10.31 Peak Can Be Lower Than Overall for Relievers [Fixed 11.04]

[HoustonGM]

I thought this bug was gone, but it's not. This guy is 25, peak start 27, attached are his predicted overall and his predicted peak.

[HoustonGM]

bump

[etothep]

if this has been noted elsewhere, feel free to merge this thread

this one of multiple players who this happens with and his peak isn't listed to start until he's 26

ps- using frenchredsox's v3.0 roster

[HoustonGM]

I know for a fact I've posted this before, but I can't find any previous threads. It only manifests itself with relief pitchers.

[ohms_law]

Found the old thread. I was looking into this the other day, but couldn't identify a reason why. Are some players like this right away in your rosters HGM? or FRS's rosters?

[etothep]

I know for a fact I've posted this before, but I can't find any previous threads. It only manifests itself with relief pitchers.

i do seem to recall that most players i saw this issue with were relievers now that you mention it

it's just odd...houston, do you know if this affects the player's trade value? for instance, the pitcher could be viewed as 86/86 but is actually 86/90, so is he valued by computer controlled teams as 86/86 or as 86/90?

[HoustonGM]

Found the old thread. I was looking into this the other day, but couldn't identify a reason why. Are some players like this right away in your rosters HGM? or FRS's rosters?
I'm not sure. It happens with young, good relievers.

[ohms_law]

*scratches head*

...I'll figure it out, eventually. Having a saved game with a player whom this is occurring too would help quite a bit, though.

[HoustonGM]

Here ya go.

Tony Pena on the Diamondbacks.

[ohms_law]

OK, thanks.

[ohms_law]

OK, here's what I've figured out. In your current save, Tony Pena is 25, his peak start is 27, and he's already highly rated. His potential is only 32, though. That combination (current age, peak age, and potential) doesn't leave him enough room to develop, so the low potential rating is actually acting as a negative modifier.

If you increase his peak start several years, or increase his potential up above 100, then his peak rating ends up being in the 90's, well above his current overall. The main problem, it seems to me, is that potential. A 100 potential is average, and should lead to increases of about 4% per year until they reach peak start. Anything lower than 100 leads to lower per year increases, which leads to lower peak levels then the player "should" have. Really, I'm not sure why you should ever set potential below 100, since potential is a multiplier to the yearly increase. 100 = normal increase per year, 110 = 10% higher increase (of ~4%) per year. So, while a player will increase about 4% per year with 100 potential, they will increase about 4.4% per year at 110, or 20% per year at 500. ...something like that. Note that all of the above doesn't take into account several modifiers that come into effect when real aging occurs though, such as happiness and the team's farm system.

The fact that peak is lower than overall is still strange. That seems to be related to a players Endurance rating though, not anything to do with their development...
Maybe I should add something to make endurance irrelevant for "relievers" (pitchers with endurance below 50)? I don't know, I need to talk to Clay about it...

[HoustonGM]

Since he's already really good, the thing is, I don't want him improving TOO much more. He's currently rated 78/80/99. Say I want him to get a little better, but not too much - 80/82/100. That should give him either a peak equal to his current overall, or more likely, a point higher, but it gives him a lesser peak. That's potential 36. If I make his potential 100, average, he has peak ratings of 85/86/100, and a peak 1 less than his overall. In fact, he can never have a peak equal to his overall. A potential of 102 gives him a peak 1 less. Up it to 103, and the peak goes 1 higher. Now, he's rated 85/87/100, but see, that would be too good, better than I want him to actually become. Now, I understand that the game should allow for him to become better than his peak rating, but I should be able to set his peak ratings to better than his current overall rating, and still get a higher peak than overall. So, something clearly isn't working right.

[etothep]

so switching potential to 100 is the quick fix for us?

[ohms_law]

Yea, I understand what you're saying. I'm just not sure what I can do about it, other than implement a pure kludge. I could easily force peak to always be at least equal to overall, but that's not really a fix, it's simply hiding the problem.
I'll be damned if I can figure out how peak actually becomes lower than overall... Honestly (sorry Clay), those functions (there are about 6 functions that the program goes through to generate a peak rating, if I remember correctly) are just a convoluted mess.
I'm not really sure how much I should mess with Clay's rating system either, to be honest.

so switching potential to 100 is the quick fix for us?

...I guess.

[HoustonGM]

so switching potential to 100 is the quick fix for us?
Apparantly, it's 103...at least for Tony Pena :)

[GOYANKSGONJ]

...after the fact. Transactions wise, I think he's pretty good, and, while I haven't had a chance to take a more complete look at V 3.01 yet, I'd assume it's even better.

Anyway, my question pertains to either FRS and/or the league's (co-?) commish (es?) making several players wind up, such that their overalls are higher than their peaks. Wouldn't there be some sort of a way for the game to have code added so a red flag type message popped up when future individual situations of this like type occurred, particularly if people are trying to create their own roster mod?

