The totally unrealistic AI's love for sac bunting.

[Dyzalot]

This is ridiculous! There are some things I can excuse or come up with some obscure reason for the action in my head but there is nothing that explains this. I don't understand why this happens in OOTP18. It is long past time that this kind of AI stupidity is removed from the game. It is so immersion breaking & so frustrating to see.

[eriqjaffe]

Perhaps the Twins are being managed by Rick Renteria?

https://theathletic.com/66799/2017/0...r-the-results/

[Dyzalot]

Doubt even he has his DH bunt in the bottom of the 8th with a 4 run lead. I doubt Billy Martin would have. I doubt Whitey Herzog would have. I doubt any "small ball" type manager bunts in that situation with anyone other than a pitcher at the plate.

[bwburke94]

There's a setting for sac bunt frequency. Lower it if you don't want to see as many bunts.

If it's already at its lowest... well, that's what the "Hit Batter" button is for.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

There's a setting for sac bunt frequency. Lower it if you don't want to see as many bunts.

If it's already at its lowest... well, that's what the "Hit Batter" button is for.

I have it at the 2nd lowest setting on the team strategy menu because at the lowest it doesn't even have pitchers sac bunt. The league settings are the default for the modern era which I leave alone in order to achieve the correct numbers from a "meta" perspective. My problem is with the way the AI chooses whom to sac bunt with and when. I don't know too many managers in history that would choose to sac bunt with their "6th in the order" DH in a 5-1 game in the bottom of the 8th.

[NoOne]

"rarely" for the dropdwon setting and a 3.501LTM ~350ish bunts a year in a 30t 162g league.

i have mine at "normal" (an accident...but a fortuitous one) and LTM at 3.501. otherwise, the ltm would be 10-20+ to get ~900-1000 bunts.

and that is sub-1000 bunts (~950 average from longish-term sim, if i recall) the mlb may be trending lower than that now... but 900ish is quite a bit lower than what the league averaged the previous decade... 6 in on half dozen the other how you want to speculate on what the future will hold.

i'd assume less bunts, but probably not ~350 year low. i think~1000 is a good starting point, personally. that's about the 2016 rate.. bit less.

1 bunt ever ~5games or so.

That LTM should translate to other leagues too.. (***must have the "normal" setting for bunts though) always verify with a throw-away simulation, but the stuff below the AB section should translate as long as the other related dropdown setting(s) on left side are the same.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by NoOne

"rarely" for the dropdwon setting and a 3.501LTM ~350ish bunts a year in a 30t 162g league.

i have mine at "normal" (an accident...but a fortuitous one) and LTM at 3.501. otherwise, the ltm would be 10-20+ to get ~900-1000 bunts.

and that is sub-1000 bunts (~950 average from longish-term sim, if i recall) the mlb may be trending lower than that now... but 900ish is quite a bit lower than what the league averaged the previous decade... 6 in on half dozen the other how you want to speculate on what the future will hold.

i'd assume less bunts, but probably not ~350 year low. i think~1000 is a good starting point, personally. that's about the 2016 rate.. bit less.

1 bunt ever ~5games or so.

That LTM should translate to other leagues too.. (***must have the "normal" setting for bunts though) always verify with a throw-away simulation, but the stuff below the AB section should translate as long as the other related dropdown setting(s) on left side are the same.

Huh? You lost me at "load game".

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by NoOne

"rarely" for the dropdwon setting and a 3.501LTM ~350ish bunts a year in a 30t 162g league.

i have mine at "normal" (an accident...but a fortuitous one) and LTM at 3.501. otherwise, the ltm would be 10-20+ to get ~900-1000 bunts.

and that is sub-1000 bunts (~950 average from longish-term sim, if i recall) the mlb may be trending lower than that now... but 900ish is quite a bit lower than what the league averaged the previous decade... 6 in on half dozen the other how you want to speculate on what the future will hold.

i'd assume less bunts, but probably not ~350 year low. i think~1000 is a good starting point, personally. that's about the 2016 rate.. bit less.

