Eliminating (lessening) Fatigue

[Cycloniac]

Re: Eliminating (lessening) Fatigue

Kris Bryant 89
Javy Baez 83 (seems low)
Nick Castellanos 91
Kyle Schwarber 94

Also 30 year old Anthony Rizzo, a 91

Catcher Wilson Contrares is a 63, which makes more sense. But while how quickly he wears out makes sense, as catchers usually get a day or two off every week, the rest of the guys basically wear out just as quickly, and are hovering around 50-60% after three or four games played.

All of their durability ratings are a tick too low, Baez being the most extreme (we have Baez at a 97).

But the fatigue does sound a tad high.

[JoshC1977]

Re: Eliminating (lessening) Fatigue

I don't have an issue per se with the fatigue system. Though I would like to see them add a separate injury rating at some point (so durability could function as an overall stamina and the injury rating as a true injury-proneness rating).

But here is something interesting for the discussion.

I went through defensive lineups from last season on BRef. They have a section on the most common defensive lineups excluding SPs (not batting orders...just the 8 guys on the field).

Atlanta had one lineup that they used 24 times throughout the season (which is only 15% of their games). That DOUBLED the next highest by a team, which was 12. A couple of teams' most common lineup was used THREE times (let me reiterate this...there were teams whose most commonly used lineup was used three times in 162 games!). The vast majority of teams' most common lineup used was below 10 times. What does this mean? It means that in real life, teams are constantly managing players' fatigue, constantly rotating the lineups (obviously while dealing with more injuries than we typically see in-game).

Just food for thought...

[Cycloniac]

Re: Eliminating (lessening) Fatigue

I don't have an issue per se with the fatigue system. Though I would like to see them add a separate injury rating at some point (so durability could function as an overall stamina and the injury rating as a true injury-proneness rating).

But here is something interesting for the discussion.

I went through defensive lineups from last season on BRef. They have a section on the most common defensive lineups excluding SPs (not batting orders...just the 8 guys on the field).

Atlanta had one lineup that they used 24 times throughout the season (which is only 15% of their games). That DOUBLED the next highest by a team, which was 12. A couple of teams' most common lineup was used THREE times (let me reiterate this...there were teams whose most commonly used lineup was used three times in 162 games!). The vast majority of teams' most common lineup used was below 10 times. What does this mean? It means that in real life, teams are constantly managing players' fatigue, constantly rotating the lineups (obviously while dealing with more injuries than we typically see in-game).

Just food for thought...

I would prefer a global fatigue level modifer like the one used in OOTP over seperate attributes for injures and game-to-game durability

If fatigue levels are similar to last year, I don't mind the current system. If they have increased though (I haven't started franchise yet so I can't confirm), then I'm not sure.

I will say that basing durability on games played is the only current solution. As a playing time modifier, the attribute works well.

[JoshC1977]

Re: Eliminating (lessening) Fatigue

I would prefer a global fatigue level modifer like the one used in OOTP over seperate attributes for injures and game-to-game durability.

I'd be ok with that. But what would that modifier modify? Durability? Would they be able to distinguish the fatigue vs injury elements? I think to add the modifier (slider) you'd have to add the actual rating. That would be an interesting dynamic.

If fatigue levels are similar to last year, I don't mind the current system. If they have increased though (I haven't started franchise yet so I can't confirm), then I'm not sure.

They don't seem different to me thus far. I'm still gathering sample size in my three franchises though. It's part of why I wanted to look through lineup rotations IRL (which floored me to be honest)...I constantly shuffled guys last year...and now, I realize just how incredibly lifelike that was.

[jcar0725]

Re: Eliminating (lessening) Fatigue

I like having to rotate guys in and out, it puts pressure on having a good bench, and forces me to be creative game to game.

[Unlucky 13]

Re: Eliminating (lessening) Fatigue

I like to do this with several positions too. Right now I am with second base and center field, and of course catcher always is to some degree. But as I said before, if you have solid starters with high durability ratings, and they aren't injured, being forced to sit them a lot more frequently than they would in real life is pretty frustrating to me.

[Unlucky 13]

Re: Eliminating (lessening) Fatigue

Patch 1.06 or 1.07 seems to have totally fixed this issue, even though there weren't any notes on it. Things are now completely back to how they used to be in prior versions for me.

[TheWarmWind]

Re: Eliminating (lessening) Fatigue

I like having to rotate guys in and out, it puts pressure on having a good bench, and forces me to be creative game to game.

Me too, I actually really enjoy the managing challenge.

That being said, I understand why people want it changed and even support the push to get it changed.