Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
25 Posts

Baseball Strategy» Forums » General

Subject: Pulled this one out rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
W. Shoe
msg tools
I played this game for the first time in many years and had some fun with it. It was the first time I played the third edition, having bought it on EBay.

These were solo games, but I could see getting a friend to play some H2H. I used the modified solo pitching system I found here, which is basically the deck suggested in the rules, based on Pitcher type, but with 1 random card removed and one added, to keep from totally being able to know the probabilities. It seemed to work well. I’m still not sure how to handle pitchouts. Ignoring them and re-choosing when the lead runner is slow could work.

Here are some points/tweaks I would consider making

STRIKEOUTS
Because I am prone to testing and doing some odd things in that quest, I had a game with both Ace Pitchers and every batter calling for the Long Ball (12, 10 or 4 on every AB).

The final score was 5-3 and there were three homers. There were 11 total strikeouts (in 17 innings pitched), which is low, considering what was going on. This is the best pitcher in the game vs. everyone hacking on every pitch. The matrix was designed in a different era, so I get it. But can something be done to adjust for the modern conditions?
I was thinking something like All Flyball-10 vs. Ace are changed to 2 on a roll of 1-2 on one die and changed on a roll of 1 vs. 1st Line. It’s not a ton, but should add about 2K/9IP for Ace and 1K/9IP for First Line. It’s something. Maybe also roll on one of the ground balls like 6. Or just all the 6/10s on Long Ball only, still working on it.

TRIPLES
I played out the same Long Ball on every swing vs. 1st Line for a game and 2nd Line for a game. For the three games combined I got 3 doubles, 9 triples, 23 HR (9 homers in the 1st Line game; 11 in the 2nd Line game; All three in an average park). Obviously, this is too many triples, even with the maximum Long Belts in every game.

Here’s a die roll after a triple on the board.
F3-F2: 1-3 triple/4-6 change to double
F1-F0: 1-2 3b/2-6 2b
Slow: 1 3b/2-6 2b

It’s a small sample size and my games weren’t typical, but for what it’s worth: Four of the triples came from F2/F3 guys and that, on average, would become two and five were by slow runners, which would become about one. So, it’s still three triples in three games, but it beats nine.

GROUNDER 6 QUESTIONS
The “All other runners advance a base” phrase doesn’t appear with every result (like the DP option for excellent defense; or the DP chance on a 1-3 die roll for Poor Def.) but is that a space thing and is it implied? If you are going to turn a DP, I would think others advance no matter what.

But how about a no-force situation like runner on second only, third only or second and third? It’s not really clear. An excellent defensive team will cut down a lead runner via Fielder’s Choice, but what about the others? Is it simply a ground out at first and runners advance?

Thanks for any feedback.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

shuuby wrote:
I played this game for the first time in many years and had some fun with it. It was the first time I played the third edition, having bought it on EBay.

These were solo games, but I could see getting a friend to play some H2H. I used the modified solo pitching system I found here, which is basically the deck suggested in the rules, based on Pitcher type, but with 1 random card removed and one added, to keep from totally being able to know the probabilities. It seemed to work well. I’m still not sure how to handle pitchouts. Ignoring them and re-choosing when the lead runner is slow could work.

Here are some points/tweaks I would consider making

STRIKEOUTS
Because I am prone to testing and doing some odd things in that quest, I had a game with both Ace Pitchers and every batter calling for the Long Ball (12, 10 or 4 on every AB).

The final score was 5-3 and there were three homers. There were 11 total strikeouts (in 17 innings pitched), which is low, considering what was going on. This is the best pitcher in the game vs. everyone hacking on every pitch. The matrix was designed in a different era, so I get it. But can something be done to adjust for the modern conditions?
I was thinking something like All Flyball-10 vs. Ace are changed to 2 on a roll of 1-2 on one die and changed on a roll of 1 vs. 1st Line. It’s not a ton, but should add about 2K/9IP for Ace and 1K/9IP for First Line. It’s something. Maybe also roll on one of the ground balls like 6. Or just all the 6/10s on Long Ball only, still working on it.


