Strange deadballish "bug"

Syd Thrift · 06-14-2006, 10:15 PM

When you set "use relievers" and "use closers" to "Very Rarely", endurance to "Very High", and rotation size to "3 Man" in a fictional league, the computer will put together 4 and occasionally 5 man pitching staffs. Closers end up putting up Willie Hernandez-looking numbers (think: 70 games, 130 IPs) because of this, and the occasional #2 reliever also ends up playing 25 games or so. However, if you set rotation size to "4 man", you still have the computer create 4-5 man staffs. That means that for some teams there are literally *no* relief pitchers to bring in, even if a guy gets totally shelled.

This actually makes early-1900s stats more realistic because, well, that's pretty close to what managers actually did a lot of the time. Actually, they used their rotation in relief on their days off but when the end result is guys leading the league in IPs with 350 or so that's fine with me, whether those IPs were done in 41 starts (like the game generates) or 39 starts and 6 relief appearances (like real life "generated"). The problem comes with 19th century guys. You're already going to strain the verisimilitude by forcing 3-man rotations (rotations weren't really used a whole lot at all until the mound and 60 foot, 6 inch distance was introduced in 1893; what's up with making leagues with 3-man rotations and Dan Quisenberry?

battists · 07-06-2006, 11:19 AM

Hi Syd,

Sorry it took us so long to respond to this thread.

Meanwhile, I read through all of that, and couldn't figure out what you wanted the game to be doing.

In other words, what exactly is the issue you'd like us to look into?

Thanks,

Steve

battists · 07-17-2006, 02:16 PM

We have a new rule that states that Tech Support threads wherein we have not received a response within 7 days will be closed.

This one meets this criteria, so I'm closing this.

If you want to discuss it again, just PM me with the thread link, and I'll re-open. (Don't just say "Hey, reopen my thread." I need to know the URL, thanks!)

Steve

06-14-2006, 10:15 PM	#1
Syd Thrift Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,611	Strange deadballish "bug" When you set "use relievers" and "use closers" to "Very Rarely", endurance to "Very High", and rotation size to "3 Man" in a fictional league, the computer will put together 4 and occasionally 5 man pitching staffs. Closers end up putting up Willie Hernandez-looking numbers (think: 70 games, 130 IPs) because of this, and the occasional #2 reliever also ends up playing 25 games or so. However, if you set rotation size to "4 man", you still have the computer create 4-5 man staffs. That means that for some teams there are literally no relief pitchers to bring in, even if a guy gets totally shelled. This actually makes early-1900s stats more realistic because, well, that's pretty close to what managers actually did a lot of the time. Actually, they used their rotation in relief on their days off but when the end result is guys leading the league in IPs with 350 or so that's fine with me, whether those IPs were done in 41 starts (like the game generates) or 39 starts and 6 relief appearances (like real life "generated"). The problem comes with 19th century guys. You're already going to strain the verisimilitude by forcing 3-man rotations (rotations weren't really used a whole lot at all until the mound and 60 foot, 6 inch distance was introduced in 1893; what's up with making leagues with 3-man rotations and Dan Quisenberry?

07-06-2006, 11:19 AM	#2
battists Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18,506	Hi Syd, Sorry it took us so long to respond to this thread. Meanwhile, I read through all of that, and couldn't figure out what you wanted the game to be doing. In other words, what exactly is the issue you'd like us to look into? Thanks, Steve

07-17-2006, 02:16 PM	#3
battists Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18,506	We have a new rule that states that Tech Support threads wherein we have not received a response within 7 days will be closed. This one meets this criteria, so I'm closing this. If you want to discuss it again, just PM me with the thread link, and I'll re-open. (Don't just say "Hey, reopen my thread." I need to know the URL, thanks!) Steve