what's a ***got?

Posted by isack24 on 1/4/2011 8:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/4/2011 8:36:00 AM (view original):
You don't think speed factors into whether a runner goes?   It does for stealing.  Why wouldn't it with taking the extra bag?

Because of defensive indifference to the situation. 

Ahhh, I think we might be onto something.

Defensive indifference.  

I don't think this applies at all.   The pitcher is not allowing the runner at third to move at will.   The 3B may not be covering the bag.  The pitcher may not be pitching from the stretch.  But the runner isn't wandering halfway down the line.   He's not going to be allowed to steal home.   Then you have a routine ball to the SS.   He's taking a brief glance at the runner even if he has no intention of throwing home.   Because it's good baseball to see if he's hung up between 3B and home.  He has time to throw to 1B.   There's no reason he wouldn't take a quick glance. 

Wow, only took 13 hours to get to page 4.  

Don't forget that this is a simulation program that essentially follows some sort of decision tree.  If you're developing the game, and you realize that runners are not always going to score from third on a ball put in play, then you have to set up some logic to decide when he goes and when he doesn't.  This means that on every ball put in play with a runner on third, some variables are going to be checked...team base running aggressiveness, base running IQ, speed, fielder's arm strength, etc.  Clearly your set of variables were such that the runner didn't go.  Now, you could make the argument that, "given this set of circumstances, the runner should have gone, so the decision logic needs adjusted" but you can't say, "the runner always goes."  That's what prompted the response from CS that "it happens."

"given this set of circumstances, the runner should have gone, so the decision logic needs adjusted"

That's what I said to CS in the ticket in follow up. 

"but you can't say, "the runner always goes"

I think, about 99.9% of the time, he does.  Which would lead me to argue that the logic should be adjusted overall on that issue.

But I agree, it is a sim, and a very good one - despite my reliever hitting with the bases loaded and two outs in the eighth when I was down four, a logic fail that I can't really seem to grasp even if my pinch hitting was "very rare" - so I will ilve with it.  Frankly, it's not like I was ****** I didn't score, I just wanted them to take a look at the logic.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/4/2011 8:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 1/4/2011 8:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/4/2011 8:36:00 AM (view original):
You don't think speed factors into whether a runner goes?   It does for stealing.  Why wouldn't it with taking the extra bag?

Because of defensive indifference to the situation. 

Ahhh, I think we might be onto something.

Defensive indifference.  

I don't think this applies at all.   The pitcher is not allowing the runner at third to move at will.   The 3B may not be covering the bag.  The pitcher may not be pitching from the stretch.  But the runner isn't wandering halfway down the line.   He's not going to be allowed to steal home.   Then you have a routine ball to the SS.   He's taking a brief glance at the runner even if he has no intention of throwing home.   Because it's good baseball to see if he's hung up between 3B and home.  He has time to throw to 1B.   There's no reason he wouldn't take a quick glance. 

I don't really disagree with that.

But, unless I see something really wrong (like the guy laying on the ground, or only being a third of the way home for some reason) I'm going to first.  You figure even the slowest guys can run a top-speed 15 yards around two seconds.  So, if the guy is even halfway home, the SS will have to peek over, turn his body (because he should field in a position to go to first), make a strong, accurate 120+ foot throw, and hope that nothing goes wrong at the plate, all in under two seconds.  The risk/reward just isn't there in a four-run game with eight outs to go.

How fast was the guy at the plate as well?  If he's a terribly slow runner, your SS has more time to check the runner at third.

Posted by isack24 on 1/4/2011 9:44:00 AM (view original):
"given this set of circumstances, the runner should have gone, so the decision logic needs adjusted"

That's what I said to CS in the ticket in follow up. 

"but you can't say, "the runner always goes"

I think, about 99.9% of the time, he does.  Which would lead me to argue that the logic should be adjusted overall on that issue.

But I agree, it is a sim, and a very good one - despite my reliever hitting with the bases loaded and two outs in the eighth when I was down four, a logic fail that I can't really seem to grasp even if my pinch hitting was "very rare" - so I will ilve with it.  Frankly, it's not like I was ****** I didn't score, I just wanted them to take a look at the logic.

How do you know that your experience didn't fall into the 0.1% of the time in which he doesn't?

