failed sacrifice = 100% for fielders

Stashu · 05-23-2004, 04:05 PM

It's a bit much to think that an attempt to get the lead runner never fails. It would be much more realistic to have teams attempt to get the lead runner in a sac bunt situation and actually fail, leaving all men safe.

Everytime there's been a play on the lead runner, it's always succesful. Anyone found this not to be true?

84CubsFan · 05-25-2004, 12:23 AM

This may be just a lack of variety in the play-by-play and not a problem with the sim engine. I've not played out many games in 6, so I couldn't say for sure; but I know that in 5, the game would simulate what you're talking about by just saying in the play-by-play that the player had a bunt hit. That is, it would never actually say that the defense tried to catch the lead runner and failed, but the result would be the same.

Stashu · 05-25-2004, 07:39 PM

I've never had a sacrifice bunt result in a safe-at-first though. What my complaint is that there has never been a play where an attempt at the lead runner has resulted in anything but an out. That's pretty unrealistic IMO.

84CubsFan · 05-26-2004, 12:59 AM

Okay, you got me wondering, so I just played out an exhibition game in 6 using the default rosters, Philly vs. Chicago (N). Every chance I got I tried to sac bunt -- luckily I had many opportunities and it only took me one game to find what I was looking for.

1) Players sac bunted successfully 11 of 14 times (this seemed like a lot of success, but one game is too small a sample for anything to be conclusive). The failures were a 2 strike foul tip caught by the catcher for a K, a foul bunt with 2 strikes, and this, where the lead runner was indeed cut down:

The batter is...
the pitcher Darrel Odle.
There is 1 out.
The count is 1-1...
Isoruko glances toward first, and deals...
curveball...
Odle opens to bunt...
he bunts it...
to third...
easy play for 3B Delph...
Delph goes for it...
he's up with it...
he fires to second...
Walker is there...
here is a close call...
OUT! Good play.
Odle failed to bunt him along.
Nevertheless, he's safe at first.

2) Just for kicks, I tried a squeeze (it actually happened right before this last play-by-play that I just quoted). Everyone was safe -- here is the play-by-play:

Now up...
C George Valverde.
There is 1 out.
The count is 1 and 0...
Isoruko kicks and fires...
changeup...
the squeeze-play is on...
Sanchez is going home...
Valverde opens to bunt...
he puts it in play...
down the third-base line...
this is a tough play for Aaron Delph...
Delph comes in...
he takes it in...
he is going home with it...
Coronas takes it...
the slide...
the tag...
it'll be close...
Safe!!
What a play!!
How about that!
Sanchez scores.

3) But then came the money play in the 8th:

The count is 0-1...
Clifford kicks and deals...
fastball...
Atnip opens to bunt...
he puts it in play...
in front of the plate...
no problem for Herme Coronas...
he scoops it up...
fires the ball to first...
Clay is covering there...
close play...
SAFE!!
Excellent bunt!
Abercrombie goes to third on the play.

CONCLUSION: Just as I had expected, 6 seems to play in-game much as 5 did. The lead runner sometimes gets cut down with the bunter safe on first; a sac bunt attempt can sometimes turn into a hit that results in everyone being safe. "He tried for the lead runner but failed and everyone ended up safe" may indeed not in the pbp script, but the "sac bunt for a hit" script definitely is. The result is the same.

Stashu · 05-27-2004, 09:57 PM

You're missing my point.

A runner on 1st and a sac bunt is chosen. Whenever an attempt to get the lead runner at 2nd is displayed, it has never failed. THAT is the problem I have with things, not that an occasional sac bunt results in the runner beating out the bunt and making it to 1st.

The whole reason I brought this up is because I've never seen an attempt to get the lead runner in a force out situation be safe or a throwing error on the attempt. This is quite unrealistic since there's alsways a lot of movement on plays like that and that type of situation should cause some errors in baseball.

Zweiblumen · 05-27-2004, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stashu
You're missing my point.

