Pitch around?

[Orcin]

Not "weird stuff"...
- hit by pitch
- wild pitch
- errors
- back-to-back home runs

They happen a lot in baseball.

[ihatenames]

Originally Posted by RchW

Yeah 90% may be excessive but the implementation of "pitch around " in OOTP is suspect IMO. Too many positive outcomes other than a walk for the batter.

This I agree with, especially with hitters with a good eye. They're likely to find themselves in a good hitters count where a hit or walk is a relatively likely outcome. The all power and no discipline guys I don't have a problem with the successful outcomes. You figure those guys will chase or swing at a pitchers pitch.

[Number4]

You're simplyfying hitters too much. People with good eyes will walk much more when pitched around, but they cannot determine every pitch with 100% accuracy. And the whole point of pitching around is making every count a pitcher's count, walk be damned.

That does not mean the pitcher throws only balls and everyone who recognizes that gets a free walk. Even while pitching around he is throwing strikes from time to time, and might get three together before he gets 4 balls.
Who are your observations based on? I found pitchers with great control having often positive outcomes while pitching around, poor control - a high walk rate.
Also hitters with good eye - walks, bad eye - more K's.

That doesn't mean that a wild pitcher won't strike out the side if he's lucky. But he'll walk guys quite often, and sometimes even serve up meatballs. With good control you can pull this better off, less walks, more k's, less meatballs.

[Izz]

Originally Posted by Willy McGee

I played one tonight. Error on Michael Wacha throwing to first, lead runner tagged out at third(not forced) on a bunt, back to back home runs by the Dodgers, Michael Wacha hbp. The last game I played I remember a hbp and and wild pitch. I guess it doesn't matter. We're winning but it just seems like too much weird stuff to me. Well the league is finished restoring. Guess I'll play that game again and see if it's any cleaner this time.

You have to be trolling...

[Reed]

My experience regarding pitch around is similar to the OP's. First got the game 2.5 years ago, OOTP 14. I used pitch around about 20 times and it resulted in hits about 40% of the time and I just figured it was my bad luck and stopped using it. When this thread came up, I decided I would test it out with my own small sample size. 1903 game 1 pitcher was Noodles Hahn and game 2 pitcher was Deacon Phillipe (I wanted to use decent control pitchers). I used pitch around for the first 10 batters they faced except the opposing pitcher or if a runner was on second. The games were against different but average teams.
Game 1---2 doubles, 2 singles, 3 walks, 2 GB outs that advanced the runner on second, and 1 fly out.
Game 2---1 double, 2 singles, 3 walks, 2 fly outs, and 2 KO.
So in 20 ABs--7 hits, 6 walks, and 7 outs.
Yes it's a small sample size but it was the same results I was getting 2 years ago or maybe it's just my bad luck but I don't use it and I turned it off on my team strategy page.

[Reed]

The above where I said except when a runner is on second I meant to say except when a runner is on first.

[Reed]

My experience with pitch around is similar to the OP's. I started with OOTP 14 and manually played my games and would get a high rate of hits (40percent?) whenever I used pitch around. I just figured it was just my bad luck after about 30 tries and stopped using it altogether (even on the team strategy page). Since this thread game up, I decided I would give it my own limited small sample test. 1903 using Noodles Hahn in game 1 and Deacon Phillipe in game 2. They pitched against different teams (both teams about average). Used pitch around against the first 10 bathers the faced except when the opposing pitcher was the batter or if a runner was on first.
Game 1---2 doubles, 1 single, 3 walks, 2 ground outs that advanced the runner on second, 1 KO, 1 fly out (no runner was on base).
Game 2---1 double, 3 singles, 1 pop up, 2 KO, 3 walks.
Rotatable for both games---3 doubles, 4 singles, 6 walks, 7 outs (some that advanced the runners on base).
Maybe it's a small sample size (about 45 in you count the times I tried it with OOTP 14), or maybe it's just my ad luck but I don't use this feature.
What I wa expecting was a walk about 70% of the time, a hit about 5%, and an out about 25%.
Do whatever you like but that's my experience.

[Reed]

Above post where I said except when a runner was on second, I meant to say, except when a runner was on first.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Number4

You're simplyfying hitters too much. People with good eyes will walk much more when pitched around, but they cannot determine every pitch with 100% accuracy. And the whole point of pitching around is making every count a pitcher's count, walk be damned.

That does not mean the pitcher throws only balls and everyone who recognizes that gets a free walk. Even while pitching around he is throwing strikes from time to time, and might get three together before he gets 4 balls.
Who are your observations based on? I found pitchers with great control having often positive outcomes while pitching around, poor control - a high walk rate.
Also hitters with good eye - walks, bad eye - more K's.

