Posted by fooolishfool on 9/12/2012 2:29:00 AM (view original):
bump.


Reading this again makes me rather less concerned about the prospects of my Silver King being able to survive the rest of the season. 10% bonus on 700IP is quite a lot.

True, but he's a very low K and low BB guy, so he's only allocated about 13 pitches per inning. You won't get him to 770 without seriously burning him out. 

I think it'll be tight, but manageable. At 13 per innings I've used ~68% of the allocation and we are ~69% of the way through the season.

Fatigue as it plays out in sim effects the player's defense not offense. Using a fatigued player in the field could be disastrous however using him as a dh should have no real significant effect. Is this correct?

Thanks for the correction. I thought it would be unfair if fatigue did not affect offensive performance however that wasn't going to stop me from trying to use a partial year version of Ted Williams as a dh. Now that I know the effect of fatgue on offensive performance I will rethink my strategy..

On the '85 Clarkson you'll see in his PH for hist best season, I had him throw 17 consecutive starts without him dropping below 100. I had used him very conservatively in he first half of the season and got these starts around game 135-145 range. I've also gotten between 7-9 consecutive starts at 100 from King and Ramsey by employing the same conservative first half use and aggressive second half use.

Similarly, I've stashed guys in AAA, such as Wiley Piatt in league 10175 (I'd post his game log but my phone won't let me). He threw 8 consecutive games at 100 and used up virtually all of his available innings in doing so between games 110-120.

So, I think there is a consecutive game penalty, but I think it only applies if a pitcher is already past X% of his team's games AND is projecting to be over Y%. I think X is 50% or thereabouts and Y is somewhere between 52-73%.

But I'm not certain and I have all of my fatigue notes on my home computer...

Just out of curiosity, in regards to hitters fatigue, why wouldn't pitches thrown be used to calculate fatigue rather than PA's? It seems that you could calculate a hitters NP by the same calculation as a pitchers PT and then base fatigue off of how many pitches a batter is calculated to see. The reason I am asking is in regards to my 1987 Eric Davis whom appears to be getting robbed of fatigue if I look at it by number of pitches he's received. Currently his numbers are as follows:


104 games into the season - 100 GP / 422 PA /  55 BB / 122 K's / 1646 NP and fatigue @ 94%

RL numbers : 562 PA / 84 BB / 134 K's I believe this equates to 2536 pitches available @ 110% using the pitching allocation method I saw in a different forum post and 2305 pitches available @ 100%.

So if Eric Davis had 2305 available pitches for 162 games that = 14.228/G*104 games = 1480 pitches @ 100%(no 10% bonus) and for my Eric Davis @ 94% (16% over), he should have 1716 NP's, 70 more than he has. Or his actual fatigue would be closer to 99% (11% over).

So if fatigue does have an effect on offensive peformance I see a couple issues that favor pitchers over hitters: 1)hitters fatigue faster than pitchers. A hitter can literally see 4 pitches and get 4 PA's. 4 pitches to the pitcher is a much smaller fatigue effect than 4 PA's to a hitter. 2)quicker hitter fatigue leads to a snowball advantage to the pitchers. As fatigue sets in quicker on hitters it gives the pitchers even more of an advantage as the hitters get proportionately worse the more their fatigue drops. It's kind of like double dipping on an already unfair advantage.

Maybe there are other things I am missing (very likely) but doesn't the PA method for batter fatigue vs the PT method for pitchers fatigue favor pitchers more than hitters?

When a ball (as opposed to a strike or hit ball) is thrown, a pitcher actually winds up and hurls a sphere at 90 plus MPH. A batter stands there and doesn't do anything. 

I think fatigue/stamina is still too enigmatic. Nothing ticks me off more than my well-managed, 100% team getting Deliveranced by a team half-full of guys at 85-95% (and, of course, those guys are the ones that seem to do all the damage, including RPs).

Which would you rather have: a team of 85% guys rolling hot, or a team of 100% guys rolling cool-average? I think we all know the answer, and that's a significant problem with this game.

And for the argument that they do well in isolated circumstances, but over the long run fatigued players perform badly:

In an active league, 2013 Will Smith, 4 of the 11 ERs he's given up were during the handful of outings during which he was at 100%:

