WAR in the show

[kehlis]

Re: WAR in the show

I don't know about that. RR just said tonight that memory limitations were the issue when it came to having home and road specific accessories.

Memory will always be an issue at the end of the day.

I did see that but don't think that sort of memory limitation (equipment and on field accessories) would be the same as overall disk memory.

COuld be wrong though...

[nomo17k]

Re: WAR in the show

I still think that the game could really use a performance metric similar to WAR that the AI uses to make decisions on player value in combination with the ratings. It would make it easier to understand the AI's decisions in trades, FA, lineups, etc. if it was more clear what it is looking at.

It doesn't need to be WAR or fWAR or whatever. It can be a made up metric that the devs come up with, but I would like it split into defensive, offensive and total "WAR".

Even if the AI now uses stats, ratings, etc for it's decisions I feel like using some overall metric to gauge player value would go a long way in helping the end user understand how the game operates.

Why did payer X win MVP? Oh his ShowValue rating was 15.3.

or

Why did the CPU make this trade when they are only rated 83? Oh his performance gave him a ShowValue of 8.3 over the season so far, so he is a bit overvalued by the games AI.

Since it would be hard to tie performance to rating increases/decreases this wouldn't really matter that much in the long run since as the human player you know the actual ratings and that is what affects gameplay.

I think the issue is that OVR rating thing is used as if it has as much value as stats like WAR. The reason why a lot of what AI does often doesn't make too much sense, or at least doesn't seem to make sense, is that OVR isn't deeply meaningful compared to stats like WAR.

So in that sense OVR already is the kind of metric the devs use in place of WAR, etc.

[kehlis]

Re: WAR in the show

I think the issue is that OVR rating thing is used as if it has as much value as stats like WAR. The reason why a lot of what AI does often doesn't make too much sense, or at least doesn't seem to make sense, is that OVR isn't deeply meaningful compared to stats like WAR.

So in that sense OVR already is the kind of metric the devs use in place of WAR, etc.

What in game attribute does overall affect?

I thought the in game attributes were what created the overall?


Or maybe I misread this. Are you saying overall is cosmetic? I would agree with that.

[thaSLAB]

Re: WAR in the show

WAR! [uhn, good gawd]
...what is it good for!? 😁

WAR isnt in the game so how did you see it?

Maybe only a stat that shows in exhibition games taken from the 2013 season.

^This. There's actually some pretty funny commentary that goes along with it too, of Lyons attempting to explain what WAR is.

htcONE [M8] 5.0 | Tapatalk

[bigwill33]

Re: WAR in the show

I did see that but don't think that sort of memory limitation (equipment and on field accessories) would be the same as overall disk memory.

COuld be wrong though...

Yeah, I am not sure either.

[JoeCoolMan24]

Re: WAR in the show

I think the issue is that OVR rating thing is used as if it has as much value as stats like WAR. The reason why a lot of what AI does often doesn't make too much sense, or at least doesn't seem to make sense, is that OVR isn't deeply meaningful compared to stats like WAR.

So in that sense OVR already is the kind of metric the devs use in place of WAR, etc.

But OVR affect the stats, and the stats affect WAR. OVR is constant (relatively), where as WAR is a result of a season. I don't understand how these could ever be considered interchangeable. Think of WAR as OPS. OPS is the sum of 2 metrics (On base % + slugging %). WAR is the sum of many more metrics, but they are both just a result metric.

So any reason you have for WAR being redundant, replace that with OPS and tell me if it still makes sense.

[JoeCoolMan24]

Re: WAR in the show

Memory is why more stats aren't in, in general.

But even now with more memory, I'd be very surprised if WAR, in particular, ever found itself in The Show. There are just so many obstacles. From dealing with UZR, to getting around the formulas (which are not public domain). It's certainly not impossible, but it won't be easy. SCEA seems like they'd rather spend those resources in more efficient ways.

I expect to see more stats added, but I don't expect WAR to be one of them.

The fact that it's a video game and everything is numbers tells me that this is the most accurate that WAR could possibly ever be. Defensive metrics could be EXACT, because the game would know to the 1/100th of an inch how far a fielder ranged to get a ball, because it's all code and numbers. It's playing baseball on a calculator, there doesn't have to be any guesses or judgement calls when it comes to defense.

