NLD XXXVI - The Fun Continues

"Heavy Doc."

I'm assuming a reference to "back to the future". Are you trying to say we're out dated???

Maybe your name should be superMCFLYdaddy instead of superflymacdaddyjuice!

.yes back to the future.I wasn't referencing age so much as my actual thought. The mcfly line is priceless.

GB, some thoughts on your "ramblings":
- Fly A are almost certainly not a throw so shouldn't be counted.
- Fly B's are probably in the same boat whereas Fly B? are advancing situations. Since you said you didn't go through all the Sac Fly possibilities, I think you are prolly over counting Sac Flies.
- If the runner advances behind a throw then I would think that Hal isn't counting it. So, if a batter hits a single with a guy on second and that runner attempts to score *and* the throw goes home, and the batter goes to second, I don't think it's counted. Otherwise you'd have to chances on one play.
- If there is a throw to third on a single with a guy at first, the runner automatically advances that also would not be counted because there is no option to throw for the trail runner.
- I'm not sure that all Do** or Si* are considered running situations. I think the computer randomly selects which are and which aren't. That would likely be the cause of your higher count.

Fl A - agree
Fl B - agree
Runners advancing on the throw - I don't think I was counting any trailing runners opportunities or advances. So I agree. I also think I agree with your comment on the batter advancing on a throw to third. In fact, it doesn't look like the computer stats are including ANY runners advancing to second base.
Joe- "I'm not sure that all Do** or Si* are considered running situations. I think the computer randomly selects which are and which aren't. That would likely be the cause of your higher count."

I emailed strat to ask them about the "max rules" used in the online game. They pointed out that the online game rules are set out in the "help" section, here:

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/help/hittercard

and in a few different pages under the help section.

Here's a copy and paste of the sections that relate to base running:

"SI */**/CF -- On these readings, baseunners may attempt an extra base at risk of getting thrown out using his speed rating and the outfielder's arm. Ignore the asterisks as they are a board game rule. Instead the Max Rule "More Basrunning Decisions" allows the computer the decision to attempt an extra base at risk of getting thrown out. "

"fly(cf)A, fly(cf)B, fly (cf)B?, fly(cf)C -- Flyout to listed position (left field, center field, right field). An "A" is a very deep flyout - all runners advance one base. A "B" is a deep flyout - runner on third scores. A "B?" means the runner on third has a chance to score using his speed rating and the outfielder's arm. A "C" is a shallow flyout - all runners hold. "

"Improve baserunning realism -- This can alter the location of base hits for more realistic baserunning results. In addition using this will allow for more baserunning realism including a few additional coaching decisions such as deciding whether or not to send a runner home on certain ground balls. "

"More baserunning decisions -- This allows for more baserunning decisions because it does not follow the board game rules for baserunning. The computer manager decides to send a runner from first to third on a Single* or a Single** reading. In the board game Single* means a single with runners advancing one base and Single** means a single with runners advancing two bases (it is automatic in both cases, no option exists). This also allows certain base hits to be stretched. For instance, some singles will have an option to be stretched into a double, some doubles to triples and some triples to inside the park homeruns! "
...................
Also, I can't prove it, but I thought that a runner could take an extra base on a DOUBLE** reading - i.e. could score from first base, at the manager's option. I might be able to "disprove" this if I could find a situation where it was almost automatic for the runner to advance on a DOUBLE**, but didn't, in a game situation. If I have time, I might look at this from game results.

Joe, you might be right when you say that it might be random, whether or not a base running opportunity even exists on a SINGLE* or SINGLE**. Personally, I thought that SINGLE** results remained as an automatic 2 base advance - i.e. not dependent on the base runner and the OF arm, or the computer manager's decision. That should be easy to prove or disprove, since the SINGLE** are obviously fairly common. If I can find one example of a SINGLE** where the runner only advanced one base, then that would prove that the base running is optional on those results. I really don't think that's true, though - I can't remember ever seeing that happen. So I think I was right in saying that SINGLE* and DOUBLE** become base running opportunities, while SINGLE** remains an automatic 2 base advance. I'll try to prove this one way or the other.

Anyway, re the stats, strat said to me that "Anytime the runner had an opportunity to advance an extra base, it is listed under Baserunning. If he advances or is thrown out, that is listed there as well."

Based on that comment, and based on the "Improve base running realism" comments (above), it sure looks like it would be hard (or impossible) to precisely track which base running decisions are occurring, since you wouldn't even necessarily know for sure on a GB out (for example). I know the X chart provides for it, but strat's rule implies that it could be an optional advance on some GB batter card readings.

I intend to check the situation for DOUBLE** and SINGLE** readings, to see if I can infer what the system is, or whether it might be random, as you say Joe. Once I figure that out, I think I'll have a better handle on how the base running opportunities work.

