So your argument is that "there must be outs given up SOMEWHERE to compensate".  But you don't know where those outs are are?

And isn't that argument kind of bogus, anyway?  If the high end guys are not making CS outs that they should be making, but other guys are making CS outs that they shouldn't be making, then doesn't it all even out in the end?  As long as the overall attempts and success rates are in line with MLB? 

What would really be accomplished by a change to the SB engine other than introducing risk the WIS will f*ck things up as they often do initially with changes such as this?  Oh, plus the fact that individual SB settings would tend to be manipulated such that only the high-end guys run and overall success rates go up to the 85%-90% or higher range?

Plus, why are you calling it an "arbitrary SB success rate"?  It's based on MLB.  Hardly arbitrary.

I think part of nutbag's point is that you can live with your speedster getting thrown out in the 8th down by 1, because he had a pretty good shot at making it.  You're not comfortable with your "Posada" getting thrown out in that situation, because he shouldn't have gone anyway.

Posted by mhulshult on 1/6/2011 2:48:00 PM (view original):
I think part of nutbag's point is that you can live with your speedster getting thrown out in the 8th down by 1, because he had a pretty good shot at making it.  You're not comfortable with your "Posada" getting thrown out in that situation, because he shouldn't have gone anyway.

We have a winner!

Posted by mhulshult on 1/6/2011 2:48:00 PM (view original):
I think part of nutbag's point is that you can live with your speedster getting thrown out in the 8th down by 1, because he had a pretty good shot at making it.  You're not comfortable with your "Posada" getting thrown out in that situation, because he shouldn't have gone anyway.

OK.  I understand that. 

But doing something like that comes at a cost.  If you don't let Posada attempt to steal in the 8th when you're down by 1, then you're also not letting him attempt steal in the 3rd when you're up by 3.  In short, you're not going to let him attempt to steal ever.  And that's just not realistic, because as we can see, even slugs attempt the occasional steal in MLB.

If you look at the description of the "Base Stealing" managerial settiing, there is a reference to "when conditions are favorable".  I suppose a fair question to WIS would be about what exactly does that mean?  Does it only refer to the matchup of baserunner versus catcher, or does it also take game situation (inning, score, ahead/trailing, etc.) into account? 

Should there be a separate set of "late inning/close game" settings on the managerial settings page where you can define the inning, score, winning/losing, etc. for a deviation form your "standard" settings?

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 1/6/2011 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/6/2011 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/6/2011 9:30:00 AM (view original):
That's the issue, mhul.   Currently, there isn't a big "problem".    You get a few oddball results but, for the most part, it works pretty well.    So what's being asked for a is a MAJOR overhaul of the system for a minor tweak in results.    It makes very little sense from a business standpoint. 

I'll refer back to this for anyone who thinks we have to have a fix.

Businesses don't do major overhauls to products for a minor tweak in results.  GM will not recall every engine built between 2005-2010 because they've discovered that the design is causing their customers to get .0042 MPG less than they should.

Extremely poor comparison. By this logic, there should never be, nor should there ever have been, an update to HBD. This is a game that we all know requires constant tinkering to perfect. Hence updates. I think a possible step in the right direction was mentioned above, and it certainly didn't sound like a MAJOR overhaul. Slightly tinkering with the logic for Pickoffs. Sounds pretty minor to me. Progress doesn't have to be so scary.

I think it's a very apt comparison.   There is a minor "problem", and I dropped some quotes around problem because many of us don't even think it's a problem, that a few people are complaining about.    The car runs just fine.   Maybe it needs one new sparkplug.   You don't overhaul the engine to make granny on the corner happy.   You just hope she goes away because the vast majority of the people don't care.

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 1/6/2011 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2011 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 1/6/2011 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2011 12:29:00 PM (view original):
@pstrnutbag - I'd like to see some examples of players who are running with wreckless abandon, i.e. the 0 SB, 23 CS guys.  The ones who you claim are offsetting the 165/5 guys.  Where are they?

Did I say they were running with reckless abandon? Did I say anyone went 0-23? Don't insert phrases into my argument in an attempt to weaken it. I notice you handily ignore the questions I asked, and instead deflected into a fallacy I never even mentioned. A. If you would be so kind, are you ok with throwing away outs in baseball? Wouldn't you like to see a better product, regardless of individual settings? B. I would provide you with an example of players running with reckless abandon (i.e. 0-23 guys)....if I had ever actually mentioned any at all. What you CAN easily deduce is that even 1-2 attempts per season from a handful of guys is outs that are being thrown away not on basic gameplay, but to meet some arbitrary SB% rate. What I think we CAN agree on is 165/6 is simply not realistic, and he didn't even crack 85 Baserunning. I enjoy a good debate.  Let's stick to what's actually being discussed instead of reaching for extremes that were never even mentioned.

