Show 13 lineup logic

[theaub]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

You know the AI doesn't take fielding into account when making lineups.(if anything that might be the slightest of shortcomings here...but I'd say most managers are looking at batting performance when making a lineup anyway) But if there is anyone with 3B as a secondary position and has higher vs. RHP stats than Kinsler's less than stellar ones vs. RHP it' makes perfect sense to play him. Why? BECAUSE THE CPU HAS NO IDEA WHO IAN KINSLER IS(and why should it if we want it to be LOGICAL 20 years into the future in franchise.)

Eh, I still think a good addition would be 'player roles' and that would carry through down the road in franchise based on a players past performance/salary/popularity/importance to the team (I do remember hearing something about this so perhaps it was put in?)

If you have Player A who's an 77 overall, making the minimum and fans don't really care about him and Player B who's a 76 overall, makes $8M and has played for the franchise for 10 years, the AI should probably still be leaning towards Player B as the starter.

On the semi-same point, lets say Player A in that situation becomes the starter, he should theoretically have a shorter leash where poor performance would put Player B back into the lineup when compared to a situation where its reversed (the slightly better player is more popular/makes more $$ etc).

Per the Kinsler post, it also makes sense to have players who are programmed 'everyday' guys based on the same criteria. To use the Blue Jays as an example, Colby Rasmus may blow against lefties, but the Jays aren't going to start Rajai Davis (far superior against lefties) over him in CF just because they want to see Rasmus establish himself as the everyday CF. Now the logic behind that might be flawed, but its common across the league and thus would add an extra layer of realism to the manager AI.

[Perfect Zero]

And I think another problem is that lineups aren't decided by Vulcan managers. There are a whole lot of reasons why a player is put into lineups every day. A rational manager would rest his main guys late in the season and let the young guys play; that obviously didn't happen last year with the Rangers. The same can be said about players that have long term contracts and are put into these roles, fan value over statistical analysis, and other factors.

I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing Knight, it's just that the AI is limited in what it can do. I realize that, and as the game goes along I accept that. If I wanted it to be 100% realistic and up to date, I'd quit playing and watch the real thing all the time

It would be nice if player roles were added though. I recently picked up NBA 2k12 on a hunch, and the player roles work really well in that game. I think it could do some good in this game as well.

[El_MaYiMbE]

Quote: Originally Posted by Knight165

THE CPU HAS NO IDEA WHO IAN KINSLER IS.... M.K. Knight165

I hear what you are saying that the CPU does not "know" who Kiensler is, but I think setting roles to players or playing time (NBA 2K13) will help this.

In NBA 2K13 there is a rotation setting in Season/Franchise. You set how many minutes on average each player should play.

Now I know baseball isnt exactly like that but they should build in roles (I think another MLB game had this).

There should be a limit of people you can set as "Everyday" players on each team (maximum of 8....one for each position....and excluding the pitcher). Other options should be:

1. Everyday player (92%-95% of 162 games)
2. Back up (8%-10% of 162 games)
3. Situational (5%-8% of 162 games)

Tie this in to fatigue, player rating, and that new depth chart and you got yourself some true logic.

You can also set players by where they bat in the lineup. No reason that Jeter should be batting 6th because he is struggling vs righties for example.

All players in conjunction with their role on the team (listed above) should have a generic batting order profile.

1. Top of the order (1-2 hitter)
2. Middle of the Order (3-5)
3. Middle Bottom of the order (5-7)
4. Bottom Third of the order (6-9)
5. Last (8-9)
6. Floater (2-8)...see Nick Swisher last year on Yankees.

Both this option along with the team role should be in Roster Management under a new section called "Lineup Pressence" or "Players Role".

Ideally this can be rolled into contract negotiations as well. If I sign a 2nd basemen who traditionally is a "Everyday player" and "Middle of the Order" type hitter, and in my contract offer I say he will be a "Backup" and "Bottom Third of the order" type hitter it will effect negotiation and price.....if I demote him after the contract it should effect morale, willingless to resign with the team, and trade demands. If I play him more than promised it could boost these options but impact fatigue, energy, production...

Older players with declining abilities should be more likely to accept that deal, then lets say a Robinson Cano or Ian Kiensler, who is in their prime.

I can go all day guys....

[MLB Bob]

I think if they wanted to add Batting order locking, the easiest would be a check box next to the spot in the line up and any player in that spot never gets moved...maybe its too simple and not dynamic, but in future years you may always want so and so batting 4th or lead off. Then if you want AI to do it..dont check the box.

[thaSLAB]

Quote: Originally Posted by El_MaYiMbE

I can go all day guys....

As a result, you can definitely understand how not simple of a task this is.

-- Sent from the Future...

[ravens2k]

Quote: Originally Posted by MLB Bob

I think if they wanted to add Batting order locking, the easiest would be a check box next to the spot in the line up and any player in that spot never gets moved...maybe its too simple and not dynamic, but in future years you may always want so and so batting 4th or lead off. Then if you want AI to do it..dont check the box.

I've said this all along for the AI trade logic too (particularly in RTTS mode). We should have a "franchise icon" box that we can check while editing rosters. If this box is checked, the player can not be traded by the AI, and will always be resigned to the team they are on. If the box is unchecked, the AI can trade that player at will.

That's one of the things that has always bugged me about the game over the years is how often players are traded around by the AI trade logic. Teams are decimated by trades in two years time. This is an easy solution to stop that...

The AI would not have to "know" who Derek Jeter is for instance, it would simply know to keep that player on his current team (until the box is unchecked)... presumably the Yankees....

[MLB Bob]

Quote: Originally Posted by ravens2k

I've said this all along for the AI trade logic too (particularly in RTTS mode). We should have a "franchise icon" box that we can check while editing rosters. If this box is checked, the player can not be traded by the AI, and will always be resigned to the team they are on. If the box is unchecked, the AI can trade that player at will. That's one of the things that has always bugged me about the game over the years is how often players are traded around by the AI trade logic. Teams are decimated by trades in two years time. This is an easy solution to stop that... The AI would not have to "know" who Derek Jeter is for instance, it would simply know to keep that player on his current team (until the box is unchecked)... presumably the Yankees....

I know why people want this for franchise as mentioned, but for the life of me, I can not think of any other player BESIDES Derek Jeter that this function in franchise would apply to. AS far as RTTS, I get people want to stay on the team they choose, so maybe the option could be that if you enter the draft, you can be traded, if you select a team, trades for your RTTS player is tuned off.

I can only imagine adding this feature is a huge amount of work for one case in "The derek jeter rule".

As far as line up locking..the irrational amount of thought that goes into making a MLB line up card is abundant...considering even optimizing your lineup is slightly better than not, and managers actually have to consider such stuff as contract, feelings and optics...

[Knight165]

What do you do if the CPU has two "everyday" players that play the same position?
...or trades for one mid season?

...at some point the CPU has to make a decision on who plays and it's going to probably be just as the OP described.

I'm guessing Michael Young was the replacement vs RHP...he batted .257/.330/278 the last three seasons to Kinslers 228/258/25something(I'm going off the top of my head on all of these #'s so they might not be exact...but they are close)
So what SHOULD the CPU do in that instance?
Like I said....if we are thinking of the game not just THIS year...but a few down the road...the CPU must make decisions.

I'm sorry...but this Kinsler one is NOT a bad one.

I'm all for player roles ...especially in trades and FA signings....but trying to mimic real life lineups is pointless in a dynamic franchise IMO.

(again.....the CPU lineup logic can ALWAYS use fine tuning and additions....I'm not saying that...but the OP's example isn't something I would shake my head at....at all)

M.K.
Knight165