This wouldn't be so hard, would it? Topic

tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
I suppose if MLB stolen base results "evolved" to the point where one guy on a team going 107-30 and the other 24 guys going 0-0 became the norm, then what you're proposing "would not be a bad thing".

But since the game attempts to model MLB, and numbers like these are nowhere near reality, your argument is about as solid as a block of swiss cheese.
1/7/2011 7:09 PM
pstrnutbag44
Posts: 417 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 102
Prospect
So, by your logic tec, 150+/5 IS the norm? We should be just fine with that, from a guy with only 83 BR? Running wild on catchers with well above average AS/AA? Nothing at all there warrants consideration for any sort of improvement? C'mon now.
1/7/2011 7:12 PM
deathinahole
Posts: 4139 (0)
Hall of Famer
76 2 1 42 1 75
Prospect
What you call progress has been whole heartedly shot down by many.

Base stealers need to be picked off more at the top end. Period. That brings the whole SB percent that smidge closer to bang on, and makes the 90-95% guy 80-85.

Everyone is happy. Except you. And jimmystick.
1/7/2011 7:21 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect
No, 150+/5 is not the norm.  But overall/worldwide numbers for steal attempts and success rates, as well as distribution of attempts across players in a world, is pretty much in line with MLB standards.

The change that's being proposed, i.e. individual base stealing settings, even when combined with throttling back the high-end guys towards more realistic numbers for them, opens the door for manipulation such that overall numbers for steal attempts, success rates and distribution of attempts across players will end up looking nothing like reality.  In fact, it would be a HUGE step in the wrong direction.

You can't reasonably deny that could (and probably would) happen, can you?

I see two possible solutions:

1)  Leave things as they are and live with the anomoly of the high-end guys.
2)  Expect WIS to "tweak" the high-end guys such that they see more CS's.

I'd prefer (1), because we know, through experience, the risk of (2) being implemented incorrectly and making things worse instead of better.
1/7/2011 10:48 PM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
First, overhaul the entire engine.  The best SB threats will be reduced to 80%-85% against an average arm.  
Second, remove "never" as an option.  As it has been proven, if they're not dead, players will likely have an attempt or three.
Third, NO ONE has more than 100 attempts.  I'm guessing it's been at least 20 years since anyone attempted 100 steals. 
Finally, watch the success results mirror what we have now with many less attempts. 

YAY PROGRESS!!!!
1/8/2011 10:25 AM
jimmystick
Posts: 827 (0)
Hall of Famer
88
Prospect
For the record here, I think a change needs to be made, but I'm on the fence as far as to the extent changes should go.  Somebody said something to the effect of "The final result isn't broken, but the method by which we get there is."  I completely agree 100%.  Looking at the SB% of leagues, it appears in line with MLB, but for some reason we still have a ton of guys who steal 100 bases and never get caught.  

Also for the record, the reason I made this suggestion is because I remember from previous developer chats that the PRIMARY reason they don't want individual settings for stolen bases is related to stress on their servers.  The reason they've resisted change is because of the hardware that runs this game.  It has nothing to do with them not taking notice of something that is broken and refusing to fix it... at least that's what I got out of the dev chats.

That being said, my suggestion fixes the problem (I think) of stress on the servers.  Whether or not it fixes the actual problem with the game (if you're willing to go so far as to admit there IS a problem) is up for debate.
1/11/2011 3:51 PM
tecwrg
Posts: 18997 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 1 166 32 129
Prospect

Without understanding the logical and physical design of their database, the design of their programs/coding, and the architectural hardware configuration of their servers, I don't think any of us can offer a solution to "potential stress on their servers".

1/11/2011 8:06 PM
pstrnutbag44
Posts: 417 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 102
Prospect
Posted by tecwrg on 1/11/2011 8:06:00 PM (view original):

Without understanding the logical and physical design of their database, the design of their programs/coding, and the architectural hardware configuration of their servers, I don't think any of us can offer a solution to "potential stress on their servers".

I think this is something both sides should be able to agree on. While I'm not 100% convinced it's true (other games have no issues with it), I'm certain there are logistics we are unaware of in this game that could potentially make it a problem to implement. I have to lean towards "if they claim it's the reason, it must truly be" as I don't have much knowledge of the inner workings of the games engine and it's stress on servers and whatnot.
1/11/2011 8:14 PM
pstrnutbag44
Posts: 417 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 102
Prospect

Not beating a dead horse, but these types of games happen all too frequently and point to flaws in the engine:

Wichita Vs. K.C.