As far as getting access to the formula that Fangraph's uses, I actually didn't even realize that it was a secret. And even if it is, maybe they would be willing to let SCEA use the formula in exchange for a graphic that includes the Fangraph's name when listing WAR. Like "2015 WAR leaders according to Fangraphs" or something of the like.

[seanjeezy]

Re: WAR in the show

I feel like we've had this discussion fairly recently, and the main obstacle was UZR. I'll let Fangraphs explain what UZR is exactly, and how it is calculated:

As many of you already know, UZR is an advanced defensive metric that uses play-by-play data recorded by Baseball Info Solutions (BIS) to estimate each fielder’s defensive contribution in theoretical runs above or below an average fielder at his position in that player’s league and year.

How does UZR determine how much credit, positive or negative, to award a fielder on each batted ball? First it goes through 6 years of batted ball data and determines how often each type and location of batted ball is fielded by each defensive position, making adjustments for the speed of the ball, and the handedness, speed, and power of the batter. Later on, further adjustments are made, such as the outs and base runners, and various park adjustments, like the size and configuration of the OF, the speed of the infield, and the speed of batted balls in general, as influenced by temperature, altitude, and the ground ball percentage of the pitcher (e.g. ground ball pitchers allow easier to field ground balls and harder to field air balls).

Anyway, UZR goes through each batted ball for every game and does the same calculations as above, awarding one or more fielders plus or minus credit depending on what type of ball was hit, it’s location, and the estimated position of the fielders, as determined by things like the handedness, speed, and power of the batters, and the outs and base runners. In addition, adjustments are made for the characteristics and configuration of the ballpark, and for the G/F tendencies of the pitcher.

UZR uses Baseball Info Solutions (BIS) data in calculating its results. It’s important to note that this data is compiled by human scorers, which means that it likely includes some human error. Until FIELDF/x data gets released to the public, we are never going to have wholly accurate defensive data; human error is impossible to avoid when recording fielding locations by hand, no matter how meticulous the scorers. That said, BIS data is still the best, most accurate defensive data available at this time, so just be careful not to overstate claims of a player’s defensive prowess based solely on defensive stats.

So from what I can gather, the important takeaways are a) A larger sample size of batted ball data is needed b) There are many variables included that The Show possible accounts for when playing games, but not simming them c) BIS has actual people compiling the data so there is always the possibility of human error.

So I think the only viable way UZR can work is if the game adopts a mechanic similar to statcast:

<iframe src='http://m.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=36876785&topic_id=73955164&w idth=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

Which is actually a viable idea since the devs probably see something like this everyday in debug mode.

The other option would be to come up with a WAR formula exclusive to The Show, but I like the first idea better

Edit: Looks like me and joecoolman are on the same page

Here's a better vid, this stuff is so cool

<iframe src='http://m.mlb.com/shared/video/embed/embed.html?content_id=36879667&topic_id=73955164&w idth=400&height=224&property=mlb' width='400' height='224' frameborder='0'>Your browser does not support iframes.</iframe>

[nomo17k]

Re: WAR in the show

What in game attribute does overall affect?

I thought the in game attributes were what created the overall?


Or maybe I misread this. Are you saying overall is cosmetic? I would agree with that.

I was simply responding to MrOldboy's point about generating in-game "WAR"-like metric, and pointing out that just like WAR summarizes player's value by a single number, the game already has OVR which summarizes player's value by a single number.

The difference is that while WAR is compiled from observations of performance, stats, and such, OVR is simply computed from player attribute ratings (weighted by position).

So, yeah, there isn't anything in what I wrote that contradicts with your understanding.

It's just that there may be some disconnect in how OVR relates to our notion of how good a player is in the game, because I don't think OVR is as rigorously determined as things like WAR, for which people really try to go at length about the same value of WAR meaning the same thing.

For example, there are quite a few high OVR players in the game at defensive positions who are quite weak hitters. They can be rated high at their position because they possess skills (e.g., defensive skills, speed, etc.) that are valued highly at the position. But these skills might not be as important in the game environment as they would be in real-life for miscellaneous reasons, and there can be disconnect there. To some extent how relievers tend to be over-valued in AI transactions in the game arises from similar issues.

