I've begun to notice a pattern in games against the CPU where the decision to send a runner seems to be determined by the eventual outcome of the play. For example, let's say Player X is on first when Player Y hits a single in the gap. The throw comes in to the cutoff man, who then relays the ball home. 9 out of 10 times, Player X stops at third as the cutoff man gets the ball. In these 9 times, the relay throw from the cutoff man to home ranges from fairly accurate to spot on. However, 1 out of the 10 times, the runner will decide to test the defense and sprint home, despite the cutoff man already having the ball. When this happens, the throw home, despite getting there egregiously ahead of the runner, seems to always miss. The catcher will not be able to dig it, or it will be so askew that he'll be put into a "running off the base" animation.
I suppose this could just be bad luck, but since I began tracking it, the last five times a CPU runner took off in a situation that I judged as making little sense (in other words, a situation that should have resulted in a clear out and the runner being showcased on a "what was he thinking?" ESPN special), he was safe because of an errant throw/bad dig four out of the five times. In the same period of time, the amount of times I've had an errant throw/bad dig in a situation where the runner decided to hold? Twice, despite the far larger quantity of opportunities. I will note that I'm only using plays at home for this data, although I've observed the same thing happen at other bases.
I thought I'd check with others about this; any data I produce represents such a small sample size that it could just be really bad luck. That being said, if it's not bad luck, it has to be one of two things - 1) that the presence of a runner testing the defense reduces fielding attributes significantly or 2) that the CPU calculates the outcome before making the decision. #2 seems unlikely, as I don't think that's how the game's algorithms work. That leaves the theory of fielding attributes being decimated by runners testing the defense, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Anyone else have any input?
I suppose this could just be bad luck, but since I began tracking it, the last five times a CPU runner took off in a situation that I judged as making little sense (in other words, a situation that should have resulted in a clear out and the runner being showcased on a "what was he thinking?" ESPN special), he was safe because of an errant throw/bad dig four out of the five times. In the same period of time, the amount of times I've had an errant throw/bad dig in a situation where the runner decided to hold? Twice, despite the far larger quantity of opportunities. I will note that I'm only using plays at home for this data, although I've observed the same thing happen at other bases.
I thought I'd check with others about this; any data I produce represents such a small sample size that it could just be really bad luck. That being said, if it's not bad luck, it has to be one of two things - 1) that the presence of a runner testing the defense reduces fielding attributes significantly or 2) that the CPU calculates the outcome before making the decision. #2 seems unlikely, as I don't think that's how the game's algorithms work. That leaves the theory of fielding attributes being decimated by runners testing the defense, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. Anyone else have any input?
Comment