-base percentage; I know Branch Rickey liked to talk about it but Branch Rickey was regarded as an incredible stat nerd for the times. The idea was, your leadoff guy figured out how to get himself on base, probably by changing his swing to slap at pitches.

I don't want to belabor this point about Crosetti but I did check into him on bbref after my post.

It turns out that, for the first 5-6 years of his career through his age-27 season, Crosetti was the prototypical leadoff hitter (high obp, low iso and can steal). He peaked at a very nice .382 OBP and 27 steals that season.

He looked like a legitimate leadoff hitter for the first half of his career but then tailed off. So clearly he should have led off in his age-28 season as we had not yet developed time machines in 1939. And maybe in 1940 if they really thought that his '39 season was a fluke bad year (which happens).

But after that, he had to lead off either due to reputation or inertia. But don't sell that too short because the Yankees were in the midst of winning 7 pennants over 8 seasons, so the old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" could have come into play as well.

[Trav876]

Originally Posted by Pelican

For historical replay, I mean anytime before the past decade, I would avoid the sabremetric alternative for lineups. I use "traditional", and don't seem to find singles hitters batting cleanup. And you won't have Kyle Schwarber batting leadoff! I'm much in favor - even today - of a fast guy with good OBP leading off, contact hitter second, best all-around hitter third, best power hitter cleanup, and so on. So, traditional, yeah.

Yes, the AI can come up with some head-scratcher lineups. When I have the time and the patience, I use the depth chart, in an effort to control which subs are inserted in the lineup, when a regular is fatigued. It is frustrating when I am going down the box scores, and realize that a weak hitter has been hitting third or fourth for a team for a week of losses. Probably, as Matt says, subbed in for an injured or tired legitimate cleanup hitter, and blocked from another lineup slot by my slotting players in certain spots. Creating alternate lineups is a solution; but it's labor-intensive. There are only so many hours in a day.

I'm more concerned about OOTP doing this in default. Even though I have "not" slotted any players in certain spots, this still happens all the time. Same with opponents who I have no control over. Quite often- they'll randomly have a terrible hitter- or simply no power hitter, in the 3/4/5 spots.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by uruguru

I don't want to belabor this point about Crosetti but I did check into him on bbref after my post.

It turns out that, for the first 5-6 years of his career through his age-27 season, Crosetti was the prototypical leadoff hitter (high obp, low iso and can steal). He peaked at a very nice .382 OBP and 27 steals that season.

He looked like a legitimate leadoff hitter for the first half of his career but then tailed off. So clearly he should have led off in his age-28 season as we had not yet developed time machines in 1939. And maybe in 1940 if they really thought that his '39 season was a fluke bad year (which happens).

But after that, he had to lead off either due to reputation or inertia. But don't sell that too short because the Yankees were in the midst of winning 7 pennants over 8 seasons, so the old adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" could have come into play as well.

While true, this sets off my other hobby horse: IRL the Yankees had to actually play Crosetti for a season to figure out that he'd lost his leadoff skills whereas in OOTP you pretty much know when a guy gets washed pretty much the second it happens. In this case, he probably came into training camp no longer able to hit. In OOTP terms guy would be a 20/20 and you'd just cut him.

[Syd Thrift]

dola,

guys what is this OOTP chicanery an opening day lineup what the heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell maaan

[img[https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=992754&stc=1&d=1706668 689[/img]

Brad Miller's like the worst hitter on the team and he's hitting 2nd??? Justin "pop fly to 2nd base" Smoak at CLEANUP!?!?!?!? And don't even get me started on Abraham Almonte

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

While true, this sets off my other hobby horse: IRL the Yankees had to actually play Crosetti for a season to figure out that he'd lost his leadoff skills whereas in OOTP you pretty much know when a guy gets washed pretty much the second it happens. In this case, he probably came into training camp no longer able to hit. In OOTP terms guy would be a 20/20 and you'd just cut him.

This is why in historical OOTP (with recalc) it's best to play with ratings off. In OOTP, a player's skill ratings are derived from actual performance (because the sim needs to be historically accurate) whereas IRL actual performance is derived from the player's skills.