Would seem awfully strange that the answer to the underlying question in this case would be no; however, if it is, it is; there's really nothing I can do about it, I guess.

If the oversights were, in fact, on the overall majority, due to FRS's negligence, I assume they would, more than likely, have just been simplistic transpositions of the two data fields? Logical conclusion here?

Thanks!

[HoustonGM]

Thread merged. This is the issue you seem to be referring to. Are you seeing this with non-relievers?

[GOYANKSGONJ]

Thread merged. This is the issue you seem to be referring to. Are you seeing this with non-relievers?

I can e-mail you the Excel download spreadsheet of our league's rosters at some point later on today, HGM, before we do our first sim. I purposefully added in an upside column, which is the peak-overall (I did it manually, even though I know it is an option as a downloadable column heading), and intentionally made those players who are currently facing this issue stand out. I'm honestly not sure, I'll leave it for you to analyze.

If it turns out to be specifically a relievers issue, is this potentially be worked on being fixed for 10.34? Just curious.

[ohms_law]

If it turns out to be specifically a relievers issue, is this potentially be worked on being fixed for 10.34? Just curious.
Yes, I am... as best I can. Read above.

[GOYANKSGONJ]

Yes, I am... as best I can. Read above.

Are .xls's an uploadable file type on these forums?

[HoustonGM]

I don't believe so . You can put them in a Zip file and upload the zip.

[GOYANKSGONJ]

Yes, I am... as best I can. Read above.

I contradict my own statement in this matter. Let me go check my .xls of FRS's V 3.01 roster mod (although, I've decided that I intend to use V 3.00 for the mixing of my new league's roster file); I could've sworn I noticed this problem the other day with some SP (s), or some other position (s) other than RP; however, I just can't recall who (m) it/they was/were.

The following guys on FRS's V 3.01 experience this problem:

1. Rafael Soriano
2. Manny Delcarmen
3. Jonathan Papelbon
4. Carlos Marmol
5. Bobby Jenks
6. Jared Burton
7. Rafael Perez
8. Joakim Soria
9. Yhency Brazoban
10. Pat Neshek
11. Andrew Brown
12. Ron Flores
13. Masumi Kuwata
14. Tyler Johnson
15. A.J. Murray
16. Gustavo Chacin (here's the one I think I noticed!) - SP
17. Shaun Marcum (same team and position as the one directly above him)

Forgive me for asking an idiotic question, but, since we can freely manually alter the overall and/or peak figures for the various players, wouldn't it be just as easy to go back into the player profiles for these 17 guys and to transpose the respective figures, putting the present peak figure in overall, and vice versa?

BTW, OP, what default and/or other roster mod were you using when you were experiencing this problem? Unless FRS subsequently made an adjustment, as suggested by a combination of HGM and ohms, after this problem was brought to light, as you'll notice, I didn't experience any issue with Pena.

Oops, answered my own question by looking at the OP! Anyway, FRS, then, I guess the burden falls to you; did you make any adjustments between 3.00 and 3.01 which would've likely averted this problem for the player brought to our attention in the OP?

[HoustonGM]

FRS, as like I do, edits his file within the .mog file, using the Player Editor, where the editor has no control over the exact Overall / Peak numbers, like with using the .csv files. The overall and peak values calculated by the game are comig up incorrect.

For Chacin and Marcum, what are their endurances?

[GOYANKSGONJ]

FRS, as like I do, edits his file within the .mog file, using the Player Editor, where the editor has no control over the exact Overall / Peak numbers, like with using the .csv files. The overall and peak values calculated by the game are comig up incorrect.

For Chacin and Marcum, what are their endurances?

So, if I understand you right, the "editor," referring to the user, lacks control over the exact overall/peak figures, with both the .mog and .csv files?

I'll get back to you on those two guys' endurances momentarily.

[GOYANKSGONJ]

...

I'll get back to you on those two guys' endurances momentarily.

Chacin = 85
Marcum = 75

[HoustonGM]

So, if I understand you right, the "editor," referring to the user, lacks control over the exact overall/peak figures, with both the .mog and .csv files?
Not really. With the roster.csv file, you can input exact overall/peak numbers. Using the player editor in .mog files, you can't just manually input overall/peak numbers. You have to input predicted stats (or for peak, use the +/- button) and the game calculates the overall/peak rating.

[GOYANKSGONJ]

Not really. With the roster.csv file, you can input exact overall/peak numbers. Using the player editor in .mog files, you can't just manually input overall/peak numbers. You have to input predicted stats (or for peak, use the +/- button) and the game calculates the overall/peak rating.

Ah, now I'm clear on what you were saying previously.

ohms, any further updates on this one, now that we've identified that it's not a reliever-specific bug, as I initially thought?

