Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP 25 Available - FHM 10 Available - OOTP Go! Available

Out of the Park Baseball 25 Buy Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Prior Versions of Our Games > Out of the Park Baseball 16 > OOTP 16 - General Discussions

OOTP 16 - General Discussions Discuss the new 2015 version of Out of the Park Baseball here!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-09-2015, 08:31 PM   #21
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweed View Post

Sounds like your mind is made up and that's fine. Without data to back it up though you'll find a very small minority that will agree.
My mind is far from "made up" but until a better explanation comes along I'm going with Occam's Razor. I mean if you can set the global bunting strategy to "very rarely" or whatever the lowest setting is and we assume that the "thousands of tests" verified that this setting works properly when simming out seasons then the only explanation for the AI bunting in the top of the 7th of a game it trails 3-1 with a guy on first and no outs with the best hitter on the team then there must be an issue with the AI logic as it pertains to playing games out. This would also explain why there appears to be so many WP/PB in played out games as compared to simming them. And coming up with a decent sample size for playing out games would be tedious at best since it takes about 15 minutes per game.
Dyzalot is offline  
Old 04-09-2015, 09:00 PM   #22
Sweed
Hall Of Famer
 
Sweed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Iowa
Posts: 6,034
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
My mind is far from "made up" but until a better explanation comes along I'm going with Occam's Razor. I mean if you can set the global bunting strategy to "very rarely" or whatever the lowest setting is and we assume that the "thousands of tests" verified that this setting works properly when simming out seasons then the only explanation for the AI bunting in the top of the 7th of a game it trails 3-1 with a guy on first and no outs with the best hitter on the team then there must be an issue with the AI logic as it pertains to playing games out. This would also explain why there appears to be so many WP/PB in played out games as compared to simming them. And coming up with a decent sample size for playing out games would be tedious at best since it takes about 15 minutes per game.
And yet I play out all of my games and in a post in this thread I show my WP\PB are both lower than league average.

Bunting in that situation is not good, I agree. But the conversation is based on simmed vs played out games. How do you know the AI isn't bunting in those situations in simmed games? Are you going through all of the logs? If so and you are finding data to support your feelings then you will get somewhere when you post it. Others will start looking closer to confirm your data or repudiate it.

My argument based on Markus saying it's all the same, testing it, a beta team, and all of the users here that are exceptional statisticians is that if the AI is bunting in situations that don't makes sense in a played out game it is bunting in those same situations that don't make sense in simulated games. Either a flat out bug or more likely something that needs to be tweaked.

For the sake of argument let's say you're right and there is an issue that is hard to find because nobody wants to go through hundreds\thousands of logs to prove it. In that case it won't get fixed, period. As I type this I am thinking I am remembering the bullpen issue you are talking about. One guy with a claim nobody else was seeing? How did he get that fixed? He dug in and tracked stats to prove it, posted his data which got others to look closer at data in their game (me included) and with all of that input Markus gave it a close look and it came down to a bug. It had nothing to do with there being two sim engines.

Again your bunting issue could very well be a bug and if enough people see it, report it, and document it it will be dealt with.

It's saying this bunting only happens in played out games because there are two sim engines is a tough one to swallow without data to back it up.

Last edited by Sweed; 04-09-2015 at 09:02 PM.
Sweed is offline  
Old 04-09-2015, 09:10 PM   #23
swoboda
All Star Starter
 
swoboda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Guarding The Line
Posts: 1,201
I have played out all 162 for several years and cannot recall a "best hitter bunts at a strange time"
__________________
"...If you want to look ahead to the bottom of the ninth, the Mets will be sending up Buddy Harrelson, Jerry Buchek , and Don Bosch, we'll be right back after this word from Rheingold Beer"


The late great Lindsey Nelson
swoboda is offline  
Old 04-09-2015, 09:15 PM   #24
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweed View Post
Bunting in that situation is not good, I agree. But the conversation is based on simmed vs played out games. How do you know the AI isn't bunting in those situations in simmed games? Are you going through all of the logs? If so and you are finding data to support your feelings then you will get somewhere when you post it. Others will start looking closer to confirm your data or repudiate it.
If it is bunting in those situations in simmed games then wouldn't the league wide numbers be off a fair amount? Not to mention that this is on the "very rarely" setting which should give results much lower than the MLB average. This should have been seen in the testing if it is the case.

