 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Stealing Test Run
tysonlowery
There were 4 teams of all A speed, 4 teams with B speed, 4 teams with C speed, and 4 teams with D speed.
Then I set one team from each group to Ultra Aggressive on all SB controls, one to Aggressive, one to Moderate, and one to Conservative.
Here are the results
A Speed
UA - 460 for 862 (53%)
A - 288 for 491 (58%)
M - 191 for 271 (70%)
C - 101 for 133 (75%)
B Speed
UA - 361 for 815 (44%)
A - 249 for 505 (49%)
M - 145 for 276 (52%)
C - 69 for 130 (53%)
C Speed
UA - 269 for 705 (38%)
A - 162 for 462 (35%)
M - 123 for 258 (47%)
C - 52 for 118 (44%)
D Speed
UA - 196 for 719 (27%)
A - 117 for 454 (25%)
M - 74 for 238 (31%)
C - 38 for 108 (35%)
Stealing Test Run
May 14, 2003 at 02:44PM View BBCode
I ran a complete 162 game season last night on my test league, here were the parameters of the test:There were 4 teams of all A speed, 4 teams with B speed, 4 teams with C speed, and 4 teams with D speed.
Then I set one team from each group to Ultra Aggressive on all SB controls, one to Aggressive, one to Moderate, and one to Conservative.
Here are the results
A Speed
UA - 460 for 862 (53%)
A - 288 for 491 (58%)
M - 191 for 271 (70%)
C - 101 for 133 (75%)
B Speed
UA - 361 for 815 (44%)
A - 249 for 505 (49%)
M - 145 for 276 (52%)
C - 69 for 130 (53%)
C Speed
UA - 269 for 705 (38%)
A - 162 for 462 (35%)
M - 123 for 258 (47%)
C - 52 for 118 (44%)
D Speed
UA - 196 for 719 (27%)
A - 117 for 454 (25%)
M - 74 for 238 (31%)
C - 38 for 108 (35%)
tysonlowery
My thoughts?
I think the numbers are looking pretty good. But I do think some of the specific situations still need to be looked at like D base stealers trying to steal too often when the setting is ultra conservative.
May 14, 2003 at 02:48PM View BBCode
The top 5 stealers had 61, 58, 47, 46, and 45 SB.My thoughts?
I think the numbers are looking pretty good. But I do think some of the specific situations still need to be looked at like D base stealers trying to steal too often when the setting is ultra conservative.
BC
Looking at some of the most aggressive teams over the years, St. Louis of the mid-80's had a 77% steal rate. Generally, looking over the years (quick glance) the most aggressive teams had one of the better rates.
The 80's had the league average generally between 65 and 70%.
The 60's were between 60 and 65%
The 50's were between 55 and 62%
1957 WAS was only successful 25% of the time and had a league low 13 steals. Chicago (AL) that year lead the league with 109 steals and 69% rate.
I feel that the change from Moderate to Aggressive to Ultra Aggressive is awfully dramatic.
May 14, 2003 at 03:30PM View BBCode
Based on what I've seen and what you just posted, I would never go Aggressive. I think that a team simply runs themselves out of games with at best a 58% success rate.Looking at some of the most aggressive teams over the years, St. Louis of the mid-80's had a 77% steal rate. Generally, looking over the years (quick glance) the most aggressive teams had one of the better rates.
The 80's had the league average generally between 65 and 70%.
The 60's were between 60 and 65%
The 50's were between 55 and 62%
1957 WAS was only successful 25% of the time and had a league low 13 steals. Chicago (AL) that year lead the league with 109 steals and 69% rate.
I feel that the change from Moderate to Aggressive to Ultra Aggressive is awfully dramatic.
mrod
May 14, 2003 at 04:03PM View BBCode
I've got a question - what were the arm ratings of the catchers & pitchers in the test leagues?
hcboomer
BC has a good point -- based on these numbers, even the fastest team in the league would only hurt themselves at anything more than a moderate level. And the reality is that aggressive base-stealing teams in real life usually have better success rates -- or at least often do -- for the simple reason that they have fast runners. That's why they're being aggressive. We don't often see aggressive running teams with bad percentages -- they'll stop being aggressive pretty quickly.
