To me, it's the 10% bonus that is throwing off the fatigue model and the real reason why I think fatigue should start dramatically impacting players at 99%. Like biglen noted above, you pay for a players PA/162 and the price of that player's PAs/162 is built into his salary. Then, you get a full 10% additional PAs without paying for them and can play a player at 100% when he is a full 10% ABOVE his real life PAs/162.
To me, this is like real life and counters all of the "real players play fatigued all the time arguements" becuase you are already playing your players fatigued. WIS is just showing you that they are 100% (on pace for 10% above). WIS is essentially saying that "you are playing this guy fatigued right now, but because it's not excessive fatigue (in this case, less than 10% above their real life PAs) we are not going to impose a fatigue penalty for this player."
When that players hits 99%...he should start experiencing negative fatigue effects. He is truly fatigued at this point becuase he has played past the 10% bonus. It should get significantly more negative for each percentage point beyond that. HE IS FATIGUED...not tired, not playing through pain, not bumped and bruised...that was during the 10% buffer.
It works this way already for pitchers. They have 3 seperate messages for pitcher fatigue. You have the roll over text that says the following:
- 100% - (I can perform as expected based on my stats.)
- Tired from recent game activity (Not fatigued...just tired. If my fatigue level isn't below 90, it's a bit of a gamble to pitch me, but my fatigue will get worse and you won't be able to use me effectively for a while.)
- Overworked - On pace for X% more pitches than actual pitches/162 total (I'm slightly fatigued...but still in my buffer range. It's a roll of the dice how I will perform and you'd better rest me or I'll be terrible the next time I play without rest.)
- Overused - On pace for X% more pitches than actual pitches/162 total (I'm fatigued...pitch me and I will more than likely play like crap or be so fatigued that next time you better not even think about using me. Rest me and I'll be usable again).
Why doesn't it work this way for hitters? As of now...it doesn't work this way at all...we have the following:
100% - (I can perform as expected based on my stats.)
100% - On pace for (up to) 10% more PAs (XXX) than PA/162 total - (I can perform as expected based on my stats.) - Read NO PENALTY
99% or more - Overused -- On pace for XX% more PAs (XXX) than PA/162 total - Exact CS response: (Our fatigue system is non-linear and the effects are percent adjustments off their core ratio stats. A player at 99% is pretty close to 100%, but a player at 60% is a shell of his 100% self. It's an exponential decay.)
So with pitchers, we see the 10% buffer as Overworked (and see a high level of negative performance) but for hitters the 10% buffer shows ZERO fatigue. This is inconsistent at best and rediculous at worst.
Combo in the zubs statement above and you can see how the system is broken:
"I think the point is some people think you get the same performance over the same PAs by drafting better players and playing them fatigued.
i.e. to simplify your obp example the argument is:
It is cheaper to draft 550 PAs of a player with a .444 obp and play him down to 90% performance, effectively getting a .400 obp over 660 PAs (550 *1.20) than it is to draft 600 PAs of a .400 obp guy and use him at 100% for 660 PAs."
If that 550 PA .444 OBP player started seeing a major hit to performance at 99% (and then even larger ones at 98, 97 and on down), he should be so fatigued at 90% that it shouldn't be effective to play him and that resting him would be of utmost importance...just like a pitcher who is fatigued.
That is the point I am trying to make. Zubs hitter example right now is performing FAR too well at 90% based on the current fatigue curve. Owners are not resting that kind of player. He is playing every game and IMO there isn't enough performance drop off to consider resting him with the current fatigue system.
3/26/2013 11:37 AM (edited)