Once things for sure (apart from any of the base running stuff) - when I went through the BlueBombers game results for the first 21 games, I sure noticed a lot of "Billy ball" runs being scored - crazy combinations of SB's, wild pitches, advancing on ground balls, strategy plays, etc. So it sure looked like that was playing a role in the level of run production that was being achieved. I've noticed that the BlueBombers have been leading the league in singles, but have had comparatively few extra base hits. The "Billy ball" has helped turn those singles into runs.

Thanks GB. So, one question I would ask is whether all those rules are turned on: Improve baserunning realism and More baserunning decisions. They are different and without the second, you'd have fewer chances to advance. But, maybe that page is saying all those things *are* being used so.... I still say that not all those plays turn into chance because, as you point out, there would be many more situations where running was a decision.

Meanwhile in SOM play our D continues to kill us. Kipnis (e13) is on pace for 40 errors. , Soto has given up 3 singles in 14 chances (a 5% chance), Chris Davis is on pace for twice as many errors as he should commit, and Carpenter is 7/15 in chances, with 3 errors and 5 hits (he's a 3e12). Khris Davis OTOH is 2/3! Woo Hoo! We will continue to increase our time spent in pre-game fielding until we improve. Kipnis and C Davis will be out every day to take 400 groundballs apiece!

I wrote:

"I intend to check the situation for DOUBLE** and SINGLE** readings, to see if I can infer what the system is, or whether it might be random, as you say Joe. Once I figure that out, I think I'll have a better handle on how the base running opportunities work. "

Well, I found an example of where a SINGLE** resulted in the runner advancing only one base (still checking the doubles readings). This proves what strat said, that a SINGLE** can at least potentially result in a base running decision, instead of an automatic advance two bases result!!!!

This is actually NOT what I expected for this particular card reading. I thought that it would have still resulted in an automatic advancement of 2 bases! As you said, Joe, it may still be that strat is changing it to a "potential" runner advancement manager decision on a RANDOM basis, possibly. This means that the scale of base running opportunities is broader than I even thought!

Here it is, on the second play of the game. It's also significant that it was early in the game, as many late-game special rules would not be applicable so early in the game.

It was in game 24 versus Spider's "In the Gap" team. Top of the first, first 2 batters, with a RHP (Hudson) on the mound, and Harper in RF for me (i've used the /// symbol to separate the card reading from the runner advancement code):

TOP OF INNING 1
0 J.Votto 4-11 Single (1B) /// b-1 gb(1B)x F9
0 1 S.Choo 2-8 Single (RF) /// 1-2 b-1 F9

With Votto on first base, Choo rolls 2-8 against a RHP. The reading is clearly SINGLE** . But Votto DOESN'T advance 2 bases. He only advances one base, to third base!!!

I think Votto's odds for taking the "extra" base to third base would have been either 1-10 if he was not being "held" at 1b, or 1-8 if he was being held at 1b. (i.e. 1-12, less Harper's -5 arm in right field, plus 2 for the throw to third from right field, and either +1 or -1, depending on whether Votto was being held at first base).

So, the SINGLE** became a base running decision, because of the "max" rules being used online. HAL elected NOT to send Votto with no outs in the top of the first inning, thinking that the offence would more likely maximize the potential runs to be scored by holding him up at second base, on the single by Choo.

As luck would have it, (bad luck for Spider), the next die roll was a GBA on the batter card, and the BlueBombers got out of the inning with the next batter being out as well. But if Votto had indeed advanced to 3b on the single by Choo, then Votto would have scored on the GBA. And if the batter had taken second base on the throw to third, the GBA would have scored a run without even being a double play, since the infield wouldn't likely be "in" so early in the game.

The more I learn about this, the more I think base running has more of an effect than I thought, in the online game, using the max base running rules.

The other unresolved question is whether HAL is randomizing the potential base running opportunities, as Joe suggested, or whether there is something going on in the statistics for base running opportunities. It may be that Joe is right, and that Strat is "giving" and then taking away base running opportunities, on a random basis. If so, this seems odd to me, logically, since it would significantly reduce the effect of the "max" rule. If so, is the point of the "max" rule just to make things a little more random, or is it that the max rule would so outlandishly change the base running rules that the randomization is needed to cut it back down again. The opposition of the max rule and the randomized reduction of base running opportunities would seem odd to me, and strat isn't saying that that's what's happening. If it isn't randomized, but simply follows the max rules, then I think that the statistics for base running opportunities are understating the actual occurrence of the base running opportunities. Could it be that the statistics for opportunities are systematically flawed (for example, by reckoning the opportunities without reference to the max rules?).

I actually do think that I can get to the bottom of this, at least by inferences. I am going to keep working on this, mostly to try to understand what actually happens in the online game!

I wrote:

"I intend to check the situation for DOUBLE** and SINGLE** readings, to see if I can infer what the system is, or whether it might be random, as you say Joe. Once I figure that out, I think I'll have a better handle on how the base running opportunities work. "

Well, I found an example of where a SINGLE** resulted in the runner advancing only one base (still checking the doubles readings). This proves what strat said, that a SINGLE** can at least potentially result in a base running decision, instead of an automatic advance two bases result!!!!