Team went 7 for 7 vs a C with 78/80 (AS/AA). Omar Owen was 2 for 2 with 87 SPD and 71 BR. Vin Mota was also 2 for 2 with 81 SPD and 70 BR. This isn't something that happens on occasion. It happens FAR to frequently, and against catchers that are not the DH's everyone claims they are. Also note, these are MY guys, so it's not that I want my players (contrary to some people's belief) to be more successful. I want it to be more realistic than that. Neither player has 90 SPD or even 75 BR and the C they are running wild on is above recs. This clearly needs to be fixed. There is no excuse for this, and you simply can't blame non-defensive C's or anything.

1/21/2011 3:35 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Nothing like grabbing one game and saying "SEE???? IT'S BROKEN!!!"
1/21/2011 3:56 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5084 (0)
Hall of Famer
516 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Do you think it matters that the 2B for the other team has grossly subpar range and glove #'s?  Put it this way, if you put Timmy Lupus at 2B, don't you think the other team would try to run (especially given that we can't MAKE the shortstop take all the throws)?

Is WIS that in-depth?
1/21/2011 4:48 PM
pstrnutbag44
Posts: 417 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 102
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2011 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Nothing like grabbing one game and saying "SEE???? IT'S BROKEN!!!"
It's one recent example. Haven't had much time lately to puruse every box score. Nor am I actively looking for anything. Therefore, no need to start stretching it out for more than it is, like usual. If you're going to take part this time, try to do so in a way that actually promotes discussion and doesn't rely on your old, unproductive banter. This type of knee-jerk response doesn't even allow for a periodic update, if one were to occur.
1/21/2011 5:34 PM
pstrnutbag44
Posts: 417 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 102
Prospect
Posted by toddcommish on 1/21/2011 4:48:00 PM (view original):
Do you think it matters that the 2B for the other team has grossly subpar range and glove #'s?  Put it this way, if you put Timmy Lupus at 2B, don't you think the other team would try to run (especially given that we can't MAKE the shortstop take all the throws)?

Is WIS that in-depth?
This is a good point I hadn't considered, thanks. Again, it was just something I had noticed this am, and have seen frequently, so I thought I'd add it to what was here. I need to keep in mind that checking the 2B/SS/3B would help too.
1/21/2011 5:36 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 1/21/2011 5:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2011 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Nothing like grabbing one game and saying "SEE???? IT'S BROKEN!!!"
It's one recent example. Haven't had much time lately to puruse every box score. Nor am I actively looking for anything. Therefore, no need to start stretching it out for more than it is, like usual. If you're going to take part this time, try to do so in a way that actually promotes discussion and doesn't rely on your old, unproductive banter. This type of knee-jerk response doesn't even allow for a periodic update, if one were to occur.
So, if I produce a game where I hit 7-8 homers, can I scream about how the power engine is broken?

Seriously, if you're going to beat a dead horse, don't use a broken stick.    Saying "LOOK AT THIS GAME!!" is one of the stupidiest arguments one can make.  Are you stupid?
1/21/2011 5:44 PM
pstrnutbag44
Posts: 417 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 102
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2011 5:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 1/21/2011 5:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/21/2011 3:56:00 PM (view original):
Nothing like grabbing one game and saying "SEE???? IT'S BROKEN!!!"
It's one recent example. Haven't had much time lately to puruse every box score. Nor am I actively looking for anything. Therefore, no need to start stretching it out for more than it is, like usual. If you're going to take part this time, try to do so in a way that actually promotes discussion and doesn't rely on your old, unproductive banter. This type of knee-jerk response doesn't even allow for a periodic update, if one were to occur.
So, if I produce a game where I hit 7-8 homers, can I scream about how the power engine is broken?

Seriously, if you're going to beat a dead horse, don't use a broken stick.    Saying "LOOK AT THIS GAME!!" is one of the stupidiest arguments one can make.  Are you stupid?
No, just tired of your reliance on fallacies, falsehoods and need to insult or (ignorantly attempt to) talk down to people who disagree with you. You show no ability to properly discuss the topic at all. Like I said, at it's most basic, the ideology you display allows for nobody to ever notice anything and ADD it to the discussion. Sorry, but your repeated failures to actually debate the issue properly have lead me to believe that discussing it any further with you is a pointless experience. Have a nice day.
1/21/2011 5:52 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7 Next ▸
This wouldn't be so hard, would it? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 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.