I wonder if there just shouldn't be an ultra-aggressive preference. Seems like if we're worrying too much about these sorts of worst-case scenarios when an ultra-aggressive team with fast guys steals a ridiculous amount of bases and doesn't get thrown out enough, maybe the preference itself is too extreme.
May 14, 2003 at 04:16PM View BBCode
One question about those numbers -- the all A speed, ultra aggressive team that stole 460 bases didn't have anyone over 61 steals? Amazing balance.BC has a good point -- based on these numbers, even the fastest team in the league would only hurt themselves at anything more than a moderate level. And the reality is that aggressive base-stealing teams in real life usually have better success rates -- or at least often do -- for the simple reason that they have fast runners. That's why they're being aggressive. We don't often see aggressive running teams with bad percentages -- they'll stop being aggressive pretty quickly.
I wonder if there just shouldn't be an ultra-aggressive preference. Seems like if we're worrying too much about these sorts of worst-case scenarios when an ultra-aggressive team with fast guys steals a ridiculous amount of bases and doesn't get thrown out enough, maybe the preference itself is too extreme.
FiveToolPlayer
May 14, 2003 at 04:16PM View BBCode
I would guess that it was random, just like a real league.
tysonlowery
Perhaps the penalty for being aggressive is too extreme?
Right now, the number I am going with for successful steals of 2nd is 62% for a B- runner with Moderate as the setting. Maybe I should change that number? It used to be 69% and was based on an actual MLB statistic. But the MLB statistic didn't take into account the fact that fast guys steal more often than slow guys.
May 14, 2003 at 04:26PM View BBCode
Yes, the catcher arms and pitcher arms were random, based on an initial draft.Perhaps the penalty for being aggressive is too extreme?
Right now, the number I am going with for successful steals of 2nd is 62% for a B- runner with Moderate as the setting. Maybe I should change that number? It used to be 69% and was based on an actual MLB statistic. But the MLB statistic didn't take into account the fact that fast guys steal more often than slow guys.
hcboomer
What we've been trying to figure out here is how often each runner, based on his speed, would attempt to steal, and how often he would be successful, under the various levels of game-condition aggression. But a lot of those are really irrelevant. A D-speed guy would really never be aggressive, never mind ultra-aggressive. No reason to even have that option. A manager would yank a guy like that out of the lineup the next day. The fastest guy in the league would never be ultra-aggressive if he was getting thrown out half the time. Again, he'd be gone pretty quickly, or the clamps would be put on his stealing. Point is we shouldn't even be worrying about those extreme ends of the spectrum. Better perhaps to eliminate them entirely.
Bear with me on this, I'm sort of writing/thinking out loud, but I wonder if it would be better to have a simplified group of categories that could be applied INDIVIDUALLY TO EACH PLAYER. You could call it whatever you wanted to, but it would basically either give runners a green light (can go any time), neutral or red light (never run). That would more or less correspond to aggressive, moderate or conservative, or maybe aggressive moderate and ultra conservative, something like that. The game condition preferences, I think, would then be best used to rein runners in under certain conditions.
That, it seems, is all the control a manager really wants, or that we should really worry about giving a Sim manager. You want to have control over each individual player's general base-stealing tendencies, and sometimes -- with many players virtually all the time -- you want them to stay put. There aren't any meaningful situations when a manager wants that D-speed guy with the red light to be ultra aggressive. But there ARE situations when you want the green-light guy to be conservative. Or the neutral guy. If you want an aggressive running team, give most everyone the green light. But you can also chain down the slower guys, and not have their stealing tendencies influenced by all of the aggressive game-condition preferences that an aggressive running team would have.
This wouldn't change the fact that we'd still need to nail down the appropriate percentage of attempts and success rates. But it might simplify the debate, and make that whole confusing weighting of speed and other preferences to decide on the appropriate aggression levels much less of a factor.
May 14, 2003 at 05:43PM View BBCode
Any chance that our basic thought process on this has been a little misdirected?What we've been trying to figure out here is how often each runner, based on his speed, would attempt to steal, and how often he would be successful, under the various levels of game-condition aggression. But a lot of those are really irrelevant. A D-speed guy would really never be aggressive, never mind ultra-aggressive. No reason to even have that option. A manager would yank a guy like that out of the lineup the next day. The fastest guy in the league would never be ultra-aggressive if he was getting thrown out half the time. Again, he'd be gone pretty quickly, or the clamps would be put on his stealing. Point is we shouldn't even be worrying about those extreme ends of the spectrum. Better perhaps to eliminate them entirely.
