Destined to lose?

[Jordyn]

Re: Destined to lose?

Questionable like the defensive mistakes of the Dodgers infield that lead to League's 4 ER in 0.2 IP and a blown save last night against the Dbacks?

You sir have missed the point of the entire thread. The point is, these things happen TOO OFTEN in comparison to real life. ANYONE can find random instances of these things happening, sir. It's the fact that these things happen once every 2-3 games that irks me.

[wudl83]

Re: Destined to lose?

You sir have missed the point of the entire thread. The point is, these things happen TOO OFTEN in comparison to real life. ANYONE can find random instances of these things happening, sir. It's the fact that these things happen once every 2-3 games that irks me.

And you sir are unable to recognize that those things happen in REAL LIFE all the time. And that is what I wanted to tell YOU the whole time. And I bet I can write it down another ten times and you still will blame the game coding.
It's the same as in the other thread where a guy complained about not seeing enough blowouts. But at least this guy realized that he had a false impression after he had gotten some statistics.
But you even whisk off examples from the real MLB. I don't get it. In the last Giants series at the Dbacks were so many strange things (including a strange comeback, a game on a knife edge although having a huge lead) that you should explain to me, please. Because you say it happens "too often".

Too much comeback and destiny?

http://espn.go.com/mlb/playbyplay?gameId=330610130

Back 4-6, than making it 6-6 on a wild pitch, back 6-8 in the 10th, making it 8-8 in the 10th, 8-10 in the 14th.

http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/playbyplay?gameId=330610113

Up 3-1 against a bad outing of the opposing SP, TEX tying it up 3-3, wild pitch with runner on second, homerun Berkman 3-5, next AB walk, followed by a double 3-6 TEX.

http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/playbyplay?gameId=330610104

Up 2-0, back 2-4, up 5-4, back 5-7, back 6-7, lost 6-10. Opposing hitter with a season AVG of .150 or something like that hitting 4-4.

http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/playbyplay?gameId=330610107

DET up 2-0, same inning KC with two runners on base, DET OF ridiculously missplays a hit by Perez which he can stretch into a triple, 2-2, next AB out, next AB infield single and 2-3 for KC.

http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/playbyplay?gameId=330610112

3 errors by Houston, 3 runs for SEA, but only 1 ER for HOU's staff. 1 error by Seattle, 2 runs for HOU, but only 1 ER for SEA's staff.

http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/playbyplay?gameId=330610119

Up 3-1, bringing in the closer, unbelievable bad defense and lead blown by the closer , 4 runs for Dbacks in the ninth, ARI up 5-3. Bottom of the 9th first AB HR for LAD 5-4, next AB double, next AB bunt and safe on first on an error, so back 5-4 after leading 1-3 and runners on first and third with no out in the ninth, and still no more runs, it stays 5-4.
http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/playby...meId=330610125
SAD up 7-1 after 7, then 7-2 in the 8th, 7-6 in the 9th, nearly blown lead.

Do you realize those things or do you ignore them, because you don't want to see them?
10 games took place yesterday. And as you can see, 7 of 10 were more (the Dodgers game) or less (the Rangers game) strange. Only 3 of the 10 games were quite normal which leads me to the point, that what we think of as being unorthodox is more common than that what we think of being normal.

[kehlis]

Re: Destined to lose?

It happens every night, just look at the Red Sox, Rays game last night.

I comeback on the CPU just as much as it goes the other way around, I just don't get it.

The post that mentioned people tend to forget the positives and remember the negatives is spot on. I get frustrated when I give up comebacks, I lost two of three to the Astros both coming on late game comebacks and was furious.

Came back the next series and came back in 2 games the next series and took 3 of 4 from the Angels. It's baseball.

[wudl83]

Re: Destined to lose?

Yeah, comebacks and strange things happen all the time. Some guys should look deeply into game stats and how runs were scored. And then they would notice it.

[Jordyn]

Re: Destined to lose?

The developers admitted that the game cannot differentiate between user and CPU, so naturally you're going to see it happening on both sides. This doesn't make it right though. But what really irks me (which is what you guys don't seem to comprehend) is the WAY in which it happens. For example:

- Sac bunts turning into misplayed singles - if you say you've never seen this, you're lying or playing a different game. I see at LEAST one sac bunt turned into a misplayed single every single game.

- The overall success of bunts - this has been mentioned quite a few times on the boards.