It would seem a bit low, but keep in mind that you played an artificial game. The matrix is meant to give realistic results based on realistic play. I wouldn't say that 11 strikeouts is really all that off. The average number per game, according to this site,

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/pitch.shtml

is between 8 and 9. The other more important fact, here, is that the pitching was completely random (though slightly weighted). A thinking pitcher seeing the 'strategy' in play, would be pulling off considerably more strikeouts than that.

shuuby wrote:

TRIPLES
I played out the same Long Ball on every swing vs. 1st Line for a game and 2nd Line for a game. For the three games combined I got 3 doubles, 9 triples, 23 HR (9 homers in the 1st Line game; 11 in the 2nd Line game; All three in an average park). Obviously, this is too many triples, even with the maximum Long Belts in every game.

Here’s a die roll after a triple on the board.
F3-F2: 1-3 triple/4-6 change to double
F1-F0: 1-2 3b/2-6 2b
Slow: 1 3b/2-6 2b

It’s a small sample size and my games weren’t typical, but for what it’s worth: Four of the triples came from F2/F3 guys and that, on average, would become two and five were by slow runners, which would become about one. So, it’s still three triples in three games, but it beats nine.


Your results have the same issues as above. When a realistic style of play is used, and a thinking (as opposed to random) pitcher is confronting you the results end up being much more in line with actual results. Under such conditions there would be considerably fewer long belts to allow for the option of a triple in the first place. I don't see the need for any change here.

shuuby wrote:

GROUNDER 6 QUESTIONS
The “All other runners advance a base” phrase doesn’t appear with every result (like the DP option for excellent defense; or the DP chance on a 1-3 die roll for Poor Def.) but is that a space thing and is it implied? If you are going to turn a DP, I would think others advance no matter what.

No, nothing is implied on the charts at all.
Note that where it does not appear is under an excellent defense, only.
They're too fast and efficient to allow the other runners to take the risk. Perfectly reasonable, imo.

shuuby wrote:

But how about a no-force situation like runner on second only, third only or second and third? It’s not really clear. An excellent defensive team will cut down a lead runner via Fielder’s Choice, but what about the others? Is it simply a ground out at first and runners advance?

Yes. In a double play the force is almost always the first out, because it's the most critical, as the runner has a head start on the fielders. If there is no force the runner may not take off immediately, so the play is to first, at which point the runners take off and with a slower defensive team, they're at a disadvantage to catch him. The advantage lies with the runners in such a situation.

I think the matrix does the job incredibly well.
My complaint with it is that home runs are too few.
And my fix for that would be to rework completely the long belt chart for a die 10.
Something like;

...L.A.S
1.H.H.H
2.H.H.H
3.H.H.H
4.H.H.H
5.H.H.H
6.H.H.H
7.T..H.H
8.T..T..H
9.T..T..T
0.D.D.D

Great game. Good find.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Shoe
msg tools
Good points on random vs. thinking opponent vis-a-vis, strikeouts. Still, I was only 5.8 SO/9 IP (small sample size, sure) in the most extreme strikeout-friendly case possible. Factor in the two games with the other pitching grades and the three games I played with no Long Belt swings and overall you’re into WW2-era numbers. Again though, I recognize a thinking pitcher is likely to get more.

I’m not really planning any grand solitaire project with it, but maybe I can better simulate the “thought” by the pitcher by having any hit or walk subject to a die roll and on a 1, allow the pitcher to change to the ideal pitch for that swing (maybe with any ‘2’ taking priority).



The All-Long Ball style of play will certainly distort power numbers. But really, there are plenty of guys in major league baseball c. 2017 that swing for the fences (virtually) every at bat. I wanted to see what it would look like.

But yes, it stands to reason that the stats would be more realistic all around in a H2H situation. And I’m not sure creating a 2017 dynamic is needed. More homers and more strikeouts don’t always make for the most exciting games. I think you could also better simulate the 2017 game by: eliminating a back-up OF; adding an 11th pitcher; reducing the maximum IP for relievers (Ace: 3, others 2); and, using the starting pitcher in extra innings rules as early as the seventh, but I don’t know it makes for a better game.


Regarding Grounder-6, any forced runner is going to advance (in real baseball) on a 6-4-3 double play. Maybe there is something I am not quite following in your explanation.

