Yes, I remember that...
but I thought that BP singles, being limited in herently by the signature of that park, were not subject to the restrictions of naturally occuring singles
Interpretation problem
15 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
by gbrookes » Wed Jul 21, 2010 5:15 pm
I think that there are very interesting strategy and roster implications for the extra running decisions from this rule. For about a year now I have been emphasizing good arms for outfielders, and I have been carefully reading the game results.
The teams that I have run with good outfielder arms DON'T lead the league in assists. They are not even close to leading the league in outfield assists, to date. BUT, what I notice in the game results is that many, many times runners hold up instead of taking extra bases. The way I see it, this results in reduced runs scored in many cases! I think I actually like this strategic result better than seeing more runners going and being thrown out, since I think the strategic impact of getting runners to hold up consistently is an even greater advantage (compared to more bases being taken with, say, a 30% thrown out ratio). In other words, I think HAL gets overly cautious with baserunning when he is faced with a bevy of strong outfield arms.
By the same token, I have been taking care to have good running ratings (even if the stealing ratings are not stellar), and setting the running strategy option to aggressive, in order to counteract HAL being too cautious for the offense on my teams. I really haven't seen many cases where I questioned HAL's baserunning decisions, with these settings and roster strategies. Maybe other managers would not like the chances that I take on baserunning, but I think it is working well.
So far in online strat (2 years), I have done pretty well with small ball parks. I had one magical team in 2008 that was set in Camden, but other than that I have not done so well with homerun parks. So maybe it is about one particular roster and game strategy that is working well for me. Maybe with other rosters and team strategies my approaches are not working as well. But it really does seem to work in small ball parks like Fenway (also have had some successes at PNC).
As always, I am interested in other people's thoughts on this, and their own approaches and results!
Cheers!
:)
Geoff Brookes
The teams that I have run with good outfielder arms DON'T lead the league in assists. They are not even close to leading the league in outfield assists, to date. BUT, what I notice in the game results is that many, many times runners hold up instead of taking extra bases. The way I see it, this results in reduced runs scored in many cases! I think I actually like this strategic result better than seeing more runners going and being thrown out, since I think the strategic impact of getting runners to hold up consistently is an even greater advantage (compared to more bases being taken with, say, a 30% thrown out ratio). In other words, I think HAL gets overly cautious with baserunning when he is faced with a bevy of strong outfield arms.
By the same token, I have been taking care to have good running ratings (even if the stealing ratings are not stellar), and setting the running strategy option to aggressive, in order to counteract HAL being too cautious for the offense on my teams. I really haven't seen many cases where I questioned HAL's baserunning decisions, with these settings and roster strategies. Maybe other managers would not like the chances that I take on baserunning, but I think it is working well.
So far in online strat (2 years), I have done pretty well with small ball parks. I had one magical team in 2008 that was set in Camden, but other than that I have not done so well with homerun parks. So maybe it is about one particular roster and game strategy that is working well for me. Maybe with other rosters and team strategies my approaches are not working as well. But it really does seem to work in small ball parks like Fenway (also have had some successes at PNC).
As always, I am interested in other people's thoughts on this, and their own approaches and results!
Cheers!
:)
Geoff Brookes
- gbrookes
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MARCPELLETIER » Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:06 pm
[quote:6f0ee8780f] I think I actually like this strategic result better than seeing more runners going and being thrown out, since I think the strategic impact of getting runners to hold up consistently is an even greater advantage (compared to more bases being taken with, say, a 30% thrown out ratio)[/quote:6f0ee8780f]
Well, the thought is interesting. But, to the extent that experiences in sims replicate what we go through in TSN-SOM, it turns out that the values of throwing out runners and letting some score in (typically, a cf with a 0 arm) roughly equate the value of holding runners (typically, a cf with a -4 arm).
(you can find the exact results on Dean's blog: http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/DeanTSC, or in the strategy pages: http://forums.sportingnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=251327).
In a nutshell, avoid +3 arms.
Well, the thought is interesting. But, to the extent that experiences in sims replicate what we go through in TSN-SOM, it turns out that the values of throwing out runners and letting some score in (typically, a cf with a 0 arm) roughly equate the value of holding runners (typically, a cf with a -4 arm).
(you can find the exact results on Dean's blog: http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/DeanTSC, or in the strategy pages: http://forums.sportingnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=251327).
In a nutshell, avoid +3 arms.
- MARCPELLETIER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by gbrookes » Wed Jul 21, 2010 10:49 pm
Call me stubborn (and I am stubborn, so calling me that won't hurt my feelings!), but I truly believe that the outfield arms makes a huge difference in online strat, with the more baserunning decisions, esp. in a small ball, high singles, low HR park, and esp. with certain pitchers who allow relatively more baserunning singles (e.g. Happ in 2008). I think that if you build a team around this concept (not sure the NY Mets qualify under my definition), that it will make a statistically significant difference to your runs allowed.
Don't take me the wrong way on this - I am a huge fan of Dean's work, and I have used it extensively. I am greatly indebted to Dean, and I am thankful for his work. I just think there is something being missed somehow on this. I admit that I have not done the hard analytical work on this. I don't have the CD Rom game right now - (I had 2007 but I messed something up on it). My comments are based on what is probably termed anecdotal evidence - reviewing actual game results and thinking about where it seems to have made a difference - in my view, very often. Sometime I will get the CD ROM and do something like what Dean has done.
But for now, I remain convinced of the value of the OF arms in a context where they are put to maximum effectiveness.
Cheers - I always like a good debate!
:)
Geoff Brookes
Don't take me the wrong way on this - I am a huge fan of Dean's work, and I have used it extensively. I am greatly indebted to Dean, and I am thankful for his work. I just think there is something being missed somehow on this. I admit that I have not done the hard analytical work on this. I don't have the CD Rom game right now - (I had 2007 but I messed something up on it). My comments are based on what is probably termed anecdotal evidence - reviewing actual game results and thinking about where it seems to have made a difference - in my view, very often. Sometime I will get the CD ROM and do something like what Dean has done.
But for now, I remain convinced of the value of the OF arms in a context where they are put to maximum effectiveness.
Cheers - I always like a good debate!
:)
Geoff Brookes
- gbrookes
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
15 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball Online 20xx
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests