what does this mean / imply?

What exactly is the line of thinking that leads a manager to conclude that Conservative is an overall better choice? Is it simply to avoid the one Big Bad Box Score Result that hurts the brain for the rest of that day?

If I'm in a hitter's park and most of my runners have low running ratings, and I'm facing outfielders with excellent arms, I sometimes put my running on Conservative. It has noting to do with avoiding any "Big Bad Box Score Results;" it has a lot with avoiding that Big Bad slow runner being thrown out at the plate in a key situation. However, if you could point out the problems with this, i would definitely appreciate the opportunity to improve my teams' scoring.

I'm not sure I follow that.

No matter how your team "runs" in terms of specific players, if Very Aggressive settings will always yield more runs, then you can improve your runs scored by changing your settings and simply accepting that bad outcomes come with the good.

Your example of the runner being thrown out in a "key" situation is precisely the Big Bad Box Score result I described. You might avoid that one bad outcome, but it likely comes at the expense of scoring more overall runs in the greater context.

I understand many managers change their settings for the current series. There was a time I also did this. Over time, I came to the conclusion that you can't breathe by only exhaling. I now make my settings once and never (or rarely) change them, even for playoffs, and just accept the bad plays that will inevitably result. It seems to work for me, but I may just be lucky too.

However, that's by broad brush and there are other considerations (deeper in the weeds). There are few if any absolutes in this game, but it's just my .02. Was curious for the .02 of others as well...

I'm not sure I follow that.

There's nothing to follow. Slow runners with lower running ratings are likely to get thrown out by outfielders with excellent arms. So, I sometimes put my setting on Conservative to keep those runners from challenging those outfielders too much.

No matter how your team "runs" in terms of specific players, if Very Aggressive settings will always yield more runs, then you can improve your runs scored by changing your settings and simply accepting that bad outcomes come with the good.

If what you say is true, then you're right. However, until today, I had never heard of such a study, and I would like to see that study before I radically revamp my strategies.

Your example of the runner being thrown out in a "key" situation is precisely the Big Bad Box Score result I described. You might avoid that one bad outcome, but it likely comes at the expense of scoring more overall runs in the greater context.

Not necessarily. Slow runners get thrown out by superior outfielders in all parts of the game in many types of games. So, very often, i would have no idea that runner got thrown out. And even if it did, it certainly wouldn't necessarily result in "Big Bad Box Score Result that hurts the brain for the rest of that day."

I understand many managers change their settings for the current series. There was a time I also did this. Over time, I came to the conclusion that you can't breathe by only exhaling.

I have no idea what that metaphor means and how it applies to the situation. Please explain it and tell how it applies.

I now make my settings once and never (or rarely) change them, even for playoffs, and just accept the bad plays that will inevitably result. It seems to work for me, but I may just be lucky too.

That great, especially since it apparently works for you. My approach has worked pretty well for me, so far, too. However, if you could provide me that study, I would be open to change.

The metaphor is simple. Breathe in, breathe out. In with the good, out with the bad. IMO, you can't micro-manage the game engine to create only favorable results. You have to be willing to accept the bad with the good, and let the law of averages work in your favor.

If I understand you, you believe you ARE successfully micro-managing the game engine (and the subsequent results). I have no problem with that at all, in fact it tells me exactly what I was hoping to learn.

The metaphor is simple. Breathe in, breathe out. In with the good, out with the bad. IMO, you can't micro-manage the game engine to create only favorable results. You have to be willing to accept the bad with the good, and let the law of averages work in your favor.

Your metaphor doesn't apply here at all. First of all, managing your settings doesn't constitute micro-managing. Micro-managing implies managing outside one's particular field of control. Since changing settings is exactly an SOM manager's assigned field of control, changing settings can't be micro-managing. And managing one' settings is still accepting the bad with the good. All of us who do so are fully aware Hal is out there ready to misinterpret our settings.

Secondly, since you are the one who is holding fast to one particular setting, the metaphor actually applies to you. You are actually the one only "breathing" one way. How ironic...

If I understand you, you believe you ARE successfully micro-managing the game engine (and the subsequent results). I have no problem with that at all, in fact it tells me exactly what I was hoping to learn.

You clearly misunderstood me. I never said I was micro-managing, and I'm not. I'm successfully managing my teams and--to a degree--the game engine. As to the results, those are contingent on far more than my managing.

I'm not sure I follow that.

No matter how your team "runs" in terms of specific players, if Very Aggressive settings will always yield more runs, then you can improve your runs scored by changing your settings and simply accepting that bad outcomes come with the good.

Your example of the runner being thrown out in a "key" situation is precisely the Big Bad Box Score result I described. You might avoid that one bad outcome, but it likely comes at the expense of scoring more overall runs in the greater context.

I understand many managers change their settings for the current series. There was a time I also did this. Over time, I came to the conclusion that you can't breathe by only exhaling. I now make my settings once and never (or rarely) change them, even for playoffs, and just accept the bad plays that will inevitably result. It seems to work for me, but I may just be lucky too.

However, that's by broad brush and there are other considerations (deeper in the weeds). There are few if any absolutes in this game, but it's just my .02. Was curious for the .02 of others as well...

Agreed

Risden, you keep your settings on Very Aggressive, too? This is getting interesting.

Jumping into the fray...

Taking a ride in the way-back machine to the Old Guard days, I seem to recall a heavily researched post about the base running settings. The conclusion, in a nutshell, was that each corresponding higher setting led to an equally corresponding greater percentage of runs scored.

Rephrased, the Very Aggressive steal and base running settings ALWAYS yielded more runs.

Now, without getting into the weeds of what the minimum personnel requirements would need be to optimize this situation, I (almost?) ALWAYS have my settings on Very Aggressive or at minimum, Aggressive. I could absolutely care less about a one game situation that goes against me when the preponderance of the evidence suggests that in the long run, my team will score more runs and more runs equal more wins.

I'm always happy to be on the opposite side of what everybody else is thinking, but I am a little curious to understand the opposition too.

What exactly is the line of thinking that leads a manager to conclude that Conservative is an overall better choice? Is it simply to avoid the one Big Bad Box Score Result that hurts the brain for the rest of that day?

Statistically while there was a correlation, I'm guessing perhaps not a causation. That is, it wouldn't necessarily create more runs with an Earl Weaver type team, but certainly would with a LaRussa team. Personally, I like Aggressive H&R. Speaking of which, what does the number directly under H&R mean in the Manager Profiles?

Yes!

It's not a "magic" setting in that it doesn't turn your Steal E Run 1-9 guy into Rickey Henderson. You should not be running into unnecessary outs. But you should also not be afraid that because one box score says your guy stole second, stole third and was caught trying to steal home, it necessarily follows that you should change your settings to Conservative. You may be missing an entire boatload of extra runs by doing so.

Scumbyjr,

What number are you referring to again, and where?