Easy way to do this. What’s the situation after the play is resolved for each kind of defense when there is a grounder 6, no out and:
Runner on third
Runners on first and third
Runners on first and second


I haven’t played it enough to really comment on your Long Belt chart. Just swing for the fences on every pitch, hahaha!! You can come really close to your percentage of homers (70 percent overall on your d10 chart) by upping the HR range by one on the board d6 chart (1-3 large, 1-4 avg, 1-5 small, which is 66.7%) and letting the rest be an “XB” result that is two-thirds triple and one-third doubles (or based on speed, which I am fond of . . will tinker with it). I guess all that is just a different way to achieve essentially the same thing. (EDIT: Anyone with a + Power rating will get pushed into singles territory less often with your d10 chart; don't know if that is a desired effect).



Yes, it’s neat little game. I played it in my school days (several decades ago) and forgot I even got it on EBay until I found the unpunched set in the closet the other day, which is even better than finding it at a tag sale. Nothing like the post-punch paper burrs all over the coffee table to remind one of another era!!

Thanks for the time.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

shuuby wrote:
Good points on random vs. thinking opponent vis-a-vis, strikeouts. Still, I was only 5.8 SO/9 IP (small sample size, sure) in the most extreme strikeout-friendly case possible. Factor in the two games with the other pitching grades and the three games I played with no Long Belt swings and overall you’re into WW2-era numbers. Again though, I recognize a thinking pitcher is likely to get more.

I’m not really planning any grand solitaire project with it, but maybe I can better simulate the “thought” by the pitcher by having any hit or walk subject to a die roll and on a 1, allow the pitcher to change to the ideal pitch for that swing (maybe with any ‘2’ taking priority).

I know the random card pull (and stacked to work better odds) has the advantage of being fast and easy to use. I've made a solo engine. If you're interested you could check it out.
https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/112981/solitaire-opponent...
It is much more tedious than flipping a card, but it is designed to give reasonable responses to any given situation.

shuuby wrote:

The All-Long Ball style of play will certainly distort power numbers. But really, there are plenty of guys in major league baseball c. 2017 that swing for the fences (virtually) every at bat. I wanted to see what it would look like.

But yes, it stands to reason that the stats would be more realistic all around in a H2H situation. And I’m not sure creating a 2017 dynamic is needed. More homers and more strikeouts don’t always make for the most exciting games. I think you could also better simulate the 2017 game by: eliminating a back-up OF; adding an 11th pitcher; reducing the maximum IP for relievers (Ace: 3, others 2); and, using the starting pitcher in extra innings rules as early as the seventh, but I don’t know it makes for a better game.

Those are fairly simple changes to make. Then it's just persuading someone to give it a try. And sometimes the effort isn't really worth the end result. I enjoy the exercise of modifying games, so personally I'm usually OK trying variants.

shuuby wrote:

Regarding Grounder-6, any forced runner is going to advance (in real baseball) on a 6-4-3 double play. Maybe there is something I am not quite following in your explanation.

Easy way to do this. What’s the situation after the play is resolved for each kind of defense when there is a grounder 6, no out and:
1. Runner on third
2. Runners on first and third
3. Runners on first and second

That would be a few results to tabulate. How about I do Ave and Exc and see if that makes sense?
If you don't mind, I've numbered yours to make this a little quicker.
Average
1. Out at first, run scores. (1 out)
2. Out at first and second, run scores (2 out)
3. Out at first and your choice between 2nd and 3rd (2 out), runner on 3rd or 2nd depending on your choice.

Excellent
1. (Presumably) runner on 3rd taken out attempting to score and the batter advances to 1st (though you could choose 1st base and allow the runshake--it is an option) (1 out)
2. Choice
a) Runner on 3rd attempting to score, out, runners advance to 1st and 2nd. (1 out)
b) Out at 1st and 2nd, run scores (2 out)
3. Out at 1st, and choose; 2nd out at 2nd or 3rd (the other will advance) (2 out).

shuuby wrote:

I haven’t played it enough to really comment on your Long Belt chart. Just swing for the fences on every pitch, hahaha!! You can come really close to your percentage of homers (70 percent overall on your d10 chart) by upping the HR range by one on the board d6 chart (1-3 large, 1-4 avg, 1-5 small, which is 66.7%) and letting the rest be an “XB” result that is two-thirds triple and one-third doubles (or based on speed, which I am fond of . . will tinker with it). I guess all that is just a different way to achieve essentially the same thing.

Yeah, I like the speed dependent idea, too.

shuuby wrote:

(EDIT: Anyone with a + Power rating will get pushed into singles territory less often with your d10 chart; don't know if that is a desired effect).

