As I understand P.A.D.'s argument, I see little that is controversial in it. He insists that he is not claiming that there is comeback code or rubber-banding and that the AI just gets a boost at times and becomes a tougher opponent. I've always suspected that. What I also think is that the user gets a boost at times as well (not sure that P.A.D. mentioned that). Whether any of this is 'triggered' or more or less random I'm not really sure.
What I'm certain of is that I am not unhappy with any of it. I can't see how the game would be much fun without something of the sort going on under the hood. How would we get the rich variety of results from tight 1-0 thrillers to 16-14 runfests and everything in between (blowout wins, blowout losses etc) otherwise? Unlike in a real baseball game, where the diversity of talents of nine individuals on each side makes a limitless range of outcomes possible every time, in video baseball one of the 'teams' is just the user with a fairly consistent ability to play the game. Without some kind of programming intervention I would have thought this would tend to produce fairly consistent (and boring!) results.
I'm afraid I don't buy the view that all the variation is down to the physical and mental condition of the user on a particular day (though I agree there is some variation there) or his suddenly disappearing knowledge of sound baseball strategy. Is it after all just the mysterious fluctuation of statistical probablity, as Brian SCEA has often said? All I can say is - and I repeat - that I am thankful for it whatever it is.
Comment