Hit and Run

[MARCPELLETIER]

[quote:b5b7d8f62b] I don't know if a hit off H&R counts as both hit and succesful advance [/quote:b5b7d8f62b]

I assumed it did count twice.

[durantjerry]

I love the hit and run ever since my days playing the board game. When I have a team using it, I am usually in Fenway(I live in Boston). In my experience, you must use the "conservative" setting. As with stealing, anything above "conservative" causes HAL to use it a little too often IMO. It is tough to use as a major weapon when setting it above conservative causes too many failures and nullifies any advantage you may be getting. I think it can give a small boost to a team in the right situation.

[cummings2]

Absolutely agree with you DJ,

I have been running this experiment moving the setting from Normal to Conservative, only once I moved it to agressive and that was because I the circumstances were a bit special: facing three good K pitchers, with I-Rod catcing the opposite team and my big SLGs were down with injuries, I thought I had no chance without a few adjustments and I wanted to challenge Pudge's throwing arm, other than that I'd never switch it back to agressive, and most of the time it is in conservative. This has brought the rate to an ATT around ever 60 outs.


Through game 138

H&R: 20
ATT: 66
ADV: 42
SB: 180
CS: 63 (.741)

The team is 7th in the league in Runs scrored and 4th in pitching (much closer to 1st than to 5th though)- But, when we made the ajustments refered to above after game 42 the team was dead last in offense sitting in twelfth and loosing ground, Being in the middle feels like quite an accomplishment right now.

Now W-L??? Only 8 games over .500 but at game 42 we were 17-25, so since the H&R adjustments we are running 16 games over .500...we'll see how it all turns out. As I said earlier I think I'd need another 162 games to come to more conclusive information.

[durantjerry]

Those are great results H & R-wise IMO. That is about as good as I've seen for H & R average combined with SB %, while moving runners about 2/3 of the time. Of course, it would be more impressive if you were 3rd or 4th in runs, but as you said, it's a work in progress.

[STEVEPONEDAL]

How does the H&R rating reltate to the number of GBA+ on a card.

I have Ozzie Smith who has an "B" H&R rating. If you look at his card you see a sprinkling of GBA+.

Now, if you look at Mike Hargrove, he also has a "B" H&R rating yet he has no GBA+ on his card. Not that you would sacrifice Hargrove's great OBP for an H&R attempt but any thoughts about the differences between the cards

Also, what is IMO?

BTW, thanks to all who lend their thoughts to this discussion. Very helpful. It is all I can do to keep from buying a couple of more teams to try this all out.

sponedal

[cummings2]

I'll take the last question first:

IMO= In My Opinion

Now as far as The Wizard and The Human Rain Delay's question...

I am of the opinion that when using the H&R you've got to keep in mind that you are essentially taking the bat away from the hitter. This is the point that luckyman brought up above by naming the players that are too good to have the H&R turned on, even though they are "B"s. with this in mind before taking the bat of a hitter personally I consider what I'm loosing by doing so, therefore I take into consideration the loss of AVG and OPS before I consider gbAs or gbA+s . So if, for example, I have a player with an OPS over 1.000 and/or an AVG over .315 then I turn off his H&R even if he's a "B", regardless of the ammount of gbAs or gbA+s his card has, my limited understanding of the H&R is that the cards (both hitter's and pitcher's) are altered, so that a gbA+ is transformed into a gbB or a gb C in which case, in the specific case of the A+ question, it could cost you a single if the runner is being held or if the infield is in. As I recall a "+" after the groundball means it is an automatic single if the infield is in or if a runner is being held on.

Not so long ago I was going through a lineup of a player in a league of mine. He had a good OBP/AVG player with several gbAs and gbA+s batting behing another good OBP player. His logic was that the first runner would help turn the A+s into singles and was willing to risk the As but the strategy didn't quite go as planned, my thinking is that it was because in order for that to work he also had to turn off the second hitter's H&R who happened to be a "B" otherwise the man on base and the possibility of doubleplays would make HAL H&R more often than desired and render his strategy useless.

In my experience, as I cited above, high OBP players with good steal ratings are better used as "triggers", that is hitters that get on base to help upgrade the next batter from a H&R "B" to a H&R "A", however, in order for them to play that role I turn off their H&R even if they are "B"s.

I think that in order to max the possibilities of a gbA+ turning into a SI the best thing to do is play the batter in spots where he is likely to come with good runners on base and turn the H&R off.

Essentially, In My Opinion, the + and the H&R are two options to choose from but not to be worked together, you either play the odds of the + or of the H&R.

The way I'd go about figuring out which way to go would be based on what I expect from the player in question given his card and spot in the batting order. If it's a cleanup type I do not play H&R, regardless of H&R ratings. If it's a player played for his defense, in the lower part of the lineup then I'd consider the H&R.

I'd keep in mind that with both the + and H&R the issue becomes academic without a runner on base so first I'd try to max the chances of there being a good runner on so as for this to come into play.

In general, as much as I like the H&R I'd say that from a hitters card point of view, playing the good chance +s is far more reliable than the H&R, for the simple reason that a + becomes a SI automatically in adittion to the natural results of the card. In case of the H&R even if the hitter is upgraded to an A he still has only 8/36 chances to get a hit from his card.

As always, the H&R's value extends to the pitcher, heavy K pitchers turn their Ks to gb Cs so you can advance runner and play for sacs. Given this if a pitcher has lots of Ks and few SI the H&R becomes more viable. If I'm going up against a team that'll start Randy Johnson, Santana and Sheets against me then I'd play more H&R but even then I don't think I'd switch to an agressive setting.

My conclusion after such a long and convoluted rant is that in choosing from playing for the +s or H&R I'd first consider the loss from the hitters's card (H&R) vs. the gain (+s) and match that with the pitcher to face. All of this in the context of the specific player and his spot in the batting order.

Without reviewing data more closely I am inclined to thinking that the + will usually play better odds than the H&R.

I hope some of this made sense and that some of the other more experienced players chime in on your question since it is likely I am missing something important.

[Mean Dean]

[quote:c31f1ae242]As I recall a "+" after the groundball means it is an automatic single if the infield is in or if a runner is being held on. [/quote:c31f1ae242]No, only if the infield is in.

[MARCPELLETIER]

When runner is held, the defensive infield is penalized. For example, if the hitter is right-handed, with runner on first being held, then the ss and the 1b lose 2 ratings (ss1e17 becomes ss3e17). GbA+ are thus not related to this aspect of the game.

[Play By The Rules]

Yeah, I thought it was if a runner was being held it turns into a SINGLE**.

Never heard anything about a SS being downgraded for holding a runner on?!

[MARCPELLETIER]

Take note that the overall impact of the super-advance system (with infielders losing ratings) is close to the old system of gbA+ turning into single** (about the same number--perhaps a few less--- of hits are allowed, a bit more double-plays are preserved).

But as mentioned above, it avoids the problem of arbitrary gbA+ found on cards, and it makes much more sense, baseball-wise (because ss/2b and 1b and the ones covering less ground, only they are penalized).