Lmao

[miles44]

Here's one for ya.
I'm the Padres playing the Mariners. Seattle has men on 1st & 2nd in the 6th inning with Seattle leading by 2 runs. Richie Sexton, who hits over 30 HR's a year, is up. The AI for Seattle has him sacrifice bunt!!! If I'm the Pads, I'm saying "Thank You!!"

Anyway, just thought I'd share that.

[ashantewarrier]

Originally Posted by miles44

Here's one for ya.
I'm the Padres playing the Mariners. Seattle has men on 1st & 2nd in the 6th inning with Seattle leading by 2 runs. Richie Sexton, who hits over 30 HR's a year, is up. The AI for Seattle has him sacrifice bunt!!! If I'm the Pads, I'm saying "Thank You!!"

Anyway, just thought I'd share that.

Have you seen Sexon play lately in real life? I say the AI did the right thing!

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by miles44

Here's one for ya.
I'm the Padres playing the Mariners. Seattle has men on 1st & 2nd in the 6th inning with Seattle leading by 2 runs. Richie Sexton, who hits over 30 HR's a year, is up. The AI for Seattle has him sacrifice bunt!!! If I'm the Pads, I'm saying "Thank You!!"

Anyway, just thought I'd share that.

These days with baseball being nothing more than a homerun hitting contest it may seem silly, but back in the early days, 30's, 40's, 50's power hitters would sac bunt when asked.

An example is Jimmy Foxx, especially from 1928-1930. Check out Lou Gehrig from 1925-1930. Even Ruth did it. He had 21 SHs in 1930 and averaged 5 per year for his career.

Seeing as Sexton can't even come close to these players, I don't see where it's such an odd thing to ask him to bunt, but at the same time, in these days of players more concerned about their own numbers than they are about the team, I can see how it would be unheard of to expect a "power" hitter to make a sacrifice. I can see them crying and whining about it.

[Eugene Church]

Do you really think Sexton could bunt?

Even in OOTPB?

Agree. This was not a wise AI decision.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Eugene Church

Do you really think Sexton could bunt?

Even in OOTPB?

Of course not. "Power" hitters are taught to do only one thing. Most can't even play defense since most likely they came through high school and college as a DH.

But on the other hand, no one expects him to which is why it could be a good thing to try once in a while.

[BMD]

This should be reported in the tech support section as this is obviously a bug. AL teams don't bunt.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

These days with baseball being nothing more than a homerun hitting contest it may seem silly, but back in the early days, 30'4, 40's, 50's power hitters would sac bunt when asked.

An example is Jimmy Foxx, especially from 1928-1930. Check out Lou Gehrig from 1925-1930. Even Ruth did it. He had 21 SHs in 1930 and averaged 5 per year for his career.

Wow, Miller Huggins was a lot stupider than I ever thought he was.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Wow, Miller Huggins was a lot stupider than I ever thought he was.

Well if it takes a stupid manager to have the success his Yankee teams had, stupid would be the first quality I would look for in a manager.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Well if it takes a stupid manager to have the success his Yankee teams had, stupid would be the first quality I would look for in a manager.

Imagine how many games he'd one if he didn't give outs away.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

Imagine how many games he'd one if he didn't give outs away.

Perhaps the outs he gave away were after the games were decided? Either way, a 60% winning pct isn't exactly a bad record. I doubt he would have used that strategy with those players if there wasn't a decent amount of success with it.

For fun, look at the 1927 Yankees. Had a .714 winning %.

Sac hits for key batters:

Lazzeri, Meusel, Gehrig: 21

Koenig: 15

Ruth: 14

Combs, Dugan: 12

Entire team: 204.

They lost just 44 games and were 19 games better than the 2nd place team.

So, all those outs hurt him in what way?

But my point was, as poorly as I said it, those players didn't piss and moan when they were asked to sacrifice their numbers in order to do something that could help the team.

Players today would be calling their agent, filing a grievance with the union, ask to be traded and who knows what else.

[Aytumious]

He's been so bad lately people don't even remember his name is Sexson and not Sexton.

Sexson isn't very good in the roster set and he has an absurdly high sacrifice rating, so it makes sense that he'd bunt them over.

