Why argue?

Bucco_Fan30 · 07-10-2002, 11:46 AM

Forgive me if I am rehasing an old point, but is there any purpose in arguing? Is there any information on whether or not this sets you up for getting calls in the future? Or maybe, not getting calls? I do it sparingly and have not noticed a difference in the umps reaction to my club. And man, what a bummer when I get thrown out and the computer takes over my team! Makes me sick to think about.

So, anyway, is there any reason (positive that is) to argue a call in the game?

Thanks in advacne.

Steve Kuffrey · 07-10-2002, 11:53 AM

I think if you'll search for this topic you will see that it has been discussed several times at length.

SufferingSoxFan · 07-11-2002, 10:37 AM

patience Steve...patience.

Hammer755 · 07-11-2002, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bucco_Fan30
So, anyway, is there any reason (positive that is) to argue a call in the game?

Short answer - No.

hisstorymn · 07-11-2002, 11:31 AM

I've never found it useful; except as therapy. Actually isn't it the same thing in real baseball. A totally fruitless gesture, but I feel a helluva lot better after doing it. Its also a great excuse for getting yourself ejected from a game your getting blown out of.

CMH · 07-11-2002, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hisstorymn
I've never found it useful; except as therapy. Actually isn't it the same thing in real baseball. A totally fruitless gesture, but I feel a helluva lot better after doing it. Its also a great excuse for getting yourself ejected from a game your getting blown out of.

sometimes i wonder if the AI Umps can hear me cursing...

ednote · 07-11-2002, 07:15 PM

I don't know about the AI umps hearing me, but my wife has cuffed me about the head and shoulders a couple of times....LOL

kmohan · 07-12-2002, 04:24 AM

After reading a fair amount of other related threads, I have to ask why the arguing feature is even in the game.

No one I know of has mentioned a residual benefit that might occur later in a game if you argue and don't get tossed. And if I do get tossed (as a human manager), I lose the ability to control my team for the rest of the game. In reality, one of my coaches would take over and I'd be orchestrating his every move from the clubhouse.

So, in the absence of a residual benefit (which I've neither heard about nor experienced), what sense does it make to answer yes to "Do you want to argue?'? Why is this feature in the game if all it does (ultimately) is force me to hit "N" before the game at hand can continue?

SufferingSoxFan · 07-12-2002, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kmohan
in the absence of a residual benefit (which I've neither heard about nor experienced), what sense does it make to answer yes to "Do you want to argue?'?

I forget who, but someone a few weeks back suggested that what happens sometimes when you get thrown out when your team is down by many runs, your team rallies behind you and comes back to win. I think it happens more than a little bit. Ofcourse, it very well could be meaningless coincidence.

SSG Troyer · 07-13-2002, 04:18 AM

Two threads, same topic, so I'll post the same thing...

I've said it before, and no one has yet refuted it. After 'winning' an arguement, I've never had a 'close' call go against me.

That is to say, when the PbP says something like "Oh, I don't know about that call..." or "I think the ump blew that one..." or "This guy is umping in the majors?...", the call is in my favor. Now, if the opposing manager later 'wins' an arguement, the pointer seems to switch back to neutral...

kmohan · 07-13-2002, 04:49 AM

Interesting, SSG. Sorry I've never run across your observation before. I guess I should have assumed that if the game provides a decision point, it also allows for the consequences of that decision. If you argue and "win" (don't get tossed), subsequent close calls go in your favor (or are more likely to do so). I can buy that as a simulation of real human (umpire) behavior, I guess.

But, given the number of times a disputable play will crop up in one game, I'm not sure the upside offsets the downside. If I lose an argument and get tossed, all of my options as a human manager are negated for the rest of the game. (If I wanted to relinquish control of the game, I'd just sim it in the first place.)