Wasn't thinking about it at the time, but for that reason I do like even better.
In general, home-run results don't match real play as it is. It's hard to get a long belt result, so I just think the chances of a home-run should be better once you get there, however you want to do it.

shuuby wrote:


Yes, it’s neat little game. I played it in my school days (several decades ago) and forgot I even got it on EBay until I found the unpunched set in the closet the other day, which is even better than finding it at a tag sale. Nothing like the post-punch paper burrs all over the coffee table to remind one of another era!!

Early Christmas present!


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Shoe
msg tools
Thanks for the GB-6 readings.

No ‘Infield In’ option with a runner at third seems like a weakness of a game about baseball strategy.

Non-optimal defenses give up a lot of extra bases; you’re almost forced into playing the better defender at every position. That limits the value of #17 & #12, two of the best five offensive players on the team, if you don’t use the DH (but if you do, they make a great platoon). Although I suppose being able to bring a masher off the bench to pinch-hit late can be fun (#12 won one of my games with a pinch-hit bomb).

You probably figured this pretty quickly once I mentioned it, but in the Long Belt chart as-is, a +1 Power guy will get a single one time in six (a die roll of six), a +2 is 2/6, a +3 is 3/6. Using the 10-sided chart (where I presumed an ‘11’ or more is a single), that becomes 1/10, 2/10 and 3/10.

As far as not enough homers, I can’t speak to H2H play as the last time I did that was the 1980s. In the six games I played, I had more than the 2017 average and 2017 is on a record pace (actual: 1.29 HR/9; my games: 1.97), BUT it comes with many caveats: 1. Offense was high because you can always outguess a system (even with one unseen random change to the deck), I will give all Blue results a 1/6 chance to get changed to the most optimum for the pitcher going forward; 2. I called Long Ball for about half of all swings; 3. Each pitching grade threw an equal number of games.

Now I’m going to have to play more games and see what stats look like under different conditions.

I briefly looked at your solitaire system. It’s a lot to get through, but seems quite thorough.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

shuuby wrote:

No ‘Infield In’ option with a runner at third seems like a weakness of a game about baseball strategy.

Yes, the matrix system is a bit limited that way.
Have you seen the revised defense charts AH published in the All-Star Replay? I see I have someone's revised revised version, that offers a variety of options for Grounder6.

shuuby wrote:

Non-optimal defenses give up a lot of extra bases; you’re almost forced into playing the better defender at every position. That limits the value of #17 & #12, two of the best five offensive players on the team, if you don’t use the DH (but if you do, they make a great platoon). Although I suppose being able to bring a masher off the bench to pinch-hit late can be fun (#12 won one of my games with a pinch-hit bomb).

Yes, AH really worked the numbers to force you to make some tough decisions

shuuby wrote:

You probably figured this pretty quickly once I mentioned it, but in the Long Belt chart as-is, a +1 Power guy will get a single one time in six (a die roll of six), a +2 is 2/6, a +3 is 3/6. Using the 10-sided chart (where I presumed an ‘11’ or more is a single), that becomes 1/10, 2/10 and 3/10.

No, sorry, I misunderstood that reference. There are no single results on the long belt chart. If you reach the top you get a double.

shuuby wrote:

As far as not enough homers, I can’t speak to H2H play as the last time I did that was the 1980s.

The trouble is that the pitcher can choose to deny you a home run. Since there are only 3 results on the chart he can pitch around it. There are ways to take advantage of this if you see it happening, but the point is if the pitcher doesn't want you to get a home run there's nothing you can do about that.

shuuby wrote:

Now I’m going to have to play more games and see what stats look like under different conditions.

Research is such a b***h.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Shoe
msg tools
The only Baseball Strategy charts I could find in ASR were in Vol. 2, No. 4, which were just a preview of what the third edition charts would be.

Are there more?

And to amend my previous remark, you can add #14 to #12/17 and I guess three of the top seven top offensive players are not the optimal defender, so yes, many tough decisions all around.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

shuuby wrote:
The only Baseball Strategy charts I could find in ASR were in Vol. 2, No. 4,


That's what I was referring to from ASR. I noticed btw, that there was not a copy in the game's files, so if you're subscribed, you may have noticed I just uploaded a copy.

shuuby wrote:

Are there more?

