Assigning Steal Aggressiveness One Player Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
No, I really wouldn't.   The overall game numbers are acceptable.  A massive change is horrible.   I, personally, gave away/demoted/benched the power guys who became useless only to find that they could again produce acceptable results 4 months later.  You can't recover lost playing time for development or rq-acquire players you lost when there are drastic engine changes.  And you know, as well as I do, that individual settings are a drastic change that will have to be tweaked many, many times before they get it right.   3 seasons.
6/24/2010 12:52 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 12:52:00 PM (view original):
No, I really wouldn't.   The overall game numbers are acceptable.  A massive change is horrible.   I, personally, gave away/demoted/benched the power guys who became useless only to find that they could again produce acceptable results 4 months later.  You can't recover lost playing time for development or rq-acquire players you lost when there are drastic engine changes.  And you know, as well as I do, that individual settings are a drastic change that will have to be tweaked many, many times before they get it right.   3 seasons.
That's BS (the No, I really wouldn't part). You know it and I know it.

You aren't going to admit it here, but you'd be all over someone (as I would be) who defended guys hitting 100+ HR routinely or pitchers with 0.10 ERAs based on team averages.

As far as the changes, they'll screw it up, sure. But they screw everything up at first. If we're only going to support changes they will get right on the first try, then we would be supporting the engine exactly as it is, in every instance, without another change ever.

And finally, again, I'm not saying it has to be individual settings (though I'm not opposed to it). But the SB aspect of the engine should be changed in some fashion.

6/24/2010 1:02 PM (edited)
travisg
Posts: 2146 (0)
Hall of Famer
11 268
Prospect
The power restoration wrecked my S13 Coop team. I had multiple lineup holes to fill in a weak crop of FA, so I tried to go the cheap route and signed a bunch of low-POW, high-EYE older players. WiS turned the power back on about the time FA ended, and my offense totally sucked.

It probably wouldn't have been good, regardless, because my cupboard was bare and few impact FA were available that offseason, but I probably would have focused on players with different skills.
6/24/2010 1:00 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

Well, players stealing 140 is largely a product of poor catching.    Players hitting 100 homers was largely a product of crappy worlds.     I didn't have a problem with homers because, quite frankly, they weren't a problem in my worlds.   And, for the record, didn't Rickey steal 130?  That's not far from 140 and we know how HBD owners mismanage their teams.

6/24/2010 1:12 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Well, players stealing 140 is largely a product of poor catching.    Players hitting 100 homers was largely a product of crappy worlds.     I didn't have a problem with homers because, quite frankly, they weren't a problem in my worlds.   And, for the record, didn't Rickey steal 130?  That's not far from 140 and we know how HBD owners mismanage their teams.

1) Yes, Rickey stole 130 (once) - at a 75% success rate. For Solano to have an equal success rate from the past season (where he went 150/157), he would have to have been caught stealing 43 times in a row. In the past 4 seasons total, he has been caught 42 times.

2) By your own admission, you don't use great defensive catchers, so I don't expect you to know this, but no, players stealing 140 is NOT largely a product of poor catching. The top top basestealers, the ones who get to 140+, are successful and run on everyone. The elite arms behind the plate can at times dominate against the merely good SB guys, and absolutely rack up the CS against the slugs, so the CS% totals can look good, but a top speed/BR combo runs on everyone.
6/24/2010 1:17 PM
pstrnutbag44
Posts: 417 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 102
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 12:52:00 PM (view original):
No, I really wouldn't.   The overall game numbers are acceptable.  A massive change is horrible.   I, personally, gave away/demoted/benched the power guys who became useless only to find that they could again produce acceptable results 4 months later.  You can't recover lost playing time for development or rq-acquire players you lost when there are drastic engine changes.  And you know, as well as I do, that individual settings are a drastic change that will have to be tweaked many, many times before they get it right.   3 seasons.

So....knowing the bottom part is infinitely true ("And you know, as well as I do, that individual settings are a drastic change that will have to be tweaked many, many times before they get it right.")....why did you "gave away/demoted/benched the power guys who became useless only to find that they could again produce acceptable results 4 months later."? Seems like YOU overreacted, and don't want to take responsibility for that! ;-)

Unless of course you just came to your earlier quoted conclusion from just the one example (power updates). Which would be equally poor judgement.

Either way, the numbers seem to lean toward the SB engine needing some work. Why fight a good, realistic change? Why accept giving up outs in different game situations to maintain some arbitrary SB% in "trade-offs"? To me, in a game like baseball where every out is unique and is vital, that's an unacceptable solution. Seems like most baseball fans would agree. You wouldn't send David Ortiz out to steal a base 10 times a season, knowing he'll get caught, just to offset the fact that Ellsbury might have 80 SB and isn't getting caught much (hypothetical scenario). What manager/GM would operate his team under that philosophy? You seem to be willing to accept it...