So are you saying that a handful of guys who go 0-2 is unrealistic?

Would it surprise you to know that in MLB in 2010, there were 64 different players who stole no bases while attempting at least one time?

Nick Hundley (Padres) was 0-5.
Casey Blake (Dodgers) was 0-4.
Four guys were 0-3.
Eleven guys were 0-2.
Forty-seven guys were 0-1.

So again . . . what is happening in HBD that is deliberately "offsetting" the high-end runners that is not realistic?

And as for my reference to 0-23 . . . true, you did not mention anything like that.  But unless we were to find players in HBD seeing that kind of failure rate, then it's difficult (to me) to make any kind of a valid argument that something is being done in HBD to offset the high-success guys such that an overhaul of the SB engine is warranted.

Nope. I'm saying that some players, if we were to have true managerial control over our teams, would not even be leading off by more than a step. It's really very simple. No need to overcomplicate things. I am also saying that the success rate for guys with 99 Speed & 83 Baserunning seems to be a little high, and since the overall numbers are in line, there must be outs given up SOMEWHERE to compensate for that percentage. Wasting outs in baseball is already a sin, why should we lose them to meet arbitrary SB % rates?

This is not a manager game.   It's a GM game.   Otherwise, we'd be playing live games.  We aren't.  

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2011 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mhulshult on 1/6/2011 2:48:00 PM (view original):
I think part of nutbag's point is that you can live with your speedster getting thrown out in the 8th down by 1, because he had a pretty good shot at making it.  You're not comfortable with your "Posada" getting thrown out in that situation, because he shouldn't have gone anyway.

OK.  I understand that. 

But doing something like that comes at a cost.  If you don't let Posada attempt to steal in the 8th when you're down by 1, then you're also not letting him attempt steal in the 3rd when you're up by 3.  In short, you're not going to let him attempt to steal ever.  And that's just not realistic, because as we can see, even slugs attempt the occasional steal in MLB.

If you look at the description of the "Base Stealing" managerial settiing, there is a reference to "when conditions are favorable".  I suppose a fair question to WIS would be about what exactly does that mean?  Does it only refer to the matchup of baserunner versus catcher, or does it also take game situation (inning, score, ahead/trailing, etc.) into account? 

Should there be a separate set of "late inning/close game" settings on the managerial settings page where you can define the inning, score, winning/losing, etc. for a deviation form your "standard" settings?

This part: "But doing something like that comes at a cost.  If you don't let Posada attempt to steal in the 8th when you're down by 1, then you're also not letting him attempt steal in the 3rd when you're up by 3.  In short, you're not going to let him attempt to steal ever.  And that's just not realistic, because as we can see, even slugs attempt the occasional steal in MLB."
 

Strange. I guess this depends on your version of reality/realistic. If I were manager of my team, I would never allow Posada/Giambi-type to take more than a one-step lead. THAT is realistic. I KNOW he isn't doing me favors with his lack of baserunning skill. My speedster gets thrown out more often, no problem. Catchers/Pitchers are more aware of potential basestealers when they know they steal at an incredibly high rate. They would be looking for this more, pitch-outs would be called more often, etc. all which more than likely lead to them being CS more, and in situations that more realisticly mirror an actual baseball game that I would manage....which is the point of the game, right?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/6/2011 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 1/6/2011 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/6/2011 1:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/6/2011 9:30:00 AM (view original):
That's the issue, mhul.   Currently, there isn't a big "problem".    You get a few oddball results but, for the most part, it works pretty well.    So what's being asked for a is a MAJOR overhaul of the system for a minor tweak in results.    It makes very little sense from a business standpoint. 

I'll refer back to this for anyone who thinks we have to have a fix.

Businesses don't do major overhauls to products for a minor tweak in results.  GM will not recall every engine built between 2005-2010 because they've discovered that the design is causing their customers to get .0042 MPG less than they should.

Extremely poor comparison. By this logic, there should never be, nor should there ever have been, an update to HBD. This is a game that we all know requires constant tinkering to perfect. Hence updates. I think a possible step in the right direction was mentioned above, and it certainly didn't sound like a MAJOR overhaul. Slightly tinkering with the logic for Pickoffs. Sounds pretty minor to me. Progress doesn't have to be so scary.

