Does OOTP recognize how outcomes change with pitch count?

[FlyTheW1104]

Hope the title makes sense. Sometimes when I'm in game and say I have a batter at the bottom of the order up with a runner on first and he's up against a groundball pitcher I find myself wanting to lay down a bunt if he's behind 0-1 or sometimes, if he's an excellent bunter, even on an 0-2 count. I know, I know... bunting is bad.. I only desire to do it when I have a GB pitcher on the mound and I got some middle infielder who can barely hit at all. So this begs my question. Does OOTP recognize/ include the reality that batters don't hit as well on an 0-1 count vs a 2-0 count?

Maybe this is impossible to answer?
Thanks!

[uruguru]

I know that final batting outcome is worse when you are behind in the count, but I wasn't aware that the outcome for the next particular pitch was worse.

[FlyTheW1104]

Yes that is what I'm getting at. If you are managing a game and are in "pitch-by-ptch" mode, can things get worse/ better for a batter based on the count? Sounds like you're saying it does?

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by FlyTheW1104

Hope the title makes sense. Sometimes when I'm in game and say I have a batter at the bottom of the order up with a runner on first and he's up against a groundball pitcher I find myself wanting to lay down a bunt if he's behind 0-1 or sometimes, if he's an excellent bunter, even on an 0-2 count. I know, I know... bunting is bad.. I only desire to do it when I have a GB pitcher on the mound and I got some middle infielder who can barely hit at all. So this begs my question. Does OOTP recognize/ include the reality that batters don't hit as well on an 0-1 count vs a 2-0 count?

Maybe this is impossible to answer?
Thanks!

If the game takes this into account I think it’s a very mild effect. You’ve been able to cheese the game by taking until you get 2 strikes for years, for example. Not only do other teams not pick up on it when you’re taking that much (they’d start throwing strikes down the heart of the plate until you took the take off), it really doesn’t look to me like the game has that massive malus that’s reflected from having 2 strikes on you that’s implied by the stats. Most people just say “yeah, so I just don’t take unless there’s a direct strategic reason”.

I do however, think that the game engine, which is essentially a single pitch engine that kind of manufactures the at-bat as a whole after it figures out the results, will push counts to certain places to make those numbers work out. Obviously guys who K a lot will get to more 0-2 counts than guys who don’t, but beyond that I’m pretty sure the league wide “by count” numbers wind up being close to what you see IRL and this would be because they correlate them but reverse the time order, if that makes sense.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I do however, think that the game engine, which is essentially a single pitch engine that kind of manufactures the at-bat as a whole after it figures out the results, will push counts to certain places to make those numbers work out. Obviously guys who K a lot will get to more 0-2 counts than guys who don’t, but beyond that I’m pretty sure the league wide “by count” numbers wind up being close to what you see IRL and this would be because they correlate them but reverse the time order, if that makes sense.

Geez, I would not want to write that code

[Pelican]

On the Apple TV MLB telecasts, they a running estimate of the batter’s chance to get on base, or strikeout, and it changes considerably based on the count. And yes, that would be a lot of outcomes for the coders.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Geez, I would not want to write that code

I think the fact that it would be a PITA to write is reason #1 why it's not there. That and the relative lack of data: like, by definition 2-strike counts are going to have way lower averages associated with them because all strikeouts come on 2-strike counts. But what is really the K rate on a 2 strike count that comes from a guy dropping 2 bunts foul or just taking? If you just apply the overall malus that's probably going too far because you're lumping the at-bats where a pitcher overwhelmed a batter in with those. Probably there is *some* effect, since the player only gets one chance now and will probably be protecting the plate, but OOTP has long had to concern itself with exactly how much because if it doesn't, the results are off.

TBH this is a reason - like, reason #14 but a reason - why I just allow the AI to make baserunning and strategy decisions in the game while I stick with substitutions. If I want a player to sacrifice or hit and run more I bump up the sliders.

[md40022]

My quick answer to this is the game does not seem to take specific count into affect. If I am wrong about that, then it needs some serious tweaking.

I brought this up in last year's game, but often times when I give the "swing away" command to my hitter, I will then look at what the count was at the end of the at-bat and WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too often do I see it was a 3-0 count and the batter makes weak contact.

Obviously IRL with a 3-0 count the philosophy has always been either 100% straight take the next pitch for weaker hitters, or take the next pitch unless you get an absolute meatball for better hitters and in the event that you do swing it better be hard contact.......

Basically, weak contact on a 3-0 count is considered unacceptable. Yet it seems to happen quite a bit in OOTP. Very frustrating when your .210 hitting 9th batter pops out on a 3-0 count when IRL that guy should be taking that next pitch 99% of the time.