A runner on 1st and a sac bunt is chosen. Whenever an attempt to get the lead runner at 2nd is displayed, it has never failed. THAT is the problem I have with things, not that an occasional sac bunt results in the runner beating out the bunt and making it to 1st.

Go back and reread case study #1 above. This seems to be a case of a failed attempt to advance a runner from first to second where the lead runner is out....

84CubsFan · 05-28-2004, 12:18 PM

Yup. Zweiblumen is right. I think the problem that you are seeing is just with the lack of variety in the pbp script and not in the game engine. As you probably know, OOTP sims the situation first, then runs the pbp as a sort of programming afterthought. That is, for your sac bunt situation, the game first makes the full calculations to determine what happened and THEN it chooses a pbp to describe the scoring.

Think about it. If you were just simming the sac bunt at-bat and not "watching" it, all scoring possibilities are there -- for the batter, the runner(s), and the fielder(s).

Stashu · 05-28-2004, 01:25 PM

again, I point out my reason for posting:

A failed attempt to get the lead runner is NEVER shown.

I'm not referring to a sac bunt resulting in an out at 2nd, I'm talking about a sac bunt to move a player to 2nd is ALWAYS successful. I've seen MANY sac bunts fail to move a runner along to second, my point is that there is never an error or other reason that the player makes it to 2nd when there is a displayed attempt at 2nd.

84CubsFan · 05-28-2004, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stashu
I'm talking about a sac bunt to move a player to 2nd is ALWAYS successful. I've seen MANY sac bunts fail to move a runner along to second

???

I'm no longer certain that we're going to be able to communicate successfully here, but are you just saying, then, that your problem is with the play-by-play script?

Single A Rookie · 05-30-2004, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stashu
again, I point out my reason for posting:

A failed attempt to get the lead runner is NEVER shown.

I'm not referring to a sac bunt resulting in an out at 2nd, I'm talking about a sac bunt to move a player to 2nd is ALWAYS successful. I've seen MANY sac bunts fail to move a runner along to second, my point is that there is never an error or other reason that the player makes it to 2nd when there is a displayed attempt at 2nd.

Stashu... YOU are missing the point.

It ISN'T a case that the attempt to get the "lead runner never fails" - the problem is that the IN GAME COMMENTARY does NOT have a script to say that.

This is a statistical simulation. The game does NOT play like baseball where the computer must make a decision like "should I try for the guy at second or go to first?" on a sac bunt. Basically, the game:

1) looks at the Sac bunt rating of the batter...
2) takes variables such as infield in and fielding in account
3) determines that there is a 78% chance it will be successfull sacrifice, a 2% chance is will be a hit, and a 20% change the bunt will fail. (these are just numbers I chose)
4) runs a random number generator to determine if the bunt is successful or not. (it doesn't care about the PLAY).

If the number is

2% and below the batter gets a hit and the computer will randomly choose one of many stock play-by-play sacrfice attempt but single calls.

3%-78% the sacrifice is good, and the computer will randomly choose one of many stock play-by-play sacrifice bunt calls.

If the number is HIGHER than 78% the bunt fails and it runs off and grabs a generic message about the bunt failing.

The problem is that all of the FAILED sacrifice play-by-play involve cutting the runner down at second (naturally) but NONE of the play-by-play results involve a failed attempt at second.

Do you follow?

It's not a case that the game "ALWAYS" throws a lead runner out... it is just that there is NO MESSAGE in the database when the sacrifice bunter gets a hit to explain that they tried for the lead runner....

Stashu · 05-31-2004, 12:09 PM

I understand that every play is tied to a list of generic PBP messages.

This game is supposed to be a realistic baseball simulator.

The entire point of everything is that there is no failure on these force-out sac bunts.

By all means, if anyone else has seen a failure in this situation please point it out, but in real baseball there are errors in situations like this and I'm pointing out this omission in the game engine.

Take other such attempts as examples (just to show the variations built into the engine for certain plays).

