Loooooooong Singles.

[Bobhead]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

I don't use swing influence, but I use zone hitting, and go out of my way to make sure I'm swinging under the ball, in any situation where I could potentially GIDP. So basically I'm doing the same thing H&V is, because I'm essentially influencing my swing to avoid DPs.

The most objective proof I can think of would be for someone to record their double play stats using Timing hitting (because I assume this mirrors CPU hitting more closely than any other mechanic), while NOT using Swing Influence.

If this theory is indeed correct, a user just timing their swings without using any swing influences or hit and run strategies or anything else to avoid double plays, would produce GIDP rates similar to that of the CPU.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

I think I'm noticing this too, though not perfectly convinced just yet. If something changed, then I think that's for good...

But I still stand that the game can still improve in that there should be slightly more ways to make "poor hits" into safe hits, one of which is by adopting a slap hitting style. If you have a great speed, left-handed, and is a high Vision/low Contact hitter (therefore a lot of poor, not solid hits), you could slap pitches to the opposite field a bit more and just hope some of them become infield hits. The game doesn't need to accommodate some extreme type of this like Ichiro, but I think it would be a good addition for variety. Brett Butler, Michael Bourn... that type of player.

Anyway, this isn't about loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong single!!! Even though I've been single for a looooooooooong time, I digress..

This would be a nice addition. Even just for bloop hit variety. I like it!

I can totally see this could be the reason. Just not clear it *really* is what's going on without conclusive evidence and/or internal knowlegde. But I do think it's a point worth mentioning to the devs. Have you done it? It's not a bug, so it shouldn't go there, but how do you present this to convince that it's an issue worth their time to revisit? I guess I'm just looking for the way, since I'm just as disappointed as you are every time a rally gets killed by a routine grounder.

I'm with you on this, and I've spent time thinking about how to support my theory other than just with my played game stats, CPU stats, your hit ratio numbers, etc etc.

It's like trying to see something invisible.

The game doesn't provide us with CPU guess pitch/location or swing influence data. So I'm not sure how to propose this idea. Though we can hypothesize amoungst ourselves, perhaps it would be best to make the numbers known and let the programmers figure out the cause.

As far as I know, no one on OS knows exactly how or if the CPU uses a swing influence logic. I'd bet money on this being the cause though! It just happens to essentially be unprovable unless I'm missing something.

Oh, and nice line up above about being single. Very clever!

[nomo17k]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

I'm with you on this, and I've spent time thinking about how to support my theory other than just with my played game stats, CPU stats, your hit ratio numbers, etc etc.

It's like trying to see something invisible.

The game doesn't provide us with CPU guess pitch/location or swing influence data. So I'm not sure how to propose this idea. Though we can hypothesize amoungst ourselves, perhaps it would be best to make the numbers known and let the programmers figure out the cause.

As far as I know, no one on OS knows exactly how or if the CPU uses a swing influence logic. I'd bet money on this being the cause though! It just happens to essentially be unprovable unless I'm missing something.

Oh, and nice line up above about being single. Very clever!

Regardless of evidence I think it's worth letting them know.

I do have an idea for testing your hypothesis. It's tedious as always for this sort of thing but perhaps doable, and I have the baseline stats to compare with so I think we'll be able to reach a fairly robust conclusion whether your theory is right or not.

I have a pretty solid stats on FB%, LD%, GB% from the 75 CPU vs. CPU games with all sliders at default. That's the baseline there.

What can be done then is to fire up a CPU vs. CPU game (randomly chosen so that we don't keep using only groundball/flyball pitchers), and whenever less than two outs, we intervene as HUM to intentionally walk the batter. Switch control back to CPU. Then see how the at bat goes. We keep track of how the at-bat ends. Accumulate enough stats, compute FB%, LD%, GB% and compare to the baseline above.

If your theory is correct, then we should see significantly higher GB% with a runner on 1B with less than two outs.

I haven't confirmed the validity of this info but you'd need roughly 200 plate appearance to nail this down:

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/ind...s/sample-size/

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

I stand corrected. That sounds like a perfectly reliable test.

Nice link. Interesting that K/PA can accurately be tracked by 150 total BF. That's easily less than ten total starts for a starter. Sounds small to me.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

I'm going to finish up my MOM game, and probably begin the test (including the results from this SEA vs. TEX game w/o the intentional walking).

