managing

[MUTTS]

Could people please comment on the actual baseball gameplay/managerial aspects of the game. I'm very interested in this...moreso than the GM options. I find OOTP's managing a little simplistic. I'm not looking for pitch by pitch control...but hit and run, defensive positioning, etc. I realize something like diamond mind may be better at that but I'm not a replay guy...I would prefer a fictional league setup. Does game management affect wins/losses?

Thanx in advance.
Tony

[Amaroq]

Yes, you can definitely manage your way to more losses... [;)] ... but the game doesn't have full pitch-by-pitch control either: it was originally designed as a GM-style "over many seasons" game, and has been adding in-game management recently. The in-game AI is reasonable, but aimed more at 'modelling MLB play' than 'providing a great opponent' for things like intentional walks, etc; the in-game management options are reasonable but not all-encompassing (for example, steal, intentional walk, hit-and-run, sacrifice bunt, substitutions, all the usual suspects are available, but not 'bunt for a base hit', 'warm up a pitcher', or 'choose your bunt-defense play'.)

Steely Glint is probably the best frequent-poster here to give you a direct comparison between PureSim's in-game management and OOTP's - care to weigh in, Steely?

MUTTS, if you're interested in in-game management, I'd love to get your thoughts in the thread (link):Improvements for Managers.

[Frozen Stiffer]

Though I've never played OOTP, I just recently finished my first every-game-managed-by-me season. I'd be more than happy to share any info or whatnot that you may need!

I have another season where I'm simming all the games, so I have a fair angle on both game playing options.

[Amaroq]

Stiffer, were you happy with the management options available?
Were there any 'key' options you'd like to see included that weren't?

I think that's basically what MUTTS wants to know - and hearing your feedback will help Shaun also.

[pasternakski]

This just in from the "for what it's worth" department. I would like to see:

-the suicide squeeze
-manager-controlled base running after base hits (as with tagging up on fly balls)
-outfield positioning for "special" hitters (deep, short, pull, other way - maybe a way of taking into account power pitchers and control pitchers, although maybe that's getting pretty detailed)
-the pitchout
-pickoffs (I wouldn't want to see each individual throw to first, but I think this could be handled in the same way as the manager strategy for stealing a base - and this might help to cut down on the large number of stolen base attempts by the AI. Should include the possibility of picking off a runner who is attempting to steal. The "holding runners on" rating should have an effect on how good the pitcher's pickoff move is, I would think)
-holding a runner close at first vs. playing behind him

I really like PureSim BB and hope that what we've got doesn't change (except for thoughtful improvements). Additions ought, in my estimation, to be in the same "flavor" as the existing game. I would not, for example, want to see a move toward emphasis on every pitch instead of every at bat (as was suggested in another thread awhile back).

A few suggested improvements, while we're on the subject:

-chance for hitter to get more than just first base on an outfielder error
-throwing errors on baserunner advance attempts
-more effective sacrifice bunts (I haven't been playing for a long time, but it seems to me that these fail far more often than in real ML baseball)
-specification of which outfielder made the "great catch" (originally suggested by another poster - this is only a problem in right- and left-center field)
-fewer foul ball destinations and more fair ball destinations (as it is, there are 14 foul ball locations. I would eliminate one of the outfield foul line destinations in right and left field, one of the catcher foul ball locations, and - maybe - the first and third base deep foul destinations. I would add a very deep location to straightaway right and left, down-the-line right and left, and two "monster shot" destinations you could put way back in the stands for the "giant taters" - ball flight calculations by the program would, of course, have to be modified accordingly)

Obviously, none of these suggestions is a big deal, but I think they might add something to the immersion and enjoyment of managing games. Definitely a "two cents' worth" post if there ever was one.

[KG Erwin]

My number one addition for in-game managing would be "holding the runner", which could be a mixture of pickoffs & pitchouts. It seems that those guys with speed ratings of 100 almost never fail in stealing 2nd. So, this is basically asking for a lessening of the chances for a sucessful steal by a high-speed-rated player. This can be done easily enough.

So, the next thing would be requiring a reliever to warm up. Many games have used this, but doing this may require some tricky programming. Putting in a reliever too soon could have a negative effect on his endurance rating, as could warming him up and then sitting him down again.

In other words, the managing of pitchers needs to be a bit more involved. To give the AI a bit of an edge, perhaps these restrictions should only apply to a human manager.

