Re: Smart Counts

[Comp625]

Re: Smart Counts

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
liftheavy said:
what are the smart counts based on?? How does it differ from random counts?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Smart counts take your pitcher's skill level and fatigue into account. Random count is basially a random count generated from the database of pitch counts.

[Hooligan]

Re: Smart Counts

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Comp625 said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
liftheavy said:
what are the smart counts based on?? How does it differ from random counts?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Smart counts take your pitcher's skill level and fatigue into account. Random count is basially a random count generated from the database of pitch counts.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think it also takes into consideration the batter and what has happened in past at bats.

I feel like I have a bit more "control" than with random counts. That is, if I am getting some 3-0 counts, and I get a strike out, the next count may be 2-2 or something like that. It's a pretty good system if you ask me.

[Hooligan]

Re: Smart Counts

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Comp625 said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
liftheavy said:
what are the smart counts based on?? How does it differ from random counts?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Smart counts take your pitcher's skill level and fatigue into account. Random count is basially a random count generated from the database of pitch counts.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think it also takes into consideration the batter and what has happened in past at bats.

I feel like I have a bit more "control" than with random counts. That is, if I am getting some 3-0 counts, and I get a strike out, the next count may be 2-2 or something like that. It's a pretty good system if you ask me.

[Hooligan]

Re: Smart Counts

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Comp625 said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
liftheavy said:
what are the smart counts based on?? How does it differ from random counts?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
Smart counts take your pitcher's skill level and fatigue into account. Random count is basially a random count generated from the database of pitch counts.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I think it also takes into consideration the batter and what has happened in past at bats.

I feel like I have a bit more "control" than with random counts. That is, if I am getting some 3-0 counts, and I get a strike out, the next count may be 2-2 or something like that. It's a pretty good system if you ask me.

[Cardot]

Re: Smart Counts

Are you guys still using smart counts? I like generated counts, but right now I am really stuck between Random and Smart.

Random counts are a little unrealistic, and the luck of the draw is having too much of an impact on game outcomes. I know control pitchers can fall behind 3-0, but that just seems to happen too much, as exhausted poor pitchers get those 0-2 counts.

The smart counts on the other hand seem to be a little too smart. They are extreme. If the game likes the pitcher, then practically every batter comes up with two stikes. If the game doesn't look kindly on the pitcher, then he'll see 3 balls in every count. I drew 15 walks in a recent contest when the AI was sticking it to its own pitchers. There is no middle ground with the Smart counts.

Just curious what others were thinking at this point. I was thinking of trying to use 2-1 counts, but that might partially defeat the purpose of speeding up games???

[Cardot]

Re: Smart Counts

Are you guys still using smart counts? I like generated counts, but right now I am really stuck between Random and Smart.

Random counts are a little unrealistic, and the luck of the draw is having too much of an impact on game outcomes. I know control pitchers can fall behind 3-0, but that just seems to happen too much, as exhausted poor pitchers get those 0-2 counts.

The smart counts on the other hand seem to be a little too smart. They are extreme. If the game likes the pitcher, then practically every batter comes up with two stikes. If the game doesn't look kindly on the pitcher, then he'll see 3 balls in every count. I drew 15 walks in a recent contest when the AI was sticking it to its own pitchers. There is no middle ground with the Smart counts.

Just curious what others were thinking at this point. I was thinking of trying to use 2-1 counts, but that might partially defeat the purpose of speeding up games???

[Cardot]

Re: Smart Counts

Are you guys still using smart counts? I like generated counts, but right now I am really stuck between Random and Smart.

Random counts are a little unrealistic, and the luck of the draw is having too much of an impact on game outcomes. I know control pitchers can fall behind 3-0, but that just seems to happen too much, as exhausted poor pitchers get those 0-2 counts.

The smart counts on the other hand seem to be a little too smart. They are extreme. If the game likes the pitcher, then practically every batter comes up with two stikes. If the game doesn't look kindly on the pitcher, then he'll see 3 balls in every count. I drew 15 walks in a recent contest when the AI was sticking it to its own pitchers. There is no middle ground with the Smart counts.

Just curious what others were thinking at this point. I was thinking of trying to use 2-1 counts, but that might partially defeat the purpose of speeding up games???

[Hooligan]

Re: Smart Counts

I've been waffling between several different settings. Random, Smart, 1-1 counts, and no generated counts, and there are things I like with all of them...

However, I still enjoy what Smart counts do. The positive for me is that counts realistically mimic the pitcher's talent and fatigue, and the batters patience. So more paitent batters will get better hitters counts. The negative is slightly higher than normal pitch counts (which means higher fatigue). The CPU still will pull its pitcher at the right times. As for walks, there are some games where the CPU pitcher is just off. I've seen it too, but the CPU will pull him as soon as he can. Most of the time, walks are anywhere between 0-5, which is pretty realistic.

