3/9/2011 9:25 AM
Posted by teaparty on 3/9/2011 2:53:00 AM (view original):
I just had a Texiera with fatigue at 15% collect 4 hits including a homer against me...reminds me of Gibson's homer off Eckersley...
Single-game feats by position players (or pitchers, for that matter) have nothing to do with this thread.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/9/2011 9:36 AM
You want it summed up?   Here you go:

Fatigue isn't as bad as you think it is (or think it should be) for pitchers in the 80's.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/9/2011 10:58 AM
I wonder if there are components of pitching that is more impacted by fatigue than others.

For fielders, drawing walks seem to be not affected so much but fielding takes a larger hit.


I wonder if tired pitchers become "worse" at striking people out.  This would probably not affect someone like Cy Young significantly. 
3/9/2011 11:59 AM
I took a quick look at the game log and there were some pretty awful offensive teams on that schedule.  If you take out "Nobody Scores Here..." Young's ERA goes up to 3.29.

Interestingly, he did pretty poorly against the Leever team which looks pretty damn bad.

I didn't have time to really break it down but I would guess that OL  has some pretty poor teams.  Bad competition equates to good stats.  His other pitchers did pretty well as well.
3/9/2011 12:45 PM
Posted by llamanunts on 3/9/2011 9:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by teaparty on 3/9/2011 2:53:00 AM (view original):
I just had a Texiera with fatigue at 15% collect 4 hits including a homer against me...reminds me of Gibson's homer off Eckersley...
Single-game feats by position players (or pitchers, for that matter) have nothing to do with this thread.
Pointing out that fatigue doesn't necessarily or always affect play seems to be on topic to me.  Perhaps you just woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
3/9/2011 12:53 PM (edited)
Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/9/2011 10:58:00 AM (view original):
I wonder if there are components of pitching that is more impacted by fatigue than others.

For fielders, drawing walks seem to be not affected so much but fielding takes a larger hit.


I wonder if tired pitchers become "worse" at striking people out.  This would probably not affect someone like Cy Young significantly. 
Yes, I think that is a huge part of it as well. Tired pitchers are worse at striking hitters out and they also issue more walks. Young isn't affected much by the strikeout factor as he already doesn't strike many hitters out and his BB totals in this instance were about 35% worse than his average season from his performance history while his BB/9 rate was about 20% worse. The defense behind this Young was also better than average as a whole, coupled with the slightly favorable pitchers park, this helped prevent the added walks from doing much damage to his overall stats.
3/9/2011 2:33 PM
Posted by teaparty on 3/9/2011 12:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by llamanunts on 3/9/2011 9:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by teaparty on 3/9/2011 2:53:00 AM (view original):
I just had a Texiera with fatigue at 15% collect 4 hits including a homer against me...reminds me of Gibson's homer off Eckersley...
Single-game feats by position players (or pitchers, for that matter) have nothing to do with this thread.
Pointing out that fatigue doesn't necessarily or always affect play seems to be on topic to me.  Perhaps you just woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
No, this thread is specifically about *not that.*  It is about an entire season's worth of performance.  Single-game examples are not germane.  Your comprehension level doesn't surprise me, given your nickname.
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
3/9/2011 6:21 PM
Posted by just4me on 3/9/2011 3:21:00 AM (view original):
While fatigue works on a linear model and it's easy to calculate the level of fatigue for your players given a certain # of PA or pitches, I'm fairly certain the actual effects of fatigue don't operate on a linear model. I've done a large bit of experimenting with fatigue for both hitters and pitchers (and detailed a large bit of it in the forums way back when) and find that the effects are relatively minimal going from 100 to 70 and from 30-0, but the difference between 70-30 is quite substantial. Not there isn't a performance drop between 100-70, there is, and a good drop at that, but a player at 70% will still put up fairly respectable numbers that, while lower than what they'd put up at 100%, are still very usable and depending on other factors can still even be competitive. The difference between a player at 70% and 30% is huge (I'll expand this more later), but again, the difference between 30 & 0% is again fairly close. There's a difference and the player at 30% will put up noticeably better stats than the player at 0%, but in the end, they're both just horrible and neither is going to help you win many (any) games.

The way I like to think of it - though these are just purely rounded example numbers - is that between 100 & 70% you have about a 15% drop in performance, from 70 to 30% you have about a 70% drop in performance, and then from 30 to 0% there is also a 15% drop in performance. This is most easily seen in pitchers as it is easier to control their fatigue levels than it is that of hitters (as it's easier to control how many pitches your pitcher throws than how many PA your hitters get in a game). Some of my early fatigue strategy tests and teams were built on the premise that these players would still perform at a competitive level at as low as 80%. And some of my games played tests for pitchers operated on the idea that a pitcher could go as low as 70% and still be relatively effective (And by that, I mean a ~1.00 WHIP turning into a ~1.20 WHIP).

As a purely anecdotal example, I drafted the 1918 Babe Ruth onto a $40m team (solely to prove a point to schwarze about the available player pool in low cap leagues in the hope of him expanding the WISC to include some lower cap leagues and to occasionally change the cap in the Exclusive Ownership league (when he ran it) to a lower cap) and was a borderline playoff team down the stretch run. Ruth was getting fatigued, but was easily my best hitter, so I slowly bumped his autorest down from 93 to 90 and then to 85. By the time we secured a playoff spot Ruth was down to the low 80s. He played throughout the whole playoffs while in the blue and down the stretch (about 20 games plus the playoffs) in which he spent the vast majority of the time blue he put up #s substantially better than he had all season. Now, I wouldn't expect that, and it was certainly an abnormality, but it still goes to show that a fatigued player can put up great numbers.
I have always believed that fatigue anywhere in the 80-99% range punishes pitchers and hitters less than you would expect and less than it should.  I can't speak for whether this is true in the 70-80% range alluded to above, because I usually don't start players below 80%, but I have every reason to believe that just4me, who has studied this more than I have, is right.

