Questionable AI decisions

[ravinhood]

Isn't there a strategy setting page for just about every situation in the game? Seems I recall it but I usually override it and make my own strategies

[Dr.K]

Interesting thread I enjoyed this one!

The Seattle Seahawks are on the one yard line in the dying seconds of the Superbowl with Marshawn "Beast Mode" Lynch in the backfield. They are going to throw it.......It would never happen,

really?

Bill James once wrote "the % calculations which drive strategic decisions in baseball are normally so close and complicated that it is categorically impossible to state with any assurance what the correct course of action would be"

[MKG1734]

to Dr. K:

There is no doubt that this game has advanced greatly and there is a reason I'm on this board talking about it (bc I like the game, I purchase it, and I play it...and it provides excellent utility). I think we see eye-to-eye, and I can understand that the OOTP 'vets' may get tired of people coming on and complaining about this or that.

However; sometimes, although these nit-pick arguments may get tiring...sometimes there's smoke where there's fire. Last fall, I felt like what I said was pushed aside as if I was either wrong, or "well, thats the way it is....you can 'work-around' it." Honestly, The Wolf's reply was the most straightforward and, to me, the most correct. Sometimes the presenter of an issue may not do it in a manner the community likes...but...it doesnt make it less of an issue. I believe that, yes, dyzalot has a valid point and that we should all actively watch for what he says in our games and immediately present these issues and not take the stance of, 'well, thats the just the way it is' or 'well, sometimes real life managers do dumb things, too.' Its a collective effort to move forward and there is likely not a better team of game developers who are more attentive than Markus and his team to bring issues to their attention....so...why not use that to its fullest instead of ostracizing or criticizing a newbie poster? ... (not claiming you did this Dr. K, to be clear)

[Dr.K]

Originally Posted by MKG1734

to Dr. K:

There is no doubt that this game has advanced greatly and there is a reason I'm on this board talking about it (bc I like the game, I purchase it, and I play it...and it provides excellent utility). I think we see eye-to-eye, and I can understand that the OOTP 'vets' may get tired of people coming on and complaining about this or that.

However; sometimes, although these nit-pick arguments may get tiring...sometimes there's smoke where there's fire. Last fall, I felt like what I said was pushed aside as if I was either wrong, or "well, thats the way it is....you can 'work-around' it." Honestly, The Wolf's reply was the most straightforward and, to me, the most correct. Sometimes the presenter of an issue may not do it in a manner the community likes...but...it doesnt make it less of an issue. I believe that, yes, dyzalot has a valid point and that we should all actively watch for what he says in our games and immediately present these issues and not take the stance of, 'well, thats the just the way it is' or 'well, sometimes real life managers do dumb things, too.' Its a collective effort to move forward and there is likely not a better team of game developers who are more attentive than Markus and his team to bring issues to their attention....so...why not use that to its fullest?

Totally in agreement with you!

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by Harry_BallSack

Simulate is not recreate really there is an element of algorithmic variability which creates playability if you want perfection re-read the box scores. The game has to be playable and replayable - in almost every conceivable historical context which is what it has achieved and continues to perfect on. Tweak by tweak it gets better, patch by patch release by release. It is not a simple math equation to plug into Excel and get a 3-2 score on May 17th 1967 when history told us it was 3-2. It might be rained out. That wasn't historical either, hell we can argue about weather patterns and El Nino in 1967 then, that's not the point - its a monument to baseball sim in much the same vein as any other wonder of the world.

I agree it isn't supposed to recreate the exact statistics and results but the managerial strategies used should look pretty much the same as what is used today since that can be recreated. Like I said, I can't remember ever seeing one of a team's top two defensive players being pinch hit for late in a game with a lead, never mind both of them.

Originally Posted by ravinhood

Isn't there a strategy setting page for just about every situation in the game? Seems I recall it but I usually override it and make my own strategies

Yes there is but as has been explained, I'm not interested in doing this for every team. I just want the managers to have realistic but different strategy settings so you get variability within a realistic set of parameters.

Originally Posted by Dr.K

Interesting thread I enjoyed this one!

The Seattle Seahawks are on the one yard line in the dying seconds of the Superbowl with Marshawn "Beast Mode" Lynch in the backfield. They are going to throw it.......It would never happen,

really?

