Why do we have settings?

[Essex Moosemen]

I mean, it's a cruel joke.

HAL pulls Smoltz in the 5th inning ( never mind that he was doing okay in a close game) and puts in my designated set up man against righties---[b:321cce69fd]to face three lefties in a row.[/b:321cce69fd]

Where was my set up man against lefties during all of this you ask. He was in the bullpen eating sunflower seeds trying to figure out why I pay $24.95 for this aggravation. :twisted:

Is there really any reason to have these "manager strategy" settings when they are routinely disregarded? It's like giving a three-year old a plastic lawnmower. He runs around the yard with it thinking he's actually having an effect on the grass, much the same way we delude ourselves into thinking that our "settings" actually have an effect on the game.


I don't know, maybe I'm just cranky because I have a headache, they're tearing down a building across from my office and I had 6----YES 6---- teams get swept last night. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[bleacher_creature]

Essex,

Can you post the team and game?

I don't have these same troubles at all. In fact, I was thinking about starting a thread about how well HAL does when he has a deep team (i.e. more than 13 hitters and 11 pitchers).

I took 2 out of 3 in my last series due to HAL's beautiful managing of this game:

[url]http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/league/boxscore.html?group_id=128&g_id=430[/url]

Take a look at the 8th inning comeback in particular. The opponent brought in his def replacements ready to wrap this one up. HAL leads off with PH Davanon who walks, and it all starts from there. Granted I got a lucky DOUBLE from Uribe (R vs R), but then HAL brings in Danys Baez at the perfect moment to shut down an uprising in the bottom of the 8th with two righties up - Jeter and Bay.

I just don't have all this trouble getting him to make proper bullpen moves, but I carry a [b:cd1cd98049]MINIMUM of 11 pitchers [/b:cd1cd98049]on every team, except '69.

One thing I will say though, is that [b:cd1cd98049]HAL couldn't fill out a lineup card to save his life[/b:cd1cd98049]. Have you ever thrown your hands in the air, and let him select lineups when your team won't score runs? That is some scary crap.

[PAULMINICUCCI]

I echo Mooseman. I have exactly the same problems and I have 11 pitchers on most of my teams. I have asked Bernie if we could do a work-group of really successful players (NOT ME- I will be happy to do staff work) to figure out what they think each setting actually does or does not do and do a guide so at least we know what HAL is thinking. We keep harping on HAL like he is a sentient being but of course he is a bunch of code. The question is what is the code and when if at all does the manager strategy impact the actions.

The thread on bad relief decisions was very helpful in my book because we documented thirty or so problems, many of them like Mooseman's where you just cannot figure out what HAL is doing. Like I had a team with Gordon on it, pitcher's park, I had him set as closer on both sides and in a max close setting. He only got the call 50% of the time in save situations ( I began to suspect the C2 rating was at fault- I forget in 2004 Gordon was a great set-up guy) so I said that sucks and set the close rating to regular and tried Gordon in set-up with a do not use before 8th (instead of 9th rating) trying to get him more innings. Well that worked to a degree but because he has a even balance rating HAL would use him for any one-bat experience instead of using him for basic set-up, all the while the Witasicks and so forth were getting shelled with the wrong batters. Then he was gone and in comes Mesa, Howry or Taverez (who never ever pitch up to their stats) in the 9th to get shelled.

I started counting my late inning losses and they were atrocious. I lost 40% of my games in the 8th or 9th in some cases. Like Mooseman, I remember four teams in one night lost 9 games by one or two runs in the 8th or 9th. I mean we were ahead coming into the 8th and lost the games.
All of them had a Izzy, or Wagner or Rivera or Gordon on them.

Recently I had a team in 2005 that I forgot to set my individual pitcher settings. HAL did the wrong thing almost all the time. I had a LH 7 get most of his batters versus RH (Shouse) hitters and my RH guy Dotel had almost all lefties. I said what the hell is wrong with these guys and saw my ratings were not set. I did set them and it did improve their effectiveness, so I do think the settings have an impact. the question is what is the impact.

I do think though because HAL is doing the managing for both teams that presents a problem that usually resolves intself in favor of the hitter. HAL sees two LH hitters coming up and he goes to the LH and then HAL now managing the other side says "Nice move chump" and pinch-hits a rH, which then the picther HAL has to eat and then he either forgets about the next LH batter coming up and brings in a RH or the batting HAL gets him again. because the offense gets the last say the maneuvers generally favor them.