Date	Opponent	%	IP	BFP	PC	W	L	SV	R	ER	H	HR	SO	BB	WP	ERA	OAV	WHIP	Box
1/21 pm	Black Snakes	100	0.1	2	10	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	27.00	.500	3.00	view
1/22 am	@Upward Mobility	100	0.1	1	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	13.50	.333	1.50	view
1/23 pm2	SF Carew to Oz	100	1.0	3	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	5.40	.167	0.60	view
1/24 am	@Des Moines Pride	100	0.2	3	11	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	3.86	.222	0.86	view
1/24 pm	@Des Moines Pride	100	1.0	4	10	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	5.40	.231	0.90	view
1/25 pm2	The.rock	100	0.2	2	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	4.50	.200	0.75	view
1/26 am	The.rock	87	1.0	3	9	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	3.60	.167	0.60	view
1/28 am	HUCK & BOOTS	100	1.0	3	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	3.00	.143	0.50	view
1/28 pm	Yes We Can	98	1.0	3	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2.57	.125	0.43	view
1/29 pm	Single Malt BLISS	100	0.2	3	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	2.35	.115	0.52	view
1/30 pm2	Citizens	100	0.1	1	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2.25	.111	0.50	view
2/1 am	UTAH UTES	100	0.2	2	7	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2.08	.103	0.46	view
2/1 pm	UTAH UTES	100	1.0	3	11	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1.86	.094	0.41	view
2/2 pm	@Men in Blue	100	0.1	2	11	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	1.80	.118	0.50	view
2/2 pm2	Men in Blue	96	0.1	1	4	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1.74	.114	0.48	view
2/3 pm2	@Reclusive Novelists	100	0.1	3	16	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	2.53	.135	0.66	view
2/4 pm	Bono's Bunch 88	100	0.2	3	10	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	2.38	.150	0.71	view
2/6 am	@PV Mick & Ted	100	1.0	4	14	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2.19	.136	0.65	view
2/6 pm	PV Mick & Ted	89	0.1	2	10	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	2.13	.152	0.71	view
2/7 am	@Boondock Saints	100	0.0	2	11	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	2.84	.170	0.87	view
2/7 pm2	@SF Carew to Oz	97	0.1	2	10	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	2.77	.184	0.92	view
2/8 pm	@The.rock	94	0.2	2	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2.63	.176	0.88	view
2/9 am	@The.rock	92	0.2	3	11	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	2.51	.185	0.91	view
2/9 pm2	WENTLEY REDS	88	0.2	1	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2.40	.182	0.87	view
2/10 pm	@Single Malt BLISS	92	0.2	3	13	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	0	0	2.30	.190	0.89	view
2/12 am	Upward Mobility	96	0.0	2	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	2.30	.190	1.02	view
2/12 pm2	Upward Mobility	92	0.1	2	7	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	2.81	.200	1.06	view
2/14 pm	Des Moines Pride	100	0.1	2	11	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	2.76	.197	1.10	view
2/15 am	@UTAH UTES	98	0.2	3	11	0	0	0	1	1	1	0	1	0	0	3.18	.203	1.12	view
2/16 am	Reclusive Novelists	98	1.1	4	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2.95	.191	1.04	view
2/16 pm2	Reclusive Novelists	94	1.0	3	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2.79	.183	0.98	view
2/18 pm	Bad Lands	100	0.1	2	13	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	2.75	.181	1.02	view
2/19 am	@WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE	98	1.0	3	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2.61	.173	0.97	view
2/19 pm2	@50's Reds	95	1.0	3	10	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	2.49	.179	0.97	view
2/20 pm	Yankee Knights	93	1.0	3	9	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2.38	.173	0.93	view
2/21 pm2	Black Snakes	96	0.2	3	10	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	2.31	.179	0.94	view
2/23 am	SF Carew to Oz	99	0.1	2	10	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	2.66	.186	0.97	view
2/23 pm2	SF Carew to Oz	97	0.2	4	11	0	0	0	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	2.96	.189	0.99	view
2/24 pm	@Des Moines Pride	95	1.0	3	11	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2.84	.183	0.95	view
2/25 am	UTAH UTES	93	1.0	3	13	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2.73	.177	0.91	view
2/25 pm2	UTAH UTES	90	1.1	4	12	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	2.60	.180	0.90	view
2/26 pm	@Reclusive Novelists	87	0.2	3	10	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	2.54	.184	0.92	view
2/27 am	Bono's Bunch 88	86	1.0	4	9	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2.45	.178	0.89	view
2/27 pm2	Bono's Bunch 88	86	1.0	3	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2.37	.173	0.86	view
2/28 pm2	@Yankee Knights	85	1.0	4	14	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	2.30	.175	0.86	view
3/2 am	@WENTLEY REDS	86	0.0	1	3	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	2.30	.183	0.89	view
3/3 pm2	Single Malt BLISS	92	1.0	4	16	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	2	0	0	2.51	.185	0.90	view
3/4 pm	Upward Mobility	89	0.2	3	10	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2.73	.180	0.88	view
3/5 am	@Black Snakes	88	0.2	2	6	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2.67	.177	0.86	view
3/5 pm2	@Black Snakes	88	0.2	3	11	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	2.88	.181	0.87	view
3/6 pm	@SF Carew to Oz	87	0.2	4	10	0	1	0	2	0	1	0	1	0	0	2.83	.183	0.89	view
3/7 pm2	Des Moines Pride	89	0.2	3	10	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	2	0	0	2.78	.187	0.90	view
3/8 pm2	@UTAH UTES	89	1.0	3	7	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2.70	.182	0.87	view
3/9 pm	Reclusive Novelists	89	1.0	3	12	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2.63	.179	0.85	view
3/10 am	@Bono's Bunch 88	87	0.2	2	10	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2.58	.176	0.83	view
3/10 pm2	@Bono's Bunch 88	87	0.1	1	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2.56	.175	0.83	view
3/12 am	@The.rock	91	1.0	4	12	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	2.50	.177	0.83	view
3/13 am	@The.rock	90	0.1	2	10	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	2.47	.181	0.85	view
Season Totals		--	40.0	156	573	1	1	0	14	11	27	5	43	7	0	2.47	.181	0.85	--

He threw a hit every 25.4 pitches at 100, every 18.9 pitches from 90--99, and every 21.2 pitches below 90. But he threw more BB and less SO at 100. And I still think its a small sample.

Though ultimately I think it comes down to what you think it means for someone to be at, say, 87%. Should it necessarily be a disaster for their performance? My impression is that particularly today with all of the medical stuff sportspeople in real life can play games a bit tired or with niggling injuries or whatever and they still typically perform pretty ok. It isn't hard to imagine that maybe by the world series or equivalent most active players are in practice closer to 90% than 100%.

In game fatigue is much more important than where a player starts at. That's why starting pitchers with short IP seasons but high IP/G (think Bob Milacki) are so valuable.

Getting on LIVE is tough these days, but the in game fatigue gives these guys a huge advantage vs, say, Joe Nathan after 15, 20, 25 pitches.

Still not fixed...https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=466091