NFL coaches throw all the time in that spot plus because of time management it was the only way to get three plays in and still be able to keep the defense guessing as to run or pass on 2nd down.

[The Wolf]

[snip]

[Dyzalot]

Ok so here is a spot where the AI should have pinch hit. I see this kind of thing happen occasionally. Carlos Carrasco is the starting pitcher throwing a shutout. Either the AI should be pinch hitting or allowing the SP to pitch the 9th to try for a shutout. It should never let the pitcher hit in the top of the 9th and then replace him at the start of the bottom of the 9th.

[Dr.K]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Ok so here is a spot where the AI should have pinch hit. I see this kind of thing happen occasionally. Carlos Carrasco is the starting pitcher throwing a shutout. Either the AI should be pinch hitting or allowing the SP to pitch the 9th to try for a shutout. It should never let the pitcher hit in the top of the 9th and then replace him at the start of the bottom of the 9th.

Now this is interesting, can't say this is what the "book" would say, and at first glance, it does seem off kilter to have the pitcher bat in the previous inning and then not pitch the next. You say the AI "should" have. "should have" according to the so called "Book".

As we know not every manager follows the "book" however on this example you have provided, I may have opted to pinch hit for Carrasco in the 8th....if I had a pinch hitter available whose match up was favourable.

On this occasion what is the context? Did the opponent have a pinch hitter ,and the AI decided to bring in a reliever (Marshall) for a better matchup? I'm not sure.

Did the AI leave the pitcher in at bat (Carrasco) because he had no more options left on the bench? Was the pitcher (Carrasco) injured and not able to pitch the 9th?

Marshall could have come in to pitch the 9th to close the game which it looks like he has, Carrasco may have been left in to bat previous inning as a there were no more pinch hitting options....as you say this has happened occasionally.

Who knows?

I keep enjoying the product, sticking with Bill James below as my guide to the baseball gods, manager moves and the OOTP AI so that I don't get hung up on things


Bill James once wrote "the % calculations which drive strategic decisions in baseball are normally so close and complicated that it is categorically impossible to state with any assurance what the correct course of action would be"

[DCG12]

I was just over at Baseball Reference to check out last nights box scores and noticed a blurb at the top of the page about this being the anniversary of Jackie Robinsons first game. There was a link to the PbP and boxscore so I was scrolling through it and noticed this tidbit, trailing 1-0 in the 5th the Braves get a runner on first with 0 out. Braves manager Billy Southworth (4 time NL pennant winner, 2 time WS winner and winner of 100 games 3 times and 90+ 6 times) has his pitcher bunt the runner to 2nd. He then has the leadoff hitter bunt him to 3rd. The #2 hitter rewards him with a base hit to tie things.

If this happened in OOTP some people would be screaming about how NOBODY bunts twice in a row with 0 outs and WHY move a runner in scoring postion to 3rd.

I think we get too caught up in trying to make every play in OOTP make absolute sense to OUR way of thinking and not allowing for other ways of approaching the game

[RchW]

Originally Posted by DCG12

I was just over at Baseball Reference to check out last nights box scores and noticed a blurb at the top of the page about this being the anniversary of Jackie Robinsons first game. There was a link to the PbP and boxscore so I was scrolling through it and noticed this tidbit, trailing 1-0 in the 5th the Braves get a runner on first with 0 out. Braves manager Billy Southworth (4 time NL pennant winner, 2 time WS winner and winner of 100 games 3 times and 90+ 6 times) has his pitcher bunt the runner to 2nd. He then has the leadoff hitter bunt him to 3rd. The #2 hitter rewards him with a base hit to tie things.

If this happened in OOTP some people would be screaming about how NOBODY bunts twice in a row with 0 outs and WHY move a runner in scoring postion to 3rd.


I think we get too caught up in trying to make every play in OOTP make absolute sense to OUR way of thinking and not allowing for other ways of approaching the game

There is more to it than that. We have people in this thread asking for a "by the book" AI that never makes a mistake or a bizarre move at the right or wrong time. I don't follow the same book nor can I think of a more boring and sterile game than one that follows a formula that is not even considered the "only" way to play by many players.

These individual instances of strange behavior are not the norm and to claim that they are is BS to me.