- The CPU stringing 5-6 straight hits together - how often does this actually happen in real life? Rallies are usually started by 2-3 hits in an inning, not 6 consecutively (regardless of pitcher).

- Umpire squeezing zone - another thing that has been mentioned countless times on the boards are the inconsistent umpire zones, regardless of whether variable is on or off (I've tried both). What gets me is that their strike zone ALWAYS seems to change when one team is down by a few runs and starts making a comeback.

- Inopportune errors - errors happen, but they seem to happen frequently when one team is down by a few runs.

- Missed routine grounders - how many times have you seen a ground ball hit to a fielder that is misplayed or goes under the glove? Or how about when the grounder is caught but the fielder conveniently takes his time throwing the ball, even when preloading?

I don't mind losing, heck, I WANT to lose to increase the realism. But it's the MANNER in which I'm losing that really ruins the atmosphere of this game for me. I want the CPU to hit mistake pitches. In the game I was describing previously, I made a mistake pitch with Hughes and Swishes crushed it. I wasn't upset at all about that because it was MY fault, I threw a bad pitch. I want to lose because I'm outplayed, NOT because the CPU determined it was time for me to lose and created some boneheaded play. I openly admit that baseball is an unpredictable game and SCEA seems to have depicted that nicely in the game. However, it's what I described above that makes me feel the game needs vast improvements in the way the CPU generates rallies.

[Cavicchi]

Re: Destined to lose?

Questionable like the defensive mistakes of the Dodgers infield that lead to League's 4 ER in 0.2 IP and a blown save last night against the Dbacks?

You seem to have a fixation on the Dodgers. First, you make a big deal about a rookie who has played less than 15 games making a base-running mistake, then you talk about Brandon League as if he should be Mariano, or perhaps Sean Marshall, Sean who has a 99 rating for control and movement. No, League is not in Marshall's league.

Now if you said Trout instead of Puig, then that would be interesting. By the way, I have seen Trout make a base-running mistake--in this game. However, I never thought of making a big deal about it, because I realize this is just a video game trying to make me think it's real baseball, but I know better

[nomo17k]

Re: Destined to lose?

The developers admitted that the game cannot differentiate between user and CPU, so naturally you're going to see it happening on both sides. This doesn't make it right though. But what really irks me (which is what you guys don't seem to comprehend) is the WAY in which it happens. For example:

- Sac bunts turning into misplayed singles - if you say you've never seen this, you're lying or playing a different game. I see at LEAST one sac bunt turned into a misplayed single every single game.

- The overall success of bunts - this has been mentioned quite a few times on the boards.

- The CPU stringing 5-6 straight hits together - how often does this actually happen in real life? Rallies are usually started by 2-3 hits in an inning, not 6 consecutively (regardless of pitcher).

- Umpire squeezing zone - another thing that has been mentioned countless times on the boards are the inconsistent umpire zones, regardless of whether variable is on or off (I've tried both). What gets me is that their strike zone ALWAYS seems to change when one team is down by a few runs and starts making a comeback.

- Inopportune errors - errors happen, but they seem to happen frequently when one team is down by a few runs.

- Missed routine grounders - how many times have you seen a ground ball hit to a fielder that is misplayed or goes under the glove? Or how about when the grounder is caught but the fielder conveniently takes his time throwing the ball, even when preloading?

I don't mind losing, heck, I WANT to lose to increase the realism. But it's the MANNER in which I'm losing that really ruins the atmosphere of this game for me. I want the CPU to hit mistake pitches. In the game I was describing previously, I made a mistake pitch with Hughes and Swishes crushed it. I wasn't upset at all about that because it was MY fault, I threw a bad pitch. I want to lose because I'm outplayed, NOT because the CPU determined it was time for me to lose and created some boneheaded play. I openly admit that baseball is an unpredictable game and SCEA seems to have depicted that nicely in the game. However, it's what I described above that makes me feel the game needs vast improvements in the way the CPU generates rallies.

I can say with 100% conviction that most of the points you are raising here are the result of your selection bias, i.e., you are attributing the cause of what you are seeing to wrong things.

The devs cannot solve those issues since they do not happen the ways you think they do

[wudl83]

Re: Destined to lose?

You seem to have a fixation on the Dodgers. First, you make a big deal about a rookie who has played less than 15 games making a base-running mistake, then you talk about Brandon League as if he should be Mariano, or perhaps Sean Marshall, Sean who has a 99 rating for control and movement. No, League is not in Marshall's league.