I see I have in my files, what looks like somebody's homebrew, which I think I must have got from here, but it's not currently in the files, so I don't know where it came from.
I can send you that copy if you like. Grounder 6 has a die roll to offer a few different results.

shuuby wrote:

which were just a preview of what the third edition charts would be.

This a new chart!?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Shoe
msg tools
Well, it was new when it came out in ASR :-)
It's the same one in the last version of the game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Shoe
msg tools
tanik wrote:

The trouble is that the pitcher can choose to deny you a home run. Since there are only 3 results on the chart he can pitch around it. There are ways to take advantage of this if you see it happening, but the point is if the pitcher doesn't want you to get a home run there's nothing you can do about that.


I saw one variant on the forum for this. I definitely like the idea of "pitcher misses his spot." How about roll one die on a Long Belt non-7 result with a 1/6 chance to make it a 7. I would want to keep the game from being a total luckfest or Long Belt parade and say each team can benefit from this once in the first five innings and once from the sixth on (or 6-10, 11-15 if it goes extras, if you prefer).

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

That has possibilities.
I would suggest that it only be an option if the original result were a hit (and maybe only on a double result, but definitely not on bunt singles). And I might also suggest a +1 to the die roll on a double result (and a +2 on a single if you accept those, as well).
I've previously toyed with the idea of the double/5 results also being rolled on the long belt chart, but with a +2 on the die.

edit: Well, now I'm looking more closely at the chart and I think the reroll would be best applied to the singles on the long ball swings 10 and 12. Maybe combined with the long belt chart (edit - insert) on a double/5.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Shoe
msg tools
The last bit seems to make the most sense to me.

Question on Swings #6/8, Place Hit/Hit & Run. Without any real guidelines in the rules for how this works, I always played it like it was a Place Hit with the bases empty and a hit and run with someone on base.

But are any runners automatically in motion on this swing? If so, I guess it makes no sense to call with a lone runner at third or second and third. Can you have just the trail runner moving on first & third? Just curious how people play it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

Btw I just edited my post in case what I was saying wasn't clear.


shuuby wrote:


Question on Swings #6/8, Place Hit/Hit & Run. Without any real guidelines in the rules for how this works, I always played it like it was a Place Hit with the bases empty and a hit and run with someone on base.

Not sure what you're saying here. You take the result given either way, but with runners you have a little extra work to do to work it out.


shuuby wrote:

But are any runners automatically in motion on this swing?

Yes. That's how I've interpreted it, though I've often wanted the call without the runners taking off. So, yeah, why not require the batter to call the hit and run only if you want it?
shuuby wrote:

If so, I guess it makes no sense to call with a lone runner at third or second and third. Can you have just the trail runner moving on first & third? Just curious how people play it.


I think it's commonly used with 2 outs, so you don't get killed by the double play, or with a weak batter who may get out, but when you want to take the double play risk in order to get a better advance on the bases.
Not sure what's to be gained by the trailing runner only moving. If runners are going to advance, why not the one on third?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Shoe
msg tools
tanik wrote:

Not sure what you're saying here. You take the result given either way, but with runners you have a little extra work to do to work it out.

Yes, but if you can Place Hit only with runners on base, the lineout-8 is only one out.

tanik wrote:
I've often wanted the call without the runners taking off. So, yeah, why not require the batter to call the hit and run only if you want it?

I agree, why not? Do those swings become too good with so much less risk? I suspect that the game designer might think so as perhaps evidenced by only a .301+ guy having a place hit w/o a H&R (Swing 11). I guess it's up to the individuals to decide before the game.

tanik wrote:

I think it's commonly used with 2 outs, so you don't get killed by the double play, or with a weak batter who may get out, but when you want to take the double play risk in order to get a better advance on the bases.
Not sure what's to be gained by the trailing runner only moving. If runners are going to advance, why not the one on third?


My thought was less than two out, slow runner at third, fast runner at first. If there is a 2-strikeout, the guy on third would not be liable to being putout and the runner at first being fast, has a slightly less chance at being putout.

BTW, the verbiage is slightly different on EXC catcher, calling it "doubled off" while the others are "baserunner OUT" I've treated them all as caught stealing, strike 'em out, throw'em outs. Maybe some kind of double-steal first and third rule can be worked out.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

shuuby wrote:
tanik wrote:

Not sure what you're saying here. You take the result given either way, but with runners you have a little extra work to do to work it out.