But OVR affect the stats, and the stats affect WAR. OVR is constant (relatively), where as WAR is a result of a season. I don't understand how these could ever be considered interchangeable. Think of WAR as OPS. OPS is the sum of 2 metrics (On base % + slugging %). WAR is the sum of many more metrics, but they are both just a result metric.

So any reason you have for WAR being redundant, replace that with OPS and tell me if it still makes sense.

As I wrote above, they are similar in a sense that each summarizes player's value by a single number. The difference is that WAR is much more rigorous way of estimating a player's value than OVR (currently) is. It could be slightly off-topic the way I introduced OVR I suppose, but the game does need to have some uniform scale on which players get evaluated. The game uses OVR currently, and that was my point.

Is having WAR makes sense? I actually don't know. It would be nice if we see more Sabermetrics type of stats, but given that computing WAR is such a chore, not impossible and can definitely be done if really desired, but should the devs put resources into realizing that over some other lower hanging fruits like more extended stats tracking (of more standard traditional stats)?

I would personally take that over WAR at the moment.

[MrOldboy]

Re: WAR in the show

I think the issue is that OVR rating thing is used as if it has as much value as stats like WAR. The reason why a lot of what AI does often doesn't make too much sense, or at least doesn't seem to make sense, is that OVR isn't deeply meaningful compared to stats like WAR.

So in that sense OVR already is the kind of metric the devs use in place of WAR, etc.

That is the issue. The game AI shouldn't be looking at OVR in a lot of cases, i.e. lineup logic. OVR=/=Performance in The Show. It influences it heavily, but I've seen seasons where McCutchen is hitting .220 or John Jay has hit 25 HRs although these are pretty rare to see over an extended period of time.

Should an AI team value McCutchen as a high 90 OVR when he is having such a bad season?

I'd rather the AI used a better combination of performance (WAR) and skills (OVR) metrics to determine a player's value and make it clear to the end user what the AI is looking at when making it's decisions.

[Madden's Jowels]

Re: WAR in the show

There are simple WAR "approximations" they could use. This site made a pretty decent formula, it's not the official fWAR or anything but it seems to come pretty close. The only thing is, they'd have to do something to quantify defense and baserunning, but that doesn't seem too hard. I've used this site to calculate a simple WAR for my RTTS player several times.

Simple WAR Calculator for hitters
For Pitchers


I'm sure we'd all take something like this, even if it wasn't official fWAR or bWAR. It's better than nothing, and it can approximate having that value in game.


What would be even better, and probably more "back of the box" worthy, is if they just partnered with FanGraphs like they just partnered with Nike, Rawlings, SamBat, Louisville Slugger, etc. And brought in some FanGraphs guys to help them figure out the best way to put their WAR formula into the game. That would be freaking amazing, probably one of the coolest things they could do for the game.

[HozAndMoose]

Re: WAR in the show

There are simple WAR "approximations" they could use. This site made a pretty decent formula, it's not the official fWAR or anything but it seems to come pretty close. The only thing is, they'd have to do something to quantify defense and baserunning, but that doesn't seem too hard. I've used this site to calculate a simple WAR for my RTTS player several times.

Simple WAR Calculator for hitters
For Pitchers


I'm sure we'd all take something like this, even if it wasn't official fWAR or bWAR. It's better than nothing, and it can approximate having that value in game.


What would be even better, and probably more "back of the box" worthy, is if they just partnered with FanGraphs like they just partnered with Nike, Rawlings, SamBat, Louisville Slugger, etc. And brought in some FanGraphs guys to help them figure out the best way to put their WAR formula into the game. That would be freaking amazing, probably one of the coolest things they could do for the game.

Alex Gordon and Lorenzo Cain's numbers come no where near close to what their WAR was (the only two i have done). Unless the Devs can get their version to perfectly match bWAR or fWAR. Or work with one of them on their official calculation of it then there is no point in even having it IMO.

[Madden's Jowels]

Re: WAR in the show

Alex Gordon and Lorenzo Cain's numbers come no where near close to what their WAR was (the only two i have done). Unless the Devs can get their version to perfectly match bWAR or fWAR. Or work with one of them on their official calculation of it then there is no point in even having it IMO.

