Player rating question

[Nth Power]

Is there any way to tell :

1) how well a player can bunt?

2) how susceptible to injury they are?

I couldn't find it anywhere, but I think it's useful information to have.

[henry296]

1.  Not sure if that is a hidden rating or not.
2.  There is a hidden durability rating.

[Nth Power]

Thanks for the reply.  I suppose the transaction history could be used as an indicator for being injury prone, so that's not really a problem.
 
Bunting would be nice to be able to see, as it would help me from making all those bad bunts!   It seems I'm only successful about half the time.
Perhaps the Contact rating has something to do with it?

[Amaroq]

Nth - I've been using 'contact + speed' as a metric for 'should a guy bunt'. Just remember, even a good bunt-for-a-hit guys is still going to fail 70% of the time, so if you've had 3 successes in 20 attempts (.150) that's not statistically significant...

[Claymore Cut]

ORIGINAL: Amaroq

Nth - I've been using 'contact + speed' as a metric for 'should a guy bunt'. Just remember, even a good bunt-for-a-hit guys is still going to fail 70% of the time, so if you've had 3 successes in 20 attempts (.150) that's not statistically significant...

What about just sacrifice Bunting? I have been noticing quite a few fielder's Choices when trying to have my pitcher move the guy to second. If the rating in contact for Sac Bunting, then Pitchers are going to be pretty bad at Bunting, no?

[Amaroq]

[:D]

Not sure - I've typically been sac bunting *because* its my pitcher at the plate, I rarely SAC with a hitter at the plate.

[Claymore Cut]

ORIGINAL: Amaroq

[:D]

Not sure - I've typically been sac bunting *because* its my pitcher at the plate, I rarely SAC with a hitter at the plate.

Have you noticed the Sacrifice completion as kind if low (for pitchers)?

[Nth Power]

ORIGINAL: Claymore Cut

ORIGINAL: Amaroq

Nth - I've been using 'contact + speed' as a metric for 'should a guy bunt'. Just remember, even a good bunt-for-a-hit guys is still going to fail 70% of the time, so if you've had 3 successes in 20 attempts (.150) that's not statistically significant...

What about just sacrifice Bunting? I have been noticing quite a few fielder's Choices when trying to have my pitcher move the guy to second. If the rating in contact for Sac Bunting, then Pitchers are going to be pretty bad at Bunting, no?

Actually I meant sacrifice bunts, sorry for not clarifying...
I've even seen a couple of bunt double plays which shouldn't happen that often.

Using the contact+speed method sounds good. I'll give it a try and see if I see any improvement. Thanks Amaroq!

[Claymore Cut]

ORIGINAL: Nth Power

ORIGINAL: Claymore Cut

ORIGINAL: Amaroq

Nth - I've been using 'contact + speed' as a metric for 'should a guy bunt'. Just remember, even a good bunt-for-a-hit guys is still going to fail 70% of the time, so if you've had 3 successes in 20 attempts (.150) that's not statistically significant...

What about just sacrifice Bunting? I have been noticing quite a few fielder's Choices when trying to have my pitcher move the guy to second. If the rating in contact for Sac Bunting, then Pitchers are going to be pretty bad at Bunting, no?

Actually I meant sacrifice bunts, sorry for not clarifying...
I've even seen a couple of bunt double plays which shouldn't happen that often.

Using the contact+speed method sounds good. I'll give it a try and see if I see any improvement. Thanks Amaroq!

But if you increase Pitchers contact, won't they become better overall batters (making them even less likely to Sac Bunt in the first place)?