How did this happen?

I'm referring to the at-bat for Russ Canzler in the top of the first inning. The die roll was 1-5 vs. a LHP which resulted in either a single or double (turned out to be a double) to no designated OF (which I thought always meant CF) with baserunners advancing two bases. http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/pl ... 012/346826

But what actually happened was...

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/ga ... 46826/1512

My question is where did the error come from and why is the LF involved at all? What am I missing?

A fair question. My only guess was that it was based off the super advance rules which overrides the rule about the play going to the CFer when no OFer is listed on card. Thus the LFer could be desginated as the fielder and the error was probably the result of super advanced baserunning that allows for throwing errors. Note that the runner on first scored which means he had to challenge the throw. Super advanced baserunning ignores the ** by the way. Now note that the batter also scored. 3-H 2-H 1-H b-H. That means he scored on the throwing error.

In summary, OF position was overruled by equalize fielding chances super advanced rule and LFer retrieved the ball. Super advance baserunning made the runner on first challenge and try to score. Batter who had doubled advanced to third on the throw. The throw turned out wild eluding the catcher allowing the batter to score. Thus throwing error on LFer.

Got a headache yet?

Wow

Thanks Valen. I need to read up on Super Advanced rules obviously.

Your welcome. Unfortunately I think the only way to read up on all the super advanced rules is to buy the cdrom game.

I have a headache reading that excerpt from the super advanced rules... a lot different than playing cards and dice in the mid 60's

JT

You are correct. It is a lot different. But when I played board game strat in mid 60s the cards were one sided and there was no L/R splits. Progress, once you let it start can be difficult to stop.

I'm referring to the at-bat for Russ Canzler in the top of the first inning. The die roll was 1-5 vs. a LHP which resulted in either a single or double (turned out to be a double) to no designated OF (which I thought always meant CF) with baserunners advancing two bases. http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/pl ... 012/346826

But what actually happened was...

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/ga ... 46826/1512

My question is where did the error come from and why is the LF involved at all? What am I missing?

I am 99.999% sure that this is what happened - it's a play that occurs from time to time (not that rare):

Canzler gets a double. No outfielder specified. Strat randomly determines what outfielder makes the play when no outfielder is specified (it's not always the CF in those situations). The runner on first attempts to take an extra base on the play (the double). F Martinez is the outfielder, and the defensive manager elects to try to make the throw. The offensive manager elects to have the batter, Canzler, take an extra base on the throw home. Through some random determination which I do not have access to, Strat evaluates whether or not the outfielder, F Martinez, makes a throwing error. A throwing error does in fact occur on the play. As a result of the throwing error, Canzler not only takes third by running, but scores as a result of throwing error by F Martinez.

I know from experience that this occurs. I had Jason Upton in RF a few years ago when he had a lot of e ratings. What I discovered in game play is that he made a fair number of throwing errors, as well as errors off of the X Chart.

I like small ball, and singles parks like Fenway and Kauffman. When I have teams in those parks, I try to have strong OF arms, but also relatively low e ratings.

Unfortunately for the Fiddlers, this was mostly just bad luck. F Martinez has a relatively low e rating - just e4. Just bad luck for the fielding team, on the double by Canzler.

Strat randomly determines what outfielder makes the play when no outfielder is specified (it's not always the CF in those situations)

Thank you. Good to know.