There are multiple results for a SB attempt (successful steal, error on the throw, thrown out)
There are multiple results for runners trying to stretch hits (runner makes it, runner gets gunned down, throw gets cutoff to get other runner)

My purpose of bringing this entire thing up is that there has never been any alternate result in an attempt to get a lead runner in a force situation.

I find this as a flaw in the engine if there is not any kind of offset such as in the other situations listed.

Again, I know that the PBP is a "dumb-reading" of messages that the engine picks out just to show what's going on to the user. This is an engine situation since it seems that only 1 result is built into the engine.

84CubsFan · 05-31-2004, 02:06 PM

Well, this will be my last post on this matter. Stashu, your problem is with the play-by-play script and not the game engine. Many have complained about the lack of depth in the pbp, and it will be improved in the future I hope.

You know, I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong, though. I would suggest that you run a controlled test of your own and post the results:

1) Come up with all of the possible SCORING endings for a sac bunt with a man on first (success, failure -- man on first is safe, failure -- batter is safe at first, error on the 2B -- everyone safe, etc.). Remember: SCORING endings, NOT pbp endings, which are virtually infinite.

2) Play out as many sac bunt situations as you can and look for all of the SCORES that occur.

I think you will eventually see what I, Zweiblumen, and the Single A Rookie have been talking about.

Stashu · 05-31-2004, 02:57 PM

I just finished playing through an entire season with many sac bunts (I play as the D-backs, so lots of pitcher sac attempts). The only results I've ever come across have been:

Sac successful, runner moves along and batter out at 1st.

Sac unsuccessful, fielder throws to leading base to get force out.

I'm omitting non-force plays because that's not what I've been talking about.

I wish you'd read my last post again. I KNOW that the pbp is limited and that's not an issue. There's only so many ways you can write for outs and hits and such, I've lived with it since OOTP2.

I have yet to see anyone post the contrary to my argument that a sac bunt in a force situation has ever failed when the fielders went for the lead runner.

If you still think this isn't a problem with the engine then there's no reason to keep going back and forth because we're just saying the same thing each time.

As I've said before, I have yet to see anyone post an example of where this situation has gone any other way than an out. There have been over 140 views of this thread and no one has ever said that they've seen a force out on a sac bunt fail. I started this thread as I think OOTP Dev wished - to point out issues that seem to be occuring in the game.

84CubsFan · 05-31-2004, 03:37 PM

Okay...

One more time I played out a game, looking only for sac bunt situations with a man on first. In the fourth inning, this happened:

Stepping up to the plate is...
CF Henry Damm.
The 1-0 pitch to Damm...
fastball...
Damm will lay one down...
he puts it in play...
toward the bag at third...
a difficult task for Deguzman...
Deguzman charges it...
he fields it cleanly...
hard throw to first...
Yarbrough is covering there...
OHH, a very close play...
SAFE!!
Outstanding bunt!
Clay goes to second.

This seems once again to contradict what you say. As for an error resulting in everyone being safe, I'm not going to look for it. But I'm guessing that the pbp would read something like this:

Damm will lay one down...
he puts it in play...
toward the bad at third...
a difficult task for Deguzman...
Deguzman charges it...
OHHH, HE DROPPED IT!!!
SAFE!!
Clay goes to second.

I beg you to do some tests of your own and let us all know the results. I would be interested.

84CubsFan · 05-31-2004, 03:41 PM

I forgot to add...you say:

Quote:

I have yet to see anyone post the contrary to my argument that a sac bunt in a force situation has ever failed when the fielders went for the lead runner.

The computer doesn't distinguish between plays "when the fielders went for the lead runner" and plays when they didn't. Again, it decides the entire at bat first, then picks a play by play script to describe the scoring.

Eugene Church · 05-31-2004, 06:04 PM

I have not played enough of OOTP6 to know much about this.

However in OOTP5 no one ever drops a throw and no one ever makes an error fielding or throwing on a bunt...and an infielder never throws the ball away at any base other than first.

