Super Advanced Fielding Question

[bjs73]

[url]http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/80s/league/boxscore.html?group_id=13523&g_id=10[/url]

Here is an 80's boxscore from a game I had tonight. I have Don Mattingly at 1B. Mattingly is a 1e6.

The first play of the game, Tony Fernandez reaches 2B on a "single and error - 1B." I can't find my superadvanced chart to verify its accuracy. (And admittedly, I am really only used to the Advanced Chart for fielding from my table top days.)

Does a single+error opportunity really exist for a 1e6 at 1B under superadvanced?

[Mean Dean]

In super-advanced, when the bases are empty, batters can bunt for base hits. Thus, the computer manager often plays "corners in" to guard against the bunt. This must be what happened here. With corners in, a gb(1b)X would have a 20% chance to become a single (this would be true no matter who the 1B fielder is, be it Mattingly or David Ortiz). That, combined with an unfortunate "error" roll as well, would yield the single plus error.

[bleacher_creature]

[quote:af94a7e052="DeanTSC"]In super-advanced, when the bases are empty, batters can bunt for base hits. Thus, the computer manager often plays "corners in" to guard against the bunt. This must be what happened here. With corners in, a gb(1b)X would have a 20% chance to become a single (this would be true no matter who the 1B fielder is, be it Mattingly or David Ortiz). That, combined with an unfortunate "error" roll as well, would yield the single plus error.[/quote:af94a7e052]

What about the possibility of corners in for the reasons Dean said, but Fernandez swings away, and the single occured because Mattingly is downgraded to a "2"?

[Mean Dean]

Right, that's what must have happened; there are no errors on bunt attempts in SOM (unfortunately), so he must have swung away against the corners-in defense. (Mattingly wouldn't be downgraded to a 2, however; that only happens when holding a runner on base. Still, playing in gives you that 20% chance of a single on a gbX, even for a 1.)

[MARCPELLETIER]

Good explanation. But how come we have "single+error" with outfielders rated 1. Are these errors due to throws?

[Mean Dean]

That's very likely. There's a rare play where the OF runs into the wall while making the catch and is dazed (Aaron Rowand style), allowing runners to advance, but I wouldn't think that would be considered an error. So yeah, I would think it would have to be the throwing error.

[bleacher_creature]

[quote:21620f4938="DeanTSC"]Right, that's what must have happened; there are no errors on bunt attempts in SOM (unfortunately), so he must have swung away against the corners-in defense. (Mattingly wouldn't be downgraded to a 2, however; that only happens when holding a runner on base. Still, playing in gives you that 20% chance of a single on a gbX, even for a 1.)[/quote:21620f4938]

I'm looking at the chart now. A "1" in the infield is downgraded to a "2" when holding a runner OR when positioned in defensively (this includes corners in for 1B and 3B). For a "1", this can occur on rolls 1-4 (the down grade that is followed by a # symbol on this chart).

A "1" outfielder is not supposed to give up any hits on the X-chance, even on the "Rare Play". Errors yes (on X-chance only), but there is no provision for a single, then a throw (non X-chance) accompanied by error, that I know of.

I'd like to see a play by play where this actually happened with a "1" outfielder.

[MARCPELLETIER]

Bleacher,

you speak as if throwing errors were impossible, but it seems to me (no chart in front of me) that throwing errors are possible in super advance play. In any case, I can reassure you that single+errors have happened in the past with cf-1. I documented these events a while ago to doubters, Quicksilver among them, if my memory serves well.

[Mean Dean]

[quote:f981524d21]I'm looking at the chart now. A "1" in the infield is downgraded to a "2" when holding a runner OR when positioned in defensively (this includes corners in for 1B and 3B). For a "1", this can occur on rolls 1-4 (the down grade that is followed by a # symbol on this chart). [/quote:f981524d21]You're correct about the # and its meaning, but unless I'm mistaken (which is surely possible, but you'd have to show me the rule), incorrect about the decrease in range. The language I think you're looking at -- in between the "range section" and the "super-advanced holding runner chart" -- is talking about the # symbol, and never mentions a decrease in range.

As for the OF-1, I can explain the error, but honestly I can't explain the single. I should say that I don't think it's important that every result be traceable back to a board game roll. I think that would be extremely silly, really. It's not like the charts and dice represent some perfect simulation of the game of baseball that cannot be improved on. In fact, it's actually the opposite: that they represent a version of baseball that leaves out many aspects of the game that actually do happen, and that is not as realistic as it could be. For it to be otherwise, you, the human being playing the cards & dice game, would have to look through 12 charts in order to determine every play, which is impractical. The computer, however, can get more sophisticated, and should.

[bleacher_creature]

Dean,

You are correct. When corners are in, and a gbX occurs to 1B or 3B, there is no downgrade. The runners being held rues are the only times where there is a downgrade I believe.

However, results off the chart with a # symbol next to it, are converted to S/2 (SINGLE**).

You said it already, I'm just posting to say that I read the rules, and you are right.