7/8/2013 12:03 AM
It was a really classy move not to specify who I was, though, particularly when I'd already posted in the thread.  Some serious restraint involved in that.  Kudos.
7/8/2013 12:09 AM
i'll get the popcorn, this could be interesting...
7/8/2013 12:21 AM
Posted by slashtc on 7/7/2013 9:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by blaisebbss8 on 7/7/2013 9:41:00 PM (view original):
I find the squeeze much less annoying than the constant whining when things go against people. It takes the fun out of it when you score some runs and you get whining about how unrealistic the game is.
I think most people do that from time to time...usually not intentionally imo.  I know I've done it, though I try not to.  99% of the time I apologize for it.  Below is an example of the 1% where I don't...

I had a guy do that against me and I didn't say a word.  Next game when the breaks went his way I said I noticed he wasn't complaining any more and he proceeded to call me a douche or something to that affect.  I don't play against him anymore.
Hahaha, yeah...the dudes that win five in a row(their pitcher hit an HR in game three to win, your closer blew three saves to give them wins), and then start ********  in game 6 cause you scored four in the first with Rickey, Arky Vaughan, Mantle, Ruth, and Bagwell hitting, kill me.  or really my favorite is the guys that say "good game" after I went up 5-0 in the first....I usually ask, "does that mean you forfeit?" 


Honestly, who gives a **** about the outcome...yeah it's fun to win, but when  I'm playing, I'm not at work....so I'm already winning.  I didn't always think that way, but I do now. 

Wisdom, grasshopper.
7/8/2013 2:02 AM (edited)
Well said Mr. Taint
7/8/2013 3:34 AM (edited)
Being relatively new to live I was not aware that there were so many different types of programming flaws that generate the ire of most.  I have been guilty of suicide squeezing with the pitcher but stopped when it was pointed out to me.  I steal and then pinch hit all the time.  I never knew this was frowned upon.  I also steal a lot with 1974 barry larkin (26/28)--it's unclear if this is frowned on or just the $500K or less (5/5) guy. Anyway, if I break any unwritten rules then just say something.  I may or may not comply but at least I will know.

I appreciate all the feedback in this thread.


7/8/2013 3:10 AM
I didn't say stealing and then pinch-hitting is frowned upon, just noting it as an example of something unrealistic. Unlike the squeeze, it isn't taking advantage of a flaw in programming. I'm one of the biggest anti-squeeze people around, and I've never criticized anyone for doing it with the pitcher. As long as there's no such thing as a safety squeeze, which would be the choice 90% of the time with first and third and the pitcher up, it's unfair to ask people to give up the pitcher's ability to bunt and suffer an increased chance of a DP.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the steals by any player but understand why it bothers some people, and it's a legitimate beef. No one should have an issue with someone like Larkin stealing more bases than he did in RL, though.
7/8/2013 3:40 AM
Posted by joshkvt on 7/8/2013 2:02:00 AM (view original):
Well said Mr. Taint

That was your 3333 post.....2x 33..my favorite number...Canseco's number.  Haha.  Got all twilight zone up in here,.
 

7/8/2013 3:41 AM
Posted by joshkvt on 7/8/2013 3:10:00 AM (view original):
I didn't say stealing and then pinch-hitting is frowned upon, just noting it as an example of something unrealistic. Unlike the squeeze, it isn't taking advantage of a flaw in programming. I'm one of the biggest anti-squeeze people around, and I've never criticized anyone for doing it with the pitcher. As long as there's no such thing as a safety squeeze, which would be the choice 90% of the time with first and third and the pitcher up, it's unfair to ask people to give up the pitcher's ability to bunt and suffer an increased chance of a DP.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the steals by any player but understand why it bothers some people, and it's a legitimate beef. No one should have an issue with someone like Larkin stealing more bases than he did in RL, though.
Actually that was 3333...I'm wasted!  Just like normal!
8/4/2013 2:11 PM
Posted by joshkvt on 7/8/2013 3:10:00 AM (view original):
I didn't say stealing and then pinch-hitting is frowned upon, just noting it as an example of something unrealistic. Unlike the squeeze, it isn't taking advantage of a flaw in programming. I'm one of the biggest anti-squeeze people around, and I've never criticized anyone for doing it with the pitcher. As long as there's no such thing as a safety squeeze, which would be the choice 90% of the time with first and third and the pitcher up, it's unfair to ask people to give up the pitcher's ability to bunt and suffer an increased chance of a DP.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the steals by any player but understand why it bothers some people, and it's a legitimate beef. No one should have an issue with someone like Larkin stealing more bases than he did in RL, though.
and Josh, what is the difference if you have a high double play hitter (like Arky) and you're getting mowed down by Pedro?  1st and 3rd 1 out, down 1-0, infield back?  that's what I got hell for.  Just suck it up and lose like a man?  nonsense.  they wouldn't do it in real life either.
8/4/2013 2:12 PM
There is no way in hell any real life manager is going to tell Arky Vaughan to bunt in that situation.  Literally 0%.
8/4/2013 2:13 PM
I have guys like Olerud and Vaughan who seem to double play on every other situation like that.
8/4/2013 2:14 PM
I'm watching the Orioles and Mariners and just watched .143 hitting backup catcher Taylor Teagarden swing and miss at 3 consecutive pitches with runners on the corners and 1 out.  Down by 1.  But Arky Vaughan is going to bunt?  Get real.
8/4/2013 2:38 PM
In RL if Teagarden tries to bunt, there are several likely results
1-If he misses his first try, the IF comes in and the next pitch is probably high and tight
2-If he misses his first try, the runner at third is going to be closely held
3-If he gets it down, most of the time the runner at third holds
4-He gets the bunt down and the runner scores

In Sim, the runner NEVER holds at third, which is part of the programing flaw that is being taken advantage of. In Sim, the defense cannot react pitch by pitch, and there's no brushback pitch.

The real life argument is silly. Jim Rice was probably the most-prolific GIDP player in the history of the game, and in 16 years he bunted five times. Career GIDP leaer Cal Ripken bunted 10 times in 21 seasons. It comes down to choosing whether to exploit a programming flaw — not having most first-and-third bunts advance just the trail runner — or not.

sjh, we simply disagree. You believe it's fine to exploit/use the squeeze to win, I feel differently. You and others who feel the same way are entitled to that opinion, and those who feel it's wrong are equally entitled to get ****** off about it.
8/4/2013 3:55 PM
The A's just had a suicide squeeze last night in real life.  1st and 3rd and less than two outs.  Bunted it back to the pitcher and both runners advanced scoring a run.
8/4/2013 6:50 PM
That was a safety squeeze, not suicide. If WIS had programmed a safety squeeze into the game, with the runner holding a portion of the time, we would not be having these disagreements. The underlying problem is that the runner at third always goes, which is absurd. First and third, pitcher up, infield back, we should be able to bunt to avoid a DP without the run scoring every time.
of 4

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 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.