How do I know if AI opponent is holding my runner?

[phenom]

Title says it all. Without a visual cue of a defensive player holding my runner on base, is there a way to tell if my runner is actually being held on the base? I know there are obvious situations (runner on 1st, nobody out), but is there a way to know if a 3rd-baseman is holding my runner on third, or if my (slow) runner on first is for sure being held on 1st-and-3rd with two outs?

For that matter, and I don't have the game in front of me right now, but is there an indicator that tells me how the opposing defense is aligned, such as with a shift or the infield in?

[PSUColonel]

I have long wondered this also. Suppose the pitcher is not good at holding runners, and the runner is not a fast or good base stealer?

[swoboda]

thanks for starting this thread, I have always thought it would be helpful for that information to be available. l play out all of my games and I have an aggressive style with runners on base. perhaps this could be added to the next version?

[jaysdailydose]

Would definitely welcome this, even playing in one-pitch as I do.

A simple graphic "Runner on 1st: Held" or "Runner on 1st: Playing Off" for holding the runners and a "Defense: Normal" "Defense: Moderate Shift" "Defense: Extreme Shift" would go a long way, especially for the pitch-by-pitch players.

Quality thread, thank you very much for posting!

[Andy]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

Would definitely welcome this, even playing in one-pitch as I do.

A simple graphic "Runner on 1st: Held" or "Runner on 1st: Playing Off" for holding the runners and a "Defense: Normal" "Defense: Moderate Shift" "Defense: Extreme Shift" would go a long way, especially for the pitch-by-pitch players.

Quality thread, thank you very much for posting!

I'm at work right now so I don't have the game in front of me, but I thought the game did tell you the opponent's defensive alignment. If I remember right it is right above where you choose what you want to do. I could be way off base, though.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by Andy

I'm at work right now so I don't have the game in front of me, but I thought the game did tell you the opponent's defensive alignment. If I remember right it is right above where you choose what you want to do. I could be way off base, though.

I didn't have it pulled up, either. I know there are drop-downs for your own alignments defensively, but I don't remember if they show the AI alignments as well.

I'm loading my game up in a moment, I'll post back.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Andy

I'm at work right now so I don't have the game in front of me, but I thought the game did tell you the opponent's defensive alignment. If I remember right it is right above where you choose what you want to do. I could be way off base, though.

Thought so too, but like you, I'm at work.

[jaysdailydose]

Yeah, I just drew a blank earlier. The AI defensive alignment is displayed in the same spot as you would change yours while you were in the field.

So, it would be basically just the addition of a graphic displaying if the runner was being held, or played off. A fine idea, thank you again for bringing it up, because I know the developers, at least Mr. Matt Arnold, are very active in this forum and he will undoubtedly see this.

[jaysdailydose]

I have my out of town scores in a different spot than you might because I play on my 56" HDTV, but here ya go:

[Andy]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

Yeah, I just drew a blank earlier. The AI defensive alignment is displayed in the same spot as you would change yours while you were in the field.

So, it would be basically just the addition of a graphic displaying if the runner was being held, or played off. A fine idea, thank you again for bringing it up, because I know the developers, at least Mr. Matt Arnold, are very active in this forum and he will undoubtedly see this.

Yeah, this is a great idea. We should definitely know if a runner is being held. I never even thought of it before, but it's kind of important.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Just to play devil's advocate -- would you know in real life if the opponent is "holding" your runner? I'm not so sure. My understanding of that command in OOTP is that it's just telling the pitcher to pay extra-special attention to the runner, vary his timing/movement, etc. I'm not certain that would be instantly recognizable in a binary way to an outside observer, since the pitcher should be doing some of that already even without the command.

In other words -- "holding" in OOTP isn't about defensive positioning, it's about the pitcher's focus.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

Just to play devil's advocate -- would you know in real life if the opponent is "holding" your runner? I'm not so sure. My understanding of that command in OOTP is that it's just telling the pitcher to pay extra-special attention to the runner, vary his timing/movement, etc. I'm not certain that would be instantly recognizable in a binary way to an outside observer, since the pitcher should be doing some of that already even without the command.

In other words -- "holding" in OOTP isn't about defensive positioning, it's about the pitcher's focus.

Wow, I wouldn't have thought of it this way ever. I thought it meant the 1B was positioned at the bag to hold the runner instead of playing in normal position.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Wow, I wouldn't have thought of it this way ever. I thought it meant the 1B was positioned at the bag to hold the runner instead of playing in normal position.

Yep, I'm with you... holding at 2B too, obviously the shortstop in most cases will play close to the bag to await the spin and throw to second.

