 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Stealing when it doesn't make sense
tysonlowery
1) If its your last at bat and you are losing, a runner will never try to steal unless HE is the tying run.
2) If the pitcher is batting with 2 outs, runners will never try to steal.
Let me know if you think these are good to have, whether they actually work as they should, and whether you think we need manager prefs to turn them off.
Stealing when it doesn't make sense
July 31, 2006 at 04:57PM View BBCode
I put in a couple tweaks today to Abe's stealing logic. Currently, these are turned on for all teams. I may add manager prefs to turn them off if people think its necessary.1) If its your last at bat and you are losing, a runner will never try to steal unless HE is the tying run.
2) If the pitcher is batting with 2 outs, runners will never try to steal.
Let me know if you think these are good to have, whether they actually work as they should, and whether you think we need manager prefs to turn them off.
rnznsmn
Tyson,
Nice changes. I think the 1st one can stay as is. For the second, I'd make it a manager preference to turn it off, but leave it on by default.
~rnz
July 31, 2006 at 05:07PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonlowery
I put in a couple tweaks today to Abe's stealing logic. Currently, these are turned on for all teams. I may add manager prefs to turn them off if people think its necessary.
1) If its your last at bat and you are losing, a runner will never try to steal unless HE is the tying run.
2) If the pitcher is batting with 2 outs, runners will never try to steal.
Let me know if you think these are good to have, whether they actually work as they should, and whether you think we need manager prefs to turn them off.
Tyson,
Nice changes. I think the 1st one can stay as is. For the second, I'd make it a manager preference to turn it off, but leave it on by default.
~rnz
barterer2002
With 2 outs and a PH at the plate-never steal.
July 31, 2006 at 09:46PM View BBCode
Tyson, this is great-eliminates one of my pet peeves, another situation that drives me nuts though should be tweaked to:With 2 outs and a PH at the plate-never steal.
tysonlowery
July 31, 2006 at 10:14PM View BBCode
Hmm, I don't know if I agree with you there. What do others think?
barterer2002
You can make it an option to turn it off but I really really really hate my guys doing it.
July 31, 2006 at 10:16PM View BBCode
Nothing worse than losing the pinch hitter because your damn runner got thrown out trying to steal second.You can make it an option to turn it off but I really really really hate my guys doing it.
tysonlowery
A better (but more complicated) way to fix it would be to add double switches.
July 31, 2006 at 10:20PM View BBCode
Logically, if its the right time to steal, I would still send the guy even if there is a PH at the plate. Personally, I would leave this option off.A better (but more complicated) way to fix it would be to add double switches.
CaseyStengel
July 31, 2006 at 11:47PM View BBCode
Maybe this belongs in a different place, but I would like to see a slow runner replaced by a speed demon in later innings if the situation warrants.
Closer
August 01, 2006 at 01:08AM View BBCode
Those are two very sensible and probably welcomed tweaks.
Closer
August 01, 2006 at 01:11AM View BBCode
I have to agree with Bart, especially when the PHer is for the pitcher. This is double iritating if the PHer has replaced an effective pitcher and now doesn't even swing the bat...lost the bat....lost the pitcher...and then the pitcher leads off. Not good.
ScooterPie
Should this be "tying or go-ahead run"? Runners on first and third, down by 1, I think I might want the guy from first to go. Not sure about that. But I can see myself wanting it sometimes.
Me, I hope you include options to turn off all the changes you suggest here. Personally, I'd turn off the "don't steal with a pitcher at bat with 2 outs" and the "don't steal with a PH at bat with 2 outs." I understand the vexation when a runner is caught in those situations, but I often PH with a singles hitter and then root for the runner to take 2nd so he can score.
scooter
PS Maybe you don't need to be able to turn off the "last at-bat" thing. I can't come up with a good reason to steal then ... oh, except to avoid a DP. But really, don't runners only take that base if the defense gives it to them? Bah. I dunno.
August 01, 2006 at 05:49AM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonlowery
1) If its your last at bat and you are losing, a runner will never try to steal unless HE is the tying run.
Should this be "tying or go-ahead run"? Runners on first and third, down by 1, I think I might want the guy from first to go. Not sure about that. But I can see myself wanting it sometimes.
Me, I hope you include options to turn off all the changes you suggest here. Personally, I'd turn off the "don't steal with a pitcher at bat with 2 outs" and the "don't steal with a PH at bat with 2 outs." I understand the vexation when a runner is caught in those situations, but I often PH with a singles hitter and then root for the runner to take 2nd so he can score.
scooter
PS Maybe you don't need to be able to turn off the "last at-bat" thing. I can't come up with a good reason to steal then ... oh, except to avoid a DP. But really, don't runners only take that base if the defense gives it to them? Bah. I dunno.
tysonlowery
August 01, 2006 at 01:57PM View BBCode
Should this be "tying or go-ahead run"?That kinda defeats the purpose in my opinion - I would never try to steal 2nd with the tying run at 3rd. But maybe there should be a setting for that so you can choose?
tysonlowery
August 01, 2006 at 01:58PM View BBCode
Casey - pinch runners would be a different enhancement.
