Fair enough. Personally, I play all the time while I'm working (I work a ton of hours at times but work at home so have that flexibiity) and can't watch closely enough to bring the IF in every time a runner gets to third. If I'm playing someone I know will squeeze, I only play those games when I can pay attention.
FYI, because I'm in a slow time at work and always have fun determining whether anecdote is fact, I went through a reasonably large sample of games to find out what the success rate is for scoring runners from third with less than 2 outs. I did 38 games by taking each of my teams and clicking on a date, then choosing the first and last game played on that date so teams/parks were randomly selected. To avoid an undue influence going to fresh pitchers or the top of the batting order, I checked for that situation going from the start of the game, the third inning and backwards from the ninth about a third of the time each. I only counted the first instance I saw in each game, and in that sample the runner scored 71% of the time. (27 scored, 11 did not). Obviously not a scientific enough study to prove anything, but it seems extremely likely that it's close enough to determine that our success rate at scoring the runner is at least somewhat higher — not lower — than real life.
| game |
score |
no score |
| 1 |
x |
|
| 2 |
|
x |
| 3 |
|
x |
| 4 |
x |
|
| 5 |
x |
|
| 6 |
x |
|
| 7 |
x |
|
| 8 |
|
x |
| 9 |
|
x |
| 10 |
x |
|
| 11 |
|
x |
| 12 |
|
x |
| 13 |
x |
|
| 14 |
x |
|
| 15 |
x |
|
| 16 |
x |
|
| 17 |
|
x |
| 18 |
x |
|
| 19 |
x |
|
| 20 |
x |
|
| 21 |
x |
|
| 22 |
x |
|
| 23 |
x |
|
| 24 |
x |
|
| 25 |
|
x |
| 26 |
x |
|
| 27 |
x |
|
| 28 |
x |
|
| 29 |
x |
|
| 30 |
x |
|
| 31 |
|
x |
| 32 |
x |
|
| 33 |
x |
|
| 34 |
x |
|
| 35 |
|
x |
| 36 |
x |
|
| 37 |
|
x |
| 38 |
x |
|
| |
27 |
11 |
| success rate |
0.710526316 |
|