Bear with me on this, I'm sort of writing/thinking out loud, but I wonder if it would be better to have a simplified group of categories that could be applied INDIVIDUALLY TO EACH PLAYER. You could call it whatever you wanted to, but it would basically either give runners a green light (can go any time), neutral or red light (never run). That would more or less correspond to aggressive, moderate or conservative, or maybe aggressive moderate and ultra conservative, something like that. The game condition preferences, I think, would then be best used to rein runners in under certain conditions.
That, it seems, is all the control a manager really wants, or that we should really worry about giving a Sim manager. You want to have control over each individual player's general base-stealing tendencies, and sometimes -- with many players virtually all the time -- you want them to stay put. There aren't any meaningful situations when a manager wants that D-speed guy with the red light to be ultra aggressive. But there ARE situations when you want the green-light guy to be conservative. Or the neutral guy. If you want an aggressive running team, give most everyone the green light. But you can also chain down the slower guys, and not have their stealing tendencies influenced by all of the aggressive game-condition preferences that an aggressive running team would have.
This wouldn't change the fact that we'd still need to nail down the appropriate percentage of attempts and success rates. But it might simplify the debate, and make that whole confusing weighting of speed and other preferences to decide on the appropriate aggression levels much less of a factor.
tysonlowery
Let me go back and look at changing how the calculations are done.
I would like to make it so that if you want a guy to try to steal 120 times in a season, you can do it with consequences.
May 14, 2003 at 06:09PM View BBCode
I think what you wrote is very similar to what we're trying to accomplish. But instead of going through and rating each player, you can generally do it by speed. You have 5 options to play with instead of 50.Let me go back and look at changing how the calculations are done.
I would like to make it so that if you want a guy to try to steal 120 times in a season, you can do it with consequences.
tysonlowery
But I do need to spend more time on the specific situations.
May 14, 2003 at 06:20PM View BBCode
BTW, the reason I ran these tests was to see if the percentage success and overall SB was about right. A lot of people have been saying there are too many SB attempts in general, but I think this shows that there really aren't. But maybe the success percentage should be higher overall.But I do need to spend more time on the specific situations.
celamantia
This is as it should be! The "normal" setting should be what a normal, healthy Major League team would do to win games, which should be fairly aggressive. Setting your team to "ultra-aggressive" is saying "I want my guys running far more than any sane manager would do". It's a desperation move, or a move designed to cater to a particular playing strategy. If it was better, everyone would simply set "ultra-aggressive", and that would suddenly become normal.
--Chris
May 14, 2003 at 06:33PM View BBCode
BC has a good point -- based on these numbers, even the fastest team in the league would only hurt themselves at anything more than a moderate level. And the reality is that aggressive base-stealing teams in real life usually have better success rates -- or at least often do -- for the simple reason that they have fast runners. That's why they're being aggressive. We don't often see aggressive running teams with bad percentages -- they'll stop being aggressive pretty quickly.
This is as it should be! The "normal" setting should be what a normal, healthy Major League team would do to win games, which should be fairly aggressive. Setting your team to "ultra-aggressive" is saying "I want my guys running far more than any sane manager would do". It's a desperation move, or a move designed to cater to a particular playing strategy. If it was better, everyone would simply set "ultra-aggressive", and that would suddenly become normal.
--Chris
hcboomer
Celamantia also mentions that "ultra aggressive" would be more than any sane manager would choose. True enough, and therefore the percentages of success should be poor. Again, though, why bother with that option? Tyson mentions that he'd like a player to be able to try to steal 120 times -- with consequences -- if an owner so chooses. I guess my question would be why? Seems like one of the primary goals of the game is to create a sense of realism, and it does a very good -- and always improving -- job of that. Part of that is to create a realistic simworld of stats.