[BMD]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

But my point was, as poorly as I said it, those players didn't piss and moan when they were asked to sacrifice their numbers in order to do something that could help the team.

Players today would be calling their agent, filing a grievance with the union, ask to be traded and who knows what else.

That is the price you pay for free agency. Who cares if my team loses today? I have to protect my stats so I get more money from the team I play for next year.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by BMD

That is the price you pay for free agency. Who cares if my team loses today? I have to protect my stats so I get more money from the team I play for next year.

Yeah... my joke aside, I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that Ruth basically led baseball out of the deadball era than smarter strategizing in the olden days. Credit Huggins and Joe McCarthy with recognizing the greatness of Ruth and not pulling him out of the lineup, I guess, but he changed the game. In 1915, you might sacrifice with your "slugger" because your "slugger" was basically Mark Grace. No manager in the game today would bunt with the Babe, even if the Babe was nice and cuddly and liked puppies. There is basically no situation IRL, let alone 21 in a season, where bunting with Babe Ruth is a good idea.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Yeah... my joke aside, I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that Ruth basically led baseball out of the deadball era than smarter strategizing in the olden days. Credit Huggins and Joe McCarthy with recognizing the greatness of Ruth and not pulling him out of the lineup, I guess, but he changed the game. In 1915, you might sacrifice with your "slugger" because your "slugger" was basically Mark Grace. No manager in the game today would bunt with the Babe, even if the Babe was nice and cuddly and liked puppies. There is basically no situation IRL, let alone 21 in a season, where bunting with Babe Ruth is a good idea.

I don't know about that. He did strike out a lot also and it would depend on the situation. If you're already ahead 15-0 in the 8th inning, why not bunt.

I really wish there were a way to see when they had these guys bunt, but it is amazing how many sluggers of yore could also bunt.

[Syd Thrift]

dola,

As suspected, this was a dead-ball era carryover thing. Joe DiMaggio had a grand total of 14 sacrifices his entire career and none at all after 1946. Ernie Banks started to use the bunt to move runners up late in his career, but before his age-36 season he had a grand total of 16. Ted Williams had 5 in his career, one more than Albert Belle in a lot more at-bats. Frank Robinson hit 17, 13 of those when he was 20 and 21 years of age. After guys like Huggins retired, nobody was using their sluggers to sacrifice.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by BMD

That is the price you pay for free agency. Who cares if my team loses today? I have to protect my stats so I get more money from the team I play for next year.

And this is why I really don't care about baseball these days. I am much more a football fan. You do have showboats or whatever in football, but it is a team thing. There are some NFL teams that take chances with prima donna players, but for the most part most successful teams don't.

This is also why I love OOTP, because I can create my own universe and if I want to play real leagues I can choose one from any year I want, which I can say would not be any year after 1990.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by BMD

That is the price you pay for free agency. Who cares if my team loses today? I have to protect my stats so I get more money from the team I play for next year.

You have just summarized What Killed Baseball.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

dola,

As suspected, this was a dead-ball era carryover thing. Joe DiMaggio had a grand total of 14 sacrifices his entire career and none at all after 1946. Ernie Banks started to use the bunt to move runners up late in his career, but before his age-36 season he had a grand total of 16. Ted Williams had 5 in his career, one more than Albert Belle in a lot more at-bats. Frank Robinson hit 17, 13 of those when he was 20 and 21 years of age. After guys like Huggins retired, nobody was using their sluggers to sacrifice.

ONE sacrifice by a slugger at any age is more than any slugger these days would do. The sluggers today are strictly there to put the ball over the fence. Any idea of using them for strategy or defense is a lost cause.

[Eugene Church]

Originally Posted by Aytumious

He's been so bad lately people don't even remember his name is Sexson and not Sexton.

Sexson isn't very good in the roster set and he has an absurdly high sacrifice rating, so it makes sense that he'd bunt them over.

You know, I spelled it correctly at first, then changed it, cause I thought all of you guys were smarter than me.

That's the last time I will listen to you guys.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

ONE sacrifice by a slugger at any age is more than any slugger these days would do. The sluggers today are strictly there to put the ball over the fence. Any idea of using them for strategy or defense is a lost cause.

...which definitely explains why Ted Williams had exactly one more sacrifice than Albert Belle over the course of his career despite it being nearly twice as long.