Mike T23:  I think you are misunderstanding pstrbutbag44.

Here is how I understand him/her.  S/he would like to steal lots of bases.  S/he believes that if the base stealing is set to aggressive, that all base runners will attempt steals regardless of ability.  S/he is therefore in the process of acquiring a team filled with stud base runners/stealers, but until all eight (or nine) players have those studly ratings, s/he does not feel that the current burners are being utilized to their fullest abilities.

I do not think s/he is building a team and hoping the game engine will change.  But I do think pstrnutbag44 is incorrect in assuming that s/he needs a team filled with burners in order to achieve a team stolen base success rate over 75%.  This is why I would like to see some numbers.  Because, as I showed, on a NL team with only two legit base stealers, my overall numbers were quite good, with the two burners attempting plenty of steals (and being successful) while the rest of the team mostly cooled their heels on the basepaths.

No, I'm not misunderstanding him.  Mostly I'm yanking his chain because he believes WifS' servers can handle individual settings despite the fact that WifS said they could not.

I don't even think he's the one who said he couldn't use the players the way he wanted.   I showed the same thing as you did using average settings.   Either way, we have a good idea on who will run when they shouldn't.   So, while you're acquiring basestealers, deal the guys who will get caught a lot.   Build your team within the framework of the engine, don't request changes to the engine to suit your needs.

Looking at the numbers for MLB, my team's 81% success rate is quite high.

This season the average team has attempted 61.7 stolen bases and has been successful 41.7 times, or 72%.  Only four teams have a success rate above 80%:  the Phillies (35/6, 85%); the Mets (76/16, 83%); the Athletics (50/12, 81%); and the Brewers (41/10, 80%).  Another eight franchises have been successful somewhere between 75% and 79% of the time.  Eight of the 12 most successful base stealing franchises have attempted fewer SBs than the MLB average, but  two of the three most prolific stealers are among the best at it (the Rays, 109 attempts, 76%; and the Mets, 92 attempts, 83%); one of the three is not good (the White Sox, 99 attempts, 69%).

Also, the aggregate numbers have been stable over the past decade, with MLB's stolen base success rate ranging from 68% to 74% between 2000 and 2009; and with the average number of stolen base attempts ranging from 122 to 150 during the same period.

Anyway, again I would like to see some numbers from people who feel the current system does not work.  What are the ratings for your guys?  How often does each attempt a stolen base, how often are they successful?  What is your team's aggregate success rate?  What settings do you use?  How does your team compare to others in your world? 

"No, I'm not misunderstanding him.  Mostly I'm yanking his chain because he believes WifS' servers can handle individual settings despite the fact that WifS said they could not."
 

 

This. He and I have had this discussion before. I think it's a cop out (WiS, not Mike) to avoid having to fix the SB engine. Following some of the other users posts of Dev Chat responses, that seems to be a possibility (and may be wrong, as OOTP also runs differently). However, I do not (nor claim to) know EXACTLY what types of servers are utilized by this fine, outstanding company. I do have a couple of teams with speed that are actually quite effective offensively. I think it's unrealistic to have MY guy go 140/144 in SB. My team in Clarkson also had a 85% (431/506) rate at the ML level. A change would actually HURT those teams, but I am all for it if it makes the numbers (and more importnantly, the games and their outcomes!) a bit more realistic. Obviously, if guys like him aren't getting caught stealing, someone (perhaps a baserunner who normally wouldn't run) is being "sent" by the "manager" basically to record an out and protect a team SB% threshold in the engine rather than following the actual, realistic PbP. Again, merely tossing it out for discussion as an opinion. Does this happen? I don't know, but suppose it's also possible as the CS numbers have to be getting made up somewhere allong the line.

Your lack of WifS' server knowledge notwithstanding, part of the "problem" with steal numbers is inadequate catching.   I know, I have teams with poor catchers who can hit.  I'll give up 80%+ steal rates so I can have a catcher capable of not leaving a hole in the line-up as I reserve those for SS/CF.   The way to combat teams that steal is to put a solid D catcher back there when you play them. 

pstrnut, you should probably stop using the phrase "fix the SB engine" because that pre-supposes that the engine is broken somehow.  In your particular view, your teams' percentages may be skewed, but the engine isn't "broken".  For all you know, the engine might be working and the SB% across all worlds might be EXACTLY what WIS wants.  And, in case you hadn't noticed, Mike picks on little details like this and inflates them until your view sounds ludicrous.

I do not.

Anyway, the biggest problem with this enitre thread is that the only people with comprehensive data are the WIS engineers.  People are making assumptions based on their narrow view of THEIR teams, and not considering the thousands of teams worth of data that WIS is compiling.  Plus, like you pointed out, pstrnut isn't even considering that his leagues might have nothing but Piazzas (catchers with 50/50 arms) who would rather have a .300/.360/.500 hitter than a legit defensive catcher. 