So to the original question, I don't think OOTP takes count into consideration with batter outcome. Though I think they DO take it into consideration when stealing bases.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by md40022

My quick answer to this is the game does not seem to take specific count into affect. If I am wrong about that, then it needs some serious tweaking.

I brought this up in last year's game, but often times when I give the "swing away" command to my hitter, I will then look at what the count was at the end of the at-bat and WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too often do I see it was a 3-0 count and the batter makes weak contact.

Obviously IRL with a 3-0 count the philosophy has always been either 100% straight take the next pitch for weaker hitters, or take the next pitch unless you get an absolute meatball for better hitters and in the event that you do swing it better be hard contact.......

Basically, weak contact on a 3-0 count is considered unacceptable. Yet it seems to happen quite a bit in OOTP. Very frustrating when your .210 hitting 9th batter pops out on a 3-0 count when IRL that guy should be taking that next pitch 99% of the time.

So to the original question, I don't think OOTP takes count into consideration with batter outcome. Though I think they DO take it into consideration when stealing bases.

You're instructing your batter to swing away on a 3-0 count and this somehow the games fault?

[md40022]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

You're instructing your batter to swing away on a 3-0 count and this somehow the games fault?

I'm not using pitch by pitch, so I'm not instructing my batter to swing away on a 3-0 count.

I'm instructing the batter to swing away at the start of the AB, 0-0 count. And as the count progresses a hitter's philosophy should change and therefore the outcomes of the AB should change based on count (this was the OP's initial question)..... I personally don't believe the game factors this in, based on the example I mentioned.

[Syd Thrift]

There are hits that occur on 3-0 counts though, as well as outs. In fact, this season the league hits .351 on a 3-0 count; that’s a high average but even so, there are almost two outs for every base hit in this situation.

I am like 99% positive that since we all know that the game essentially operates in one pitch mode, on “swing away” at bats the game generates the play first and then generates the balls and strikes that lead up to that play. You can basically make the game reset this with strategies but what I don’t think happens at any point in time is any sort of bonus or malus that comes with getting to a given pitch count, except for stuff that is definitionally true - you will always strike out if you foul off a bunt with 2 strikes or take strike 3, you will always walk if you take ball 4, etc. I am nearly positive that this is the case, too, because people have used it to cheese the take call for years now and, as I noted upthread, this seems like it’d be a major pain to get right, statistically speaking.

And let’s be perfectly honest here; this would not lead to an end of cheese it would just cause the cheese to happen in different spots - for example, you’d never steal, especially against a good control pitcher, because even opening with an 0-1 count reduces your chance of getting a hit by about 10-15%. Or you’d constantly tell everyone to make contact with the first pitch since even in the current season players hit .353 when they put the first ball they see into play (FWIW the Cubs if memory serves tried this philosophy in the early 90s - what resulted was that once pitchers caught on, they started throwing balls, the team only hit around .280 on the first pitch, and more to the point they swung and missed at bad pitches a lot more and put themselves into 0-1 holes).

This is still cheesing because the results I’m talking about lump the guys who just watched a 101 mph zip past them with no chance to get around on it with the guys who took strike one because their manager told them to or fouled one off to protect a runner who got a bad jump. We really don’t have a good way of knowing exactly how strategies affect at-bats like this except that we can observe that managers seem to behave as it the effects of that extra strike are not large (you see guys steal at about the break even rate, maybe a little less often lately, but if you really and truly lowered your chances of getting a hit by 10-15% by taking a single strike you’d see steals become much rarer and with far higher success rates as a result… likewise with bunts and hit and runs). Cheesing the take call would just create more high percentage at-bats against pitchers with poorer control, and again IRL the way you’d see teams combat that is to throw more pitches in the zone against guys who take a lot.

tl;dr this is a bigger problem than it looks and it’s kind of easy to see why the game doesn’t take all of these permutations into account. If you’re unhappy with the way you can cheese the game, don’t cheese it.

[md40022]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I am like 99% positive that since we all know that the game essentially operates in one pitch mode, on “swing away” at bats the game generates the play first and then generates the balls and strikes that lead up to that play. You can basically make the game reset this with strategies but what I don’t think happens at any point in time is any sort of bonus or malus that comes with getting to a given pitch count, except for stuff that is definitionally true - you will always strike out if you foul off a bunt with 2 strikes or take strike 3, you will always walk if you take ball 4, etc. I am nearly positive that this is the case, too, because people have used it to cheese the take call for years now and, as I noted upthread, this seems like it’d be a major pain to get right, statistically speaking.

I would completely agree with this. And I'm not "complaining" about the 3-0 count thing. When I first got into OOTP and saw that happening it did drive me nuts, but I now realize the count at the time is more or less just there for decoration and to establish a pitch count / fatigue on a pitcher more so than to dictate how an AB plays out. I'm not complaining about it at all now that I have realized how it works within the game --- brought it up strictly as an example to use with the OP's question.