All Forums > Hardball Dynasty Baseball > Hardball Dynasty > base stealing aggressiveness set for individuals?
1/28/2011 10:29 AM
Are individual settings for base stealing aggressiveness in the works, or was that just a suggestion?
1/28/2011 10:35 AM
WifS has said "This, in fact, will never happen."
1/28/2011 10:48 AM
Is it too much of a pain to program?  Or do they utilize the team setting to even out the stolen base percentages?
1/28/2011 10:54 AM
They've said it would eat up too much bandwidth. 

I think it would require a massive overhaul of the entire SB engine.   I also think it would produce the same results.    The guys that go 127/3 would suddenly be reduced to 90/40 and owners would stop sending them as much.    The guys that go 0/2 would be changed to never and go 0/0(which isn't realistic as even the slowest of the slow attempts a steal every now and then).    At the end of the day, SB% is pretty close to MLB now.   A re-program would attempt to replicate the same thing.    Seems like a lot of work to go nowhere.
1/28/2011 11:35 AM
like politics
1/28/2011 11:55 AM
exactly
1/28/2011 3:08 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/28/2011 10:54:00 AM (view original):
They've said it would eat up too much bandwidth. 

I think it would require a massive overhaul of the entire SB engine.   I also think it would produce the same results.    The guys that go 127/3 would suddenly be reduced to 90/40 and owners would stop sending them as much.    The guys that go 0/2 would be changed to never and go 0/0(which isn't realistic as even the slowest of the slow attempts a steal every now and then).    At the end of the day, SB% is pretty close to MLB now.   A re-program would attempt to replicate the same thing.    Seems like a lot of work to go nowhere.
As far as your "realism" comment, I guess Johnny Estrada is a figment of our collective imaginations, since he has never attempted a stolen base in his career. Beyond that, there are hundreds (likely thousands) of full player seasons that have not included a single SB attempt.

Beyond the hyperbole, you say this same thing every time SB are brought up, and it makes no more sense now than the first time you said it.

In no other aspect of the game would you (or anyone else who really thought about it) feel this logic holds water.
 
"HR are wacked, because the guys with over 80 power all hit 100 HR each, but the guys with under 80 power each hit 7, so the team averages come out the same. No need to change anything then, since, at the end of the day, the team averages are pretty close to MLB. Seems like a lot of work to go nowhere."

"Strikeouts for pitchers is wacked, because the highest velocity guys routinely strike out 400+ batters in 200 innings, but anyone without really high velocity rarely strikes anyone out. No need to change anything then, since, at the end of the day, the overall K/9 rate is pretty close to MLB. Seems like a lot of work to go nowhere."

"Fielding is wacked, because the guys with 90+ glove go seasons on end without any errors, but guys with sub-80 gloves average an error every 2 games, so the team averages come out the same. No need to change anything then, since, at the end of the day, the team averages are pretty close to MLB. Seems like a lot of work to go nowhere."
1/28/2011 4:37 PM
Hehe.  Could you please list all players with more than 200 PA last season who did not attempt a steal?

The reason I'm against individual SB settings is quite simple.    IT REQUIRES A COMPLETE ENGINE OVERHAUL AND A NEW PAGE/SETTING.   If WifS wants to change the program that currently in place where Mr.127/3 becomes 90/40, I'm down with that.  I would hope that such a change would also eliminate, with the proper choice of settings, any 2/9, 1/7 or 0/5 players.   At that point, I'd be willing to wager than no one would clamor for individual settings because the advantage gained by acquiring 4 90/90 BR/SPD will disappear.   Now, you either have to go all out and build a team full of SB threats or accept that those 4 will go 127/3 and the rest of the team will bring your average back to an acceptable level.
1/28/2011 5:46 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/28/2011 4:37:00 PM (view original):
Hehe.  Could you please list all players with more than 200 PA last season who did not attempt a steal?

The reason I'm against individual SB settings is quite simple.    IT REQUIRES A COMPLETE ENGINE OVERHAUL AND A NEW PAGE/SETTING.   If WifS wants to change the program that currently in place where Mr.127/3 becomes 90/40, I'm down with that.  I would hope that such a change would also eliminate, with the proper choice of settings, any 2/9, 1/7 or 0/5 players.   At that point, I'd be willing to wager than no one would clamor for individual settings because the advantage gained by acquiring 4 90/90 BR/SPD will disappear.   Now, you either have to go all out and build a team full of SB threats or accept that those 4 will go 127/3 and the rest of the team will bring your average back to an acceptable level.
Yes, I could, but even I do not have that time to waste. I can tell you that there are 66 "full season" player-seasons in the simleague database for 2010 with at least 200 PA/162, 0 SB, and 0 CS.

Adrian Gonzalez, Billy Butler, and Adam Lind all logged over 600 PA without attempting a steal in 2010.

As for your second comment, have you changed your argument that an *obvious* engine flaw should not be addressed because it would not be an *easy* solution? If that was the stance of WhatIf (and hell, even yours consistently) the engine would be a much different (and poorer) beast than it is now.
1/29/2011 9:07 AM (edited)
I think it would be a new addition that, if done properly, would go unutilized.   As I said, the advantage would be lost and we'd be back to square one.  What we'd get is 9 months of screwed up results while they fixed it so the SB success rate would be 70%.   Or exactly what it is now.