But if you want to "let" a manager ratchet up everything to ultra aggressive and have a guy make 120 steal attempts and suffer the consequences, what will you end up with? 70 SB and 50 CS? Or if you let all the D guys run with abandon you'll have a bunch of slow players with 3 steals and 30 CS? Those would be totally unrealistic stats. Why would we want game options designed specifically to allow that?
It just seems to me that in the effort to expand managerial controls and allow managers to tweak these strategies, in this case it's going too far. I think, at the very least, those ultra aggressive options are a mistake, no matter how fine-tuned the percentages of attempts and success rates become.
May 14, 2003 at 06:56PM View BBCode
I think the original point, though, was that even "aggressive" would be a bad percentage play, and I don't think that's realistic for a team that wants to run more to be getting gunned down THAT much, even the fastest guys.Celamantia also mentions that "ultra aggressive" would be more than any sane manager would choose. True enough, and therefore the percentages of success should be poor. Again, though, why bother with that option? Tyson mentions that he'd like a player to be able to try to steal 120 times -- with consequences -- if an owner so chooses. I guess my question would be why? Seems like one of the primary goals of the game is to create a sense of realism, and it does a very good -- and always improving -- job of that. Part of that is to create a realistic simworld of stats.
But if you want to "let" a manager ratchet up everything to ultra aggressive and have a guy make 120 steal attempts and suffer the consequences, what will you end up with? 70 SB and 50 CS? Or if you let all the D guys run with abandon you'll have a bunch of slow players with 3 steals and 30 CS? Those would be totally unrealistic stats. Why would we want game options designed specifically to allow that?
It just seems to me that in the effort to expand managerial controls and allow managers to tweak these strategies, in this case it's going too far. I think, at the very least, those ultra aggressive options are a mistake, no matter how fine-tuned the percentages of attempts and success rates become.
hcboomer
But if, perhaps, there was some sort of individual steal rating (which I realize creates a whole new set of coding issues), then that isolated Rickey Henderson-type could be, say, an A++ base-stealer, run 120 times and succeed 100 times, without opening the door for a bunch of other guys with the same speed rating to do the same thing, because their "steal" ratings would be lower.
Just a thought.
May 14, 2003 at 07:03PM View BBCode
One other note about individualizing the stealing preferences. One of the "problems", perhaps, is that all fast guys are not created equal in real life when it comes to stealing bases. Rickey Henderson wasn't THE fastest guy around. Plenty of fast guys aren't particularly adept at stealing. So what we end up with in trying to allow for that scenario in which a guy could make 120 attempts and suffer the consequences of his aggressiveness is treating all fast guys the same (and all modest-speed guys, and all slow guys, etc.). Thus we need some sort of universally applicable percentages to cover all of these guys.But if, perhaps, there was some sort of individual steal rating (which I realize creates a whole new set of coding issues), then that isolated Rickey Henderson-type could be, say, an A++ base-stealer, run 120 times and succeed 100 times, without opening the door for a bunch of other guys with the same speed rating to do the same thing, because their "steal" ratings would be lower.
Just a thought.
celamantia
Think of it in terms of the "Best Available" setting on the draft: on the surface, it sounds good: why wouldn't I always want the best available players? But we all know that this setting is a crapshoot...
The preferences are there for people who aren't happy with ABE's decisions, and with careful tweaking, aggressive base stealing can be the source of risky awards. But anyone who just sets everything to ultra-aggressive, rather than carefully-chosen situations, is likely to get kicked in the teeth, and I see nothing wrong with that.
--Chris
May 14, 2003 at 08:55PM View BBCode
Perhaps the penalties can be toned down a bit... my point is that there's no point in having an "ultra-aggressive" setting if the results are so desirable that everyone automatically does it. I see "ultra-aggressive" as a tool: you, as the owner of a desperate third-place team near the end of the season, set it before a key series where the likely catchers aren't too quick on the draw. The extra bases may be enough to turn the tide...Think of it in terms of the "Best Available" setting on the draft: on the surface, it sounds good: why wouldn't I always want the best available players? But we all know that this setting is a crapshoot...
The preferences are there for people who aren't happy with ABE's decisions, and with careful tweaking, aggressive base stealing can be the source of risky awards. But anyone who just sets everything to ultra-aggressive, rather than carefully-chosen situations, is likely to get kicked in the teeth, and I see nothing wrong with that.