I have a fixation on the Dodgers simply because most of the games which I see live are Giants games or Dodgers games. But watching the highlights of other games, which I did not see live, I see scary things all the time, too.
And right now in the moment I am writing this piece down hey profit from comeback code or what? In this moment, the Dodgers, who were first back 0-2, then made it 2-2, then were back 2-3, scored 3 runs on a double to make it 5-3 in the eigth. Is this comeback or what is that?
And Brandon League is a good example for missmanagement, it doesn't only happen in game, but in real life, too. And both times it gets punished.
I won't say much about Marshall, but I must admit that I didn't knew he had near god-status.

Now if you said Trout instead of Puig, then that would be interesting. By the way, I have seen Trout make a base-running mistake--in this game. However, I never thought of making a big deal about it, because I realize this is just a video game trying to make me think it's real baseball, but I know better

Why should I say Trout instead of Puig? I brought up real-life examples for bad defense, bad base-running, lucky hitting, bad management of the bullpen and so on. All those things which happen ingame, too. And now it doesn't count or what? Too much reality?


Ah, and one more thing:

- The CPU stringing 5-6 straight hits together - how often does this actually happen in real life? Rallies are usually started by 2-3 hits in an inning, not 6 consecutively (regardless of pitcher).

Oh, I have seen it multiple times this year in Giants games. Vogelsong, Lincecum and especially Cain all suffered from it. Kontos in the bullpen did suffer, too.

[Jordyn]

I can say with 100% conviction that most of the points you are raising here are the result of your selection bias, i.e., you are attributing the cause of what you are seeing to wrong things.

The devs cannot solve those issues since they do not happen the ways you think they do

I hope you're right. Gives me the desire to continue playing.

[nomo17k]

Re: Destined to lose?

I hope you're right. Gives me the desire to continue playing.

In fact, that's part of the reason why I sometimes participate in discussions like this, even though much of what goes on ending up resembling chatting over whether Big Foot really exists or not.

If someone's really getting frustrated by the game for what the game isn't not really making it happen, isn't that kinda sad? I'm sure the devs reading about frustrations like this are thinking "what can we do??"

I think part of your impression that some rallies are unrealistic might be correct... saying this as someone who knows there's no forced outcomes... what I mean is at times the game balance doesn't seem quite realistic as it could be. In my personal experience, the most frustrating rallies happen when I do an RTTS pitcher who gets called up early so that his attributes haven't been well trained to play at a higher level... very low BB/9, H/9, etc. A pitcher like this tends to get really shelled at times. Since the game isn't really friendly for (unintended) walks, I end up giving up a lot of hits using a pitcher like that. A pitch that I intend to locate out of the strike zone often ends up meatball (due to low BB/9 and whatnot), and I'd see solid hits after solid hits. A situation like that I find very unrealistic. (So I can easily see similar situations can arise in franchise games where low quality pitchers are used.)

But much of people's impression gets exaggerated and distorted by the *limitations* of the game, not by any (malicious) intentions by the game to deceive us, as in comeback, scripted scenarios, or forced outcomes.

Like a pitch going through a bat on replay? It's just a limitation of game animation that cannot reproduce what the game internally is trying to making happen (there are only so many animations to choose from). Bunting for base hits too often successful? Perhaps fielding animations in those situations still lack variety, of quicker kinds, and you tend to trigger slower ones those situations.

There are usually sensible explanations out there for whatever happens.... so it's much more constructive (to the developers) to point these out, rather than suspecting them of doing something they never really have done or intended to do.

But what else can I say, there will always be people who think who know better though. Ignorance can indeed bliss, so long as you don't recognize that you are ignorant. :P

[Cavicchi]

Re: Destined to lose?

I have a fixation on the Dodgers simply because most of the games which I see live are Giants games or Dodgers games. But watching the highlights of other games, which I did not see live, I see scary things all the time, too.
And right now in the moment I am writing this piece down hey profit from comeback code or what? In this moment, the Dodgers, who were first back 0-2, then made it 2-2, then were back 2-3, scored 3 runs on a double to make it 5-3 in the eigth. Is this comeback or what is that?
And Brandon League is a good example for missmanagement, it doesn't only happen in game, but in real life, too. And both times it gets punished.
I won't say much about Marshall, but I must admit that I didn't knew he had near god-status.

Why should I say Trout instead of Puig? I brought up real-life examples for bad defense, bad base-running, lucky hitting, bad management of the bullpen and so on. All those things which happen ingame, too. And now it doesn't count or what? Too much reality?