Individual SB settings would be like the "no-hitter" button.   95% of the owners wouldn't bother with more than 1-3 players per team.
1/29/2011 8:41 AM
Posted by zbrent716 on 1/28/2011 3:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/28/2011 10:54:00 AM (view original):
They've said it would eat up too much bandwidth. 

I think it would require a massive overhaul of the entire SB engine.   I also think it would produce the same results.    The guys that go 127/3 would suddenly be reduced to 90/40 and owners would stop sending them as much.    The guys that go 0/2 would be changed to never and go 0/0(which isn't realistic as even the slowest of the slow attempts a steal every now and then).    At the end of the day, SB% is pretty close to MLB now.   A re-program would attempt to replicate the same thing.    Seems like a lot of work to go nowhere.
As far as your "realism" comment, I guess Johnny Estrada is a figment of our collective imaginations, since he has never attempted a stolen base in his career. Beyond that, there are hundreds (likely thousands) of full player seasons that have not included a single SB attempt.

Beyond the hyperbole, you say this same thing every time SB are brought up, and it makes no more sense now than the first time you said it.

In no other aspect of the game would you (or anyone else who really thought about it) feel this logic holds water.
 
"HR are wacked, because the guys with over 80 power all hit 100 HR each, but the guys with under 80 power each hit 7, so the team averages come out the same. No need to change anything then, since, at the end of the day, the team averages are pretty close to MLB. Seems like a lot of work to go nowhere."

"Strikeouts for pitchers is wacked, because the highest velocity guys routinely strike out 400+ batters in 200 innings, but anyone without really high velocity rarely strikes anyone out. No need to change anything then, since, at the end of the day, the overall K/9 rate is pretty close to MLB. Seems like a lot of work to go nowhere."

"Fielding is wacked, because the guys with 90+ glove go seasons on end without any errors, but guys with sub-80 gloves average an error every 2 games, so the team averages come out the same. No need to change anything then, since, at the end of the day, the team averages are pretty close to MLB. Seems like a lot of work to go nowhere."
all of your examples are like comparing apples to oranges.  You can't change a setting somewhere that will tell an 80 power guy to "attempt to hit more HR" or a pitcher to "attempt to strike more people out" or a 90+ glove to "attempt to make less errors"  The idea of the individual settings for stolen bases is that you can fine tune your guys so that you utilize the best ones and restrict the bad ones.  Look at your team and see how many guys you think attempt too many times and how many don't do it enough and it's not going to be crazy out of whack.  If the HBD version of Johnny Estrada attempts to steal 2 bases over the course of an entire season, I don't see that as being too crazy.  Now if he was going for 20 stolen base attempts then I would want to change his personal setting while keeping everybody else the same.
1/29/2011 9:46 AM
That's a very good point.

I'd like a "swing for the fences" option.   That way my high power hitters can be given a "frequently" setting and my lower power guys can get a "never" setting in order to cut down their strikeouts.   These are real life options.

I'd like a "go for the strikeout" option.   That way I can set my high velocity pitchers to go for the strikeout.  Maybe even give me a "When runners on base" option.    Also a real life option.

I'll have to think about the error option.   Seems like everyone always tries not to make errors.  Maybe a "make great play" option.  Guys with high range/arm can attempt to make catches/throws that most won't.    Will effect the +/- numbers.
1/29/2011 12:48 PM
Fine.

"Bunting is wacked, because the guys with 90+ bunting are 98% successful, but guys with sub-80 bunting have a success rate of 8%, so the averages come out the same. No need to change anything then, since, at the end of the day, the averages are pretty close to MLB. Seems like a lot of work to go nowhere."

I'm not sold on the necessity of individual controls, but - independent of that - the SB aspect of the engine is quite simply broken and yes - should be addressed.
1/29/2011 1:06 PM
Do they even do updates any more?
1/29/2011 4:05 PM
Posted by zbrent716 on 1/29/2011 12:48:00 PM (view original):
Fine.

"Bunting is wacked, because the guys with 90+ bunting are 98% successful, but guys with sub-80 bunting have a success rate of 8%, so the averages come out the same. No need to change anything then, since, at the end of the day, the averages are pretty close to MLB. Seems like a lot of work to go nowhere."

I'm not sold on the necessity of individual controls, but - independent of that - the SB aspect of the engine is quite simply broken and yes - should be addressed.
I'm not entirely sold that it's broken.    If you look at the league leaders in CS%, they're throwing out runners at a pretty good rate.    They are also 80/80 AS/AA or, in other words, legit catchers.   However, if you're like me, you're using 65-75 AS/AA guys and getting 22-25%,     And, if you're like me, you're fine with that because you don't believe the extra 15 SB you give up(the difference, more or less, between 25% and 33% over the course of a season) is costing you as many games as a .650 OPS guy at C would at the plate.
So, maybe if all of us used 80/80 C, the 127/3 SB threat would cease to exist. 
IOW, operator error.
of 2
All Forums > Hardball Dynasty Baseball > Hardball Dynasty > base stealing aggressiveness set for individuals?

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.