I have been pointing out things like this since OOTP3 and so far to no avail. There are many plays still missing...like RF/LF/SS/2B never catch a foul fly.

I have seen forceouts at third on a bunt.

Can't remember if it ever happened at second...but don't think it has.

I will pay close attention when I do start playing OOTP6...still trying to figure out those darn modifiers and BABIP percentages before I play my real league.

I will post it here when I have observed enough games to come to a reasonable conclusion.

Single A Rookie · 05-31-2004, 07:45 PM

People don't understand here... it's isn't about "people dropping a throw" it doesnt take that into account. They don't check for an error for everyone who touches the ball.

And remember... when a batter fouls out the computer logic isn't:

1) batter swings
2) batter hits foul
3) who will field?
4) SS will field
5) Does SS make error?
6) No... he made a good play
7) putout foul out to short.

The computer thinks like this:

1) Player is batting.
2) generate random number
3) check number against player percentages
4) player fouls out
5) generate random number
6) display that random canned play to the screen.

The only reason you aren't seeing a foul to SS is because the developers haven't placed a "foul to ss" in their play routines....

I think to truly understand this you had to have played back in the days of PTP and Dynasty - no computer. Then people would understand how the idea of "canned" play came about.

But you know... in a sense, this is a great compliment to OOTP as it seem that many people are under the impression that the game actually plays like real baseball - where every single modifier is in play, and where the computer is making logical decisions at every movement of the baseball...

Eugene Church · 05-31-2004, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Single A Rookie
The only reason you aren't seeing a foul to SS is because the developers haven't placed a "foul to ss" in their play routines....

You seem to know something about computer programming.

I know nothing about it.

Is it difficult to program the missing plays into the game's play routines?

It seems to me that this is a lot easier to do than the complex financial coefficient and other complicated programming items that regularly are discussed in this forum.

It seems play results would be one of the easier things Markus has to do...and it would please at least 40% of his customers.

I don't understand why this hasn't been addressed in the game.

84CubsFan · 05-31-2004, 10:19 PM

The Rookie is exactly right.

And you are right, too, Eugene. It should be fairly simple to add some variety to the play by play to reflect "real life." In fact, before all of the company splits and mergers, Scott Vibert [edit: I think] was trying to put something together with rewriting the news story generator and, I think, the pbp generator. But I'm guessing that this was pushed aside.

Basically, I think the answer you'll get from up top is that the focus is on perfecting the engine first, then the in-game play. Remember, this game was originally designed to spit out realistic stats. Period. No in-game play. No management AI. Nothing. Just numbers. The game does that very well, therefore. If you sim a season, all of the players in a fictional league look like they could be "real." In-game play, however, still needs (IMO) quite a bit of work for it truly to mimic "real" baseball. I mean, we still don't have pitch by pitch capability.

That said, I enjoy playing out an exhibition game every once and a while. It's not as realistic as even a game like Tony LaRussa from the early 90s. But it's still fun. But for simming in solo leagues, I never play out the games because the lack of depth ultimately detracts from my management experience. I prefer to be the GM and tune in for the box scores.

Eugene Church · 06-01-2004, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 84CubsFan
I
Basically, I think the answer you'll get from up top is that the focus is on perfecting the engine first, then the in-game play. Remember, this game was originally designed to spit out realistic stats. Period. No in-game play. No management AI. Nothing. Just numbers. The game does that very well, therefore. If you sim a season, all of the players in a fictional league look like they could be "real." In-game play, however, still needs (IMO) quite a bit of work for it truly to mimic "real" baseball. I mean, we still don't have pitch by pitch capability.

Unfortunately, you are right, 84CubsFan. I have been waiting since OOTP3 for a "real" game of baseball...complete with all the normal plays you have in a baseball game...and all the strategies...including pitch-by-pitch.

They now have a new engine to perfect, so that means what 40% of us (about 60% are simmers only) want will be put on the backburner again.