1 bunt ever ~5games or so.

That LTM should translate to other leagues too.. (***must have the "normal" setting for bunts though) always verify with a throw-away simulation, but the stuff below the AB section should translate as long as the other related dropdown setting(s) on left side are the same.

I have no problem with the "meta" results for how often sac bunts occur league wide. I do have a problem on the "micro" level since sac bunts occur too often in spots that they never occur in real life such as bottom of the 8th with a 4-run lead and one of your better hitters at the plate.

[bailey]

Just by chance, does the batter in question have a very high rating for sac bunt?

I just noticed that one of the best hitters on my team has 18 SH --- that's sacrifice hits, right? sac bunts???!!!

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by bailey

Just by chance, does the batter in question have a very high rating for sac bunt?

I just noticed that one of the best hitters on my team has 18 SH --- that's sacrifice hits, right? sac bunts???!!!

He does have a 17 rating on a 1-20 scale. I suppose it is possible that the AI is weighing the bunting skill of the player in question much more than it should be and not weighing the actual situation as much as it should be when determining whether to bunt or not.

[Dyzalot]

The very next game I observed...

[Westheim]

League total modifiers aside, the AI just should not bunt, NEVER, if it is up by four runs already, unless the year is 1912 or there is a pitcher at the plate.

This from someone who is hesitant to call a bunt in a tied game in the bottom of the ninth with a runner on first and nobody out.

[Danius]

Who's to say that in the first scenario, Altuve wasn't trying to bunt for a hit, but failed? As long as he got the bunt down and the guy on first got to second, it's considered a sac bunt regardless of whether he intended to sacrifice or not. In the second scenario, It makes sense that the batter might bunt there. Is it the best option? Maybe not, but depending on the situation (if Suarez is a poor batter) some real life managers would do it, and some would not.

[Izz]

Maybe this is something introduced in 18 or 17? I'm still playing 16 & never see stuff like this

[r0nster]

thinking various players have above average but for hit or sac ratings ??? I see it happening with them having that good of a rating when they bunt against me

[drhay53]

Originally Posted by Danius

Who's to say that in the first scenario, Altuve wasn't trying to bunt for a hit, but failed? As long as he got the bunt down and the guy on first got to second, it's considered a sac bunt regardless of whether he intended to sacrifice or not. In the second scenario, It makes sense that the batter might bunt there. Is it the best option? Maybe not, but depending on the situation (if Suarez is a poor batter) some real life managers would do it, and some would not.

The commentary distinguishes between sac bunts and bunt attempts for a hit.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by Danius

Who's to say that in the first scenario, Altuve wasn't trying to bunt for a hit, but failed? As long as he got the bunt down and the guy on first got to second, it's considered a sac bunt regardless of whether he intended to sacrifice or not. In the second scenario, It makes sense that the batter might bunt there. Is it the best option? Maybe not, but depending on the situation (if Suarez is a poor batter) some real life managers would do it, and some would not.

How does it make sense in the 2nd scenario to sac bunt with a 4 run lead in the 7th inning? When is the last time you saw a MLB manager sac bunt with a 4 run lead with someone other than a pitcher? As for Altuve, his "bunt for hit" rating is a 3 on the 1-20 scale so no, it doesn't really make sense that he's trying to bunt for a hit there.

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by drhay53

The commentary distinguishes between sac bunts and bunt attempts for a hit.

No, it does not.

[drhay53]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

No, it does not.

Ah, perhaps the summary doesn't, but the commentary while the game is playing out does. It says "sac bunt: runner out at 2nd", etc.

[Dyzalot]

Originally Posted by drhay53

Ah, perhaps the summary doesn't, but the commentary while the game is playing out does. It says "sac bunt: runner out at 2nd", etc.

True you see that in the 2nd example I posted.