I think it's a very apt comparison.   There is a minor "problem", and I dropped some quotes around problem because many of us don't even think it's a problem, that a few people are complaining about.    The car runs just fine.   Maybe it needs one new sparkplug.   You don't overhaul the engine to make granny on the corner happy.   You just hope she goes away because the vast majority of the people don't care.

If it's an apt compariosn, explain how this logic applies if there have been so many updates already? It doesn't hold up. Sorry. Try again.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/6/2011 3:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 1/6/2011 2:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2011 1:38:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 1/6/2011 1:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 1/6/2011 12:29:00 PM (view original):
@pstrnutbag - I'd like to see some examples of players who are running with wreckless abandon, i.e. the 0 SB, 23 CS guys.  The ones who you claim are offsetting the 165/5 guys.  Where are they?

Did I say they were running with reckless abandon? Did I say anyone went 0-23? Don't insert phrases into my argument in an attempt to weaken it. I notice you handily ignore the questions I asked, and instead deflected into a fallacy I never even mentioned. A. If you would be so kind, are you ok with throwing away outs in baseball? Wouldn't you like to see a better product, regardless of individual settings? B. I would provide you with an example of players running with reckless abandon (i.e. 0-23 guys)....if I had ever actually mentioned any at all. What you CAN easily deduce is that even 1-2 attempts per season from a handful of guys is outs that are being thrown away not on basic gameplay, but to meet some arbitrary SB% rate. What I think we CAN agree on is 165/6 is simply not realistic, and he didn't even crack 85 Baserunning. I enjoy a good debate.  Let's stick to what's actually being discussed instead of reaching for extremes that were never even mentioned.

So are you saying that a handful of guys who go 0-2 is unrealistic?

Would it surprise you to know that in MLB in 2010, there were 64 different players who stole no bases while attempting at least one time?

Nick Hundley (Padres) was 0-5.
Casey Blake (Dodgers) was 0-4.
Four guys were 0-3.
Eleven guys were 0-2.
Forty-seven guys were 0-1.

So again . . . what is happening in HBD that is deliberately "offsetting" the high-end runners that is not realistic?

And as for my reference to 0-23 . . . true, you did not mention anything like that.  But unless we were to find players in HBD seeing that kind of failure rate, then it's difficult (to me) to make any kind of a valid argument that something is being done in HBD to offset the high-success guys such that an overhaul of the SB engine is warranted.

Nope. I'm saying that some players, if we were to have true managerial control over our teams, would not even be leading off by more than a step. It's really very simple. No need to overcomplicate things. I am also saying that the success rate for guys with 99 Speed & 83 Baserunning seems to be a little high, and since the overall numbers are in line, there must be outs given up SOMEWHERE to compensate for that percentage. Wasting outs in baseball is already a sin, why should we lose them to meet arbitrary SB % rates?

This is not a manager game.   It's a GM game.   Otherwise, we'd be playing live games.  We aren't.  

Oy. Wrong again. If this is true, why do we have Manager Settings that are our preferences? Why does the Bench Coach only take over after Sparky (Your Manager Settings) gets tossed? Seems like we are also the manager to me.

Are you telling me that Ford hasn't changed what they've done since the very first car?

Sorry.  You don't understand.

We're not the manager.  We have manager settings.  You know, like baserunning settings.  

Just to be clear, tell me that last time, in the sixth inning of a close game, you said "If he walks another batter, I'm going to have to give him the hook"?   I bet that happens almost every day in MLB.   You know, when a MANAGER sees his pitcher struggling.  

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/6/2011 3:23:00 PM (view original):
Are you telling me that Ford hasn't changed what they've done since the very first car?

Sorry.  You don't understand.

What exactly don't I understand? There are updates to the game, no? Comparing a car to a video game and how they handle updates is just a bad comparison. Their respective production and potential for tinkering are VASTLY different. It's an extreme reach, something common when you folks are clearly avoid acknowledging valid points that run contrary to your opinon. Your comparison is a massive failure, leading me to believe it is you who truly do not understand.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/6/2011 3:23:00 PM (view original):
We're not the manager.  We have manager settings.  You know, like baserunning settings.  

Clearly we have manager settings, as the teams are supposed to be run as we would like them to be. Jeez. You are beginning your lame attempt at splitting hairs and grasping at straws. Unless you actually have something of substance to add that is relevant, and not some far-fetched reach or twist, I don't think your able to continue the actual debate at hand properly.

There are updates.   Overhaul/update is not the same thing.   What you're suggesting is not an update.  It's an overhaul to the entire basestealing engine. 

If you can't understand the difference between an update and an overhaul, I can't really help you.   But, I'll try.  You're adding an ENTIRE NEW FEATURE to the game.