Intentional walks

[boyer14]

Two rather bizarre intentional walks yesterday in 2007 leagues. I cannot figure any logical explanation. I would appreciate any help you can offer. In the first game, score tied 1-1 in the bottom of the ninth, 2 out, runner on third, my #9 batter, weak hitting SS right handed hitter McDonald (4L), is walked and Sizemore (lefty) drives in the winning run with a single. B. Moehler, a RHP, is pitching. Second, score tied 3-3, 2 out, bottom of the eighth, runners on 2 and 3, my #9 hitter Spezio (switch hitter) is walked intentionally, and Milton Bradley draws a walk from Marmol to force in the go-ahead run. There are open bases available in both situations but with two outs neither makes sense to me (although I won both games as a result.) Makes me want to set all pitchers to no IBBs.

*** BOTTOM OF INNING 8 ***
SUBSTITUTE 1B- Cliff Floyd
SUBSTITUTE 3B- Jose Vidro
0 M.Cabrera 3 Single (CF) b-1
0 1 J.Mauer 1 Double (RF) 1-3 b-2
SUBSTITUTE P - Carlos Marmol
0 23 J.Hardy 4 Pop Out (SS) b-0 bpSI 1-7
1 23 B.Phillips 7 Strike Out b-0
2 23 S.Spiezio 0 Int Walk b-1
2 123 M.Bradley 4 Walk 3-H 2-3 1-2 b-1
2 123 M.Ordonez 6 Strike Out b-0

*** BOTTOM OF INNING 9 ***
0 Y.Molina 6 Single & Error - 3B b-2 gb(3B)x
SUBSTITUTE PR- Tony Gwynn Jr
0 2 S.Taguchi 6 Fly Out (RF) 2-3 b-0
1 3 S.Pearce 3 Strike Out b-0
2 3 J.McDonald 0 Int Walk b-1
2 1 3 G.Sizemore 6 Single (2B) 3-H 1-2 b-1

[LACEYBURNETTE]

I'm definitely hitting "intentional walk less" in the manager strategy

[apolivka]

The reason for both of these moves were the same, so I'll take the McDonald/Sizemore one for example. McDonald is "clutch" and Sizemore is a "choker". In your games above, they were situations where the clutch hitting ratings did matter. McDonald has +8 on-base chances and Sizemore has -6 on base chances because of the clutch ratings. It actually makes McDonald a better "hitter" than Sizemore for that AB, although Sizemore would still have a slightly better OBP because of his propensity to walk. HAL really seems to take that into account when issuing intentional walks, in my opinion way too much.

In general, I really try to limit intentional walks on my staff to avoid such outcomes.

[boyer14]

Thanks. That's a great help. The clutch ratings are indeed a big part of the reason for the moves. In the other case Spezio has +8 on base chances and Bradley -10 by the clutch ratings. That does give Spezio a better chance at a hit than Bradley (although a much lower OBP due to walks and HBP chances). In these late inning situations the IBB moves do now make some "Strat sense" to me, although no MLB manager would dare to do the same.

[apolivka]

Yup, this is one of the main reasons I hate the whole "clutch hitting" thing in Strat. Can you just see a MLB manager coming in and saying "OK Carlos, Here's the situation: men at 2nd and 3rd. Go after JJ Hardy and Brandon Phillips but watch out for that Scott Spezio--he's one tough hitter in the clutch. In fact, when he gets up, give him a free pass. It's much better to face Milton Bradley with the bases loaded than have to face Scott with runners in scoring position and two outs. Now, if there is only one out, then pitch to him. But he is just too clutch with 2 outs."

The whole thing is ridiculous. Clutch hitting is an illusion based on miniscule sample sizes that have more to do with year-to-year LUCK than anything else.

