Manager styles OOTP vs Real life!

[Aztecs]

Why are Billy Beane's and Bob Melvin's manager style set as conventional? I'd think that these two would have the most extreme sabermetics small ball style set in the game.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Aztecs

Why are Billy Beane's and Bob Melvin's manager style set as conventional? I'd think that these two would have the most extreme sabermetics small ball style set in the game.

Seriously? The A's don't sacrifice. Lowest in MLB last season. Sabermetric strategy is conventional these days.

[Aztecs]

Originally Posted by RchW

Seriously? The A's don't sacrifice. Lowest in MLB last season. Sabermetric strategy is conventional these days.

That's one aspect. Plus, if OOTP saw Sabermetrics as conventional, then why do they have them both as options for manager style? If they were one in the same, then only one of them would be listed, right? So, if sabermetrics is conventional in real life, what is sabermetrics in the game? What is conventional?

[OakDragon]

Originally Posted by RchW

Seriously? The A's don't sacrifice. Lowest in MLB last season. Sabermetric strategy is conventional these days.

It's conventional to sacrifice when appropriate, isn't it?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by OakDragon

It's conventional to sacrifice when appropriate, isn't it?

Sacrifices are known to produce less runs. Not giving up outs is considered a far better strategy.

[Aztecs]

Originally Posted by RchW

Sacrifices are known to produce less runs. Not giving up outs is considered a far better strategy.

Besides all that. If sabermetrics is now conventional, then why are both separately listed in the game and two distinctly different management styles?

Plus, another thing, management styles is different than player personnel styles. Sabermetrics is more of a squad building style and not and playing/managing style. GM's in the game don't have a player evaluation and squad building style in the game, do they?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Aztecs

Besides all that. If sabermetrics is now conventional, then why are both separately listed in the game and two distinctly different management styles?

Plus, another thing, management styles is different than player personnel styles. Sabermetrics is more of a squad building style and not and playing/managing style. GM's in the game don't have a player evaluation and squad building style in the game, do they?

Then why did you conflate it in the OP. Sabermetric small ball just doesn't exist.

[OakDragon]

Originally Posted by RchW

Sacrifices are known to produce less runs. Not giving up outs is considered a far better strategy.

I'd better write a letter to the Giants immediately, in that case. Their chance at a fourth World Series title in six years is in dire straits.

[Aztecs]

Originally Posted by RchW

Then why did you conflate it in the OP. Sabermetric small ball just doesn't exist.

Then why is it in the game? I am talking about the game: OOTP16. Not real life. I brought up REAL LIFE, because in real life, Billy Bean builds his club off sabermetrics and the A's do play a form of small ball.

LOL, you are confusing yourself and others. The A's build their team around sabermetrics. Yet, in the game they are programmed as a conventional team. I pointed that out and you said sabermetrics does not exist and that it is now conventional. I then asked if sabermetics and conventional are one in the same, then why are they two separately listed manager styles?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by OakDragon

I'd better write a letter to the Giants immediately, in that case. Their chance at a fourth World Series title in six years is in dire straits.

Now that is confusing. I've always thought that the Giants don't give up outs. Sacrifices have little to do with them winning or losing.

[Aztecs]

Originally Posted by RchW

Now that is confusing. I've always thought that the Giants don't give up outs. Sacrifices have little to do with them winning or losing.

Sacrificing has nothing to do with a certain style of play. Sacrificing has to do with game situation regardless of playing style. Every team does it. It is part of baseball. Scoring runs from sacrificing has everything to do with winning since you need to score runs to win.

But, anyways, care to respond to my previous post since that is what this thread is about?:

Then why is it in the game? I am talking about the game: OOTP16. Not real life. I brought up REAL LIFE, because in real life, Billy Bean builds his club off sabermetrics and the A's do play a form of small ball.

LOL, you are confusing yourself and others. The A's build their team around sabermetrics. Yet, in the game they are programmed as a conventional team. I pointed that out and you said sabermetrics does not exist and that it is now conventional. I then asked if sabermetics and conventional are one in the same, then why are they two separately listed manager styles?

[IsaacR]

Originally Posted by Aztecs

Why are Billy Beane's and Bob Melvin's manager style set as conventional? I'd think that these two would have the most extreme sabermetics small ball style set in the game.

Buck Showalter is listed as small ball. The Orioles don't play small ball.


I think somebody needs to check on these listings.

[realstar]

Originally Posted by RchW

Sacrifices are known to produce less runs. Not giving up outs is considered a far better strategy.