Ah, and one more thing:

Oh, I have seen it multiple times this year in Giants games. Vogelsong, Lincecum and especially Cain all suffered from it. Kontos in the bullpen did suffer, too.

Because using a rookie playing less than 10 games to make a point about base-running is a very weak argument. If that's the best you can do, then you don't have an argument, in my opinion.

Nobody denies there are comebacks in real baseball, or that "things" happen, so what is important about what you said?

By the way, Mattingly announced yesterday that League is no longer the closer, Jansen will be the closer. Oh, and Marshall isn't the only pitcher with a 99 rating for control and movement. There are others....

[wudl83]

Re: Destined to lose?

Because using a rookie playing less than 10 games to make a point about base-running is a very weak argument. If that's the best you can do, then you don't have an argument, in my opinion.

Oh my god. I used Puig because his mistake actually happened not more than 24 hours ago as I wrote my post.

There are always baserunning mistakes in the real MLB, not only by rookies, but also by established players. Bad steal attempts, bad attempts trying to advance to the next base and so on.

Nobody denies there are comebacks in real baseball, or that "things" happen, so what is important about what you said?

It is important, because most of the games that are played in reality are decided by those strange things happening. When someone complains about those strange things occuring too often ingame in his opinion, especially game deciding, I think it is a valid point to bring up a bunch of curiosities from the real world to show that those things which happen ingame, aren't as strange as one could think.

By the way, Mattingly announced yesterday that League is no longer the closer, Jansen will be the closer. Oh, and Marshall isn't the only pitcher with a 99 rating for control and movement. There are others....

LOL you were talking about the game - I thought you were talking about reality.
At least it took 4 BS and an ERA of 6.00 or so for DM to understand that Jansen is better than League.

I do NOT want to say that the game has no flaws. Only to clarify it. But talking about destiny and strange things happening too often or especially too often in certain situations, particularly when often mistakes by the human player are involved, is completely the wrong direction to follow IMO.


EDIT:
To reproduce reality, there HAS to be a certain kind of randomness. Because in reality, there always happen things on a random base, too. I hope you understand, what I want to say with this sentence.

[Cavicchi]

Re: Destined to lose?

Randomness? Okay, when you swing through a pitch with perfect timing, why was it swung through? Who or what decides that? Based on what?

Should a batter get a hit off a pitch swung at that was near the back end of home plate?

I guess you still don't understand what I said about using Puig. I give up! No, I don't give up. On the third "swing" I do give up!

[wudl83]

Re: Destined to lose?

Randomness? Okay, when you swing through a pitch with perfect timing, why was it swung through? Who or what decides that? Based on what?

Should a batter get a hit off a pitch swung at that was near the back end of home plate?

I guess you still don't understand what I said about using Puig. I give up! No, I don't give up. On the third "swing" I do give up!

Do you want me to go through each of the last real games and search for guys that are known for advanced baserunning and nonetheless made baserunning mistakes? Are you joking (or choking)?

Did you read what I wrote? I said that the game has its flaws but there is no such thing like destiny or comeback code. Only because a certain thing occurs in a situation, it does not mean that this thing does occur all the time in similar situations. Go analyzing your games and you will realize that those flaws also happen when there is no pressure situation.

[Cavicchi]

Re: Destined to lose?

Do you want me to go through each of the last real games and search for guys that are known for advanced baserunning and nonetheless made baserunning mistakes? Are you joking (or choking)?

Did you read what I wrote? I said that the game has its flaws but there is no such thing like destiny or comeback code. Only because a certain thing occurs in a situation, it does not mean that this thing does occur all the time in similar situations. Go analyzing your games and you will realize that those flaws also happen when there is no pressure situation.

Okay, one last time and this time as simple as I can do.

Using a rookie who has played less than 10 games to make a point about base-running mistakes is pretty much meaningless. If there was a poll on the significance of that statement about Puig, I am extremely confident the overwhelming majority would agree it added nothing to the discussion.

If you said there are base-running mistakes in real baseball, then that would be the same as using Puig as an example. Do you think there is anyone here who doesn't know there are base-running mistakes in real baseball?!

Do you think there is anyone here who doesn't know there are comebacks in real baseball? What is so important about a pitcher like League blowing saves? There are blown saves in baseball, whoopee!

Why Jordyn thinks or thought there is some kind of comeback code was not solved by anything you said.