This is actually NOT what I expected for this particular card reading. I thought that it would have still resulted in an automatic advancement of 2 bases! As you said, Joe, it may still be that strat is changing it to a "potential" runner advancement manager decision on a RANDOM basis, possibly. This means that the scale of base running opportunities is broader than I even thought!

Here it is, on the second play of the game. It's also significant that it was early in the game, as many late-game special rules would not be applicable so early in the game.

It was in game 24 versus Spider's "In the Gap" team. Top of the first, first 2 batters, with a RHP (Hudson) on the mound, and Harper in RF for me (i've used the /// symbol to separate the card reading from the runner advancement code):

TOP OF INNING 1
0 J.Votto 4-11 Single (1B) /// b-1 gb(1B)x F9
0 1 S.Choo 2-8 Single (RF) /// 1-2 b-1 F9

With Votto on first base, Choo rolls 2-8 against a RHP. The reading is clearly SINGLE** . But Votto DOESN'T advance 2 bases. He only advances one base, to third base!!!

I think Votto's odds for taking the "extra" base to third base would have been either 1-10 if he was not being "held" at 1b, or 1-8 if he was being held at 1b. (i.e. 1-12, less Harper's -5 arm in right field, plus 2 for the throw to third from right field, and either +1 or -1, depending on whether Votto was being held at first base).

So, the SINGLE** became a base running decision, because of the "max" rules being used online. HAL elected NOT to send Votto with no outs in the top of the first inning, thinking that the offence would more likely maximize the potential runs to be scored by holding him up at second base, on the single by Choo.

As luck would have it, (bad luck for Spider), the next die roll was a GBA on the batter card, and the BlueBombers got out of the inning with the next batter being out as well. But if Votto had indeed advanced to 3b on the single by Choo, then Votto would have scored on the GBA. And if the batter had taken second base on the throw to third, the GBA would have scored a run without even being a double play, since the infield wouldn't likely be "in" so early in the game.

The more I learn about this, the more I think base running has more of an effect than I thought, in the online game, using the max base running rules.

The other unresolved question is whether HAL is randomizing the potential base running opportunities, as Joe suggested, or whether there is something going on in the statistics for base running opportunities. It may be that Joe is right, and that Strat is "giving" and then taking away base running opportunities, on a random basis. If so, this seems odd to me, logically, since it would significantly reduce the effect of the "max" rule. If so, is the point of the "max" rule just to make things a little more random, or is it that the max rule would so outlandishly change the base running rules that the randomization is needed to cut it back down again. The opposition of the max rule and the randomized reduction of base running opportunities would seem odd to me, and strat isn't saying that that's what's happening. If it isn't randomized, but simply follows the max rules, then I think that the statistics for base running opportunities are understating the actual occurrence of the base running opportunities. Could it be that the statistics for opportunities are systematically flawed (for example, by reckoning the opportunities without reference to the max rules?).

I actually do think that I can get to the bottom of this, at least by inferences. I am going to keep working on this, mostly to try to understand what actually happens in the online game!

Well, if you didn't randomize it, a slow runner would NEVER go to third on a single. We all know this happens frequently due to where the ball was hit. Let's say it's down the RF line. The runner, who may also be slow, can't get to second, but the runner makes it easily to third no matter how slow they are. I think you *have* randomize it or fast runners would have a HUGE advantage.

^^ great point. If Molina takes third on a SINGLE**, against a great arm in left field, then it must be randomized! That's what I'd need to see to prove that it's random.

^^ From an old league, with Konerko, also a 1-8 runner.

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/ga ... 347490/134

2012 card set

0 P.Konerko 6-5 Single (SS) b-1 gb(SS)x F9
0 1 M.Montero 6-8 Single (RF) 1-3 b-1 F9

First inning.
The opposing pitcher was Matt Cain. Montero's 6-8 roll resulted in a single**. Konerko's base running is just 1-8. Rios was in RF, with a -1 arm. Probably add +1 for not holding Konerko, and +2 for the throw to RF, but Konerko is still just 1-10. If it was a manager decision, and not an automatic **, you probably don't run Konerko at 1-10 early in the game, first inning, no outs. But Konerko did run, which is a fairly good indicator that there is a randomization as to whether or not the SINGLE** is an automatic 2 base advance, or a baserunning decision situation.

I think you're right, Joe. It's probably randomized in some way. So there's no real way to check the stats accumulated by strat, and they're probably correct.

Oops wrong forum sorry. I thought I was in a SOM forum, now I see it's thermodynamic nuclear physics!

Oops wrong forum sorry. I thought I was in a SOM forum, now I see it's thermodynamic nuclear physics!

Yup. Ever likely I have only won one. You guys are serious.

Sorry - I'll keep it lighter and shorter!