So I looked at my league wide totals and it appears that simming is not the problem. My AL teams are averaging about 15 sacrifice hits for the year while NL teams are at about 45. Those numbers are both lower than real life. That doesn't explain why I see such weird bunting strategies when playing a game out. So either these weird strategies also happen randomly when simming but are countered by lower bunting in other spots where the AI should be bunting or the simming frequency doesn't match the frequency seen when playing a game out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swoboda View Post
I have played out all 162 for several years and cannot recall a "best hitter bunts at a strange time"
I see it so often that it makes me cry.
Dyzalot is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 12:43 AM   #25
Sweed
Hall Of Famer
 
Sweed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Iowa
Posts: 6,034
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
If it is bunting in those situations in simmed games then wouldn't the league wide numbers be off a fair amount? Not to mention that this is on the "very rarely" setting which should give results much lower than the MLB average. This should have been seen in the testing if it is the case.

So I looked at my league wide totals and it appears that simming is not the problem. My AL teams are averaging about 15 sacrifice hits for the year while NL teams are at about 45. Those numbers are both lower than real life. That doesn't explain why I see such weird bunting strategies when playing a game out. So either these weird strategies also happen randomly when simming but are countered by lower bunting in other spots where the AI should be bunting or the simming frequency doesn't match the frequency seen when playing a game out.
Well you have the bunting on very rarely and have results that are lower than the MLB average. You have to consider how does setting bunting to very rarely interact with league totals and league total modifiers? If you're using default present day numbers they should be based on 2014 so expected sacs should be 1343 or ~45 sacs per team (59 NL- 30 AL teams). League totals are setup to achieve these numbers on default and will adjust the modifier to do that if you autocalc. But what happens if you drop the bunting to very rarely? I would think you would get a lot less sacs and attempts to sac otherwise why have a very rarely setting if it gives you real totals? In your league you are averaging 60 sacs per team compared to real world 89 so about 33% fewer sacs. Sounds like frequency is working to me and you aren't losing any bunts at all.

In my league NL teams are on a pace to avg 67 sac bunts (NL in 2014 avg was 59) and Al 38 sac bunts (AL in 2014 was 30). That's on normal. Those numbers are satisfactory to me with all of the variables.

So when we look at numbers I think we have progressed to it not being a sim vs play issue as the numbers look pretty close to reality for both of us with you on very rarely and me on normal.

I've shown in an earlier post my balk\wp numbers for played out games are fine too, another area of concern you brought up.
I would submit there is no difference in bunting whether it's simmed or played out or for anything else for that matter as Markus has stated manyu times. IE it is the same engine for all games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
I see it so often that it makes me cry.
The real issue is you seem to see a "weird strategy" that most(?) of us don't based on there not being a large amount of complaints which I would think we would see if it were wide spread.

Why? I have no clue. So many variables in a game this complex. Could be as simple as a one season anomaly?
Sweed is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 01:04 AM   #26
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweed View Post
Well you have the bunting on very rarely and have results that are lower than the MLB average. You have to consider how does setting bunting to very rarely interact with league totals and league total modifiers? If you're using default present day numbers they should be based on 2014 so expected sacs should be 1343 or ~45 sacs per team (59 NL- 30 AL teams). League totals are setup to achieve these numbers on default and will adjust the modifier to do that if you autocalc. But what happens if you drop the bunting to very rarely? I would think you would get a lot less sacs and attempts to sac otherwise why have a very rarely setting if it gives you real totals? In your league you are averaging 60 sacs per team compared to real world 89 so about 33% fewer sacs. Sounds like frequency is working to me and you aren't losing any bunts at all.