The thought just hit me, that Markus doesn't ever intend to improve in game play...that it is for sim purposes only.

It would be nice if he would give us his vision for OOTPB and what the future holds. It would be time well spent and shouldn't take too long.

Does anyone know if Football Manager (formerly Championship Manager) plays like a "real" football (soccer) game? Or does it have serious gaps in stategies and play results, too?

05-25-2004, 07:39 PM	#3
Stashu Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 177	I've never had a sacrifice bunt result in a safe-at-first though. What my complaint is that there has never been a play where an attempt at the lead runner has resulted in anything but an out. That's pretty unrealistic IMO. __________________

05-26-2004, 12:59 AM	#4
84CubsFan Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 376	Okay, you got me wondering, so I just played out an exhibition game in 6 using the default rosters, Philly vs. Chicago (N). Every chance I got I tried to sac bunt -- luckily I had many opportunities and it only took me one game to find what I was looking for. 1) Players sac bunted successfully 11 of 14 times (this seemed like a lot of success, but one game is too small a sample for anything to be conclusive). The failures were a 2 strike foul tip caught by the catcher for a K, a foul bunt with 2 strikes, and this, where the lead runner was indeed cut down: The batter is... the pitcher Darrel Odle. There is 1 out. The count is 1-1... Isoruko glances toward first, and deals... curveball... Odle opens to bunt... he bunts it... to third... easy play for 3B Delph... Delph goes for it... he's up with it... he fires to second... Walker is there... here is a close call... OUT! Good play. Odle failed to bunt him along. Nevertheless, he's safe at first. 2) Just for kicks, I tried a squeeze (it actually happened right before this last play-by-play that I just quoted). Everyone was safe -- here is the play-by-play: Now up... C George Valverde. There is 1 out. The count is 1 and 0... Isoruko kicks and fires... changeup... the squeeze-play is on... Sanchez is going home... Valverde opens to bunt... he puts it in play... down the third-base line... this is a tough play for Aaron Delph... Delph comes in... he takes it in... he is going home with it... Coronas takes it... the slide... the tag... it'll be close... Safe!! What a play!! How about that! Sanchez scores. 3) But then came the money play in the 8th: The count is 0-1... Clifford kicks and deals... fastball... Atnip opens to bunt... he puts it in play... in front of the plate... no problem for Herme Coronas... he scoops it up... fires the ball to first... Clay is covering there... close play... SAFE!! Excellent bunt! Abercrombie goes to third on the play. CONCLUSION: Just as I had expected, 6 seems to play in-game much as 5 did. The lead runner sometimes gets cut down with the bunter safe on first; a sac bunt attempt can sometimes turn into a hit that results in everyone being safe. "He tried for the lead runner but failed and everyone ended up safe" may indeed not in the pbp script, but the "sac bunt for a hit" script definitely is. The result is the same. Last edited by 84CubsFan; 05-26-2004 at 01:17 AM.

05-27-2004, 09:57 PM	#5
Stashu Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 177	You're missing my point. A runner on 1st and a sac bunt is chosen. Whenever an attempt to get the lead runner at 2nd is displayed, it has never failed. THAT is the problem I have with things, not that an occasional sac bunt results in the runner beating out the bunt and making it to 1st. The whole reason I brought this up is because I've never seen an attempt to get the lead runner in a force out situation be safe or a throwing error on the attempt. This is quite unrealistic since there's alsways a lot of movement on plays like that and that type of situation should cause some errors in baseball. __________________

05-28-2004, 01:25 PM	#8
Stashu Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 177	again, I point out my reason for posting: A failed attempt to get the lead runner is NEVER shown. I'm not referring to a sac bunt resulting in an out at 2nd, I'm talking about a sac bunt to move a player to 2nd is ALWAYS successful. I've seen MANY sac bunts fail to move a runner along to second, my point is that there is never an error or other reason that the player makes it to 2nd when there is a displayed attempt at 2nd. __________________

