Wow, I appreciate you saying, "how wrong I THINK you are" rather than simply, "how wrong you are."  Feels more like a debate that way rather than daddy telling his kids how it is.  But to your points...

"You can rest pitchers.   That doesn't ensure they won't pitch."
          -Really?  I've never had a pitcher that was on rest come in, but I suppose it's possible.
"You can set pitchers as SP.  That doesn't ensure they won't relieve."
          -True, but this would only occur if there are no alternatives.  Not sure how it translates into the base stealing discussion.
"You can set pitchers to throw 15-20 pitches in the 9th.   That doesn't ensure they will throw 15-20 pitches or that they will pitch in the 9th."
          -No, but it does ensure (under reasonable circumstances...i.e. assuming he's not the last available pitcher) that he won't come in before the 9th (at least that's how I understand it), and it does ensure that he won't start an ab having thrown more than 20 pitches.
"You can set pitchers to stay in through trouble or get relieved when trouble comes.   But that doesn't ensure that either will happen when you want it."
          -Neither would an individual base running setting ensure that your guy steals when you want him to or will stay put when you want him to.

Perhaps you and I aren't thinking of what the "individual" settings would be.  What I pictured for the individual base running settings is something like what we already have for base stealing, but for each player.  Each player would range from 'Never' to 'Very Aggressive.'  I don't think that's a bad thing.  Now, I don't want WiS spending 500 hours developing this change, but if I could choose what we currently have (one setting for the whole team) or what's being proposed (one setting per player), I'd choose one setting per player.

1.  Yes, it happens.
2.  It applies because you don't have the complete control with pitching that you want with SB.
3.  Under reasonable circumstances, slow runners do not steal.
4.  It actually would if you have the "never steal" option.

I think we do have the same idea.   However, what is being asked for(not necessarily by you) is the ability to say "Run all the time" and "Never run".   As it stands, good basestealers are stealing a lot bases(one could argue more than MLB) at an astounding rate.   Poor basestealers are running at what one could argue is the norm for professional baseball(2-3 attempts).   What people want is the ability to send the good runners more frequently and the poor runners less frequently.  Which is nice but it's not realistic in any way, shape or form.

My problem, other than the complete overhaul(which we know wil be a disaster) for a minor result tweak, is that the proponents of change want to remove the risk while taking full advantage of the reward.   Everyone knows that the top SB threats are successful at a silly rate.   That's countered by poor SB threats running occasionally(which is still pretty much in line with MLB).  Those wanting change want to increase the opps for the 95% guys while eliminating the risk of anyone else getting caught.

It's a nice strategy but it's not an improvement to the game.

What isn't broken are the results.  What feels broken is the method by which we control base stealing.  Does that mean we need a change?  Probably not, but 5 pages in a forum would say it's up for debate.

It only feels broken by those who want a select few to go 107-4 and the rest of the team to go 0-0.

Posted by mhulshult on 1/6/2011 9:32:00 AM (view original):
What's also not being mentioned (though has come up in past discussions) is that HBD owners put much less emphasis on arm strength and accuracy in catchers compared to MLB teams.

This article seems relevant based on the above post.

interesting

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/7/2011 12:04:00 PM (view original):
It only feels broken by those who want a select few to go 107-4 and the rest of the team to go 0-0.

This is exactly why it's pointless to have any sort of discussion with you. You go through the whole thing with blinders on and a closed mind, or you simply don't comprehend what's been pointed out by more than one poster in this thread (which I doubt as you certainly appear to be perfectly competent). Once you encounter an opinion that runs contrary to your own, instead of approaching it with an open mind and having a solid discussion, you rely on misrepresenting others' statements, far-reaching stretches, poor (wrong) assumptions, semantics, insults, fallacies and other counter-productive methods of communication. In case you missed it, folks are quite alright watching their speedster go 107-30 to set a realistic SB% as opposed to watching guys who should never be off the bag creating outs in an effort to maintain a certain percentage of SB success. I used the point that a guy went 165/5 or whatever to show that there is a problem. If that's what I want, why would I use that as a point for my argument? If you aren't even going to pay attention, stick to what's relevant and open your mind up a little to possibilities, what's the use?

I think a little data other than "it's obvious" to support your assertion that the bottom part of the stolen base chain is broker may help your cause.

Because there's lots of counter data saying otherwise.