In my league NL teams are on a pace to avg 67 sac bunts (NL in 2014 avg was 59) and Al 38 sac bunts (AL in 2014 was 30). That's on normal. Those numbers are satisfactory to me with all of the variables.

So when we look at numbers I think we have progressed to it not being a sim vs play issue as the numbers look pretty close to reality for both of us with you on very rarely and me on normal.
Not sure how you come to that conclusion since we only looked at sim play numbers and not numbers for playing games out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweed View Post
I've shown in an earlier post my balk\wp numbers for played out games are fine too, another area of concern you brought up.
I would submit there is no difference in bunting whether it's simmed or played out or for anything else for that matter as Markus has stated manyu times. IE it is the same engine for all games.


The real issue is you seem to see a "weird strategy" that most(?) of us don't based on there not being a large amount of complaints which I would think we would see if it were wide spread.

Why? I have no clue. So many variables in a game this complex. Could be as simple as a one season anomaly?
My only issue is not "weird strategy". My issue is this, if it is true that playing out has no difference from simming then these strategies are being used in the sim as well. What that means is that in order for the league wide numbers to come out correctly then there must be less bunting in situations where real modern day managers call for it in order to make up for all of the bunting in situations where they never would. It is also not a one season anomaly as I have seen this over 100+ seasons across three different versions of OOTP now.

And just this simple question, if lowering the bunting frequency to the lowest setting doesn't get rid of managers calling for a sac bunt in the 7th inning when down three runs then what the hell is it removing? Is it just randomly turning obvious bunting spots into non bunting spots? Is there any rhyme or reason to why and when the AI decides to sac bunt?
Dyzalot is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 02:20 AM   #27
Sweed
Hall Of Famer
 
Sweed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Iowa
Posts: 6,034
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
Not sure how you come to that conclusion since we only looked at sim play numbers and not numbers for playing games out.



My only issue is not "weird strategy". My issue is this, if it is true that playing out has no difference from simming then these strategies are being used in the sim as well. What that means is that in order for the league wide numbers to come out correctly then there must be less bunting in situations where real modern day managers call for it in order to make up for all of the bunting in situations where they never would. It is also not a one season anomaly as I have seen this over 100+ seasons across three different versions of OOTP now.

And just this simple question, if lowering the bunting frequency to the lowest setting doesn't get rid of managers calling for a sac bunt in the 7th inning when down three runs then what the hell is it removing? Is it just randomly turning obvious bunting spots into non bunting spots? Is there any rhyme or reason to why and when the AI decides to sac bunt?
Really I'm trying to help but now I'm done, your mind is made up. Two sim engines make absolutely no sense in any way shape or form. I watch a game between two AI teams (no human GM) and they both use AI #1. I then play a game with my human team vs AI. For this game I set all of my manager strategies to AI control. Now the game uses AI #1 for the cpu and AI #2 for my team? Really?

Yes the weird strategy (if it exists since very few seem to see it) is causing managers to bunt in the wrong situations to get the right totals. Whether the timing of the bunting is weird or not the strategy does indeed determine the total number of bunts. It has nothing to do with sim vs played out. IOW it does it to both human and AI unless the human manually intervenes. Again same engine for all teams.

Your league is 33% behind real life sacs, it makes absolutely no difference if you played the game or the game was simmed. The engine is the same. You have no data to suggest otherwise only that you're convinced or you're sure. Sorry that's not enough you need data.

I've tried to show you numbers that come from a league where my human team is right in line with the AI teams in all stats in a league that's been played, imported, and played over 11 versions of OOTP. It's not good enough? no problem. I'll continue to enjoy my game and leave you to find the answers you are looking for.

You've seen "your" issues in over 100+ seasons and three versions of OOTP and virtually nobody has verified that they see it too. What does that tell you?

Again I don't see the bunting in the 7th down 3 runs so very hard for me to comment. With regard to turning obvious bunting spots into non bunting spots, that's on you. You are the one changing to very rarely and "telling" the game you want less bunts. They have to be taken away from somewhere.