FWIW I've let my pitcher bat and then removed him and I've seen it in real life more than a few times. In the 9th inning pitching a shutout, maybe not, but that simply provides a narrative that he went to the mound and felt a twinge. Just another great game in the books IMO.

[Dr.K]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

NFL coaches throw all the time in that spot plus because of time management it was the only way to get three plays in and still be able to keep the defense guessing as to run or pass on 2nd down.

100% Correct. It was the right call - based on % successful outcome with the time allowed. Just like Tommy LaSorda with pitching to Jack Clark instead of walking him. It was the "right" call according to the "book" or "convention" but did not get the desired result. LaSorda and Carroll played the % and lost. Carroll and LaSorda probably guilty of "over-thinking".

There was an alternative available to them, but they chose not to use it, others have done the unconventional and won (and lost too), me? would have run Lynch in.

I like that the AI allows for things to be a little unconventional.

My point is, "it does happen".

[MKG1734]

On this occasion what is the context? Did the opponent have a pinch hitter ,and the AI decided to bring in a reliever (Marshall) for a better matchup? I'm not sure.

Did the AI leave the pitcher in at bat (Carrasco) because he had no more options left on the bench? Was the pitcher (Carrasco) injured and not able to pitch the 9th?

Marshall could have come in to pitch the 9th to close the game which it looks like he has, Carrasco may have been left in to bat previous inning as a there were no more pinch hitting options....as you say this has happened occasionally.

Who knows?

Let's pretend that none of the above has occurred. The pitcher is not injured and the team had multiple pinch hitters left to hit.

It is not optimal for the AI to bat the pitcher in the 9th and then substitute the pitcher with a relief pitcher in the next half inning. The pitcher may well get beaned and hurt. He may hurt his leg running the bases. He may hurt his hand/arm/shoulder sliding into a base. Pitchers (especially ones capable of throwing a shutout thru 8 IP) are not put in harms way just 'for the heck of it.' I imagine anyone who follows baseball can agree with that statement.

Though, I can understand that you are searching for context, your conclusions of liking the AI to be unconventional" is an excuse and is exactly what I was attempting to explain is counter-productive to the process of improving the AI. I understand and even grant that all these things that you mentioned "might" have happened. But if the answer is the AI / sim engine is being "unconventional" ... well, it isn't just a one-off...bc it is part of the code. The AI is not actually "thinking," it is acting upon the coding. This means it happens more often (this is not a human making a one-off decision, its a computer reading code). Therefore, it is a coding issue and should be fixed.

But, immediatley assuming that the AI / sim engine produced this result due to the scenarios you listed is not the correct response. Rather, you should note it, and then watch for it in your game. If it happens in your game, as well, then there is a problem and it should to be reported because this is obviously peculiar activity by the AI / sim engine. And then, once it is reported by several people, Markus Heinsohn can then explain that, "yes, this is built into the game on purpose for this reason..." .... or he can say, "yes, this is a mistake and it should/can be fixed."

The point is not to argue between ourselves with, "well, it does or can happen" vs. "it doesn't and shouldn't happen," ...the point is... in programming/coding, assume there is fault, until proven otherwise - and I'm sure Mr. Heinsohn and his team can appreciate that, and that bringing this to his attention is a benefit to the product.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by Dr.K

Now this is interesting, can't say this is what the "book" would say, and at first glance, it does seem off kilter to have the pitcher bat in the previous inning and then not pitch the next. You say the AI "should" have. "should have" according to the so called "Book".

As we know not every manager follows the "book" however on this example you have provided, I may have opted to pinch hit for Carrasco in the 8th....if I had a pinch hitter available whose match up was favourable.

On this occasion what is the context? Did the opponent have a pinch hitter ,and the AI decided to bring in a reliever (Marshall) for a better matchup? I'm not sure.

Did the AI leave the pitcher in at bat (Carrasco) because he had no more options left on the bench? Was the pitcher (Carrasco) injured and not able to pitch the 9th?

Marshall could have come in to pitch the 9th to close the game which it looks like he has, Carrasco may have been left in to bat previous inning as a there were no more pinch hitting options....as you say this has happened occasionally.

Who knows?

