I've thought for a while that fatigue bottoms out somewhere -- maybe 50%? -- since I've seen players at 0% (in injuries-off leagues) occasionally have excellent games. For example, I once posted a boxscore of my 0% mop throwing a 9-inning shutout against a team with one of the top offenses in that particular league.

Today I was looking at the stats of a CA (1908 John Warner) I had traded to someone in one of my prog leagues. The owner's been playing him very tired (his last start he was at 1%) yet his stats don't seem to be very negatively affected.

Here's his RL AVG/OBP/SLG:

.241/.313/.276

In this league, with 192 PA and very few of them at 100% and probably the majority under 70%:

.245/.295/.250

When he was at 48% his line was .243/.299/.243 -- since then he's played more and more tired ever game, yet somehow his line hasn't suffered.

His defense has been good, too. He's got a C arm, yet in this league his CS% is .429 (in fact, what caught my eye first was him going 2/2 throwing out runners when he was at 3%).

Here's his game log for anyone interested:

http://whatifsports.com/mlb-l/playerprofile.asp?ID=29361778&pl=0&type=1

Any thoughts? Has admin ever said at what fatigue % a player "bottoms out"?

As I understand it (which may be flawed), the fatigue applies a % penalty. There used to be a bell curve example somewhere but I think the thread is to old to be found.

It's not linear, the "significant" drop off (again if I remember correctly) is somewhere in the 80%. The "big" drop off was somewhere around 50%.

I would suspect that long term use of a player under 50% would cause:

a significant reduction in hitting stats
an increase in errors (and passed balls for catchers)
decreased success in stealing bases
increased likelihood of an injury

Now, saying that, the worse the player is the smaller the penalty. A 30% reduction on a 250/300/350 batter is smaller than a similar reduction on a 400/500/600 player.

In short, I think your guy will start to suck real soon if you play him under 50%

This player's had nearly 100 PA with his fatigue anywhere from 1-44%, yet his overall line has remained steady. He only has 2 passed balls all season, and as I mentioned earlier his CS% is very good.

You make a good point about fatigue hurting good hitters more than bad hitters. But in this league, the avg. hitting numbers are .253/.314/.316 -- so this CA isn't too far from average, despite being very tired.

It just doesn't add up to me. In my opinion, a player this mediocre in RL, who's very tired, should stink in the SIM.

This is very frustrating. I probably over manage fatigue. I try to keep all players at 100% when there isn't really a penalty if they play at 95%. I should take advantage of those at bats and innings. Can't count how many times I've had some guy playing at 26% go 2-4 with a big hit against me.

That being said after looking at the game log Warner is 3 for his last 30, and down to .223 / .271 / .227. But IMO playing at 0% is like playing with a broken leg and the fact he has three hits is stupid.

I'd like to see something more than isolated examples.

I play in five progressives, and in every one of them, virtually every year there is at least one team without enough PA/IP, and consequently with a lot of fatigued players. It sure looks like fatigue carries a significant penalty to me. A few examples:

League 1:
1893, C Jack O'Connor, currently at 79 fatigue, hitting .212/.267/.270 (RL: .286/.341/.383). Same owner has a AAA 1B at 17 fatigue hitting .161/.186/.199. And lots of pitchers with fatigue in the 5-20 range. All of whom have ERAs 15.00 or over.

A second team in the same league has Bones Ely at 49 fatigue, hitting .182/.210/.202 (RL: .253/.318/.326). And has a AAA 3B at 19 hitting .128/.184/.148.

League 2: 1954
One team has severe fatigue issues, including Walt Dropo at 46, hitting .188/.219/.256 (RL: .281/.328/.375). Tom Umplett is 61, hitting .177/.211/.197 (RL: .219/.255/.269). The team's 0 fatigue pitcher has an ERA of 22.40.

These isolated examples don't mean all that much either, but in general I think the fatigue penalties built into the SIM are working fine.

1908 Warner has indeed slowed down since I started this thread, but consider that he's also had 3-hit games while batting at 80, 61, 31 and 19 percent. And this in a league where pitching dominates.