I really do hope you find answers but I'm just afraid whatever is going on in your league is something that is unique to your league. When I saw your other thread on bunting I thought your comments were restricted to v16 (where I have seem some slight differences in P not bunting when it used to automatic, which IMHO may not be a bad thing, need more time to evaluate). But when you said it was over three versions I then have to assume it is something unique to you're league.

Good luck.
Sweed is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 02:24 AM   #28
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweed View Post
Really I'm trying to help but now I'm done, your mind is made up. Two sim engines make absolutely no sense in any way shape or form. I watch a game between two AI teams (no human GM) and they both use AI #1. I then play a game with my human team vs AI. For this game I set all of my manager strategies to AI control. Now the game uses AI #1 for the cpu and AI #2 for my team? Really?
Either you are erecting a straw man so you can easily knock it down or we have a failure to communicate. That was not my argument.
Dyzalot is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 04:03 AM   #29
Dr.K
Major Leagues
 
Dr.K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 367
interesting post

Last edited by Dr.K; 04-10-2015 at 04:09 AM.
Dr.K is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 05:43 AM   #30
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
So I just saw another thing that I was sure would have been fixed. I mean it can't take much more than a simple "if/then" line of code, right? One out, bottom of the tenth, tie game, runners on first and second, hitter gets a base hit to left center, runner on 2nd trying for home to win it and the AI cuts off the throw to get the guy at third...
Dyzalot is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 10:41 AM   #31
Sweed
Hall Of Famer
 
Sweed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Iowa
Posts: 6,034
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
If it's a failure to communicate I'm sorry. Here is what I see in our posts..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
I am convinced that playing out the game gives you a different sim than just simming them. Like you could sim every game or you could "play them out" with the AI playing both managers and you won't get near the same results over a full season.
Play 'em out with AI playing both managers vs just simming them. You didn't say "watch AI vs AI games" you said play them out. That suggests to me you have one human team with all decisions set to AI and one AI team. But even if it is just "watch" mode with two AI teams you are still saying results are different based on which way you play(ie watch the game or sim). How can that be unless there are two different sim engines?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweed View Post
Are we supposed to have the sarcasm meter open or is this serious?

You really think they take the time to code two sim engines? I guess your welcome to whatever your opinion is but until there is some evidence it is just that, an opinion.

Markus has stated many times there is no difference. That's not an opinion he coded the game. So either he is a liar or there is no difference. The vast majority of players don't see an issue. There are a lot of very smart people that play OOTP and are more than capable of testing the game and producing stats to support such a claim. Yet they don't, why?
I ask here if you think there are two sim engines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
It is the only thing that explains why we see weird things happen when playing out a game that doesn't seem to happen when simming weeks at a time. My problem with bunting is a perfect example. If I sim out a season then I'm sure that bunting will mirror real life. When I play out a game I see the AI bunting with power hitters in the late innings when down by more than one run. Also if I remember correctly, there was a problem in the past with relief pitchers always coming in as "tired" when games were played out. Pretty sure this was something Markus fixed in the last couple of years.
You answer in bold says it's the only explanation.

You then sidetrack on the bunting as an example. You say "If I sim out a season then I'm sure that bunting will mirror real life", again suggesting different engines for play or sim. In later posts it's something like "well if the AI bunts that way in sims too it's broke". Yes, that is exactly what it would be if we all saw it. Not a separate engine issue but merely a strategy that would need to tweaked by Markus (some may say a bug).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweed View Post
Really I'm trying to help but now I'm done, your mind is made up. Two sim engines make absolutely no sense in any way shape or form. I watch a game between two AI teams (no human GM) and they both use AI #1. I then play a game with my human team vs AI. For this game I set all of my manager strategies to AI control. Now the game uses AI #1 for the cpu and AI #2 for my team? Really?
I post this as to what I think you are trying to say, IE two sim engines that you say are the only thing that explains it. I don't see a difference whether it's AI vs AI with no human team or AI vs AI where one is a human team, either way you are saying simming and watching give different results and the only explanation is two engines.