Posted by deathinahole on 1/7/2011 6:27:00 PM (view original):
I think a little data other than "it's obvious" to support your assertion that the bottom part of the stolen base chain is broker may help your cause.

Because there's lots of counter data saying otherwise.

As far as the high-end guys stealing at too high of a success rate, I will try to find the thread where it was brought up before. The guy I posted earlier went something like 8/0 or 8/1 over a 2-3 game stretch vs. a C with 80+ AS & AA (remember, this is a guy who only had 83 BR, think of the guys 90+!). Several players have also been posted that have CS totals higher than 0, but should never be more than a step off the bag. All I am saying, regardless of individual settings, is that the high-end SB guys' SB% rates are too high and there are CS being created to offset that so that the SB% lines up with MLB average. Perhaps that hasn't been shown to your satisfaction, but I will try to find the thread from before that did include a lot more data that supports this. Again, I'm not advocating for anything more than a little more realism on behalf of the SB engine. I WANT the high-end guys getting caught more often, as is the case in MLB and has been throughout it's history. I WANT to be able to tell my guys who shouldn't be running to never step off that bag. Now, introduce something into the logic that makes a guy more or less defiant towards his managers preferences (Temper/Patience, etc), and I could totally accept the idea that these guys are getting CS. There's plenty of room for discussion and improvement. It doesn't need to be so scary to open up to the possibility that some things could be adjusted.

Posted by pstrnutbag44 on 1/7/2011 6:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/7/2011 12:04:00 PM (view original):
It only feels broken by those who want a select few to go 107-4 and the rest of the team to go 0-0.

This is exactly why it's pointless to have any sort of discussion with you. You go through the whole thing with blinders on and a closed mind, or you simply don't comprehend what's been pointed out by more than one poster in this thread (which I doubt as you certainly appear to be perfectly competent). Once you encounter an opinion that runs contrary to your own, instead of approaching it with an open mind and having a solid discussion, you rely on misrepresenting others' statements, far-reaching stretches, poor (wrong) assumptions, semantics, insults, fallacies and other counter-productive methods of communication. In case you missed it, folks are quite alright watching their speedster go 107-30 to set a realistic SB% as opposed to watching guys who should never be off the bag creating outs in an effort to maintain a certain percentage of SB success. I used the point that a guy went 165/5 or whatever to show that there is a problem. If that's what I want, why would I use that as a point for my argument? If you aren't even going to pay attention, stick to what's relevant and open your mind up a little to possibilities, what's the use?

Do you deny that some, if not many, owners will attempt to manipulate individual settings such that they only get results such as Mike has pointed out?  Or what you seem to want, which would be 107-30 for one guy with everybody else at 0-0?

Will it be manipulated? Sure, as with every other exploit in the game. Is that why I am talking about the SB engine? Not at all. I'd like to not be sacrificing outs to meet some percentage. Why is that such a bad thing? Why does any mention of improvement automatically mean someone is trying to manipulate or someone is whining or someone is ****** that something didn't work, etc. Some folks just like progress is all. Evolution. Continued growth. Some of you act like to even discuss things that may warrant improvement or further research is a crime. What I want, in reference to your second question, is a level of realism that the game strives for, and to reach that goal through more realistic measures. I simply want improvement. That is not a bad thing.

But that's not realistic.

And so the argument goes around in a circle.

There are enough MLB player that went 0 for something to fill nearly 2 teams. Ypu can tell your guy to glue it to first, but they will ill advisedly take off for 2nd when the ball gets away from the catcher, or get picked off snoozing, or be caught in a swing and miss hit and run...not many players can make it through 162 games without a SB attempt, even inadvertently.

The quest for realism is actually the quest for unrealistic.

But that's not realistic.

And so the argument goes around in a circle.

Posted by deathinahole on 1/7/2011 6:51:00 PM (view original):
But that's not realistic.

And so the argument goes around in a circle.

People are arguing the wrong argument. As is the case around here generally. Guys should not be going 150+/5. That alone shows that there may be room for improvement. Why dismiss it? Why not investigate and discuss with an eye towards growth & improvement? Why shut down immediately without acknowledging their is some solid evidence that supports SB% aren't what they ought to be and that the engine is reaching a SB% artificially, thus possibly having an effect on in-game decisions that could in turn have an adverse effrect on games, series, pennant races, et? Is progress really that scary for some of you?