Hit and Run

[cummings2]

So let me see if I get this right:

The + becomes a SI** only when the IF is in and in the case of runners held the + is ignored and the defense penalty comes in (the ones on the Super Advanced rules chart).

My question about all of this is what is the advantage of bringing the IF in? is it that it turns gbBs into gbAs and gbCs into gbBs? All runners hold on gbs?

Thanks for the clarifications Dean and Lucky, much appreciated.

[Mean Dean]

With the IF in, a gbB will be an out on the runner at home; with the infield back on a gbB, the runner on 3rd either scores (if the hit is to 2B/SS) or holds (if the hit is to 1B/3B).

A gbC will hold the runner at 3rd with the infield in, unless it's bases loaded, in which case it's an out on the runner at home. With infield back, gbC advances all runners.

A gbA will also hold the runner at 3rd with infield in, unless it's bases loaded, in which case it's an out on the runner at home. With infield back, gbA is either runner scores (if there's no double-play situation and it's hit to 2B/SS), runner holds (if there's no double-play situation and it's hit to 1B/3B), or runner scores + double play (perhaps not an "advantage" to avoid that one, depending on the situation.)

[cummings2]

Got it.

Thanks Dean. 8)

[MARCPELLETIER]

...and playing infield in adds protection against the bunting and squeeze (drops one letter--from A to B---in usual cases, drop two letters with bases loaded).

[MARCPELLETIER]

...and playing infield in adds protection against the bunting and squeeze (drops one letter--from A to B---in usual cases, drop two letters with bases loaded).

[cummings2]

The team that I've been refering to from the top of this thread finished it's season several weeks ago. Before I post some final thoughts, thought of just posting the final stats.

Final results:

Rec: 84-78 -Tied 1st place (Lost Tie breaker, missed PO)

RS: 833 (7th)
RA: 762 (5th)

Offense tied for last in HRs, BB and 3rd lowest Ks

SB: 214-68 (.759)
H&R-Att-Adv: 29-82-55
Sac-Att: 54-69
Sqz-Att: 11-17

Team AVG: .287
Team SLG: .448
Team OBP: .342

OBP * SLG * ABs = 872.87
Difference = -39.87

[cummings2]

In the process of evaluating how succesful the usage of the H&R strategy was used with this team I have come to the conclusion that it was not a very sucessful experiment.

The main problems make me go back to luckyman's initial remarks in this thread, everything I seem to come up with validates and confirms his comments. Best suggestion I can make re: Hit and Run is go back to the top of this thread and read his thoughts on the topic.


My offense was not nearly as efficient as it should have been, there were way too many sac bunts and Hit and Runs in combination with too little power and the absence of a really dominating arm wheather in the pen or in the rotation. Not enough pitching and not enough offense=bad combo.

My Pythagorean record game me 3 more wins but more importantly my stats indicate I should've scored about 40 more runs.

Some thoughts:

When running a H&R play my batters hit .353 while runners were advanced at a .670 rate. Given the odds of the H&R even if considering that only a batter with an A rating would be attempting the play I believe that the numbers of my team are a bit skewed. I can't expect a .353 BA off H&R, even if I repeat the same team in the same park with the same lineups I am almost sure the BA off H&R plays rate will go down quite significantly.

Between sac bunts and H&R plays I averaged almost one play per game aimed to advance the runner at the expense of the batter. Essentially I shortened my games to 26 outs.

In addition to that the team attempted 282 steals (214 succesful ones), that is 1.74 att p/ game, maybe it's just me but between the sacrificing of the batter at a rate of 1 per game, and the risking of the runner at a rate of almost 2 per game without the slugger on deck, I am more and more surprised that my team managed a winning record.

When it comes to performance vs. high K pitchers I do have to admit that the number of strikeouts vs my team is consistently lower than the ones expected from the pitcher's cards but not enough for the difference to mark any clear advantage gained from that. I have compiled the stats of my team vs what I considered the top 10 K-SP:

Schilling, Zambrano, Schmidt, RJ, Santana, Oliver P, Sheets, Clemens, Peavy, Pedro Martinez & Oswalt.

My team faced these pitchers a total of 44 times averaging:
8.87 H/9
2.5 BB/9
8.57 K/9

While the opp. pitchers had an ERA of 3.87 and lasted an average of 6 2/3 innings.

I am all too aware that results vs opp. pitchers are greatly affected by ballpark, defenses, etc... but for what its worth (vs. same 10 SP):

Overall Rec: 19-25
Rec in Fenway: 10-9
Rec away: 9-14
Rec when hitting at least one HR: 14-10


It took me about 42 games to find a workable way of using the strategy for this particular team, however the more that I go through numbers the more that I am convinced that relying on the H&R and designing a team for that has to be a plan "b" of sorts.

Still I am stubbornly going to give it a second shot. Next time I'll play SBC.

Will keep posting on the next team once I am ready to go with it.

[MARCPELLETIER]

Good analysis, cummings.

The stats appear to indicate that H-R/stealing payed off. As you said, hitting .353 out of H-R is pretty good.

The number of bunts, though, appear to be too high. Also, if we take the squeeze out of bunting, the success rate is rather low: 82%, whereas the "bunt A" rating should be around 92%. 82% is rather closer to "bunt B" rating (83%). So, either you were unlucky, or else, opposite teams played a lot of time with infield in. When a team "plays in", you gain a small advantage in letting your hitters hit.

So if I would have to blame something for the underperformance of runs scored, I would blame the bunting game.

Thus, I would recommand to lower down the rate of bunting, either by going to "conservative" or "extra conservative", or by clicking on almost every not-so-bad hitter the "do not bunt" box.

[cummings2]

Thanks for all your help with this Lucky, really appreciate it.

I am having a hard time finding the right players to try the next incarnation of this H&R team strategy, sometimes I think that the player pool is not particularily suitable. I'll look through the '69 pool and ATG pools but still I want to win a championship relying heavily on H&R with a 200x team...maybe the '06 set will help. Though I must say that Timo Perez is looking better and better if I try another run in the '05 set.

Maybe, just maybe I'll go for a team starting Timo in RF, Glanville in LF and Amezega in SS...that should free enough cash to afford a pretty solid rotation, bullpen and two or three monster bats with three or four very health OBPers.

Will keep this going until we crown a H&R team.

[bleacher_creature]

[quote:7fbf4a6ee3="marcus wilby"]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.[/quote:7fbf4a6ee3]

This is not quite right.

HOLDING A RUNNER ON BASE

Rule 23.83 "When a fielder is responsible for holding a runner and a gb()X is hit to him, add 1 to that fielder's rage rating. [i:7fbf4a6ee3]Example: With a runner held at first and a left handed hitter at the plate, a shortstop rated 2e20 becomes a 3e20. The maximum range is 5.[/i:7fbf4a6ee3]"

Also (paraphrasing another related aspect), if the result on the Super Advanced Fielding Chart includes an # (in the above example our 3e20 would get a # on any 20 sided die roll of 5 thru 8 ), change that result to S/2 (single**).

It's true what they say, that SOM is a translated board game. Which is actually the beauty of it. Because you can see for yourself how the results occur.