--Chris
hcboomer
In short, the downside outweighs the upside of that additional option. Not having that desperation strategy available hardly hurts the game. But having it available to be abused -- as it would be far more often than being used "legitimately" -- would hurt the game a bit.
May 14, 2003 at 09:26PM View BBCode
Something to keep in mind though -- one of the ongoing issues in the dynasty leagues is the incentive to tank when your team isn't contending to try to get the highest draft pick possible. My guess is that the use of the "ultra aggressive" option in the kind of specialized desperation strategy Celamantia describes would be rare indeed. But what you WOULD see with some regularity, I think, is teams just ratcheting everything to ultra aggressive just to screw around a little, maybe pad some stolen-base totals and -- given the presumed low success rates -- make their team just that little bit worse. Nothing particularly wrong with that considering it's all part of the game. But that's when you'd end up with those totally unrealistic stats that I think take a little something away from the game. Heck, why not just add an option that players steal EVERY time there's an open base in front of them?In short, the downside outweighs the upside of that additional option. Not having that desperation strategy available hardly hurts the game. But having it available to be abused -- as it would be far more often than being used "legitimately" -- would hurt the game a bit.
tysonlowery
I know that since I'm rebuilding (or building) in the beta leagues, I have tried not to be overly aggressive because I don't want to take at bats away from my team because of caught stealings.
May 14, 2003 at 09:59PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
One thing to think about is that if you ratchet up the aggressiveness in an effort to tank, your team will get less at bats as a whole and therefore less improvement chances.
I know that since I'm rebuilding (or building) in the beta leagues, I have tried not to be overly aggressive because I don't want to take at bats away from my team because of caught stealings.
FiveToolPlayer
May 14, 2003 at 10:08PM View BBCode
A lot of the preferences will make tanking easier. You could tell ABE to never pull a starter or a reliever and they would keep pitching even when they were getting hammered. You'd be sure to lose a lot of games this way.
geoffrey13
stealing
May 15, 2003 at 01:33AM View BBCode
After tweaking my prefs quite a bit I've come up with the idea that I'd rather see it done by the individual player rather than in general...so I could give my A speed leadoff guy a green light for instance, while my A speed 8 hitter might not have one. Also would like to see the catchers arm weighed in a bit as well, otherwise guys seem to be getting nailed too often against a Pudge Rodriguez type great thrower that you realistically wouldn't be running on.
Bob
Using the numbers above, this team would attempt 348 steals over the course of a season and would be successful 169 times (49%). Last year in real life the average team attempted 135 steals and was successful 92 times (68%). Looking at it this way it seems apparent that we have way too many attempts with a success rate that is way too low.
As an aside, I agree with Geoffrey that the catcher's arm should factor into the equation. I know I would want to change my aggressiveness based on the opponent's catcher's arm. After all, it ain't random chance that everybody in the world steals off the Mets. Hell, even Mo Vaughn would have a chance against Piazza's arm.
May 15, 2003 at 01:01PM View BBCode
I looked at these numbers another way -- I wanted to see how they would play out on an average team. To simulate this, let's assume an average team has 1 A runner, 2 B runners, 4 C runners and 2 D runners. Let us further assume that the manager has his A runner set to Ultra Aggressive, his B runners set to Aggressive, his C runners set to Moderate and his D runners set to Conservative. While not perfect, this seems like a fair emulation of an average team.Using the numbers above, this team would attempt 348 steals over the course of a season and would be successful 169 times (49%). Last year in real life the average team attempted 135 steals and was successful 92 times (68%). Looking at it this way it seems apparent that we have way too many attempts with a success rate that is way too low.
As an aside, I agree with Geoffrey that the catcher's arm should factor into the equation. I know I would want to change my aggressiveness based on the opponent's catcher's arm. After all, it ain't random chance that everybody in the world steals off the Mets. Hell, even Mo Vaughn would have a chance against Piazza's arm.
Bob
May 15, 2003 at 01:07PM View BBCode
Another look. Assume the same team (1 A, 2 B, 4 C and 2 D runners), but with everybody set to Moderate. Extrapolating out the numbers, the team would attempt 259 steals and succeed 123 times (47%). Still too many attempts with too low a success rate.
hcboomer
Part of the answer, it seems to me, is still individual steal ratings. That way you could have that great SB guy stealing his 90 bases in 110 attempts and not have to figure out how to make the preferences work to allow that AND to make sure other fast guys don't do as well. That way you have some guys highly successful, some guys getting thrown out a lot, and an owner can make the adjustments player by player.