All the options have some positives. Random counts tend to keep pitch counts a tad lower, but I don't like the "randomness" of it. Static counts (2-1, 1-1) takes away some of the uncertainty that should exist. I also like playing the games with pitch counts off, but it's tough to walk batters, and pitchers don't tire enough (hence are more effective than they should be). Plus the game takes a while to play.

I'm not one to mess with ratings of pithcers fatigue levels, but I think that smart counts are the best option for me.

[Hooligan]

Re: Smart Counts

I've been waffling between several different settings. Random, Smart, 1-1 counts, and no generated counts, and there are things I like with all of them...

However, I still enjoy what Smart counts do. The positive for me is that counts realistically mimic the pitcher's talent and fatigue, and the batters patience. So more paitent batters will get better hitters counts. The negative is slightly higher than normal pitch counts (which means higher fatigue). The CPU still will pull its pitcher at the right times. As for walks, there are some games where the CPU pitcher is just off. I've seen it too, but the CPU will pull him as soon as he can. Most of the time, walks are anywhere between 0-5, which is pretty realistic.

All the options have some positives. Random counts tend to keep pitch counts a tad lower, but I don't like the "randomness" of it. Static counts (2-1, 1-1) takes away some of the uncertainty that should exist. I also like playing the games with pitch counts off, but it's tough to walk batters, and pitchers don't tire enough (hence are more effective than they should be). Plus the game takes a while to play.

I'm not one to mess with ratings of pithcers fatigue levels, but I think that smart counts are the best option for me.

[Hooligan]

Re: Smart Counts

I've been waffling between several different settings. Random, Smart, 1-1 counts, and no generated counts, and there are things I like with all of them...

However, I still enjoy what Smart counts do. The positive for me is that counts realistically mimic the pitcher's talent and fatigue, and the batters patience. So more paitent batters will get better hitters counts. The negative is slightly higher than normal pitch counts (which means higher fatigue). The CPU still will pull its pitcher at the right times. As for walks, there are some games where the CPU pitcher is just off. I've seen it too, but the CPU will pull him as soon as he can. Most of the time, walks are anywhere between 0-5, which is pretty realistic.

All the options have some positives. Random counts tend to keep pitch counts a tad lower, but I don't like the "randomness" of it. Static counts (2-1, 1-1) takes away some of the uncertainty that should exist. I also like playing the games with pitch counts off, but it's tough to walk batters, and pitchers don't tire enough (hence are more effective than they should be). Plus the game takes a while to play.

I'm not one to mess with ratings of pithcers fatigue levels, but I think that smart counts are the best option for me.

[diamondw23]

Re: Smart Counts

I've been waivering between smart &amp; randon couts, too. And, I'm looking forward some conclusion...

When pitching, smart counts tend to generate VERY high K counts for me &amp; I flirt w/ no hitters regularly.

Random counts keep the K totals right where they should be, but the computer hits the heck out of me. I also intentially walk any batter (unless the bags are full) which comes up with a random 3-0 count... The K / BB ratio seems right on this way...

[diamondw23]

Re: Smart Counts

I've been waivering between smart &amp; randon couts, too. And, I'm looking forward some conclusion...

When pitching, smart counts tend to generate VERY high K counts for me &amp; I flirt w/ no hitters regularly.

Random counts keep the K totals right where they should be, but the computer hits the heck out of me. I also intentially walk any batter (unless the bags are full) which comes up with a random 3-0 count... The K / BB ratio seems right on this way...

[diamondw23]

Re: Smart Counts

I've been waivering between smart &amp; randon couts, too. And, I'm looking forward some conclusion...

When pitching, smart counts tend to generate VERY high K counts for me &amp; I flirt w/ no hitters regularly.

Random counts keep the K totals right where they should be, but the computer hits the heck out of me. I also intentially walk any batter (unless the bags are full) which comes up with a random 3-0 count... The K / BB ratio seems right on this way...

[Cardot]

Re: Smart Counts

Yeah, I wish there would have been something in between random and smart....perhaps "Mildly Intelligent" counts. Where the situation would sku the count in favor of the batter or pitcher, but not to the extent where good pitchers always begin with an 0-2 count.

I still think the generated counts are a great idea. I really enjoy the pace of play. I thought WSB2k3 was great last year, but even while having fun, I would often look up and ask "how many innings left?". With the generated counts in ASB, things zip along, and all of a sudden we are in crunch time in the 8th inning.

[Cardot]

Re: Smart Counts

Yeah, I wish there would have been something in between random and smart....perhaps "Mildly Intelligent" counts. Where the situation would sku the count in favor of the batter or pitcher, but not to the extent where good pitchers always begin with an 0-2 count.

I still think the generated counts are a great idea. I really enjoy the pace of play. I thought WSB2k3 was great last year, but even while having fun, I would often look up and ask "how many innings left?". With the generated counts in ASB, things zip along, and all of a sudden we are in crunch time in the 8th inning.