The biggest bugaboo is switch-hitters. HAL should use the even rated pitcher for that and I try to always have an even guy in the pen, but he doesn't he only sees that the Swicth hitter batted left last time and sends in a LH. He gets a hit and then he brings in the even rated guy now and the other team has thhree LH hitters in a row. that's a typical mistake.

I do think there is a thread of truth in the more is better idea. If someone is willing to do an experiment I am willing to burn a team, what we could do is have one team with 12 pitchers including 7 pure relief guys and someone else can do a varient of that like only three pure relievers, same funding and see if they are put into the same league if the 12 pitcher team does better. I mean if you had 7 relief picthers maybe HAL would make less errors.

I think ultimately the best thing to do is have a Petco team with a bunch of medium grade .300 hitters and seven 1 to 2 million dollar relievers and just win baby. That's my theory on why there are so many Petco teams, and the answer is you can cover HAL's errors with a bunch of cheap pitchers.

[Essex Moosemen]

I am kind of a doofus. I was in such a pissy mood this morning about having 6 teams get swept, that in all of my crankiness, I kinda lost sight of the fact that HAL's move actually worked out. :oops:

Still, however, I think that the principle applies. I had Geary available to go against the lefties, and he was well rested. Despite the lucky outcome this time, I do maintain that manger directions are quite often ignored.

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/league/boxscore.html?group_id=531&g_id=51

[Essex Moosemen]

here's the team:


http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=2361

[Essex Moosemen]

As another example, has anyonme else noticed with the 2006 version HAL' s tendancy to spread th esave opportunities around even if you have a closer designated at "maximize"?

It seems like with all my teams he puts in whover he wants.

And what's up with the removal of the "don't use before the 9th "setting?

[bleacher_creature]

I take the approach that HAL is really just a dumb robot manager.

For example, I know that even a dumb robot would put Heilman into a game and work the hell out of him with success, because almost all of the other cheap options are so far inferior.

[b:d676205c56]Rule #47: You are smarter than the robot. It's time you start acting like it.[/b:d676205c56]

[bleacher_creature]

[quote:75ea7d7ea4="Essex Moosemen"]here's the team:


http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team_other.html?user_id=2361[/quote:75ea7d7ea4]

Essex,

I look at that game, and think

a) what are the settings?
b) Both Damon and Mientkiewicz hit lefties better. That's likely whu the moves worked out.

It seems like Geary would have been the correct choice however.

[b:75ea7d7ea4]Anyone notice how Geary's card appears to have more Total Bases than what the ratings book suggests (23.3)?[/b:75ea7d7ea4]

[bernieh]

Essex: It took me only a quick glance to determine that the computer did absolutely nothing unreasonable. Your team was losing 3-1 in the 6th inning. That doesn't even come close to qualifying as a setup situation. If you want to avoid having Wuertz, your setup guy vs. righties, come in such a situation, you can set him to avoid being used before the 8th inning, which you did not set.

Oh, and his line was 3 IP, 1 H, 5 K. I don't consider this a "cruel joke" by any means.

[Essex Moosemen]

abnerdoubleday--

I appreciate the response. I can't help but feel like I am getting dressed down a little here. :cry: I think that $4,000.00 (yikes)worth of teams oughta by me the right to rant a little, huh. :?

Please understand something. My "rants" against HAL are always a little tongue in cheek. I was bent out of shape because my teams had a rough night, however, you have only to look at my history to recognize that I love this damned game, and I really was just venting a little.

By no means do I profess to be an expert about baseball or the ins and outs of this game. Whether it was or was not a "set up" situation, I confess that I do not understand why Geary wasn't the better choice given his strength v. lefties and my settings.

Putting Weurtz in may not have bneen all that "unreasonable",but all I was trying to point out was that with three lefties coming up and Geary available that is the choice that makes the most sense. Given their respective strengths are you saying that a real life manger in the same situation would have brought in a guy vulnerable to lefties in to face three of them in a row in a situation where you're trying to stay in the game?

I'm not trying to point any accusing fingers at anyone. I have and will maintain that the system often makes choices that do not seem--to me-- logical or consistent with manager setttings. I think that the reason that the bad decisions get pointed out is that because sometimes they are just down right silly.

Does the system behave appropriately most of the time. I'll let the fact that I've bought $4,000.00 worth of teams :oops: speak to that one.

cheers