05-31-2004, 12:09 PM	#11
Stashu Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 177	I understand that every play is tied to a list of generic PBP messages. This game is supposed to be a realistic baseball simulator. The entire point of everything is that there is no failure on these force-out sac bunts. By all means, if anyone else has seen a failure in this situation please point it out, but in real baseball there are errors in situations like this and I'm pointing out this omission in the game engine. Take other such attempts as examples (just to show the variations built into the engine for certain plays). There are multiple results for a SB attempt (successful steal, error on the throw, thrown out) There are multiple results for runners trying to stretch hits (runner makes it, runner gets gunned down, throw gets cutoff to get other runner) My purpose of bringing this entire thing up is that there has never been any alternate result in an attempt to get a lead runner in a force situation. I find this as a flaw in the engine if there is not any kind of offset such as in the other situations listed. Again, I know that the PBP is a "dumb-reading" of messages that the engine picks out just to show what's going on to the user. This is an engine situation since it seems that only 1 result is built into the engine. __________________

05-23-2004, 04:05 PM	#1
Stashu Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 177	failed sacrifice = 100% for fielders It's a bit much to think that an attempt to get the lead runner never fails. It would be much more realistic to have teams attempt to get the lead runner in a sac bunt situation and actually fail, leaving all men safe. Everytime there's been a play on the lead runner, it's always succesful. Anyone found this not to be true? __________________

05-25-2004, 12:23 AM	#2
84CubsFan Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 376	This may be just a lack of variety in the play-by-play and not a problem with the sim engine. I've not played out many games in 6, so I couldn't say for sure; but I know that in 5, the game would simulate what you're talking about by just saying in the play-by-play that the player had a bunt hit. That is, it would never actually say that the defense tried to catch the lead runner and failed, but the result would be the same.

05-28-2004, 12:18 PM	#7
84CubsFan Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 376	Yup. Zweiblumen is right. I think the problem that you are seeing is just with the lack of variety in the pbp script and not in the game engine. As you probably know, OOTP sims the situation first, then runs the pbp as a sort of programming afterthought. That is, for your sac bunt situation, the game first makes the full calculations to determine what happened and THEN it chooses a pbp to describe the scoring. Think about it. If you were just simming the sac bunt at-bat and not "watching" it, all scoring possibilities are there -- for the batter, the runner(s), and the fielder(s).

05-31-2004, 02:06 PM	#12
84CubsFan Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 376	Well, this will be my last post on this matter. Stashu, your problem is with the play-by-play script and not the game engine. Many have complained about the lack of depth in the pbp, and it will be improved in the future I hope. You know, I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong, though. I would suggest that you run a controlled test of your own and post the results: 1) Come up with all of the possible SCORING endings for a sac bunt with a man on first (success, failure -- man on first is safe, failure -- batter is safe at first, error on the 2B -- everyone safe, etc.). Remember: SCORING endings, NOT pbp endings, which are virtually infinite. 2) Play out as many sac bunt situations as you can and look for all of the SCORES that occur. I think you will eventually see what I, Zweiblumen, and the Single A Rookie have been talking about.

05-31-2004, 02:57 PM	#13
Stashu Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 177	I just finished playing through an entire season with many sac bunts (I play as the D-backs, so lots of pitcher sac attempts). The only results I've ever come across have been: Sac successful, runner moves along and batter out at 1st. Sac unsuccessful, fielder throws to leading base to get force out. I'm omitting non-force plays because that's not what I've been talking about. I wish you'd read my last post again. I KNOW that the pbp is limited and that's not an issue. There's only so many ways you can write for outs and hits and such, I've lived with it since OOTP2. I have yet to see anyone post the contrary to my argument that a sac bunt in a force situation has ever failed when the fielders went for the lead runner. If you still think this isn't a problem with the engine then there's no reason to keep going back and forth because we're just saying the same thing each time. As I've said before, I have yet to see anyone post an example of where this situation has gone any other way than an out. There have been over 140 views of this thread and no one has ever said that they've seen a force out on a sac bunt fail. I started this thread as I think OOTP Dev wished - to point out issues that seem to be occuring in the game. __________________