That doesn't mean that a wild pitcher won't strike out the side if he's lucky. But he'll walk guys quite often, and sometimes even serve up meatballs. With good control you can pull this better off, less walks, more k's, less meatballs.

Pretty much my experience. Add in a guy with bad control trying to pitch around is also more likely to leave a ball out over the plate and give up hard hits and homers.

I use p-around against guys I don't want to beat me, guys that have a history of hitting my current P hard, and depending on game situations many other things like a guy with a bad eye and great power etc. etc. etc. Outcomes seem fine to me on a AB by AB result....

Bad eye guys K
Good eye guys BB
Good control Ps get better results than low control Ps

I've never felt the need to try to track a pool of data as I've never seen anything to make me think things are out of the norm.

Originally Posted by Reed

My experience with pitch around is similar to the OP's. I started with OOTP 14 and manually played my games and would get a high rate of hits (40percent?) whenever I used pitch around. I just figured it was just my bad luck after about 30 tries and stopped using it altogether (even on the team strategy page). Since this thread game up, I decided I would give it my own limited small sample test. 1903 using Noodles Hahn in game 1 and Deacon Phillipe in game 2. They pitched against different teams (both teams about average). Used pitch around against the first 10 bathers the faced except when the opposing pitcher was the batter or if a runner was on first.
Game 1---2 doubles, 1 single, 3 walks, 2 ground outs that advanced the runner on second, 1 KO, 1 fly out (no runner was on base).
Game 2---1 double, 3 singles, 1 pop up, 2 KO, 3 walks.
Rotatable for both games---3 doubles, 4 singles, 6 walks, 7 outs (some that advanced the runners on base).
Maybe it's a small sample size (about 45 in you count the times I tried it with OOTP 14), or maybe it's just my ad luck but I don't use this feature.
What I wa expecting was a walk about 70% of the time, a hit about 5%, and an out about 25%.
Do whatever you like but that's my experience.

Where did you come up with those percentages?

A 70% BB rate based over all pitchers? I guess a guy with a 3\20 control rating would need to be walking ~100% of the batters to cover for the guys with 16\20 control, yes? Then again that low control guy may be just as likely to leave a ball over the plate and get hammered so another BB that doesn't happen. And that's not taking into account each batter's eye.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Reed

My experience with pitch around is similar to the OP's. I started with OOTP 14 and manually played my games and would get a high rate of hits (40percent?) whenever I used pitch around. I just figured it was just my bad luck after about 30 tries and stopped using it altogether (even on the team strategy page). Since this thread game up, I decided I would give it my own limited small sample test. 1903 using Noodles Hahn in game 1 and Deacon Phillipe in game 2. They pitched against different teams (both teams about average). Used pitch around against the first 10 bathers the faced except when the opposing pitcher was the batter or if a runner was on first.
Game 1---2 doubles, 1 single, 3 walks, 2 ground outs that advanced the runner on second, 1 KO, 1 fly out (no runner was on base).
Game 2---1 double, 3 singles, 1 pop up, 2 KO, 3 walks.
Rotatable for both games---3 doubles, 4 singles, 6 walks, 7 outs (some that advanced the runners on base).
Maybe it's a small sample size (about 45 in you count the times I tried it with OOTP 14), or maybe it's just my ad luck but I don't use this feature.
What I wa expecting was a walk about 70% of the time, a hit about 5%, and an out about 25%.
Do whatever you like but that's my experience.

I'd question the existence of pitch around in 1903. If you look at league stats on BR the BB/9 rate in 1903-09 is 2.3-2.7, almost 1BB/9 less than the steroid era and more than 1BB/9 less than the higher run higher HR environment of 1948-1956. I just can't see pitchers in 1903 doing it at all given the singles dominated offense of the time.

However in 1927 despite no IBB data, it should come as no surprise that the Yankees BB rate was 1.14 more than the league average.

Pitch around in the current era is an escape route for a manager where an IBB is not strategically sound. It's a way to avoid criticism when 1B is open. Leave it to Tom Tango to supply good evidence for this and to point out that pitching around doesn't do much at all.

Looks like I need to reconsider my previous opinions on pitch around.

In terms of an alternative to intentional walks, pitching around a hitter accomplishes very little, as it merely increases the ratio of walks to non-walks without significantly affecting how well the hitter performs if he isn’t actually walked. In other words, if you’d rather have a walk than whatever the hitter normally does if he doesn’t walk, then you should walk him. If you’d rather have what he normally does, you should pitch to him normally.

