I don't even understand this question:  "Why accept giving up outs in different game situations to maintain some arbitrary SB% in "trade-offs"?"   How/why am I giving up out in different game situation?  I said I wouldn't give up 100 baserunners via CS in a season.   Because I wouldn't burn baserunners like that.

If you're telling me I'll have a 90% success rate, I would.  From the three worlds I'm in, CS% is around 24%.  That's a 76% success rate.

Since HBD and MLB CS% is roughly the same(HBD isn't as good but 90% of us will use VMart-types for his bat), I don't see the advantage. 

Some games are 24 outs.  That's 96.   But now you've got me playing your nitpicking game.   100 CS is roughly 4 games.  Better?

Baby steps. At least you admitted to some comprehension problems. Try reading and processing anything I've said. You said it's ok that one guy is 140/144 so long as a few guys in the league/world/team are evening out the overall average by going 0/6, etc. This means that the sim is sending runners simply to be caught in order to stabalize the arbitrary SB%. It goes back to Z's point about having a guy with 100 HR's and a few with 5. This is an acceptable solution for you? .Try absorbing all the available info provided, it may help with comprehension.

 

Oh, and there's also the other 2 questions....

Aginor, so all the good baserunners would steal like crazy and the bad ones would never go?   Why even have a setting? Wouldn't everyone just set it at "Very aggressive"?   We know the good runners never get caught.

oriole, I'll ask you the same thing I asked nutbag.   What are the specs for WifS servers?   They've said they can't handle it.  Unless you know what servers they're using and how many, you can't say "They can handle it."

I am saying if they cant handle it I have serious questions about the future stability of the game

Guys are 140/144 because probably a relatively small percentage of owners look at catchers' arm strength. They look at bat and pc.

dmurph, a couple of examples have been provided where the C was only merely below, or even ABOVE the recs in games with unrealistic SB/CS numbers. I agre that poor C is a part of the problem, but there is more to it then that.

Again, if you want to burn 100 baserunners so you can steal 400 bases, have at it.   I don't think it's a sound strategy.  You were 8th in your world in runs scored.   Crump is stealing at a far superior rate in MG(300/59) and he's 8th from the bottom in runs scored.  Stealing bases and getting caught doesn't mean you score more runs. 

Try making a legit argument.   Show me that your crazy running style is producing more runs than those who sit on their thumbs and wait for dinger.

So, you DO refuse to answer the questions? This is about the game engine, not my team. My team and it's players have helped provide examples. You are merely attempting to shift the focus. Stay on point, Mike.

Cant really argue a style with two seperate teams.  Maybe Crump is a far worse team offensively?  There are legit arguments to each.  Earl Weaver approach, wait for the three run homer, or the small ball approach of singles + stolen bases..

Ask them again.  I felt I answered your questions sufficiently.   Are you have comprehension problems?   Is it because I'm not saying what you want to hear?

The point, Orioles, is if all those SB/CS aren't producing runs at a crazy rate, is it worth it?  I've already said I wouldn't burn 4 games worth of baserunners with CS.  They have earned their way on base.   You're giving that back with a CS.

Mike, you haven't even acknowledged the 2nd or 3rd question. You also failed to answer the first, deflecting to throwing away buserunners rather than focusing on the "trade-off" you yourself claimed to be acceptable, which is clearly the focus of the questions. Defend that position, if you will. Or, answer any of the three questions. Try and stay on point, Mike.

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 6/24/2010 4:01:00 PM (view original):

I'll do my best to simplify it for you:

Why accept giving up outs in different game situations to maintain some arbitrary SB% in "trade-offs"?

I don't even understand this question:  "Why accept giving up outs in different game situations to maintain some arbitrary SB% in "trade-offs"?"   How/why am I giving up out in different game situation?  I said I wouldn't give up 100 baserunners via CS in a season.   Because I wouldn't burn baserunners like that.

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 6/24/2010 4:03:00 PM (view original):
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?

If you're telling me I'll have a 90% success rate, I would.  From the three worlds I'm in, CS% is around 24%.  That's a 76% success rate.

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 6/24/2010 4:04:00 PM (view original):
Taking advantage of an unintended flaw to gain an advantage. That's something you'd want to correct, right?

Since HBD and MLB CS% is roughly the same(HBD isn't as good but 90% of us will use VMart-types for his bat), I don't see the advantage.