05-31-2004, 03:37 PM	#14
84CubsFan Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 376	Okay... One more time I played out a game, looking only for sac bunt situations with a man on first. In the fourth inning, this happened: Stepping up to the plate is... CF Henry Damm. The 1-0 pitch to Damm... fastball... Damm will lay one down... he puts it in play... toward the bag at third... a difficult task for Deguzman... Deguzman charges it... he fields it cleanly... hard throw to first... Yarbrough is covering there... OHH, a very close play... SAFE!! Outstanding bunt! Clay goes to second. This seems once again to contradict what you say. As for an error resulting in everyone being safe, I'm not going to look for it. But I'm guessing that the pbp would read something like this: Damm will lay one down... he puts it in play... toward the bad at third... a difficult task for Deguzman... Deguzman charges it... OHHH, HE DROPPED IT!!! SAFE!! Clay goes to second. I beg you to do some tests of your own and let us all know the results. I would be interested.

05-31-2004, 06:04 PM	#16
Eugene Church Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 36,234	I have not played enough of OOTP6 to know much about this. However in OOTP5 no one ever drops a throw and no one ever makes an error fielding or throwing on a bunt...and an infielder never throws the ball away at any base other than first. I have been pointing out things like this since OOTP3 and so far to no avail. There are many plays still missing...like RF/LF/SS/2B never catch a foul fly. I have seen forceouts at third on a bunt. Can't remember if it ever happened at second...but don't think it has. I will pay close attention when I do start playing OOTP6...still trying to figure out those darn modifiers and BABIP percentages before I play my real league. I will post it here when I have observed enough games to come to a reasonable conclusion. Last edited by Eugene Church; 05-31-2004 at 06:07 PM.

05-31-2004, 07:45 PM	#17
Single A Rookie Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 144	People don't understand here... it's isn't about "people dropping a throw" it doesnt take that into account. They don't check for an error for everyone who touches the ball. And remember... when a batter fouls out the computer logic isn't: 1) batter swings 2) batter hits foul 3) who will field? 4) SS will field 5) Does SS make error? 6) No... he made a good play 7) putout foul out to short. The computer thinks like this: 1) Player is batting. 2) generate random number 3) check number against player percentages 4) player fouls out 5) generate random number 6) display that random canned play to the screen. The only reason you aren't seeing a foul to SS is because the developers haven't placed a "foul to ss" in their play routines.... I think to truly understand this you had to have played back in the days of PTP and Dynasty - no computer. Then people would understand how the idea of "canned" play came about. But you know... in a sense, this is a great compliment to OOTP as it seem that many people are under the impression that the game actually plays like real baseball - where every single modifier is in play, and where the computer is making logical decisions at every movement of the baseball...

05-31-2004, 10:19 PM	#19
84CubsFan Major Leagues Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 376	The Rookie is exactly right. And you are right, too, Eugene. It should be fairly simple to add some variety to the play by play to reflect "real life." In fact, before all of the company splits and mergers, Scott Vibert [edit: I think] was trying to put something together with rewriting the news story generator and, I think, the pbp generator. But I'm guessing that this was pushed aside. Basically, I think the answer you'll get from up top is that the focus is on perfecting the engine first, then the in-game play. Remember, this game was originally designed to spit out realistic stats. Period. No in-game play. No management AI. Nothing. Just numbers. The game does that very well, therefore. If you sim a season, all of the players in a fictional league look like they could be "real." In-game play, however, still needs (IMO) quite a bit of work for it truly to mimic "real" baseball. I mean, we still don't have pitch by pitch capability. That said, I enjoy playing out an exhibition game every once and a while. It's not as realistic as even a game like Tony LaRussa from the early 90s. But it's still fun. But for simming in solo leagues, I never play out the games because the lack of depth ultimately detracts from my management experience. I prefer to be the GM and tune in for the box scores.