I start pitchers and position players in the 90-99% range all the time, and I often start position players (rarely pitchers) in the 80-89% range as well.  It's not just that I expect these players to perform better than their AAA replacements for that given game.  One of the beliefs (maybe wrongheaded) guiding my draft decisions is that a great but somewhat fatigued player will perform better than his mediocre but refreshed counterpart.  I believe that the majority of quality players with 550 PA's, for example, will perform a little better even when pushed to 650 PA's than the equivalently priced player who is performing at 100% at 650 PA's.  In other words, I believe that, all other things being equal, a typical SIM "overperformer" with 550 RL PA's will perform a little bit better at his 650th PA than the typical, equivalently priced player with 650 RL PA's according to the way SIM prices players.

For example, the rap on Johnny Roseboro `64 as a catcher is that, with 475 PA's, he is only good for 120 games or so.  I routinely start him for 550-600 PA's (140-150 games), and he still seems to show an A+ arm, if not quite his A++++ peak performance.  I will similarly play Nap Lajoie `02, "intended" for only 120 games or so with 479 RL PA's, for 140-150 games, and he still bats .360/.370 with only a very modest tailoff toward the end, and his fielding range remains good, if not A+.  If anything, I think I have seriously underexploited these performance anomalies because we all tend to rest players in the blue.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of this strategy blowing up in my face.  I lost a playin game last week when my good hitting AAA prospect playing at 83% (and out of position) at 1B made an error in the 9th that allowed three unearned runs and cost me the game.  WIS took Tully Sparks out of another of my playoff games with an injury on the third pitch of the game when he was pitching at 90%.  And contrarian beat me in seven games of a TOC final when he took a big gamble and rested all his starters for one game to bring them back to 100%, and his more rested starters ultimately beat mine.  But although these implosions were high profile, I still think they're the exception rather than the rule, although I only have these threads and my own anecdotal observations to support my thinking.
3/10/2011 1:17 AM
An example of another player I used that played "fatigued" was the 1900 Mike Donlin. I let him play down to 85% in a L/R platoon with my AAA 1B and he put up the following line (which also happens to be his best on his performance history):

Type # GP AB H 2B 3B HR R RBI RC SB CS BB SO HBP AVG OBP SLG 1B 2B 3B LF RF
Best 1 111 400 143 13 7 34 76 117 107 0 0 22 28 1 .358 .392 .680 0 -3 -3 2 3

As can be seen from the number of PA he accrued in this sample (and possibly a few more for SF), he finished the season having accrued 23% more PA than in RL, so would have been fatigued to 87% at the end of the season (and maybe lower depending on the # of SF). His average performance has him finishing with 389 PA, or finishing the season at 97% (and that includes my several uses of Donlin which never finish above 90%). Now, I always try to maximize his performance when I use him. I play in + HR stadiums, I platoon him so he only faces RHP, etc... this helps his fatigued performance still level out to, and possibly even slightly exceed, his rested performance.
3/10/2011 9:01 AM
Posted by llamanunts on 3/9/2011 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Posted by just4me on 3/9/2011 12:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by Trentonjoe on 3/9/2011 10:58:00 AM (view original):
I wonder if there are components of pitching that is more impacted by fatigue than others.

For fielders, drawing walks seem to be not affected so much but fielding takes a larger hit.


I wonder if tired pitchers become "worse" at striking people out.  This would probably not affect someone like Cy Young significantly. 
Yes, I think that is a huge part of it as well. Tired pitchers are worse at striking hitters out and they also issue more walks. Young isn't affected much by the strikeout factor as he already doesn't strike many hitters out and his BB totals in this instance were about 35% worse than his average season from his performance history while his BB/9 rate was about 20% worse. The defense behind this Young was also better than average as a whole, coupled with the slightly favorable pitchers park, this helped prevent the added walks from doing much damage to his overall stats.
THAT is germane.  It would seem to indicate that fatigue is almost irrelevant to low-K, low-BB pitchers with a solid defense and decent park.  If it holds true, it seems you could gain a tremendous advantage by exploiting it.
Irrelevant to what point?  At some point the fatigue penalty is stiff enough to impact performance enough.  I just don't think it is as high as we think. 


It is my opinion that the higher up on the event tree an event is, the more serious the fatigue penalty.

The first event is the "special" category (balks, wp, HBP,etc); this seems to small of a % chance to be important.
The second event is walk, this seems important.
Next is Hit or OUT.

HIT goes to in play or HR.
OUT goes to SO or in play.

It is my speculation that low walks pitchers are necessary to be successful if using fatigued pitchers.   Hit's and HR's can be manipulated by other factors to offset the penalty but walks cannot.

I am going to try this out with a team of sub 1.5 bb/9 pitchers as soon as I can.


3/10/2011 9:45 AM
Irrelevant to what point?  At some point the fatigue penalty is stiff enough to impact performance enough.  I just don't think it is as high as we think.

...to the point that it looks like you can pitch these guys down to 82% and have them pitch like they're at 100% if you are prepared to deal with balls in play.
3/10/2011 12:52 PM
There looks like an increase in walks as well.   I am going to try this out on a progressive team next season.  It'll take awhile but I'll get some data.
of 6

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.