BZ 3383: Concerns with intentional walk strategy in-game

[jbergey22]

I was under the impression this was one area that was going to be looked at extensively.

My team(Twins) losing 4-0 in the bottom of the 6th, my 8th hitter Redmond leads off the inning with a double, the next hitter (#9) Gomez is intentional walked for some reason. Looks like the computer AI still wants to try and give me wins.

Not sure if this is the right forum but this really needs to be fixed.

Well the two runners in the 6th DID score and I tied it up in the 9th but ended up losing 5-4 in 10. Atleast I dont feel like I stole this one.

[TribeFanInNC]

I've brought this up with Markus and he feels it's a valid play, I assume to set up the double play and control matchups. Personal preference I guess.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by TribeFanInNC

I've brought this up with Markus and he feels it's a valid play, I assume to set up the double play and control matchups. Personal preference I guess.

Seriously?

Walking the number 9 hitter to get to the top of the order with no outs up 4 runs is NOT a valid play under any circumstances when the team being walked is trailing.

In fact unless the hitter is Pujols or Bonds I cant think of one reason to intentional walk a hitter when their team is down runs or to put the tying or go ahead run on base and even with them two at the plate it would be rare.

I REALLY hope he reconsiders.

Ive had so many late game comebacks because of the computer doing this it is starting to get on my nerves. I mean I dont mind winning games but when the computer is gifting me 5-10 games a year it makes a big difference in the challenge I am being presented.

[OldFatGuy]

I just want to add my thoughts here too.

Intentional walks are a risk/reward tool that IMO is much like playing the infield in with less than two outs and a runner on third.

You're hoping to stop a run or two from scoring (by playing the infield in or walking a hitter with a man in scoring position in hopes of getting the next guy), and you're risking the big inning (by making a ground ball hit more likely with the infield in and by intentionally adding baserunners in intentional walks).

So, put it this way. Why would you play the infield in with a 4 run lead? It's similar logic with the intentional walk, although a slight bit more liberal with the intentional walk. I mean playing the infield in makes no sense with any lead over 1, whereas intentional walks might make sense with 2 run leads depending on the inning and situation. But every manager I've ever played for, talked with, or listened to on the subject of a large (3 or more runs) lead late in the game is preaching NO WALKS, not intentional walks.

[battists]

Guys,

Thanks for your post, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The first few weeks after the release are always pretty busy around here!

This at least deserves another look on Markus' part, so I've logged it as BZ 3383, and we'll see if we can get him to change his mind.

Thanks for calling it to our attention!

Steve

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by battists

Guys,

Thanks for your post, and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The first few weeks after the release are always pretty busy around here!

This at least deserves another look on Markus' part, so I've logged it as BZ 3383, and we'll see if we can get him to change his mind.

Thanks for calling it to our attention!

Steve

I've been calling this, the infamous 1st and 3rd sac bunt,and the AI's refusal to play their defense in in any other inning than the 8th-9th to his attention for the better part of a year now,I promise he will resist you LOL.In order to fix these problems,I had to go into each teams strategy section and dial IBB's all the way down to one click before never,and play defense in to one click before always.the sac bunt issue is a little trickier so I left it alone.Once you do that,the problems subside but it is a tedious operation