That is what I mean by holding. Obviously, I don't think variance in pitcher timing on delivery and such should be shown in this way. I think the PBP already does a fair job of simulating this in the "He steps on the rubber, shakes him off, then steps off. OK, we're set again, and the delivery..."

I would want it to display when the fielder is actively holding the player on the bag, which would be visible to the human manager watching the game if it were real life -- just to be clear.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Wow, I wouldn't have thought of it this way ever. I thought it meant the 1B was positioned at the bag to hold the runner instead of playing in normal position.

From the manual:

Hold Runner(s) The pitcher concentrates a bit more on the baserunner(s), speeding up his delivery of the next pitch. This option results in a slightly weaker pitching performance, but a slightly greater chance to pick off a runner. (Available only when one or more runners are on base.)

My understanding is that defensive positioning with respect to runners is automatically factored into whatever algorithm determines the outcome of the at-bat. That is, the sim treats your first baseman as playing on the bag generally when you would expect him to be doing so, and behind the runner when you wouldn't (runner on second, 3-2 count with two outs, etc.). It probably treats your second baseman as playing closer to the bag with a runner on second, though I'm less sure of that.

I originally thought the question was about whether we ought to be able to see whether the AI is using something like the "hold" command that is available to the human player. But if we're talking about whether the PBP should indicate where the fielder is, sure, it could probably do that, but it's not actually modeled in as detailed a fashion as you are thinking, I believe.

[Padreman]

Basically it means not pitching from the stretch then

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

From the manual:



My understanding is that defensive positioning with respect to runners is automatically factored into whatever algorithm determines the outcome of the at-bat. That is, the sim treats your first baseman as playing on the bag generally when you would expect him to be doing so, and behind the runner when you wouldn't (runner on second, 3-2 count with two outs, etc.). It probably treats your second baseman as playing closer to the bag with a runner on second, though I'm less sure of that.

I originally thought the question was about whether we ought to be able to see whether the AI is using something like the "hold" command that is available to the human player. But if we're talking about whether the PBP should indicate where the fielder is, sure, it could probably do that, but it's not actually modeled in as detailed a fashion as you are thinking, I believe.

Thank you for teaching me my OOTP lesson for the day. (I'm not being sarcastic in anyway) I did not know this. Shows who hasn't read the manual

[Andy]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Thank you for teaching me my OOTP lesson for the day. (I'm not being sarcastic in anyway) I did not know this. Shows who hasn't read the manual

Haha I'm with you. I assumed it was about how the fielder was positioned as well.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Padreman

Basically it means not pitching from the stretch then

No, holding runners is pitching from the stretch.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

From the manual:



My understanding is that defensive positioning with respect to runners is automatically factored into whatever algorithm determines the outcome of the at-bat. That is, the sim treats your first baseman as playing on the bag generally when you would expect him to be doing so, and behind the runner when you wouldn't (runner on second, 3-2 count with two outs, etc.). It probably treats your second baseman as playing closer to the bag with a runner on second, though I'm less sure of that.

I originally thought the question was about whether we ought to be able to see whether the AI is using something like the "hold" command that is available to the human player. But if we're talking about whether the PBP should indicate where the fielder is, sure, it could probably do that, but it's not actually modeled in as detailed a fashion as you are thinking, I believe.

I thought this was the case but was not sure enough to post it. It never ceases to amaze me how much we don't exactly know about the game. I honestly believe that is why it is so addictive. Not knowing or not being able to figure out everything is a big rush of adrenaline to me.

[dunningrb]

It would be a nice improvement if OOTP provided the user the option to move the first baseman behind the runner. For example, if I'm on defense, ahead 3-0 in the ninth inning, and there is a runner on first base, I want my first baseman to play behind the runner. In that situation, the run represented at first base means nothing. I need to prevent the batter reaching base a lot more than I need to prevent a stolen base.

The reason of course is simple. My first baseman has a better chance of converting a ball hit his way into an out if he plays behind the runner. I'm certain OOTP includes this fact in the game engine (right???), but right now it only plays the first baseman behind the runner when there are runners on first and second or when the bases are loaded, without giving the user the option to do so in situations like the one I described.

Whether my pitcher "holds" the runner seems much less relevant to creating good game play. In fact, I've never understood what OOTP is trying to model here. It is certainly not "pitching from the stretch." First, the correct term is pitching from the "set position." The stretch is a specific part of the pitcher's motion when pitching from the set position. Second, *all* pitchers pitch from the set position when there is a risk of a stolen base. So in OOTP world, "holding" a runner means something in addition to pitching from the set position. According to the manual, it's something like paying closer attention to the runner. But whatever it is, according to the manual it also has a small effect on the outcome of each play, and apparently corresponds to something you can't easily see from the stands if you're at a real game. I'm left scratching my head at this particular design choice.