As I've said before, in the real world when a manager gets tossed he has no trouble conveying his desires (if he wants to) to the coaching staff. In the game, I want the ability (through my coaches, or whatever) to keep controlling my team. In return, I would gladly accept this disadvantage: Because I tried to show up the umpire and got tossed, all close calls for the rest of the game will go against (or have a better chance of going against) my team. A consequence of that sort would make me more inclined to argue---because, again, I get the sense that close plays don't happen all that often, so I'm not risking all that much if I want to enjoy one of the game's "flavor" features.

I like the fact that "winning" an argument makes the umpires more favorably disposed toward youn for the rest of the game. What I'm looking for is a commensurate penalty for losing the argument, rather than the stiff penalty of losing control of your team.

Henry · 07-13-2002, 01:52 PM

You guys are trying to make an equation out of this

As in real life, the manager or player doesn't argue in the hopes of the umpire becoming more "favorable" on future calls - he argues because he's pissed !! The outcome isn't the point, reality is

kmohan · 07-13-2002, 09:47 PM

Henry, I can't tell if you're kidding or not. I hope you're kidding.

In real life, I might argue for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the possibility that some later call might go in my favor as the human umpire's way of "making it up to me." I might be genuinely pissed, or I might just be out to have a little fun (and maybe get the rest of the day off).

In OOTP, I don't argue a call because I'm pissed. It's tough to get mad at somebody you can't see or talk to. I argue a call because I expect it to do me some good later in the game. I argue because I realize I'm dealing with programming code, not a flesh-and-blood umpire, and I expect that code to contain some feature that makes arguing not pointless.

If the arguing feature is just in the game for grins, then it's the only such feature I know of, and on that basis I think it should be dropped from the programming. If this game--or any game--presents the user with a decision point, then the game ought to include a meaningful consequence directly related to that decision.

If the arguing feature is in the game as a nod to realism, then I want to know why the team of a human manager who gets tossed must play out the rest of the game as a computer-controlled team. Where's the realism in that?

Night2000 · 07-13-2002, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kmohan

<===============snipped================>
If the arguing feature is just in the game for grins, then it's the only such feature I know of, and on that basis I think it should be dropped from the programming. If this game--or any game--presents the user with a decision point, then the game ought to include a meaningful consequence directly related to that decision.
<===============Snipped================>

I agree if the Arguing feature doesn't effect gameplay
in any way, other then to just have you tossed. Then it's useless
and should be dropped from the game.

hisstorymn · 07-13-2002, 11:26 PM

Actually I just argue with the game for wings and giggles. Like I said its therapy man, therapy.
If anything arguing with the ump and getting ejected for it would probably hurt you more than help you. A pissed umpire turns lots of balls into ones that "just nicked the corner of the plate."

07-10-2002, 11:46 AM	#1
Bucco_Fan30 Bat Boy Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 16	Why argue? Forgive me if I am rehasing an old point, but is there any purpose in arguing? Is there any information on whether or not this sets you up for getting calls in the future? Or maybe, not getting calls? I do it sparingly and have not noticed a difference in the umps reaction to my club. And man, what a bummer when I get thrown out and the computer takes over my team! Makes me sick to think about. So, anyway, is there any reason (positive that is) to argue a call in the game? Thanks in advacne.

07-10-2002, 11:53 AM	#2
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	I think if you'll search for this topic you will see that it has been discussed several times at length. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

07-12-2002, 04:24 AM	#8
kmohan Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 24	Arguing has no upside After reading a fair amount of other related threads, I have to ask why the arguing feature is even in the game. No one I know of has mentioned a residual benefit that might occur later in a game if you argue and don't get tossed. And if I do get tossed (as a human manager), I lose the ability to control my team for the rest of the game. In reality, one of my coaches would take over and I'd be orchestrating his every move from the clubhouse. So, in the absence of a residual benefit (which I've neither heard about nor experienced), what sense does it make to answer yes to "Do you want to argue?'? Why is this feature in the game if all it does (ultimately) is force me to hit "N" before the game at hand can continue?