Seems like now a manager has to think this way: "OK, I want Player A to run all the time, and he's got A speed, so I guess I have to have all my A guys be ultra aggressive. I guess I'll also have to make some of my game-condition preferences ultra-aggressive too, even if that might cause some slower guys to run more often than I want.
My guess is that if you allow for more selectivity in how you set the player-by-player preferences, and if you separate the players' steal skills more distinctly with steal ratings, you'll have an easier time eventually nailing down the proper success percentages for all of the scenarios. I think trying to figure out how to find an acceptable percentage for ALL A-speed players and ALL B-speed players that won't wildly skew individual or team steal numbers makes the task that much tougher.
May 15, 2003 at 01:20PM View BBCode
It seems like philosophically we're caught in a vicious cycle here. We want to allow teams to be very aggressive in their stealing tendencies if they choose. Yet we also want them to pay a price for such overaggressiveness. Yet any team getting thrown out that often wouldn't steal that much. I don't think there's some perfect percentage out there that will somehow strike the ideal balance when you're talking about all A-speed guys, all B-speed guys etc. You'll either have too many steals or too many caught stealings -- or both -- no matter what you do.Part of the answer, it seems to me, is still individual steal ratings. That way you could have that great SB guy stealing his 90 bases in 110 attempts and not have to figure out how to make the preferences work to allow that AND to make sure other fast guys don't do as well. That way you have some guys highly successful, some guys getting thrown out a lot, and an owner can make the adjustments player by player.
Seems like now a manager has to think this way: "OK, I want Player A to run all the time, and he's got A speed, so I guess I have to have all my A guys be ultra aggressive. I guess I'll also have to make some of my game-condition preferences ultra-aggressive too, even if that might cause some slower guys to run more often than I want.
My guess is that if you allow for more selectivity in how you set the player-by-player preferences, and if you separate the players' steal skills more distinctly with steal ratings, you'll have an easier time eventually nailing down the proper success percentages for all of the scenarios. I think trying to figure out how to find an acceptable percentage for ALL A-speed players and ALL B-speed players that won't wildly skew individual or team steal numbers makes the task that much tougher.
FiveToolPlayer
My main thinking is that both of these ideas seem like they would be extremely difficult to program. Also, stealing rating would be a major change in player ability. If we add anything like that, I'd like to see a "potential" rating. Also, I can't even imagine the interface to set every single players preferences. What happens when you call guys up, make trades, etc.?
I don't know if anyone has brought this up but I'm wondering if players are attempting to steal third too often. How often does this really happen?
May 15, 2003 at 01:35PM View BBCode
I'm not sure I agree that each player should have a stealing rating nor should they be individually assigned stealing preferences.My main thinking is that both of these ideas seem like they would be extremely difficult to program. Also, stealing rating would be a major change in player ability. If we add anything like that, I'd like to see a "potential" rating. Also, I can't even imagine the interface to set every single players preferences. What happens when you call guys up, make trades, etc.?
I don't know if anyone has brought this up but I'm wondering if players are attempting to steal third too often. How often does this really happen?
celamantia
I've often thought the same thing...
May 15, 2003 at 02:47PM View BBCode
I don't know if anyone has brought this up but I'm wondering if players are attempting to steal third too often.
I've often thought the same thing...
FiveToolPlayer
May 15, 2003 at 03:08PM View BBCode
I watch the AL a lot (the Red Sox in particular) so my understanding may be a little off but I would think that each team in real life tries to steal third maybe 7 or 8 times a season, if that.
hcboomer
May 15, 2003 at 03:40PM View BBCode
This question is probably best for Tyson, but I'm curious about the differences in the likelihood to steal among players of different speeds, all other things being equal (I'm more thinking about how it worked before we started experimenting with the preferences). I realize that there are numerical underpinnings for all of the letter grades, so, for example, if there's a guy with a 75 speed rating and a guy with a 70, how would that alone effect how often they might try to steal?Pages: 1 2