ScooterPie
That's the lines I was thinking along. Also, I just prefer to play for the win. You make whatever call you want on the programming, of course.
scooter
PS Problem with my example above: Maybe the catcher shouldn't throw to second. Maybe that decision by the catcher should be programmed in as well. But I have a feeling that's a lot more involved than you'd want for this one change we're talking about.
August 01, 2006 at 06:04PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonloweryWell, I sure would. Just to give one example (which is all we need, right?): Picture, if you will, men on the corners, down by a run, 2 outs. Fast runner on first; crappy (or even out-of-position) catcher behind the plate. You steal that base, there's a chance the throw's gonna sail into center field and tie the game for you. Otherwise, you needed a hit -- not an SF or an RBI groundout, but a hit.
I would never try to steal 2nd with the tying run at 3rd.
That's the lines I was thinking along. Also, I just prefer to play for the win. You make whatever call you want on the programming, of course.
scooter
PS Problem with my example above: Maybe the catcher shouldn't throw to second. Maybe that decision by the catcher should be programmed in as well. But I have a feeling that's a lot more involved than you'd want for this one change we're talking about.
ShoelessWonder
"Catchers Indiference" I think is the term they use.
August 02, 2006 at 02:31PM View BBCode
Ahhhhhhh but most times the catcher don't throw especially if the sucker is fast."Catchers Indiference" I think is the term they use.
ScooterPie
Yeah, when I said "Maybe the catcher shouldn't throw to second," I was partly talking about defensive indifference. Sorry I wasn't clear. All I'm sayin' is that I'd like the fellow on first to have a chance to get the winning run into scoring position -- either by the regular stealing logic, or because the defense is smart enough to give him the base.
Look, this is such a rare situation that it almost doesn't matter. (And it also leads to the fact that the defense has no option to intentionally walk the batter after I steal second.) I just wanted to explain to Tyson how my managing style differs from his in this case. If someone doesn't get what I'm saying, I'm happy to explain further. But if I've made my point clear, I don't plan to waste any more words trying to convince anyone. As long as Tyson hears what I'm saying and gives it due consideration, I'm happy.
scooter
August 02, 2006 at 05:22PM View BBCode
Originally posted by ShoelessWonder
Ahhhhhhh but most times the catcher don't throw especially if the sucker is fast.
Yeah, when I said "Maybe the catcher shouldn't throw to second," I was partly talking about defensive indifference. Sorry I wasn't clear. All I'm sayin' is that I'd like the fellow on first to have a chance to get the winning run into scoring position -- either by the regular stealing logic, or because the defense is smart enough to give him the base.
Look, this is such a rare situation that it almost doesn't matter. (And it also leads to the fact that the defense has no option to intentionally walk the batter after I steal second.) I just wanted to explain to Tyson how my managing style differs from his in this case. If someone doesn't get what I'm saying, I'm happy to explain further. But if I've made my point clear, I don't plan to waste any more words trying to convince anyone. As long as Tyson hears what I'm saying and gives it due consideration, I'm happy.
scooter
tysonlowery
I also added 2 options for when the pitcher is batting, you can either never steal or don't steal with 2 outs.
if you have any suggestions on how to word these, please let me know.
August 03, 2006 at 08:22PM View BBCode
Ok, I added manager prefs for these.I also added 2 options for when the pitcher is batting, you can either never steal or don't steal with 2 outs.
if you have any suggestions on how to word these, please let me know.
fabman1
I lost yet another game like this today. I have already scored a run to cut the lead to one run, man on first, a 30hr/100rbi guy at the plate and the runner gets thrown out, game over, bat out of his hands. If my runner or batter is the tying or winning run, I want that runner hogtied wherever he is at.
August 03, 2006 at 10:26PM View BBCode
My only problem with all of this unless I skimmed over it all and missed it. The pitcher isn't going to be batting in the bottom of the 9th of a game that you are down by a run or two. This switch that pertains to a pitcher means nothing to me.I lost yet another game like this today. I have already scored a run to cut the lead to one run, man on first, a 30hr/100rbi guy at the plate and the runner gets thrown out, game over, bat out of his hands. If my runner or batter is the tying or winning run, I want that runner hogtied wherever he is at.