Did you fill in the lgOBP and lgSLG for Kaufmann? Also those numbers are from 2012, if we were using 2014 data it could look more accurate. Did you fill out the defense and baserunning "ratings?" Did their WAR's come out too high or too low?

I think it's better than nothing, but yeah, I'd love for them to partner with FanGraphs and get the real thing in the game.

[JoeCoolMan24]

Re: WAR in the show

I was simply responding to MrOldboy's point about generating in-game "WAR"-like metric, and pointing out that just like WAR summarizes player's value by a single number, the game already has OVR which summarizes player's value by a single number.

The difference is that while WAR is compiled from observations of performance, stats, and such, OVR is simply computed from player attribute ratings (weighted by position).

So, yeah, there isn't anything in what I wrote that contradicts with your understanding.

It's just that there may be some disconnect in how OVR relates to our notion of how good a player is in the game, because I don't think OVR is as rigorously determined as things like WAR, for which people really try to go at length about the same value of WAR meaning the same thing.

For example, there are quite a few high OVR players in the game at defensive positions who are quite weak hitters. They can be rated high at their position because they possess skills (e.g., defensive skills, speed, etc.) that are valued highly at the position. But these skills might not be as important in the game environment as they would be in real-life for miscellaneous reasons, and there can be disconnect there. To some extent how relievers tend to be over-valued in AI transactions in the game arises from similar issues.







As I wrote above, they are similar in a sense that each summarizes player's value by a single number. The difference is that WAR is much more rigorous way of estimating a player's value than OVR (currently) is. It could be slightly off-topic the way I introduced OVR I suppose, but the game does need to have some uniform scale on which players get evaluated. The game uses OVR currently, and that was my point.

Is having WAR makes sense? I actually don't know. It would be nice if we see more Sabermetrics type of stats, but given that computing WAR is such a chore, not impossible and can definitely be done if really desired, but should the devs put resources into realizing that over some other lower hanging fruits like more extended stats tracking (of more standard traditional stats)?

I would personally take that over WAR at the moment.

WAR does not summarize a player's value. WAR summarized his SEASON'S value. A player can go from a 5 WAR season to a 1 WAR season a year later. A player in The Show will never go from a 90 OVR to a 30 OVR in one season. These are not telling you the same thing.

That's like saying the scouting scale (20-80) is the same thing as WAR. so if a player has a 5 WAR season, then he is a 70-grade player. No, that's not how it works. A 70-grade player can produce a 5 WAR season, or a 1 WAR season, but it doesn't change his skills, it just means he didn't put it all together. I'm confused by how you think that these are the same thing.

WAR is a reflection of a season, not a player.

[nomo17k]

Re: WAR in the show

WAR does not summarize a player's value. WAR summarized his SEASON'S value. A player can go from a 5 WAR season to a 1 WAR season a year later. A player in The Show will never go from a 90 OVR to a 30 OVR in one season. These are not telling you the same thing.

That's like saying the scouting scale (20-80) is the same thing as WAR. so if a player has a 5 WAR season, then he is a 70-grade player. No, that's not how it works. A 70-grade player can produce a 5 WAR season, or a 1 WAR season, but it doesn't change his skills, it just means he didn't put it all together. I'm confused by how you think that these are the same thing.

WAR is a reflection of a season, not a player.

I think you are not getting my main point... obviously WAR and OVR are entirely different in how they are computed, but the fact that they are both used to *summarize* the value of a player does not change. I can similarly argue that OVR is a summary of player's value over a season, just that it's more stable for obvious reasons that his innate ability is not likely to fluctuate as much as random statistical fluctuation that a stat like WAR is always subject to... In any case, this isn't really the point of the thread as I understand.

And if you are actually arguing that the introduction of a metric like WAR is more desired because of its nature as an *estimate* of a player's value (as opposed to OVR which basically exposes exactly the innate ability of players in the game... something you cannot do in real life), then the issue is whether to hide the (true) attribute values from gamers and add some variance to what we can see (as in subjective scout reports) and/or just purely go by stats. In either case, WAR is not an absolute necessity to add that kind of element to the game.