Maybe I have it wrong on thinking you are saying there are separate AI's (#1 and #2), that's fine, it's just me trying to grasp an idea that doesn't make any sense. My argument is still the same even if it's two sim engines. Just sub when you watch a game its' sim engine #1 and when you play a game it's sim engine #2 for AI #1 and AI #2. Still makes no sense to code two engines when it's hard enough to code one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
Either you are erecting a straw man so you can easily knock it down or we have a failure to communicate. That was not my argument.
If there is a misunderstanding the only thing I can see is back to the top of this post. You meant watch an AI vs AI game compared to simming (with or without human involved)? If that's it sorry for misunderstanding as I thought I was being clear in what I was saying but that still leaves you claiming two sim engines (#1 watch\play engine and #2 sim engine) Not seeing a strawman there.

Really I'm going to try to stay out of this now as I don't think there is going to be any "mind changing" going on here. Just wanted to clarify my points since you brought up "failure to communicate" which is something that can easily happen on a message board

Again hope you find you're answers.
Sweed is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 04:09 PM   #32
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
By necessity there has to be some difference in the AI between straight simming and playing (or watching) the games. I can prove this by pointing you to the ability to play "pitch by pitch". Either simming weeks at a time does it "pitch by pitch" or it does it in "one pitch mode". Either way, that sim will differ from playing it out one way or another. So just on that basis alone, I don't think it is a stretch to wonder if they will differ in other ways as well.
Dyzalot is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 08:50 PM   #33
Lou Gehrig
Minors (Triple A)
 
Lou Gehrig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ1272 View Post
2nd post I've ever made, I'm hoping this is being posted in the right spot.

I've played through almost every game as the Cardinals in a season, and a few games with the Padres....I'm noticing an alarming pattern in the game when I'm playing.

Almost every game, it seems like no matter if I pick "Pitch" "Pitch Around" "Pitch to Contact" "Hold Runner" option (in the appropriate scenario), either my relievers are either getting lit up, I'm hitting a batter, wild pitches (seems to be the most prevalent)....basically anything bad that can happen...is happening.

It takes the fun out of playing through games, and I even over manage to try to prevent this from happening...to no avail.

Am I doing anything wrong, is anyone else noticing the consistency in which you're giving up far too many runs with good pitchers? Am I complaining about nothing?

Help!
I just want to take a moment and tip my hat to you for inquiring about an "issue" you are experiencing without making unsubstantiated accusations. Welcome to the forum.
__________________
"Today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth."
LOU GEHRIG
Yankee Stadium
July 4, 1939

www.alsa.org
Lou Gehrig is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 09:08 PM   #34
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou Gehrig View Post
I just want to take a moment and tip my hat to you for inquiring about an "issue" you are experiencing without making unsubstantiated accusations. Welcome to the forum.
See my post above. Far from being "unsubstantiated"...
Dyzalot is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 09:28 PM   #35
Lou Gehrig
Minors (Triple A)
 
Lou Gehrig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New York
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
See my post above. Far from being "unsubstantiated"...
I think you missed my point.
__________________
"Today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth."
LOU GEHRIG
Yankee Stadium
July 4, 1939

www.alsa.org
Lou Gehrig is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 10:57 PM   #36
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lou Gehrig View Post
I think you missed my point.
I did lol. Helps to read through the whole post including what was quoted before responding...
Dyzalot is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 11:17 PM   #37
RchW
Hall Of Famer
 
RchW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The big smoke
Posts: 15,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
See my post above. Far from being "unsubstantiated"...
Show me the data. Without it your claims are not credible. Especially the WP/PB stats. The strategic issue you raise with with SH is easily provable through game logs. If good hitters are being asked to bunt in inappropriate base/out states, you should be able to show game logs that describe it.

I hate playing out games but decided to redo an old game save for the playoffs. The data is below. I hate playing out so many games; 36 in total which equals 72 for rate of occurrence calculations. See below. I have no real confidence in this data but since many claims are being made without any data at all, my little sample suggests that WP, SH, SF and PB all go down when games are played out. Home runs were up. I noticed that only because, my team the one I normally manage, gave up 19 of the 91 hit in 72 games.