Pitching Around Batters ? The Hardball Times

[Number4]

This article fails to get the point of pitching around. You don't do it if you want the batter to walk, you don't do it if you don't want the batter to walk. You do it if a walk is more or less a neutral event.
You're trading a lot more of walks for some K's. You do this if the value of the positive K's outweighs the value of the walks (usually negative, but situational). But if having the walk is important to you, you just intentionally walk (or bean ) him.
Examples where I might pitch around:

Runner on 2nd, 1 out - if I'm not sure if to walk him for the dp or pitch to him for less chance of a big inning, I see little difference between walking or not walking. Might as well take the extra K's.

Late in a No-Hitter, leading by plenty, pitcher has enough gas left - extra chance of an important out in exchange for worthless walks? Yes please.

Bottom of the 9th, Winning run at 3rd, 2 outs. Batter up and on deck hit for same avg.
I don't care who of them I pitch to, but I do want that free extra K chance and unlikely that my pitcher will unintentionally walk the next 2 guys for the walk to matter.

Red-hot all-star batting - do I give him the 4 fingered salute? Unsure. Again, so I pitch around.

[TheoEpstein]

I tend to not pitch around most hitters. In my experience, pitching around hitters has produced results less than desirable.

Here's a very good article on the pros and cons of pitching around:

Pitching Around Batters ? The Hardball Times

[RchW]

Originally Posted by TheoEpstein

I tend to not pitch around most hitters. In my experience, pitching around hitters has produced results less than desirable.

Here's a very good article on the pros and cons of pitching around:

Pitching Around Batters ? The Hardball Times

LOL see two posts up.

[Reed]

Have you played a whole season and compared the number of errors your players committed vs the number of errors they had in real life? I use to think my players commited to many errors until I actually did a comparison for 3 seasons. I play historical and not the modern era though.
I do question the pitch around but that might have something to do with playing pre 1950 or just my bad luck and small sample size so I stopped using that feature some time ago.
I use to get a little frustrated with the game when I didn't think it play exactly like reallife major league but then I started thinking of it as an ootp/me alternative universe with a few of it's on idiosynchozies that APPROXIMATES MLB but the team with good players will still almost always outperform a team with average or poor players. Most of the good players IRL are still the better players in this universe although sometimes some players will surprise you, but that true with any of the baseball sims I have played in the past

[msupoke]

Errors happen.

[ConStar]

Anecdotally, what I have observed (at least with OOTP15 and OOTP16) is that using "pitch around" with a guy who has either homered once in the game, or who is having a great night (i.e., he's 3-for-3 already) pretty much ensures he's not going to get another extra-base hit and may not get another hit at all. My standard m.o. when a guy hits a homer against me is to pitch around him the next time up. I have literally never had a guy hit a multi-homer game against me when I do it this way.

Now, that's not to say I've never had multi-homer games hit against me. I've forgotten to pitch around the next time up. I've pitched around on the first at-bat and yielded a homer. I've pitched around on the first at-bat, then pitched normally the second at-bat and yielded a homer the second time. I've had a situation where I couldn't pitch around (i.e., the guy comes up with the bases loaded and he hit a slam). But any time I've been able to pitch around the at-bat following the home run, I've not yielded a home run the second time up and not even an extra-base hit in most cases.

I saw a mention about OOTP14 being perhaps different. In my experience, it was. I basically couldn't use "pitch around" in 14. Too many walks and too many hits yielded. I probably yielded OBPs of around .600 in OOTP14 when I used the option. Something seems to have changed in 15 and 16.

Kind of a funny thing, too, that I've noticed about using it with pitchers who have sub-average control: Lots of walks yielded, but also lots of strikeouts.

On a related note, what I most wish for is a "pitch aggressively" option like Diamond Mind Baseball has. We have "pitch to contact" but that's different, IMO.

[RchW]

I find it amusing that too many walks would be a negative to "pitch around". What other primary outcome could be expected?

[Rizon]

I've had such poor results with pitching around that I just plunk the batter now.

[ConStar]

Originally Posted by RchW

I find it amusing that too many walks would be a negative to "pitch around". What other primary outcome could be expected?

It's not a negative; the whole thing is risk/reward. The risk is a walk while the reward is not seeing the guy knock an airplane down out of the sky.

But it only works when the risk isn't almost automatic. I feel the last two versions of the game balance it pretty well. In 14, I felt like I might as well just be pushing the "intentional walk" button instead.

[flair1239]

For me it works fine. I use it (like another poster) on power hitters with bad to avg eye, in situations where a walk is the least of all the bad outcomes. I also add the caveat, that the next batter up has to be more desirable to pitch to.