[Trav876]

Quilvio Veras hitting clean-up for my opponent, and this isn't a fatigue sub (Jeff Kent, the normal clean-up hitter, just has the day off).

Veras with 0 HR and 35 rated power...

.547 OPS which is the lowest in their starting line-up. This is also a different sim than my other one. Am I the only one this stuff happens to? No one else really notices this stuff? I must be doing something wrong.

[Charlie Hough]

I play a lot of historical games with traditional lineups, and while I occasionally see the AI put a fatigue substitution in an unusual spot in the lineup, it's pretty rare. If the AI has set all of its lineups and depth charts correctly and reasonably in the first place, then you usually see batters placed in reasonable spots when fatigue substitutions are made. The main instances of deviation that I see are with leadoff hitters when the normal leadoff man is fatigued, but that spot in the lineup has always been subject to changes and experiments in real life. The AI typically doesn't do anything too far-fetched in those cases anyway.

[Trav876]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I play a lot of historical games with traditional lineups, and while I occasionally see the AI put a fatigue substitution in an unusual spot in the lineup, it's pretty rare. If the AI has set all of its lineups and depth charts correctly and reasonably in the first place, then you usually see batters placed in reasonable spots when fatigue substitutions are made. The main instances of deviation that I see are with leadoff hitters when the normal leadoff man is fatigued, but that spot in the lineup has always been subject to changes and experiments in real life. The AI typically doesn't do anything too far-fetched in those cases anyway.

Like I said then I must be doing something wrong, because I see this all the time. However I meticulously look at box scores and know all of the players extremely well (in this 90's sim) so perhaps I just catch it more often than those who don't necessarily realize a weak hitter is hitting clean-up, for example (like if they don't know all the players and therefore overlook it).

But if not... I have everything on pretty much default settings

[Brad K]

I happened upon a box score where Willie Randolph was hitting clean up. However there were several subs starting that day and the team has a weak bench so I could see a reason to put him there.

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Trav876

I meticulously look at box scores and know all of the players extremely well (in this 90's sim) so perhaps I just catch it more often than those who don't necessarily realize a weak hitter is hitting clean-up, for example.

I pretty much know where everyone batted in the order for any season that I play, especially since you can always check Baseball Reference to see day-by-day batting lineups, even for early decades of baseball when none of us was alive. But most of the deviation that I see is not with the cleanup spot. It's much more often with the leadoff spot.

As far as settings go, I highly doubt that this has anything to do with it, but I never use default AI talent evaluation settings. I use 65/25/10/0, 65/30/5/0 or 70/25/5/0. This helps ensure that the AI bases its personnel decisions largely on player ratings with current-season stats as its secondary priority. It does not pay much attention to past-season stats.

This has a major impact on transaction behavior, promotions and demotions, free agent decisions, etc. I find that it makes the AI far more competitive and realistic. Maybe it also helps with lineup decisions, such as recognizing that a player with the best power rating, and not necessarily the best current or past stats, should go in the cleanup spot.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Trav876

Quilvio Veras hitting clean-up for my opponent, and this isn't a fatigue sub (Jeff Kent, the normal clean-up hitter, just has the day off).

Veras with 0 HR and 35 rated power...

.547 OPS which is the lowest in their starting line-up. This is also a different sim than my other one. Am I the only one this stuff happens to? No one else really notices this stuff? I must be doing something wrong.

While even I would have made lineup switches here (and I think traditionally the way you'd "get around this" would have been by not ever hitting your 2nd baseman cleanup, either by switching Kent to a more offense-heavy position (before the 80s or 90s) or by putting him up in the order to, like, 2nd), this is literally exactly what we're talking about. The game doesn't care whether you have a fatigue sub or an "every X games" sub; it's going to do what it does when it subs, and although putting the worst hitter in a lineup at cleanup is bad, it's kind of exactly what people have been preferring the game does.