If I can play out 36 games in a few days so can you or anyone else. It may not be valid but it is better than claims of certainty where none can exist. I'm halfway through another season. If time permits I'll play every game in the upcoming playoffs and report.

As it stands now there is evidence that rates of occurrence go down in certain key stats when games are played out. I have no confidence in this data but it's the only data we have.

Your serve.

Edit: I corrected SH occurrence (can't count) which increases the rate. Still doesn't tell us anything.
Attached Images
Image 
__________________
Cheers

RichW

#stopthestupid

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

Last edited by RchW; 04-11-2015 at 12:38 AM.
RchW is offline  
Old 04-10-2015, 11:24 PM   #38
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by RchW View Post
Show me the data. Without it your claims are not credible. Especially the WP/PB stats. The strategic issue you raise with with SH is easily provable through game logs. If good hitters are being asked to bunt in inappropriate base/out states, you should be able to show game logs that describe it.

I hate playing out games but decided to redo an old game save for the playoffs. The data is below. I hate playing out so many games; 36 in total which equals 72 for rate of occurrence calculations. See below. I have no real confidence in this data but since many claims are being made without any data at all, my little sample suggests that WP, SH, SF and PB all go down when games are played out. Home runs were up. I noticed that only because, my team the one I normally manage, gave up 19 of the 91 hit in 72 games.

If I can play out 36 games in a few days so can you or anyone else. It may not be valid but it is better than claims of certainty where none can exist. I'm halfway through another season. If time permits I'll play every game in the upcoming playoffs and report.

As it stands now there is evidence that rates of occurrence go down in certain key stats when games are played out. I have no confidence in this data but it's the only data we have.

Your serve.
My serve? I'm on a different court. My main argument has been the bunting and sample size is irrelevant when dealing with things that should never occur.
Dyzalot is offline  
Old 04-11-2015, 12:35 AM   #39
RchW
Hall Of Famer
 
RchW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The big smoke
Posts: 15,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
My serve? I'm on a different court. My main argument has been the bunting and sample size is irrelevant when dealing with things that should never occur.
You included WP/PB in your claim earlier. If bunting is wrong strategically you could have proved it many posts ago. Game logs! You did say it happens often. See your quote below for both claims. Was I mistaken in thinking you play out games? If so why not play 36 games over a week or so and scan the game logs for SH. By my reckoning you should have about 20 SH in that sample.

Quote:
My mind is far from "made up" but until a better explanation comes along I'm going with Occam's Razor. I mean if you can set the global bunting strategy to "very rarely" or whatever the lowest setting is and we assume that the "thousands of tests" verified that this setting works properly when simming out seasons then the only explanation for the AI bunting in the top of the 7th of a game it trails 3-1 with a guy on first and no outs with the best hitter on the team then there must be an issue with the AI logic as it pertains to playing games out. This would also explain why there appears to be so many WP/PB in played out games as compared to simming them. And coming up with a decent sample size for playing out games would be tedious at best since it takes about 15 minutes per game.
__________________
Cheers

RichW

#stopthestupid

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit
RchW is offline  
Old 04-11-2015, 01:37 AM   #40
Toast
Minors (Double A)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
My serve? I'm on a different court. My main argument has been the bunting and sample size is irrelevant when dealing with things that should never occur.
A hypothesis based from a rational perspective:

Well if the scores are determined before the game is played it really doesn't matter what occurs during the actual play as long as the play is within the general parameters of the game of baseball. In other words, the score isn't the end result of the play but the other way around. If true then playing out the game is really a form of 'active reading'.

The ground is starting to shake! It must be Lou Gehrig and Wolf!

'If you question they will come' from the novel Field of Screams.

Toast
Toast is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:41 AM.

 

Major League and Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of Major League Baseball. Visit MLB.com and MiLB.com.

Officially Licensed Product – MLB Players, Inc.

Out of the Park Baseball is a registered trademark of Out of the Park Developments GmbH & Co. KG

Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc.

Apple, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

COPYRIGHT © 2023 OUT OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENTS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Out of the Park Developments