BTW, HGM, when you first "re-identified" this bug as the OP of this thread, what either default and/or user-created roster mod were you utilizing at the time? Just curious. I had initially thought that another poster who had clearly said they were using FRS's V 3.00 had, in fact, been the OP; that's what happens during college finals week, I guess! :D

[HoustonGM]

I was using my rosters. The roster set really doesn't matter, though, because the problem is with the way the ratings are being calculated.

[lilbman07]

12577

as you can see his overall is 95 and peak is 80. Is this a bug?

[ohms_law]

Is this a bug?
Yup

[dps]

The roster set really doesn't matter, though, because the problem is with the way the ratings are being calculated.

Just asking for some clarification here. My understanding was that this only happens with custom rosters, not with the default roster, nor with fictional players generated by the game as you play into the future. Is this correct?

[HoustonGM]

Just asking for some clarification here. My understanding was that this only happens with custom rosters, not with the default roster, nor with fictional players generated by the game as you play into the future. Is this correct?
I don't know. I've only seen it happen with players that I've used the player editor to edit, so it very well might be that the fictionally created players have restrictions set on their predicted stats to prevent this, but I don't know.

[GOYANKSGONJ]

Any idea on potential new progress towards fixing this bug? A temporary work-around, perhaps?

Thanks!

Going to be doing hardcore work on my league's preliminary file tomorrow, and over the next couple of days, as well. Would rather, for the time being, be able to play where this bug isn't a factor; hence, if there's one particular vital statistic, for example, that can be changed either to a default value, or, increased/decreased by a default value, so that all OVR's will be < PEAK's, then, that would be awesome!

Question would be, I guess, what's that mystery vital statistic?

[WHAK0985]

I mentioned something similar to this when I posted my rosters. I noticed that if you input the actual 2007 season stats to determine the players' ratings, too many relievers tend to have extraordinarily high ratings, ESPECIALLY the pitchers who severely limited the amount of hits and home runs and had a very high movement rating. I'm pretty sure the peak rating being higher than the overall rating has to do with the player editor AI/whatever not knowing how to deal with the very low hit/HR numbers. The way I remedy this situation is that I add hits and HR's to the pitcher's predicted stats until the peak/overall ratings level off back into normal values.

I hope that addresses your inquiry GOYANKS

[GOYANKSGONJ]

Any additional success in browsing the code for this one?

[FRENCHREDSOX]

I mentioned something similar to this when I posted my rosters. I noticed that if you input the actual 2007 season stats to determine the players' ratings, too many relievers tend to have extraordinarily high ratings, ESPECIALLY the pitchers who severely limited the amount of hits and home runs and had a very high movement rating. I'm pretty sure the peak rating being higher than the overall rating has to do with the player editor AI/whatever not knowing how to deal with the very low hit/HR numbers. The way I remedy this situation is that I add hits and HR's to the pitcher's predicted stats until the peak/overall ratings level off back into normal values.


Yes thats the case in general but really not a bug but just how the engine works out overall/peak,I assume that the code is identical for SPs & RPs & thus there is a direct correlation between Batters Faced,IPs,H,BB & HRs - the only "buggy" element (& the same applies to certain batters) is the lack of distinction for IBBs & BBs which are lumped together.

A guy like Bonds who obtained/obtains 90+ IBBs will get his Eye inflated & thus up his Overall & in contrepartie it worsens pitchers Control/Overall when they issue IBBs which is inconsistent,in this case.

[WHAK0985]

All I was trying to say was that the overall ratings being higher than the peak ratings can be a result of abnormally low hit/HR numbers. That's all.

And the BB/IBB thing. Why is that a bug? In real life a walk is a walk, whether it is intentional or not. In a pitcher's season totals and rate stats, the intentional walks are included, same with batters. Why is it necessary to have a distinction in BM?

[HoustonGM]

All I was trying to say was that the overall ratings being higher than the peak ratings can be a result of abnormally low hit/HR numbers. That's all.

And the BB/IBB thing. Why is that a bug? In real life a walk is a walk, whether it is intentional or not. In a pitcher's season totals and rate stats, the intentional walks are included, same with batters. Why is it necessary to have a distinction in BM?
Well, it's a problem i guess with inputting real stats as predicted stats. The player's predicted stats should indicate his "true" ability.

[FRENCHREDSOX]

numbers. That's all.

And the BB/IBB thing. Why is that a bug? In real life a walk is a walk, whether it is intentional or not. In a pitcher's season totals and rate stats, the intentional walks are included, same with batters. Why is it necessary to have a distinction in BM?
because an IBB is not a BB,an unintentional walk (BB) is,in BM terms,a lack of control but an IBB is a "different" animal.

As a roster maker yourself,a 5 or so difference in BBs makes a large difference in a player's control & even more so for a RP.For a batter IBBs are even worse if you take Bonds or Thome & filter out their IBBs then their "eye" drops 10 or so points...just an viewpoint