I keep enjoying the product, sticking with Bill James below as my guide to the baseball gods, manager moves and the OOTP AI so that I don't get hung up on things


Bill James once wrote "the % calculations which drive strategic decisions in baseball are normally so close and complicated that it is categorically impossible to state with any assurance what the correct course of action would be"

That was the starting pitcher so the bench was full. And as for the "book" I doubt it even addresses something like this since it is so far outside the realm of good managing. To me this looks like the AI making the decision not to pinch hit because it plans on letting the starter pitch the ninth but then changes its mind once it gets to the bottom of the ninth. This should never happen except in a case of an injury to the pitcher.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by DCG12

I was just over at Baseball Reference to check out last nights box scores and noticed a blurb at the top of the page about this being the anniversary of Jackie Robinsons first game. There was a link to the PbP and boxscore so I was scrolling through it and noticed this tidbit, trailing 1-0 in the 5th the Braves get a runner on first with 0 out. Braves manager Billy Southworth (4 time NL pennant winner, 2 time WS winner and winner of 100 games 3 times and 90+ 6 times) has his pitcher bunt the runner to 2nd. He then has the leadoff hitter bunt him to 3rd. The #2 hitter rewards him with a base hit to tie things.

If this happened in OOTP some people would be screaming about how NOBODY bunts twice in a row with 0 outs and WHY move a runner in scoring postion to 3rd.

I think we get too caught up in trying to make every play in OOTP make absolute sense to OUR way of thinking and not allowing for other ways of approaching the game

This is not necessarily an example of the manager calling for a sac bunt by the leadoff hitter. For all we know Culler was attempting to bunt for a hit. Plus this is the 1950's. I am never comparing current day managers to what managers did 60 years ago.

Also, if I was trying to make the AI make sense to "my way of thinking" I would complain every time it sac bunts. I want it to make sense compared to what is realistic in today's real MLB, with all of its idiosyncrosies.

[MKG1734]

Dyzalot: Post the most recent issue in the bug reports forum, bc I agree with you that this is incorrect. If/when I see it in my game, I will do the same.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by MKG1734

Dyzalot: Post the most recent issue in the bug reports forum, bc I agree with you that this is incorrect. If/when I see it in my game, I will do the same.

Just read the requirements for posting a bug in the bug thread. Do you guys realize how daunting of a task that looks to even someone like me who has used a computer for 20 years? I'll do it I guess but what a PITA. I can't imagine how a computer neophyte reacts to seeing what the requirements are. I'm sure they just give up. Also the "YOU WILL BE IGNORED!" statement is quite non customer friendly...

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

Just read the requirements for posting a bug in the bug thread. Do you guys realize how daunting of a task that looks to even someone like me who has used a computer for 20 years? I'll do it I guess but what a PITA. I can't imagine how a computer neophyte reacts to seeing what the requirements are. I'm sure they just give up. Also the "YOU WILL BE IGNORED!" statement is quite non customer friendly...

First you complain about the game being buggy and then you complain about filing bug reports? /facepalm

[Matt Arnold]

For something like that, the only things you need to post in the bug reports is the simple summary of what happened, and the screen caps of the situation (pitcher bats, then is replaced the following inning).

If it's something like a crash, or something where we need access to the game to check the internal state, then you should upload the full league. But simple errors like what's discussed here doesn't need the full hoopla.

Some weird AI decisions have a justification, but some, like the above pitcher hitting and then being replaced anyways without the score changing, is a bug that should be avoided. Our managers may be indecisive at times, but not that indecisive.

*edit to add: please include as much of the boxscore as possible when the pitcher came to bat. Sometimes the problem might only happen if the score is a certain amount, or if there is a specific runner configuration on base when he's up, for example.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

First you complain about the game being buggy and then you complain about filing bug reports? /facepalm

I did say I would do it anyways. I just think that to a newbie, it looks quite difficult and they might just give up instead of filing a bug report. And besides, Markus just made it easier for me.

And I have never "complained about the game being buggy". This game is relatively free of bugs in my opinion for how intricate it is.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Dyzalot

I did say I would do it anyways. I just think that to a newbie, it looks quite difficult and they might just give up instead of filing a bug report. And besides, Markus just made it easier for me.

And I have never "complained about the game being buggy". This game is relatively free of bugs in my opinion for how intricate it is.

That was Matt, not Markus, and I have grown tired of seeing all of your complaints.