Yet that thinking is only worthy with offensive based teams, with DH etc. I find the standard A.I. is hardly sacrifice at all. Increasing sacrifices in strategy is what I use & I cheat If I can by editing a manager to agree. This is more realistic: what GM & Field Manager don't communicate & work out strategies together along with recruiting? Otherwise many perfect opportunities for sacrifices (weak batter such as pitcher or situation that obviously needs it from a shortstop/centerfielder batting 8th/9th) are almost never taken. Instead you get these random sacrifices that waste the A.I.'s allotment of sacrifices used. Consequently I hate online leagues that don't allow this cheat & I'm probably going to quit my current one over this & that I can't cheat & find a manager with extremely excellent "teaching fielding" skills.

When I "cheat" with the above techniques I get more control over situations & win lots of low scoring games, just the way I like it & I play national league teams with no DH for good measure. More control over situations, strong defense, goes against allowing the game to do what it thinks should be its job of managing for you with styles of managers & a generally weak defensive attention to fielding etc. The game will fight you, you will feel it in batting orders for example & what some others on this forum were saying about depth charts being weak on placing fielders where they should be. But if you stick to your guns & pay close attention to every game, you can get an extreme winning team. I have found this to work every time. Here I am turning every team I play into the 1960s Dodgers. Even Koufax said he pitches to hit more successfully than to strikeout batters.

So if you must play AL give yourself a challenge Mr RchW & play the White Sox--e.g. learn about defensive strategy & managing for low scoring games with strong fielding. Fielding/close game strategy still is half the game, isn't it? Anybody can play boom-boom rally-on. But low scores & intense fielding defense is far more interesting than ace pitchers &/or too many hits/runs. Who wants to watch an ace pitch too well so nobody makes decent contact. Without great fielding plays baseball becomes a boring string of dominance managing as if the Yankees took over the universe. I'm just glad recent MLB finally discovered this important facet of spectator joy.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by RchW

Sacrifices are known to produce less runs. Not giving up outs is considered a far better strategy.

It depends on the situation and who is up.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

It depends on the situation and who is up.

And those situations are much less common than we think. Using any hitter not defined as poor or below average to sacrifice is almost always a bad strategy. Faking a sacrifice and hitting away is demonstrably better.

For those that don't buy that, why did the 15 Managers in the NL this year reduce sacrifices to an all time low rate? We may not agree with all decisions but they're getting paid to win and their actions are indisputable.

[swoboda]

Originally Posted by RchW

And those situations are much less common than we think. Using any hitter not defined as poor or below average to sacrifice is almost always a bad strategy. Faking a sacrifice and hitting away is demonstrably better.

For those that don't buy that, why did the 15 Managers in the NL this year reduce sacrifices to an all time low rate? We may not agree with all decisions but they're getting paid to win and their actions are indisputable.

How about situations when there is a man on 1st or 1st and 2nd and the hitter is both slow and more likely to hit a ground ball. Sacrifice to avoid the double play? Personally I am more likely to go with the hit and run

[victims_sanction]

Originally Posted by Aztecs

Besides all that. If sabermetrics is now conventional, then why are both separately listed in the game and two distinctly different management styles?

Plus, another thing, management styles is different than player personnel styles. Sabermetrics is more of a squad building style and not and playing/managing style. GM's in the game don't have a player evaluation and squad building style in the game, do they?

In game I think the sabermetric play style refers to heavy utilization of L/R splits and defensive shifts (which I'm not even sure is simulated in the game but it is something listed under management style). Both of those would not be used, at least heavily, by a "conventional" manager. At least that's how I view it within OOTP.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by victims_sanction

In game I think the sabermetric play style refers to heavy utilization of L/R splits and defensive shifts (which I'm not even sure is simulated in the game but it is something listed under management style). Both of those would not be used, at least heavily, by a "conventional" manager. At least that's how I view it within OOTP.

Platooning is common now both pitching and hitting wise. It's not an indelible formula. Even grizzled veterans know what a reverse split is. Almost all teams use defensive shifts often. Just like sacrifices going down fielding shifts work, the results are indisputable.

A conventional manager uses all of these tools in today's game. If they don't they will not be employed for long unless they have pictures of Arte Moreno.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by RchW

And those situations are much less common than we think. Using any hitter not defined as poor or below average to sacrifice is almost always a bad strategy.

Managers have known this for decades. Watch games from 40 years ago and see how many good hitters are asked to sacrifice. The answer is almost none unless it's a unique situation.

[victims_sanction]

Originally Posted by RchW

Platooning is common now both pitching and hitting wise. It's not an indelible formula. Even grizzled veterans know what a reverse split is. Almost all teams use defensive shifts often. Just like sacrifices going down fielding shifts work, the results are indisputable.

A conventional manager uses all of these tools in today's game. If they don't they will not be employed for long unless they have pictures of Arte Moreno.

Yeah they use them. What I mean is in regards to OOTP a saber guy is gonna most likely have "Frequent or Very Frequent" where as a conventional guy where have something between below average-slightly above average. Which to me, isn't far off from real life. Some guys use and value that stuff more than others - but every club uses it all to some degree.