Slow runner, mediocre baserunning rating, baserunning aggressiveness set to 3 (average).  You seem to still be in denial about those factors and insisting that there is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't have gone. Period.

I'll venture a guess that the engine is coded such that it takes all these factors (and probably more) into account, figures out a percentage for which the runner should go (maybe it was 99.9%), picks a random number out of it's electronic hat, and either sends him or not depending on the number chosen.

So is the short answer to the OP and thread subject, "No"?

Posted by iain on 1/4/2011 11:04:00 AM (view original):
So is the short answer to the OP and thread subject, "No"?

Haha, that appears to be the case, doesn't it.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/4/2011 11:01:00 AM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 1/4/2011 9:44:00 AM (view original):
"given this set of circumstances, the runner should have gone, so the decision logic needs adjusted"

That's what I said to CS in the ticket in follow up. 

"but you can't say, "the runner always goes"

I think, about 99.9% of the time, he does.  Which would lead me to argue that the logic should be adjusted overall on that issue.

But I agree, it is a sim, and a very good one - despite my reliever hitting with the bases loaded and two outs in the eighth when I was down four, a logic fail that I can't really seem to grasp even if my pinch hitting was "very rare" - so I will ilve with it.  Frankly, it's not like I was ****** I didn't score, I just wanted them to take a look at the logic.

How do you know that your experience didn't fall into the 0.1% of the time in which he doesn't?

Slow runner, mediocre baserunning rating, baserunning aggressiveness set to 3 (average).  You seem to still be in denial about those factors and insisting that there is absolutely no reason why he shouldn't have gone. Period.

I'll venture a guess that the engine is coded such that it takes all these factors (and probably more) into account, figures out a percentage for which the runner should go (maybe it was 99.9%), picks a random number out of it's electronic hat, and either sends him or not depending on the number chosen.

It's not a denial thing.  I think an average baserunner, running in averagely aggressive manner, goes every time.  But fine, say it is 99%.  The problem, unfortunately, is that I can't have a talk with him, so I have to rely on the engine only having that happen 1 out of 100 times, which I doubt is the case.

Like I said before, I'm done arguing about the logic because all of you seem to disagree.  Frankly, that's shocking, because it's just textbook baseball, at least once you get past little league, but it is what it is.  I'm not going to whine about the logic if the vast majority thinks it's fine.

Posted by asher413 on 1/4/2011 10:51:00 AM (view original):
How fast was the guy at the plate as well?  If he's a terribly slow runner, your SS has more time to check the runner at third.

40 something, I think, but like I said, I don't think it matters.  I even agreed that he probably has time to take a peek to third, but he's never going home.  The risk/reward weighs heavily on risk.

One isolated incident does not necessarily mean it's an engine coding problem.  But if you see it happening more often, then maybe you can make a case.  But a sample size of 1 is hardly enough to go all Chicken Little on ADMIN.

It is indeed textbook baseball, but as many people have pointed out sometimes weird things happen. The play-by-play doesn't elaborate on what the weird thing is.
Sometimes things go wrong and people make the wrong decision.
This reminds me of people complaining in GD about a punt returner fair catching inside the 5 - yes, he shouldn't have done that, but sometime sports players make stupid decisions.

I think the biggest thing with HBD is that even if something is unusual, the response we invariably get from Admin/CS is that while something is unlikely, it may happen.  If it happens in game 75 of someone's HiA schedule in another world, you'll never see it.  If it happens in Game 6 of the WS you're playing in, you will freak out.

Posted by tecwrg on 1/4/2011 11:14:00 AM (view original):
One isolated incident does not necessarily mean it's an engine coding problem.  But if you see it happening more often, then maybe you can make a case.  But a sample size of 1 is hardly enough to go all Chicken Little on ADMIN.

I think you're probably making some assumptions on my reaction.

Even so, I don't really disagree.  Yeah, if I never see it again, it wasn't a big deal.

Like I said, my initial ticket to CS basically just said, "this really doesn't happen, maybe you should look at the logic."

Then they gave me the "it happens, we don't really care what you're saying" line, which prompted this post.  The second post here said something like "the guy would be tied to 3B," which annoyed me even more and sent the whole thing downhill.

You guys are right - isolated incidents are just that.