[coyote303]

[quote:181674e28d="apolivka"]Yup, this is one of the main reasons I hate the whole "clutch hitting" thing in Strat. Can you just see a MLB manager coming in and saying "OK Carlos, Here's the situation: men at 2nd and 3rd. Go after JJ Hardy and Brandon Phillips but watch out for that Scott Spezio--he's one tough hitter in the clutch. In fact, when he gets up, give him a free pass. It's much better to face Milton Bradley with the bases loaded than have to face Scott with runners in scoring position and two outs. Now, if there is only one out, then pitch to him. But he is just too clutch with 2 outs."

The whole thing is ridiculous. Clutch hitting is an illusion based on miniscule sample sizes that have more to do with year-to-year LUCK than anything else.[/quote:181674e28d]

I agree with this. However, with slight modification, it could have been a great thing. Clutch should have been made to count regardless of number of outs. Of course the number of clutch chances would be cut by about two-thirds. So "clutch" would simply be a fine-tuning of RBIs for a player.

Coyote

[apolivka]

Coyote,

Why in the world would strato want to be involved in the "fine-tuning of RBIs for a player"? RBIs are based on who's batting in front of you, park effects, and place in the batting order. You can fine tune that to your hearts content already.

I've seen this argument before. "I paid XXX million for XXXslugger and he sucks!!! He only had 88 RBIs all year. Strato is so unrealistic...." Well, 95% of the time, they play him at a pitcher's park and have crappy OBP guys in front of him (often speedy no-walk/high average guys who get caught stealing a lot).

It's EASY to swing any good slugger plus or minus 50 RBIs depending on how you build your team.

[PotKettleBlack]

Would love to have a more detailed IBB control. Rather than agressive vs conservative, how about I would like to ONLY IBB to get to the pitcher spot with two outs and a base open. That's generally the only time it works, consistently, over the long haul, in the real world. Would like to NEVER IBB the 3-4-5 hitters, unless the 4-5-6 hitter really, really sucks. Mario Mendoza style sucking.

As it is, I will generally set all pitchers of quality to IBB less, and set IBB as extra conservative. In terms of general application, it's generally worse than even the sac bunt.

[apolivka]

I like your suggestion. Usually I set my Intentional walk strategy to conservative and check "IBB less" on all my pitcher's cards _except_ the 5L or 5R plus type situational relievers. Hal is usually pretty good about not issuing really stupid walks, unless the above mentioned "clutch" guys come up. :)

My favorite one (from last night--I'll probably change tomorrow) would be to include a "NEVER H&R WITH THE BASES LOADED" button. Gotta love that unsuccessful steal of home to run you out of an inning....

[coyote303]

[quote:b83fc70f93="apolivka"]Coyote,

Why in the world would strato want to be involved in the "fine-tuning of RBIs for a player"? RBIs are based on who's batting in front of you, park effects, and place in the batting order. You can fine tune that to your hearts content already.

I've seen this argument before. "I paid XXX million for XXXslugger and he sucks!!! He only had 88 RBIs all year. Strato is so unrealistic...." Well, 95% of the time, they play him at a pitcher's park and have crappy OBP guys in front of him (often speedy no-walk/high average guys who get caught stealing a lot).

It's EASY to swing any good slugger plus or minus 50 RBIs depending on how you build your team.[/quote:b83fc70f93]

Actually, SOM does detailed research with their clutch ratings. They take into account baserunner situations the batter enjoyed (or suffered) during the season. Then they figure how many RBIs would be expected versus how many obtained. Unfortunately, they made the decision to make it all happen with two outs, a decision I truly don't understand.

You're right that you can influence the RBIs of any player based on ballpark, supporting players, and lineup position. However, a hitter who underperforms with runners on base will underperform [i:b83fc70f93]relatively speaking[/i:b83fc70f93] in SOM. Clutch ratings is just one of many factors that affect RBIs. However, if the batter should be used in a realistic manner in a realistic replay (i.e., not any TSN league since they are all fantasy teams and leagues), you can expect realistic results.

One of the big differences for the Colorado Rockies when they made it to the World Series in 2007 is their hitters hit well with runners in scoring position. I applaud SOM for reflecting this in their card sets; I do feel it could be better executed, however.

Coyote