Charlie....Here's Where this game is Flawed!

Look at it this way.....Roberto Clemente...that one year...to my knowledge the only -6 rating EVER given....What is Strat saying with that....They're simply saying in their opinion Clemente, that year had the best arm they've ever seen, read about, researched etc....But by rule on a throw from RF the rating is lowered by 2....so he becomes a -4 right?


Now take big pudgy slow Ernie Lombardi, he like many others have been given the absolute lowest speed rating possible (8) right?

Which means on any ball hit to the BEST ARM Strat has EVER RATED....big fat slow Ernie Lombardi still has a 4-20 chance of scoring from second on a single to Clemente right?

Now there could be black box unwritten unknown unseen nonsense that keeps Ernie glued at 3rd....if so ok BUT HOW ABOUT WE GET TO SEE IT!!!!!

OR

There is nothing black box holding him at 3rd and he scores on Clemente TWENTY PERCENT of the time....

Which crap is it???????

ahh, I get what you're saying now. It's that always present 5% that you object to. I have to agree that it isn't statistically accurate. I understand why they do it though, game of chance so there should always be a chance albeit slight etc. I tend to agree with you, why not just make a 1-20 a 1-20. We have a 1-20 HR ballpark now, when ballpark ratings first came out they also had a max of 1-19 and a minimum of 1-1, so they came around on that one.

YES TY TY TY


Why not make it 99% chance they steal the base...that's more likely accurate yes?

As is, its a fundamental flaw in the game...see my base running example above...

I know exactly what you mean. There is no way the fastest player alive should be getting thrown out on any consistent basis. I mean no way say a Billy Hamilton should be getting caught stealing 23 times in just one season. No way any system should allow Lou Brock to get caught 33 times in just one season. And to show how bad the system is somehow the system had Ricky Henderson ever gets caught stealing 42 times in one season. No way on earth that happens. When they really ruin this thing and have Mike Trout getting caught stealing at a rate close to double digits that will be the end of the line for this Ranger One if it is allowed to actually happen in 2015. And I noticed even after Rangers gave Elvis a long term deal paying him like an all star gold glove shortstop with great base stealing skills the system still caused him to get caught stealing 15 times in 2014 alone. No way that happens without something shady going on that not even those sport science guys could explain.

We live for the one, we die for the one, but when we start getting caught stealing for the one then our voices get raised in protest and we demand an investigation by the highest levels of leadership at the Babylon 5 station.

I mean based on the circumstances described the end steal chances had to be the max 1-19 allowed. So to have that 20 pop up on 5 straight 20-sided-die rolls the odds are astronomical. 1/20 the first time or 5%. To get caught stealing the second time is only a 0.25% chance. Getting caught a third time would be 0.0125% Getting caught a third time would be 0.000625000% and by the time we get to that 5th baserunner the odds of getting thrown out in addition tot he prior base stealers is only 0.000031250%.

As every scientist knows that is impossible. What next? How silly can this normalization get? I have read several time where the calculations were done for the forming of just one DNA molecule from a random strand of amino acides and it comes out to 1 / 10 to the 400000 power. And yet we are here so it must have happened. Scientists tell me I do not need to understand why. Just trust them. They assure me no odd no matter how unlikely translates to impossible. Just need time to run through all the possible sequences a sufficient number of times.The odds of a DNA molecule forming are so much less than rolling 20 on that 20 sided die that by comparision the 5 caught stealing are a reletive certainty.

If the one thing is acertainty then the stolen base failures is almost a given fact. Applying that evolutionary religion to strat and those long odds of 0.000031250%. we must conclude that given enough games in enough leagues and this confusing combination of events has to be possible and given enough leagues possible to the point of being a given eventuality.






I think congress should have investigated a long time ago about these shananigans and normalization stuff going on against base stealers. This dwarfs any power zapper stuff by so much it is just plain silly.

Safe on a stolen base attempt 95 times out of 100 are odds I'd take any time. What do you think the odds should be, Nev?

I guess you are saying the results aren't very realistic. So there were a few bad dice roles in a small sample and you got what you feel is an unrealistic result despite the odds being overwhelmingly in your favor. That happens to everyone. How about Dale Murray, Bruce Sutter and a few others routinely pitching more than 300 innings in a season in relief? Is that realistic? That's a way bigger concern than a few bad dice rolls, wouldn't you agree?

I'll give you 97% of steals in situations such as the one you describe if relief pitchers are limited to a max of 150 innings, which is roughly 20-25% more innings than Murray or Sutter ever pitched in a single season. Deal?

Valen,
But as I already demonstrated, that was almost certainly not the case. These could not have all been 5% chances

So Bernie you think big fat Ernie Lombardi should score from second 20% of the time against Clemente? -4 arm after adjustment vs an 8 runner means its 4 of 20 he's safe yes?

what many do here Steve F is read the initial post...miss the point...and then when explained again..or differently, hopefully better, they still miss it because they didn't read the subsequent posts.

I'll tell you what Nev, the chances of a slow runner scoring on Clemente from 2nd base in a MLB game were a lot better than the chances of Murray or Sutter pitching 250 innings over TWO SEASONS, not to mention 300+ innings in a single season as we routinely see here.

The point is that if one is going to complain about lack of realism due to poor programming, that addressing unrealistic use of relief pitchers, which routinely occurs, should be a higher priority than allegedly unrealistic outcomes in stolen base attempts when there is a +5 catcher, which rarely occurs.

Bernie,

I think you are so stuck on the RP innings thing that you are missing the point.

Can you explain to me what the EXACT calculations are for stealing chances?

I've now looked at the rules and the wiki page and can't find the exact nature of the calculations.

For example, is it the hold determination, then the Catcher +/- which tops out at 19/20 no matter what?

Hitting team in 135mil league with Cobb (1909), Duffy (1894), Lajoie (1901), Jennings (1896). Settings are 'base stealing': normal, nobody marked 'steal more'. Combined success rate of 98-43 (those 4 guys) through 93 games. That's why I never do SB teams, but wanted to try one last time.

I have always thought that the dice rolls were manipulated in this game. Wacky SB results, Bonds HR production, home field advantage, late inning rallies/collapses, there is all kinds of normalization going on. IMO.

IMO its there to balance the playing field for the less experienced player. They can't have new users get slaughtered every time by the experienced player or they would never stay with the game long enough to learn how it works. They have to have a chance to win or they wouldn't come back. They wouldn't spend money on the game.

If you look at play-by-play dice rolls there are all kinds of crazy results. What are the odds of rolling the same combination three times in a row and not including a 6/7/8 from the pair? Happens all the time. Four times in a row? Seen it too often.