Yes, but if you can Place Hit only with runners on base, the lineout-8 is only one out.

OK, got it, but I think we've gone past this now, right? As I always understood it you have to take it all in (ie. Place Hits with the Hit & Run).

shuuby wrote:

tanik wrote:
I've often wanted the call without the runners taking off. So, yeah, why not require the batter to call the hit and run only if you want it?

I agree, why not? Do those swings become too good with so much less risk? I suspect that the game designer might think so as perhaps evidenced by only a .301+ guy having a place hit w/o a H&R (Swing 11). I guess it's up to the individuals to decide before the game.

Yea, we'll have to test it to see how it affects the results.
shuuby wrote:

tanik wrote:

I think it's commonly used with 2 outs, so you don't get killed by the double play, or with a weak batter who may get out, but when you want to take the double play risk in order to get a better advance on the bases.
Not sure what's to be gained by the trailing runner only moving. If runners are going to advance, why not the one on third?


My thought was less than two out, slow runner at third, fast runner at first. If there is a 2-strikeout, the guy on third would not be liable to being putout and the runner at first being fast, has a slightly less chance at being putout.

Well, on a 2 he would have only a partial chance, true. The odds, in general, for the 3rd base runner are not bad, so that would be a decent call there. I don't think I ever saw the value of that before. Good one.
shuuby wrote:

BTW, the verbiage is slightly different on EXC catcher, calling it "doubled off" while the others are "baserunner OUT" I've treated them all as caught stealing, strike 'em out, throw'em outs.


Yes, they all mean the same thing. This was created in an era when they were more interested in capturing the flavour of the game and weren't yet straight-jacketed by being strictly disciplined about the language they used so as not to confuse the players.

shuuby wrote:

Maybe some kind of double-steal first and third rule can be worked out.

This is possible, now. You call the lead base runner's steal and all others follow along behind (Base-stealing #3). The play is called, consequently, at the lead runner's base. The others will automatically succeed.
I suppose you could create some kind of possible double play with an Excellent Defense or Excellent Catcher/Infield combination.

Only if the first out is made, on a roll of 6 the 2nd out is successful?
Something like that.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

BTW, are you familiar with Home Coach Advantage -- The Sports Sim Guild?
You may be interested.
I just solicited their opinions on the hit and run thing.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Shoe
msg tools
Was not familiar with it, thanks.

As far as first and third steals, the idea that the runner on third will always score isn't entirely realistic. Sometimes the defense will cut off the throw short of the second base bag and throw the runner out (or they will try and he still beats the return throw). Other times the runner at third will be frozen by an infielder going to the cut off area, but he allows the ball to go through.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Shoe
msg tools
I know I said I wasn't planning any grand solitaire project, but I guess I am. I have 20 games of stats, but I'll wait until Monday to post them as I want final season MLB stats as a comparison.

One area I will note is getting 39 GDP when the expectation, based on my innings played, was 31. This could just be variance and next time I get 23, but I doubt it. My aggregate OBP was about 52 points lower than the AL over the past decade. If I put in a correction factor for that, I suspect the GDP will go off the charts with more base runners.

I only used Poor defense about 10 percent of the time and one way of looking at that is I should have done it one third of the time if I was trying to approximate average MLB conditions. Yes, but I still think that number winds up high.

So I am toying with this on a possible GDP
F3: Beats the throw to first on a 1-2
F1-F2: Beats the throw on a 1

It could also add an interesting H2H wrinkle when considering the force at home vs. DP option.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

shuuby wrote:
I know I said I wasn't planning any grand solitaire project, but I guess I am. I have 20 games of stats, but I'll wait until Monday to post them as I want final season MLB stats as a comparison.

One area I will note is getting 39 GDP when the expectation, based on my innings played, was 31. This could just be variance and next time I get 23, but I doubt it. My aggregate OBP was about 52 points lower than the AL over the past decade. If I put in a correction factor for that, I suspect the GDP will go off the charts with more base runners.

I only used Poor defense about 10 percent of the time and one way of looking at that is I should have done it one third of the time if I was trying to approximate average MLB conditions. Yes, but I still think that number winds up high.

So I am toying with this on a possible GDP
F3: Beats the throw to first on a 1-2
F1-F2: Beats the throw on a 1

It could also add an interesting H2H wrinkle when considering the force at home vs. DP option.