6/24/2010 1:18 PM
pstrnutbag44
Posts: 417 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 102
Prospect
C recs have AS/AA at 75/75. Facing a 72/67 C (Indeed, slightly Below Average), I had 8 SB (no CS) in this playoff game. With a 4 SB Agressiveness Rating. To me, even though I won and was clearly the beneficiary, I thought that was a tad unrealistic. Catchers may be a part of the problem, but the engine seems flawed overall.
6/24/2010 1:25 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 6/24/2010 1:25:00 PM (view original):
C recs have AS/AA at 75/75. Facing a 72/67 C (Indeed, slightly Below Average), I had 8 SB (no CS) in this playoff game. With a 4 SB Agressiveness Rating. To me, even though I won and was clearly the beneficiary, I thought that was a tad unrealistic. Catchers may be a part of the problem, but the engine seems flawed overall.
In 5 games of the WS, against a primary catcher with a 77AS/77AA (so slightly above recs), Solano just went 7/8 in SB.
6/24/2010 1:28 PM
iain
Posts: 1864 (0)
Hall of Famer
35 1 1 18 1 279
Prospect
I'd be happier with the SB engine if really good Cs were rewarded more.

Rickey could run on anyone. The whole park knew he was running, and he'd still make it. I'm okay with the best guys putting up silly totals, but I'd rather see the owner who puts in an 85/90 AS/AA C get rewarded with a bunch of CSs, or better yet, fewer attempts.... nobody ran on Pudge in his prime. You just didn't. Charles Johnson hit .212 (or there abouts), but made a decent enough career for himself becuase people didn't run on him.

Or maybe the high end of attempts is a little wild, since even the most noodle-armed POS C in MLB (Gregg Zaun?) doesn't have everyone running wild.... but I tend not to have running teams, so I'm probably not the best guy to comment on that.
6/24/2010 1:40 PM
schuyler101
Posts: 257 (0)
Hall of Famer
113 6 21
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 10:34:00 AM (view original):
Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 6/24/2010 9:31:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 6:42:00 AM (view original):

Sure sounds like they are.

Again, possible comprehension problem. I don't think anyone said that here. Could be wrong though....
One guy said "I acquire players I can't use to their full potential".    If you know how the system works, and the fact that you can't use players exactly how you want within that system, it certainly sounds like someone is building a team in a certain manner that's contradictory to the engine.

Do you have the server specs yet?
I said that, I was speaking hypothetically...sorry if i wasn't clear.
6/24/2010 1:54 PM
schuyler101
Posts: 257 (0)
Hall of Famer
113 6 21
Prospect
I'm sure WIS has the SB totals and percentages in line with what they want...it's just that the individual totals are out of line as zbrent pointed out

As iain points out no one ran on Ivan Rodriguez in his prime, these catchers don't exist in HBD because the elite speedsters can run on anyone at a high success rate.


6/24/2010 2:01 PM
schuyler101
Posts: 257 (0)
Hall of Famer
113 6 21
Prospect
Can anyone seriously say that when this team exists that the engine is "just fine"

http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/FranchiseProfile.aspx?fid=639

529 SB's and 93 CS in season 16!

Highest stolen base total in MLB in  the last 10 years was the 2007 NY Mets 200 Stolen bases and 46 CS

Going back the 85 Cardinals had 314 SBs and 96 CS.  Can't find a leaderboard but I believe thats the all-time record

So in one of my 2 leagues we have a team that stole 200 bases more than the all-time MLB team record holder while getting caught no more than they did.




6/24/2010 2:18 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Without clicking the team, I'm sure the owner built an extreme team.   leppy did it with a power team(I think he hit 700 homers).  

You can use extremes when advocating change.   Bell curve.
6/24/2010 2:38 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 2:38:00 PM (view original):
Without clicking the team, I'm sure the owner built an extreme team.   leppy did it with a power team(I think he hit 700 homers).  

You can use extremes when advocating change.   Bell curve.
But if leppy hit 700 HR, I have to imagine it was during a time when HR were "broken" - or if not "broken" not consistent with what was designed/intended, hence the decrease in power output of the engine. If anything, Leppy's 700 HR team hurts your argument. That extreme team was an indication that something should be changed, just as the SB team is.

6/24/2010 2:41 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
zbrent, I usually carry a good D catcher.   And use him against teams that like to steal.   Teams don't finish a 3 game series with 10 steals against me.   A good catcher curtails running.

nutbag, I'm against drastic change because it never produces the intended result.   If the overall numbers were horrible, I'd say it has to be done.  In this case, you have two reasons not to do it.   1.  WifS says their servers can't handle it.  Until you provide their server specs, I think it's a dead issue  2.  HBD CS% is reasonably similar to MLB CS%.   If owners would use legit C, I bet it would be dead on. 
6/24/2010 2:42 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7...10 Next ▸
Assigning Steal Aggressiveness One Player Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.