07-13-2002, 04:18 AM	#10
SSG Troyer All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Somewhere to the left of 2nd base Posts: 1,598	Two threads, same topic, so I'll post the same thing... I've said it before, and no one has yet refuted it. After 'winning' an arguement, I've never had a 'close' call go against me. That is to say, when the PbP says something like "Oh, I don't know about that call..." or "I think the ump blew that one..." or "This guy is umping in the majors?...", the call is in my favor. Now, if the opposing manager later 'wins' an arguement, the pointer seems to switch back to neutral... __________________ MWT Did Tennesee Delaware Mississppi's New Jersey? Idaho ... Alaska!

07-11-2002, 10:37 AM	#3
SufferingSoxFan Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Attleboro, MA Posts: 150	patience Steve...patience.

07-11-2002, 11:31 AM	#5
hisstorymn Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 75	I've never found it useful; except as therapy. Actually isn't it the same thing in real baseball. A totally fruitless gesture, but I feel a helluva lot better after doing it. Its also a great excuse for getting yourself ejected from a game your getting blown out of.

07-11-2002, 07:15 PM	#7
ednote Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ironwood, Mich. Posts: 222	I don't know about the AI umps hearing me, but my wife has cuffed me about the head and shoulders a couple of times....LOL

07-13-2002, 04:49 AM	#11
kmohan Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 24	Interesting, SSG. Sorry I've never run across your observation before. I guess I should have assumed that if the game provides a decision point, it also allows for the consequences of that decision. If you argue and "win" (don't get tossed), subsequent close calls go in your favor (or are more likely to do so). I can buy that as a simulation of real human (umpire) behavior, I guess. But, given the number of times a disputable play will crop up in one game, I'm not sure the upside offsets the downside. If I lose an argument and get tossed, all of my options as a human manager are negated for the rest of the game. (If I wanted to relinquish control of the game, I'd just sim it in the first place.) As I've said before, in the real world when a manager gets tossed he has no trouble conveying his desires (if he wants to) to the coaching staff. In the game, I want the ability (through my coaches, or whatever) to keep controlling my team. In return, I would gladly accept this disadvantage: Because I tried to show up the umpire and got tossed, all close calls for the rest of the game will go against (or have a better chance of going against) my team. A consequence of that sort would make me more inclined to argue---because, again, I get the sense that close plays don't happen all that often, so I'm not risking all that much if I want to enjoy one of the game's "flavor" features. I like the fact that "winning" an argument makes the umpires more favorably disposed toward youn for the rest of the game. What I'm looking for is a commensurate penalty for losing the argument, rather than the stiff penalty of losing control of your team.

07-13-2002, 01:52 PM	#12
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	You guys are trying to make an equation out of this As in real life, the manager or player doesn't argue in the hopes of the umpire becoming more "favorable" on future calls - he argues because he's pissed !! The outcome isn't the point, reality is

07-13-2002, 09:47 PM	#13
kmohan Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 24	Henry, I can't tell if you're kidding or not. I hope you're kidding. In real life, I might argue for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the possibility that some later call might go in my favor as the human umpire's way of "making it up to me." I might be genuinely pissed, or I might just be out to have a little fun (and maybe get the rest of the day off). In OOTP, I don't argue a call because I'm pissed. It's tough to get mad at somebody you can't see or talk to. I argue a call because I expect it to do me some good later in the game. I argue because I realize I'm dealing with programming code, not a flesh-and-blood umpire, and I expect that code to contain some feature that makes arguing not pointless. If the arguing feature is just in the game for grins, then it's the only such feature I know of, and on that basis I think it should be dropped from the programming. If this game--or any game--presents the user with a decision point, then the game ought to include a meaningful consequence directly related to that decision. If the arguing feature is in the game as a nod to realism, then I want to know why the team of a human manager who gets tossed must play out the rest of the game as a computer-controlled team. Where's the realism in that?

07-13-2002, 11:26 PM	#15
hisstorymn Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 75	Actually I just argue with the game for wings and giggles. Like I said its therapy man, therapy. If anything arguing with the ump and getting ejected for it would probably hurt you more than help you. A pissed umpire turns lots of balls into ones that "just nicked the corner of the plate."