I'd like there to be something in the middle of "bat the worst hitter on the team cleanup if he's filling in for a stud" and "completely re-arrange my lineup any time you bring in a replacement". I don't know how you'd accomplish that, like, trying your best to keep players within a lineup slot or two of where they were in the lineup originally maybe? That would add a loooooot of extra coding I think and could create weirdness like, say, Quilvio hitting 3rd instead of 4th because the AI couldn't/doesn't move players around enough.

[Trav876]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

I pretty much know where everyone batted in the order for any season that I play, especially since you can always check Baseball Reference to see day-by-day batting lineups, even for early decades of baseball when none of us was alive. But most of the deviation that I see is not with the cleanup spot. It's much more often with the leadoff spot.

As far as settings go, I highly doubt that this has anything to do with it, but I never use default AI talent evaluation settings. I use 65/25/10/0, 65/30/5/0 or 70/25/5/0. This helps ensure that the AI bases its personnel decisions largely on player ratings with current-season stats as its secondary priority. It does not pay much attention to past-season stats.

This has a major impact on transaction behavior, promotions and demotions, free agent decisions, etc. I find that it makes the AI far more competitive and realistic. Maybe it also helps with lineup decisions, such as recognizing that a player with the best power rating, and not necessarily the best current or past stats, should go in the cleanup spot.

I'll give that a shot. Do you not run into AI releasing or waiving/not valuing players who are performing above their ratings?

For example I'll quite often see (even with default settings) good pitchers getting placed on waivers simply because they're like average ratings-wise, but they'll be having good seasons... and usually young pitchers too (so I started ticking over "value prospects" a bit more than veterans).

It seems that may be even more pronounced if ratings are so valued? Or, also the other way where a guy has like a 7.00 ERA but they keep him as a closer because his ratings are decent ...

[Trav876]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

While even I would have made lineup switches here (and I think traditionally the way you'd "get around this" would have been by not ever hitting your 2nd baseman cleanup, either by switching Kent to a more offense-heavy position (before the 80s or 90s) or by putting him up in the order to, like, 2nd), this is literally exactly what we're talking about. The game doesn't care whether you have a fatigue sub or an "every X games" sub; it's going to do what it does when it subs, and although putting the worst hitter in a lineup at cleanup is bad, it's kind of exactly what people have been preferring the game does.

I'd like there to be something in the middle of "bat the worst hitter on the team cleanup if he's filling in for a stud" and "completely re-arrange my lineup any time you bring in a replacement". I don't know how you'd accomplish that, like, trying your best to keep players within a lineup slot or two of where they were in the lineup originally maybe? That would add a loooooot of extra coding I think and could create weirdness like, say, Quilvio hitting 3rd instead of 4th because the AI couldn't/doesn't move players around enough.

Aren't the player expectations (on their main profile page) based on their ratings and/or stats? Couldn't that be something that wouldn't take a lot of coding? Managers/AI could then put guys into the line-up that somewhat matches their expectations? Quite often, guys will have "middle of the order," or "top of the order.." Even a guy that has "bench player" as expectation, eventually develops a different expectation based on if he's playing a lot and how he's performing. So there's obviously some kind of recognition the game has for "clean-up" type hitters, or "top of the order" type hitters, based on stats and/or ratings...

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

As far as settings go, I highly doubt that this has anything to do with it, but I never use default AI talent evaluation settings. I use 65/25/10/0, 65/30/5/0 or 70/25/5/0. This helps ensure that the AI bases its personnel decisions largely on player ratings with current-season stats as its secondary priority.

I have tried this before and I felt the opposite. When I tried leaning into ratings, then yes, the best hitters would be in the ideal slot for them. But the realism went away pretty quickly when I would see the best-rated hitters going into a protracted slump (thanks, RNG) and they would not get bumped down in the lineup.

It's not realistic to me to see a player get 500 PA who bats under .200, just because he got 500 PA in real life when he batted .230. Or conversely have a weaker hitter over-perform, be the best hitter on the team for the entire season, yet spend the entire season at #7 in the lineup.

I just gave up and now use 0/60/30/10. You know, if a young Mike Schmit or Willie Stargell struggles and is hitting .220 with 8 homers at the trading deadline, the Phillies or Pirates might just give up and trade him despite what his ratings are.