Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 6/24/2010 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Clear. So then, answer the following:

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?

Obviously, those outs to offset those arbitrary numbers have to come from somewhere, Mike. Thus affecting in-game play to correspond with an arbitrary SB%. "Are you intentionally playing stupid or are you just stupid?"

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.

What part of this does not answer your questions?

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 6/24/2010 4:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 4:53:00 PM (view original):
nutbag, I've answered your questions.  I then quoted your questions and copied my answers to simplify it for you.  If you have a point, or another quesiton, ask it.

You attempted to answer 1 out of 3 in this fashion. Are the other 2 in a different thread?

Holy ****.  You can't read.  Look.  At.  The.  Thread. 

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 6/24/2010 4:49:00 PM (view original):

"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."

 

These are your words, are they not?

You continue to fail in adressing this as well. Being that it's the focus of my questions, what exactly do you think you've answered again? A question about strategy that I did not ask? I am asking about the game engine, basing my question around your quoted words. Try to stay on point, Mike.

actually 74% would result in .0215 runs created per attempt

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 4:46:00 PM (view original):

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. 

Here.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 4:46:00 PM (view original):

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.

Here.

Game engine, Mike. SB logic in the game engine. I refuse to accept you are that dense, so I'd like to assume you misunderstand and are only skimming the already watered-down posts....

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 4:45:00 PM (view original):

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.

And here.  Now my answers are in triplicate.

Posted by oriolemagic on 6/24/2010 4:59:00 PM (view original):
actually 74% would result in .0215 runs created per game

And the risk of getting caught 26% of the time?

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 6/24/2010 4:49:00 PM (view original):

"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."

 

These are your words, are they not?

DId you forget you typed that, or what?

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 4:32:00 PM (view original):
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."

Good point... just get rid of the setting all together. Make simply a function of the engine (base on Speed and Skill)

The thing is, owners like some level of control. If you set it to just the SPEED rating than it 's up to the owner to determine if his speed guys have the Base Running Skill needed to make it viable to be aggresive. You'd have to maybe change the engine to make it so guys with low base running skill (say under 50) get caught FAR more often than guys with a high Skill rating (say over 80...).

Like I said it's a thought...

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by oriolemagic on 6/24/2010 4:59:00 PM (view original):
actually 74% would result in .0215 runs created per game

And the risk of getting caught 26% of the time?

Sorry I updated my post.. that should have read .0215 runs per attempt

and the 26% chance of getting caught is factored into that obviously

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 4:45:00 PM (view original):

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.

And here.  Now my answers are in triplicate.

Now, try and answer them with some relevance. The answers you give are not relevant to the questions, Mike. Are you REALLY having that much trouble wrapping your head around that? GAME ENGINE, NOT GAME STRATEGY as per your quote above in regards to the "trade off" the GAME ENGINE is making.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/24/2010 4:52:00 PM (view original):
Jesus.  Yes, I have no problem with one guy being 140/4 if the rest of his team is producing CS that brings the team average to an acceptable number.  When on setting controls an entire team, I don't care about individual numbers when the rest of the team is dragging the result to an acceptable rate. 

Is that clear enough?

Here.  That is the answer to "Are these your words?"