In the GM role, the ability to trade players for cash would be great, but then you require the AI to determine how much a player is worth in monetary terms. For a cash-strapped AI GM, it would be easy for a tightwad human GM, or just a rich one, to raid other teams for players at bargain-basement prices. Hmm, in the history of baseball, this has happened way too often, huh? "Ok, you can have the Babe for $100,000." This request, therefore, is iffy.

I'm trying to be careful, here, because I personally don't want the game to become TOO intricate and detail-oriented. A balance has to be struck, and for the game to gain appeal, it can't lose itself in the minutiae of the day-to-day business of baseball. For example, remember "Baseball Mogul"? Jeez, we don't want to be bothered by such things as ticket & hot dog prices, do we? [:'(]

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
Jeez, we don't want to be bothered by such things as ticket & hot dog prices, do we? [:'(]

I'm ALREADY bothered by ticket and hot dog prices. Beer prices, too.

Are you sure the relief pitcher warmup thing adds much? It seems to me to militate in the direction of "minute by minute" and away from "at bat by at bat." I think of myself as being such a great manager that I ALWAYS anticipate relief needs in advance and have somebody ready (an, now that I've won the election, I AM the people).

I dunno. I just think there's other stuff that needs to be added, and this doesn't. I could be wrong (but I'm not, and I never lie). I'll go along with whatever Shaun decides on this one.

[KG Erwin]

Now, paternakski, make up your nind -- you want additional fielding options but NOT pitching options?

All things considered, maybe we should leave things as they are -- for the most part, the players do their jobs without being told what to do. IF you have good fielders with good range, then base hits will be robbed.

Let's go back to the old-style ballparks for a moment -- a home run in most of those fields was a rare occurrence anyway. Hwever, there are MANY balls hit to the wall that can result in doubles or triples. For run production, they are as good or better than hitting a solo homer.

Pasternakski, I AM a fan of Golden Age baseball, but the truth is, hitting home runs didn't mean winning World Series between 1946-1960. Hitting for power meant something different -- it meant bringing in runs, and being able to reach those distant walls and getting a good bounce.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Now, paternakski, make up your nind -- you want additional fielding options but NOT pitching options?

I have a lot of trouble making up my nind. In fact, I didn't even know I had a nind.

I only bring up the suggestion for eliminating some of those foul ball locations to stimulate thought about where they could be used to better advantage. If they are unnecessary, maybe they should just be eliminated as being superfluous.

I didn't mean to imply that I wanted more home runs in the game, so that baseballs would be flying around like space shuttle parts over Texas. I just think that, all things being equal, it would be good to have more variety in the places fly balls can fly to - and be caught at. Maybe there are just too many places a hit baseball can go to. And maybe, as you suggest, it would be better just to leave it alone.

I still want more of that "game within a game" feel of "runner on first in a tight late-inning" situation. Pickoffs and pitchouts seem to me to add just the right flavor to that ragout.

One thing I neglected to mention, and I am wondering if anyone else has noticed it, is that pitchers seem to hit far too well in comparison to their historical abilities (and ratings numbers). I know doggone well that Whitey Ford couldn't hit .340 even if he was keeping the official scorebook, but he is in the historical replay game I have going. There are others, too. Herb Score was throwing a no-hitter into the eighth inning the other day and got it broken up by none other than Bob Grim. I wouldn't have thought it overly strange, except Grim took Score deep into the right center field stands. Now, historically, Bob Grim didn't even hit his shoe size, let alone ever hit a home run...

[KG Erwin]

Nind? perhaps a Freudian slip- for me, I suppose it means "never mind".

As for pitchers hitting -- I played a game in which one of the pitchers hit a double. After this, I tuned in to one of the Houston-St Louis games, and sure enough, Andy Pettitte hit a freakin double. Serendipity in action? This guy was from the AL, for Chrissakes.

If a pitcher can hit, then more power to him. I always hated the DH anyway. [:@]

[Sonny]

-chance for hitter to get more than just first base on an outfielder error
-throwing errors on baserunner advance attempts
-more effective sacrifice bunts (I haven't been playing for a long time, but it seems to me that these fail far more often than in real ML baseball)
-specification of which outfielder made the "great catch" (originally suggested by another poster - this is only a problem in right- and left-center field)

Gotta agree with all of these and add the possibility for a batter to get to second on an infield throwing error.

When I complained about it in another thread Shaun said he would look into the "only one base on an error" problem. So I guess a fix is in the works.

To me, just adding these few things (plus better ball path/text agreement) is all I need for an enjoyable managerial experience. I'd prefer the game not get more intricate than that.

[Sonny]

Oh, and one more thing I forgot about until last night's game - hit by pitch would add some flavor to the game also.