This is still using your random card draws? Right? Remember how different the results are for H2H competitions.
Also, though it's nice if its as realistic as possible, Baseball Strategy was not designed to be strictly statistically realistic. It's meant to give you the decision making feel of the game. The stats-based games will have more consistent comparisons to the real thing.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Shoe
msg tools
Yes, random. And of course I get all that. There are only four levels of batting average, only so much you can expect. But I'm having fun messing with it and trying to get the panoramic view of stats to look right . . at least given how I am playing with it. A silly time-killer I guess.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

Fun to mess with I know. I do lots of that sort of thing myself. Have fun , and keep us posted.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Shoe
msg tools
tanik wrote:

Have fun , and keep us posted.



I’m not sure you want that, my notes on my 20-game test are over 2000 words, haha.

As far as stats go, I’m not sure they are that far off from what H2H would produce.

In that batch of games, 10.3 percent of all plate appearances were extra base hits. Those would be an example of the times that batter got his “sweet spot”, the perfect call for the pitch.

To represent a thinking pitcher, I changed (a variable number, but an average of 25 percent) of all odd numbers to a favorable result for the pitcher. Based on the number of favorable offensive results I did get, I can estimate that I changed 9.2 percent of offensive results to outs. But really it is higher, because some ‘9’ results with no one on base became outs, and not having made any such designations on score sheets, I have no way to calculate that. Suffice to say, the amount of pitcher “sweet spot” changes were very close to the batters.

Add to the “perfect” results for the offense, the number of singles they got when that was the best outcome on a given swing, and for pitchers, the strikeouts/DP/force outs that came naturally and each side is getting a very favorable and logical result maybe 20 percent of the time. Figure another 10-20 percent where each side gets their second best result and the rest, like any H2H match-up, are a mixed bag.

H2H pitchers will likely avoid a possible ‘7’ result more than my modified randomness did and that is no small matter. The AL average of XBH/PA over the past decade is 7.8 percent, not the 10.3 I got. What would a large sample of H2H data produce? I don’t know, but I imagine it would be more in line with actual totals, and perhaps even a bit less. That’s kind of an easy fix I can attack any number of ways: A Long Belt chart with a 6 roll being a single, pitcher HRA ratings that are all positive and combine with a batter’s power adjustment on the Long Belt chart, or just letting the pitcher “guess right” more than 25% of the time on ‘7’ results.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

shuuby wrote:

H2H pitchers will likely avoid a possible ‘7’ result more than my modified randomness did and that is no small matter. The AL average of XBH/PA over the past decade is 7.8 percent, not the 10.3 I got. What would a large sample of H2H data produce? I don’t know, but I imagine it would be more in line with actual totals, and perhaps even a bit less. That’s kind of an easy fix I can attack any number of ways: A Long Belt chart with a 6 roll being a single, pitcher HRA ratings that are all positive and combine with a batter’s power adjustment on the Long Belt chart, or just letting the pitcher “guess right” more than 25% of the time on ‘7’ results.


As I mentioned above, I've found H2H results to produce far fewer home runs than the actual game does. This was a problem AH identified early and changed the rule to allow anyone (in range) to call a long belt 10 or 12, where originally only the heavy hitters were permitted. Even with that change it's still well below average, based on my experiences with it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
W. Shoe
msg tools
I will take your word for it. I need to play some H2H!

One thing that bugs me, and this would apply to H2H as well, is errors. Result-1 is either an error or a walk, so a poor defensive team doesn't allow any more baserunners than an excellent one.

That can be alleviated with something like this:
1: Outfield Defense
2-3: Possible Infield error
4-6: WALK

The rolls of 2-3 would make for a supplemental roll where the Poor defensive team has the same number or errors it has now by being a 100% chance; ditto with the Excellent defensive team with a 50% chance, and then split the difference for Average. All the non-error re-rolls can be an infield popout.

Similarly, you can give the poor defensive team a 1-2 chance for an Outfield error and split the difference (3/12) for Average.

Maybe the baserunner advancement is already so stark on the rest of the results, this isn't needed. But it strikes me as being a bit more realistic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

It seems to me the focus is on the errors. The poor defense ends up with more errors and moves more runners along the bases and are more likely to end up with runs scored. I don't see an issue with this one, myself.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.