HAL is deliberately disobeying orders

Different HAL problem....
I have bunting set to Very Aggressive, and 5 starters set to bunt more on the individual settings.
11 bunts in 24 games.'
I watch the replays and wonder how to get a guy set to "bunt more" with no outs and a runner on 1st or 2nd.

It's a team with 8 fast guys and Hershberger.

Well, HAL is considering various circumstances and options, and may not always consider a bunt the best option with no outs and runs on first & second. That's your best chance for a big inning, and the bunt will put a large dent in your big inning chances.

So...what do you need in that situation? If you're down by 2 runs in the 4th inning with Cobb or Delahanty up, maybe HAL is making a wise decision not to bunt with runners on 1 & 2 w/ no outs. Anyway, I personally would say "Thank you" to HAL for not bunting under those conditions.

And to piggyback on what Outta Leftfield said as deep as ATG is you still want to keep your money concentrated. So 9 starters assuming a DH league and 4 defensive replacements is 13 players. Now if I go with some pur hitter to back up my DH I have 14 hitters. I want my pitching staffs to be at least 10. Less than that for me invites bullpen issues from not giving Hal enough choices on that side of the ball. So attempts to finesse yourself in to a 5th defensive replacement is stretching things a little thin. And as deep as the player pool is you should be able on any team to find a player or pair of players to handle DH and then 4 well rounded guys who do not need defensive replacements. That would mean you only need 4 defensive replacements.

Consider the possibility that if you have 5 or more positions that need defensive replacements you may have a fatally flawed team to begin with that needs rethinking.

While I would generally agree with this sentiment, in my particular case, this team is in a Dream Team league and is the 12th or last pick. The team is no doubt flawed simply by virtue of having only the dregs left to draft a team. That said, I actually like this team but their defense is about as porous as it gets. We need all the defensive help we can get.

Well, HAL is considering various circumstances and options, and may not always consider a bunt the best option with no outs and runs on first & second. That's your best chance for a big inning, and the bunt will put a large dent in your big inning chances.

So...what do you need in that situation? If you're down by 2 runs in the 4th inning with Cobb or Delahanty up, maybe HAL is making a wise decision not to bunt with runners on 1 & 2 w/ no outs. Anyway, I personally would say "Thank you" to HAL for not bunting under those conditions.

It's a $60M smallball team, where the best chance for a run is to get the guy on 1st to 2nd and hope for a hit out of the next 2 guys. If I had Cobb and Delahanty in the 3-4 spots, I'd be OK not bunting.
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1387269

It's a $60M smallball team, where the best chance for a run is to get the guy on 1st to 2nd and hope for a hit out of the next 2 guys. If I had Cobb and Delahanty in the 3-4 spots, I'd be OK not bunting.
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1387269

I see your point!

11 bunts in 24 games.'
I watch the replays and wonder how to get a guy set to "bunt more" with no outs and a runner on 1st or 2nd.

I remember Ron Washington loved the bunt. But looking at the stats from last year and last couple years Rangers still were only in the 40s for sacrifices. That put them among the American league leaders. Expanding to include National league teams and the Reds were tops in 2014 with 77. Leading teams for previous 2 years were also in the 80s. So I would say if you are getting sacrifices in roughly half your games Hal is being about as aggressive as can be expected.

Also ....

You do not say what the individual hitters are set at but based on your question I am going to assume all or most of your hitters have the individual bunt more setting checked.

The only A bunter I see on your team is Ichiro who may also be the hitter I would most want swinging away. I might have him bunting for a hit but not sacrificing.
Some of your hitters are even only C rated bunters. If I were the manager I would hesitate to bunt when I had hitters who were not especially good bunters.
So you are asking Hal to utilize a strategy for which you really have not given him the tools. And he is still being about as aggressive with it as any team in baseball the last few years. I recommend next time you try this strategy also try to target only A rated bunters.

This does raise the question in my mind of what is the record for most team sacrifices for a strat team? I do not see this stat listed on the records page. Might be worth a separate thread. I am starting one.

11 bunts in 24 games.'
I watch the replays and wonder how to get a guy set to "bunt more" with no outs and a runner on 1st or 2nd.

I remember Ron Washington loved the bunt. But looking at the stats from last year and last couple years Rangers still were only in the 40s for sacrifices. That put them among the American league leaders. Expanding to include National league teams and the Reds were tops in 2014 with 77. Leading teams for previous 2 years were also in the 80s. So I would say if you are getting sacrifices in roughly half your games Hal is being about as aggressive as can be expected.

Also ....

You do not say what the individual hitters are set at but based on your question I am going to assume all or most of your hitters have the individual bunt more setting checked.

The only A bunter I see on your team is Ichiro who may also be the hitter I would most want swinging away. I might have him bunting for a hit but not sacrificing.
Some of your hitters are even only C rated bunters. If I were the manager I would hesitate to bunt when I had hitters who were not especially good bunters.
So you are asking Hal to utilize a strategy for which you really have not given him the tools. And he is still being about as aggressive with it as any team in baseball the last few years. I recommend next time you try this strategy also try to target only A rated bunters.

This does raise the question in my mind of what is the record for most team sacrifices for a strat team? I do not see this stat listed on the records page. Might be worth a separate thread. I am starting one.

I was hoping Doran, Gilliam and Fernandez as B bunters set to bunt more, would like, bunt more. Twice in 2 games, with no outs and a runner on first, Doran and Gilliam hit away into outs. That is prime sac bunt time?
Crawrford and Ichiro are A bunters, Crawford has no checks and Ichiro set to not bunt.

Thought about this some more....If B rated bunters set to bunt more on the individual settings and aggressive bunting on the team settings doesn't result in a bunt with a runner on 1st and no outs....there should be 2 settings:
Hal might bunt
Hal won't bunt.


Whatever the percentages are for stealing based on settings, it seems to me I've been able to get anywhere from almost no steals with B rated stealers to attempted steals in bad situations. Hal doesn't seem to give that latitude with B bunters.

I was hoping Doran, Gilliam and Fernandez as B bunters set to bunt more, would like, bunt more. Twice in 2 games, with no outs and a runner on first, Doran and Gilliam hit away into outs. That is prime sac bunt time?
Crawrford and Ichiro are A bunters, Crawford has no checks and Ichiro set to not bunt.

So the only great bunters you have.... One is set to not bunt and the other has no settings? Given that I think you are getting about as many bunts as you can expect.

Real world example. Ron Washington loved to bunt. Elvis was a good bunter. It felt like evey time leadoff hitter got on ahead of Elvis the bunt was going to be on. But still as a team Rangers only got in to the 40s. And that was the last couple years when they had allowed most sluggers to walk away. And this year really had no true sluggers. Beltre was a great hitter having a great season but his HRs were down with nobody protecting him.

I would expect Hal to be programmed to approximate actions of a real life manager. And real managers, even the most aggressive with bunting strategy hang around the 80s for a season. Going back to the 1980s when it was more common strategy slightly over 100 would usually mean you led all of baseball. I just do not think you can realistically expect Hal to bunt more just below every other game unless you really make a commitment.

If B rated bunters set to bunt more on the individual settings and aggressive bunting

Bottom line it is not giving you results you were hoping for. That says to me if this is to be your strategy gotta go with A bunters. In the old literature C was described as average, B as above average, and A as excellent. If I am a manager I only bunt aggressively with the excellent bunter. The B bunts late in the game when circumstances indicate a single run can make the difference between winning and losing.