But looking at his stats since he dipped under 10%, it appears as if he's gotten quite a bit worse. So maybe 0% fatigue really is worse than 50%...

PM2 game, Warner goes 2 for 2 at 0% against a decent (ERC+ 109) and rested pitcher:

http://whatifsports.com/slb/Boxscore.aspx?gid=11386623&pid=1&pbp=0&tf=12.95

3 hits in his last 5 AB, all at 0%.

Quote: Originally Posted By contrarian23 on 3/28/2010
These isolated examples don't mean all that much either, but in general I think the fatigue penalties built into the SIM are working fine.

While I see your point, and there is a dropoff, I would think a hitter playing at 0% should not get a hit...unless batting off a pitcher who was severely fatigued. Playing against a lineup of hitters at 0% I would think you SHOULD get a perfect game. A pitcher pitching at 0% should pretty much not be able to get anybody out. While I see the downside to that, I'm pretty tired of even occasionally seeing some guy who doesn't manage fatigue having a player at 30% get 3 hits off my 100% pitcher. As CrazyStengal posted Warner is 3 for his last 5 at 0%. How is that working fine?? I know this is a SIM and statistical oddities happen, but I don't think it's that rare. What is 0% supposed to represent? I take it to represent the guys is pretty much incapacitated. I guess maybe Tech Support needs to chime in and comment if it's working the way they intend it to, and if so possibly explain to us what they intended.

I have never seen 0% defined that way, and I have no expectation that it should work that way.

I don't think it works that way either. But in that case, why wouldn't WIS put 50% next to the player's name (or 60 or 40 or whatever % they're "really" bottoming out at) as opposed to 0. Because 0% really should mean utterly useless.

I realize in the past that opposing teams were penalized with excessive fatigue after facing 0% pitchers. But ever since WIS installed the 6 PA/g max on batters, I don't see why a 0% player shouldn't be horrible.

As with fatigue in anything there should be a point where you become utterly uselsss. I would think a player would be pretty dang useless at 50% - and completely useless at 0%. Seriously what does 0% mean if not completely useless. Shouldn't it be? If somebody is THAT overused should they really have any use at all??

The purpose of fatigue seems to be to keep us honest in using players close to their real season usage. Without a good fatigue system that seems to be futile. We already get the 10% bonus, if you go beyond that you are really abusing the amount of IP/AB you drafted that player for. I would fully support and EXPECT that if I drafted player A with 600 RL PA, after 660 I would expect him to decline and if I was pushing 700 I would think he should only get a hit batting off my grandma.

Seems to me, and I'm obviously the least experienced owner in this conversation that part of the skill of managing should be to keep players close to RL usage, or between 90%-100%. I would like it if the dropoffs were much more severe after 90%.

Quote: Originally posted by cbaltz_ca on 3/30/2010As with fatigue in anything there should be a point where you become utterly uselsss.  I would think a player would be pretty dang useless at 50% - and completely useless at 0%.  Seriously what does 0% mean if not completely useless.  Shouldn't it be?  If somebody is THAT overused should they really have any use at all??  The purpose of fatigue seems to be to keep us honest in using players close to their real season usage.  Without a good fatigue system that seems to be futile.  We already get the 10% bonus, if you go beyond that you are really abusing the amount of IP/AB you drafted that player for.  I would fully support and EXPECT that if I drafted player A with 600 RL PA, after 660 I would expect him to decline and if I was pushing 700 I would think he should only get a hit batting off my grandma.Seems to me, and I'm obviously the least experienced owner in this conversation that part of the skill of managing should be to keep players close to RL usage, or between 90%-100%.  I would like it if the dropoffs were much more severe after 90%.  

Well said, and I fully agree. I've said several times that I think a player should be UNABLE to play at 0%. The manager cannot put in a 0% player, and if a player reaches that point in a game, they should be immediately taken out. If a team doesn't have enough players over 0% to play the game, they forfeit.

In fact, I'd be inclined to make the point they couldn't enter the game at 20%. When a team plays with extremely fatigued players like that, it is clear they are not trying to win the game, so why not make it a forfeit, holding back the fatigue of playing in a 35-2 game as well as the unrealistically inflated stats that result.