I'll start a new thread if I decide to see it through (which, knowing me, means I'll probably do it while I'm bored at work).

[nomo17k]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

I stand corrected. That sounds like a perfectly reliable test.

Nice link. Interesting that K/PA can accurately be tracked by 150 total BF. That's easily less than ten total starts for a starter. Sounds small to me.

I haven't dug into the original article so I'm not sure how reliable are those numbers though. Was kinda surprised they are small as well... you still need to be careful about the matchups, ballparks, etc. though...

Will you be doing that test? I can do some part if you do.

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

I haven't dug into the original article so I'm not sure how reliable are those numbers though. Was kinda surprised they are small as well... you still need to be careful about the matchups, ballparks, etc. though...

Will you be doing that test? I can do some part if you do.

Look for a PM soon.

[Bobhead]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

If there's going to be a new thread for this (which I assume there will be, as we are way off topic and should probably stop hijacking this thread at some point), can someone post the link here or PM me also? I'd definitely be interested in the test, and can try to help, although my PS3 is currently dedicated to the Mets doubleheader ala MLB.TV, I guess I could run it on my laptop and fire up The Show if need be.

[ParisB]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

I have switched over to Timing, and noticed a significant spike in GIDP.

It's almost as if the game is hard coded and programmed to induce GIDP with a runner on 1st.

I wish I had the time to test it, but it seems that the "1st pitch" after a runner on 1st seems to produce by far the most amount of GIDP's

[Heroesandvillains]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

If there's going to be a new thread for this (which I assume there will be, as we are way off topic and should probably stop hijacking this thread at some point), can someone post the link here or PM me also? I'd definitely be interested in the test, and can try to help, although my PS3 is currently dedicated to the Mets doubleheader ala MLB.TV, I guess I could run it on my laptop and fire up The Show if need be.

I asked Nomo to start the thread considering his data will be our Default baseline. When one is made Bobhead, I'll PM you.

And Paris,

GIDP's aren't overly inflated for me and I use Timing. Though I do intentionally attempt to avoid them sometimes with swing influence and selective swinging. We can continue this conversation in the thread once it's up. I have much more to say on the subject but I've already steered this thread enough off-topic.

[pistolpete]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

Now I don't know much about Jacobs Fields (note I still call it Jacobs), but I had a game with the Blue where I hit 5 balls off the left field wall which resulted in singles.

If for some odd reason I was an Indians fan they might really irk me.

[moemoe24]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

Now I don't know much about Jacobs Fields (note I still call it Jacobs), but I had a game with the Blue where I hit 5 balls off the left field wall which resulted in singles.

If for some odd reason I was an Indians fan they might really irk me.

I don't think the problem is the fielders being able to play the wall ball perfect, the problem is the outfielders teleport to the ball. That's the real problem here. They have always played the ball perfectly off the wall but getting to second base wasn't an issue before. Now it's like they slide over to the path of the ball in a blink. This is really apparent on balls hit down the line.

[AUTiger1]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

After playing a few more games I don't think it's necessarily the arm strength of outfielders that's the problem. It's the accuracy of the throws from the outfield. There are only a handful of guys that can throw a frozen rope from the outfield warning track and have it right end up right on the bag. But in the game it seems every throw in from the outfield is a frozen rope right on the bag or within a step or 2 of the bag. I've seen very few throws were the fielder has to take 3 or 4 steps away from the bag to catch the ball.

[nomo17k]

Re: Loooooooong Singles.

After playing a few more games I don't think it's necessarily the arm strength of outfielders that's the problem. It's the accuracy of the throws from the outfield. There are only a handful of guys that can throw a frozen rope from the outfield warning track and have it right end up right on the bag. But in the game it seems every throw in from the outfield is a frozen rope right on the bag or within a step or 2 of the bag. I've seen very few throws were the fielder has to take 3 or 4 steps away from the bag to catch the ball.

Definitely a factor... this is also a reason why there are more outfield assists in the game than you'd see in real life.

This is one of those things that can be frustrating for gamers if the game does it very realistically. It's like pitcher command... Make it too accurate, the game doesn't play realistically. Make it less accurate, the gamer feels that he has no control over the on-field action.

I'd always take the latter (realism) for my own enjoyment, but you see some people really prefer total control.