programmed bias of CPU against human batter early in the count

[furball321]

Briefly, I read over a month ago on the Operation Sports forums that the computer penalized a live player for swinging at the first two pitches of an at bat. I play offline Franchise, and I sorta got that impression on my own.

I ran a test of 100 at bats swinging at the 1st pitch versus 100 at bats waiting til the 3rd pitch and got results that gave me a significantly higher batting average waiting til the 3rd pitch, even though that often put me significantly behind the count.

Then I gave it more thought. What was going on, exactly? As I played dozens and dozens of Franchise games by hand, I found that, when I had GOOD results reported by the little at bat recorder for PCI placement and timing, I got fewer hits on the first two pitches of an at bat than I did on the third pitch of an at bat.

So, I decided to do this test: Swing at the first pitch of an at bat. Record ONLY the swings that gave GOOD contact and GOOD timing. Then swing at the third pitch of an at bat and record ONLY the swings that gave GOOD contact and GOOD timing.

I am not a hand-eye guru, so this took hundreds of at bats. These were not done in practice mode. They were done playing the SF Giants in Franchise mode in regular games against the rest of the league.

The results are, I believe, fairly conclusive:

In 200 at bats swinging at the first pitch when the result was GOOD placement and GOOD timing, I got an average of 88.7 speed of the hit and batted for a .266 average.

In 200 at bats swinging at the third pitch - REGARDLESS OF THE COUNT - when the result was GOOD placement and GOOD timing, I got an average of 104.7 speed of the hit and batted for a .352 average.

The numbers were compiled against the same few starting pitchers the Giants faced at the start of a Franchise season, as I began both tests from the season start. Again, that is with the entire Giants lineup, so it's not really scientific. But the results are so skewed as to convince me that the player is penalized for swinging at the first two pitches of an at bat.

Look at it this way: If you que the ball up and get solid contact on the first pitch and hit ,266, but you que the ball up and get solid contact on the third pitch and hit .352, SOMETHING is going on besides physics.

[335TDC]

I believe this. It’s analogous to hitting the turbo button in Madden, which automatically disengages defenders from their blockers.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Caulfield]

FWIW these are MLB's 2017 batting averages based on the different ball/strike counts:
1st pitch .348
1-0 .341
2-0 .360
3-0 .414
0-1 .330
0-2 .152
1-1 .340
2-1 .349
3-1 .364
1-2 .159
2-2 .181
full count .216

zero strikes .348
zero balls .280
3 balls .345
2 strikes .176

even count .273
batter behind in count .202
batter ahead in count .299
swung at 1st pitch .270
took 1st pitch .249

[KBLover]

Quote: Originally Posted by furball321

But the results are so skewed as to convince me that the player is penalized for swinging at the first two pitches of an at bat.

I don't have definitive data as I don't track per count (maybe I should start if I can figure out how to manage it without spending more time in Excel than playing), but I know I've had 1st pitch successes. Sometimes, that's how I start rallies against a guy who's owning me and putting me 0-2, 1-2 all game or I put the throttle down looking to knock the pitcher out after he's rattled so I don't let him get strikes to work his confidence back up.

I don't believe I've had more success swinging at, say, 0-2 pitches than 0-0 or 1-0, which would be before the 3rd pitch of the at-bat.

I tend to hit deep into counts unless for specific reasons, as I like driving up pitch counts and working walks/seeing what the pitcher is going to do to me.

So that might be part of it - I'm not an aggressive hitter, more a patient one that sees more 2-2, 3-2 than 1-1, 2-0 swings.

[underdog13]

Not sure where you read about that on here. Not going to dismiss your results but as you mentioned there are numerous holes within the testing method. I will also add from a programmers perspective it doesn't make sense for them to program something like this in.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[underdog13]

Oh I also realized that I've screenshoted my rtts by ab count stats that I'll post here later

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Caulfield]

Quote: Originally Posted by underdog13

Not sure where you read about that on here. Not going to dismiss your results but as you mentioned there are numerous holes within the testing method. I will also add from a programmers perspective it doesn't make sense for them to program something like this in. Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

a new version of the old scene ~ s tyler

but I wouldnt be surprised if there was more success when even a modicum of patience at the plate were displayed. and not for nefarious reasons but natural ones.

[bcruise]

Quote: Originally Posted by underdog13

Oh I also realized that I've screenshoted my rtts by ab count stats that I'll post here later Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Good call, I've done that too:



Legend difficulty, no slider changes except for fielder run speed down 2 (which, yes, inflates offense but it was still a consistent slider value through the whole season, therefore the comparison works).

I'm not really buying into this. I was pretty bad with 2 strikes on me. If anything I probably hit better than I should have early in the count.

3-0 is the biggest surprise there though - I guess I get a little too swing-happy and hit into some unlucky outs in that count.