How many guys are stealing 140 in 144 attempts?  That does sound unrealistic, but it also sounds rare.

I still want to see the numbers as to what makes people think the engine is broken.  Again, in my world this season the average team attempted 179 stolen bases and succeeded 131 times, or 73%.  Looking back three seasons, those numbers have remained consistent, with similar numbers for stolen base attempts and a stable 71-72% success rate for the league.  During that time we typically have one or two teams steal 190-250 bases, but at no time has anyone managed better than an 84% success rate. 

Stealing 200 bases in a year is more rare in MLB, but otherwise the numbers are pretty much exactly in line with MLB averages.

You seem to be complaining that guys who would not run are being sent.  But in MLB slow guys do attempt stolen bases.  For instance, just this season, looking at 1Bs alone, you find this:

Joey Votto:  7/4
Miguel Cabrers:  2/2
Daric Barton:  0/2
Kevin Youkilis:  2/1
Ryan Howard:  0/1
Ty Wigginton:  0/1
Carlos Pena:  2/1

So, yeah, slow guys attempt stolen bases in MLB. 

Most often, those are busted hit-and-runs

Anyone can check world averages any time they like.
MG - .231
Bo Jax - .258
Coop - .248

I doubt there's a world out there at .200 or .300.

By the way, an owner had his stealing set a 0 in another world.  0/6 in a season.  All were pick-offs.

Posted by toddcommish on 6/24/2010 11:44:00 AM (view original):
pstrnut, you should probably stop using the phrase "fix the SB engine" because that pre-supposes that the engine is broken somehow.  In your particular view, your teams' percentages may be skewed, but the engine isn't "broken".  For all you know, the engine might be working and the SB% across all worlds might be EXACTLY what WIS wants.  And, in case you hadn't noticed, Mike picks on little details like this and inflates them until your view sounds ludicrous.

Perhaps. Although a lot of my opinion on that is based on their constant acknowledgment and tweaking of the SB engine. Again, I could be wrong. I also DO take into account the amount of sub-standard C's playing in that position. I am not saying I have the answer. Just saying it SEEMS off. Of course it's subjective to my experience. I have seen it on several teams across several worlds (ex: Alex Solano went 150/157). Also, anything giving us more managerial control over the team is a GOOD thing, IMHO. I am not so sure why anyone would be against it, amongst the users.

I'll happily tell you why.  SB used to be much worse.  They tweaked it and the world averages aren't that bad.  If you have a guy going 140/4, you probably have another one going 1/12.   Or several going 0/6.   It's a trade-off.   If WifS changes the entire SB engine so individual settings can be used(assuming they aren't being upfront about servers), owners will lose 1-3 seasons while they tweak it every 3-4 weeks.   I don't want to lose 3-9 months real time while I'm attempting to build a team based on the engine when the current overall result is satisfactory.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 12:20:00 PM (view original):
I'll happily tell you why.  SB used to be much worse.  They tweaked it and the world averages aren't that bad.  If you have a guy going 140/4, you probably have another one going 1/12.   Or several going 0/6.   It's a trade-off.   If WifS changes the entire SB engine so individual settings can be used(assuming they aren't being upfront about servers), owners will lose 1-3 seasons while they tweak it every 3-4 weeks.   I don't want to lose 3-9 months real time while I'm attempting to build a team based on the engine when the current overall result is satisfactory.

This is a poor argument Mike, and if anyone else used it for another aspect of the engine, you'd be all over it.

"It's OK for my 1B with 100 power to be hitting 100+ HR a season because my CF, 2B, and SS with 50 power each only hit 5. So the average of those guys is only 28.75. And the World average is close to whatever the ML average is, so world averages aren't that bad. Who cares that certain players routinely hit 100+ HR?"

Oh, and p-nut. Don't sell Alex Solano short. Sure, you mention his 150/157 SB season this past year, but you left out his other ML seasons. Since making the leap to the ML level, here are his SB numbers:

S5 - 130 SB; 17 CS
S6 - 172 SB; 11 CS
S7 - 165 SB; 6 CS
S8 - 122 SB; 13 CS
S9 - 141 SB; 8 CS
S10 - 150 SB; 8 CS
S11 - 150 SB; 7 CS
Total - 1030 CS; 70 CS

He's stealing, on average, 147+ SB per season at a 93.63% success rate.

I love small ball, and prefer to build teams using it, but that's as far from realistic as the HR issues were.

And that's not to say individual player settings are the solution, but with or without them, the SB aspect of the engine needs to be changed (and yes, I fully recognize that for the first 2 weeks after the change no one will steal any bases, even Solano). Like the HR change though, in the long run we'll have better and more "realistic" results.