CaseyStengel
August 03, 2006 at 11:13PM View BBCode
Got an Apache Tomcat error when accesing the Manager Prefs/Substitutions pageHTTP Status 500 -
type Exception report
message
description The server encountered an internal error () that prevented it from fulfilling this request.
exception
org.apache.jasper.JasperException: Unable to compile class for JSP
An error occurred at line: 16 in the jsp file: /managerbat.jsp
Generated servlet error:
Type mismatch: cannot convert from int to String
An error occurred at line: 16 in the jsp file: /managerbat.jsp
Generated servlet error:
The operator < is undefined for the argument type(s) String, int
An error occurred at line: 16 in the jsp file: /managerbat.jsp
Generated servlet error:
Type mismatch: cannot convert from int to String
org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServletWrapper.handleJspException(JspServletWrapper.java:510)
org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServletWrapper.service(JspServletWrapper.java:375)
org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServlet.serviceJspFile(JspServlet.java:314)
org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServlet.service(JspServlet.java:264)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:802)
root cause
org.apache.jasper.JasperException: Unable to compile class for JSP
An error occurred at line: 16 in the jsp file: /managerbat.jsp
Generated servlet error:
Type mismatch: cannot convert from int to String
An error occurred at line: 16 in the jsp file: /managerbat.jsp
Generated servlet error:
The operator < is undefined for the argument type(s) String, int
An error occurred at line: 16 in the jsp file: /managerbat.jsp
Generated servlet error:
Type mismatch: cannot convert from int to String
org.apache.jasper.compiler.DefaultErrorHandler.javacError(DefaultErrorHandler.java:84)
org.apache.jasper.compiler.ErrorDispatcher.javacError(ErrorDispatcher.java:328)
org.apache.jasper.compiler.JDTCompiler.generateClass(JDTCompiler.java:413)
org.apache.jasper.compiler.Compiler.compile(Compiler.java:297)
org.apache.jasper.compiler.Compiler.compile(Compiler.java:276)
org.apache.jasper.compiler.Compiler.compile(Compiler.java:264)
org.apache.jasper.JspCompilationContext.compile(JspCompilationContext.java:563)
org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServletWrapper.service(JspServletWrapper.java:303)
org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServlet.serviceJspFile(JspServlet.java:314)
org.apache.jasper.servlet.JspServlet.service(JspServlet.java:264)
javax.servlet.http.HttpServlet.service(HttpServlet.java:802)
note The full stack trace of the root cause is available in the Apache Tomcat/5.5.16 logs.
Apache Tomcat/5.5.16
ScooterPie
scooter
[Edited on 8/5/2006 by ScooterPie]
August 05, 2006 at 04:25AM View BBCode
I toddled over to beta to check these out. Me, I like how you phrased the one about the pitcher batting. On the other, right now it reads "If its my team's last at bat ...." Shouldn't it read "If it's my team's last at bat, and we're losing ..."? (Psst ... also note the apostrophe in "it's.")scooter
[Edited on 8/5/2006 by ScooterPie]
tysonlowery
August 05, 2006 at 05:39PM View BBCode
I think the "if we're losing" is covered already, because you can't have a tying runner on base unless you are losing.
ScooterPie
Tell you what: Leave it as is (except for adding that apostrophe). I bet you a dollar* that someone posts about this in the next four months on Q&A or Report Problems.
scooter
* Void where prohibited
August 05, 2006 at 07:53PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tysonloweryOh, absolutely. It's just that as phrased, it appears that ABE's test on whether to apply the rule is "it's my team's last at bat." Now, you know it won't apply the rule unless the batting team is losing, because you wrote the code; and I know it, because I was here when you wrote it; and it isn't hard to puzzle out, because that's the only way it makes sense ... but that guy in Bangor who's signing up next month? He doesn't know it, and he might not trust you enough to assume you did it right.
you can't have a tying runner on base unless you are losing.
Tell you what: Leave it as is (except for adding that apostrophe). I bet you a dollar* that someone posts about this in the next four months on Q&A or Report Problems.
scooter
* Void where prohibited
Leonard
August 07, 2006 at 02:47AM View BBCode
If the tieing run is on 1st, won't this change prevent the runner from stealing second in order to get into scoring position. Getting the tieing run home from first might take two hits. Getting him home from second might take only one.
ScooterPie
Here's what it says, Leonard:
If its my team's last at bat, [Only steal if the runner is the tying run]
(The other option is [Do nothing different])
So if you use this preference, the guy who represents the tying run does steal. It's the other (less-than-tying-run) guys who are being kept from running you out of the inning. Make sense?
scooter
August 07, 2006 at 07:58AM View BBCode
Originally posted by Leonard
If the tieing run is on 1st, won't this change prevent the runner from stealing second in order to get into scoring position. Getting the tieing run home from first might take two hits. Getting him home from second might take only one.
Here's what it says, Leonard:
If its my team's last at bat, [Only steal if the runner is the tying run]
(The other option is [Do nothing different])
So if you use this preference, the guy who represents the tying run does steal. It's the other (less-than-tying-run) guys who are being kept from running you out of the inning. Make sense?
scooter
Pages: 1