Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad K
But, as you say, its a bit hard to understand. Does it provide any clues about the success rate in my data under performing historical?
|
Opportunities to steal come only from On-Base (and not 3b, because you can't steal it). So I'm pretty sure it's correct to take all On-Bases at 1st and 2nd. Maybe there are modifiers: 3rd is not as easy to steal from 2nd as 2nd is from 1st. But I don't think there's a way to find it out from available stats.
As for underperforming, I suggested two possibilities:
1) As you can see from my data, min "Stealing Bases" tactic from manager stops even GOAT. So AI tactics will have a significant impact. You can also see results different combinations of tactics & player ability. So if AI algorithm isn't perfect/optimized for 21 version changes, it can lead to suboptimal or unexpected results. Best example of it is 175 of 250 guy being negative contributor in max "Stealing Bases"&"Base-running" tactic.
2) Continuation of first. If balance was based on Stealing attribute having more impact it can mess things up. Historical players may have more stealing & less speed (in regards to 21 norms). And AI managers can base their "Stealing Bases" tactic on Stealing attribute.
21 version changes were probably made for modern reasons. And historical stuff can always be fixed by stolen base success %.