🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992May22....@newshost.lanl.gov> mas...@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) writes:
>In article <920521230...@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Edward K Jen <ej...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>>It's the bottom of the fifth.  Toronto vs. Detroit.  And the score?
>>               R    H    E
>>Toronto       31    43   1
>>Detroit        1     6   3
>>
>I've read reviews in CGW and PC Mag that say the stat models in EWBBII,
>Larussa, Hardball, etc are comparable to Strat-o-matic, Pursue the
>Pennant, etc.  I bet they never tried to play a season with those
>games.  Based on my experience with EWBBII and your comments on HBIII,
>I doubt any of these graphics games compares in stat realism to the
>text-based games.  Oh yeah, Microleague TMC also fails, but more in
>computer manager use of players than the stats per se.
>
>>- The computer is an IDIOT on defense.  It also seems to base pitching 
>>substitions solely on pitch count (meaning that Detroit's starting pitcher got 
>>SHELLED for about 35 hits and 25 earned runs before being replaced in the top 
>>of the fifth.
>
>Again, I haven't seen a good computer manager yet in any EWBB, TMC,
>whatever.  Hopefully PtP's manager isn't brain-dead.  I bet it does the
>job.
>Typical things I've seen in EWBB:
>Weaver suggests you pull the pitcher who is getting hammered, if you ask
>him.  Yet that team IS computer managed, and doesn't take out the
>starter.
>Once it takes out the starter, it plays musical relievers.  Often ends
>up having to use a postion player on the mound.
>Pinch hits a righty bum for righty Rickey Henderson.
>Replaces a lefty hitter with a righty to face a righty.
>Whats going on here?
>
>In Microleague TMC, the computer guards the lines in late innings
>with a 2+ run lead.  Wrong!!  Guarding the lines is a one run strategy.
>It also almost never stole.  The '75 Sox stole ZERO bases in 162 games.
>
>So in summary, get these games if you want fun play, not stat realism
>or intelligent managers.
>
>What I would want in a game like these:
>Only let pitchers throw curveballs, not screwballs (unless they actually
>do).  How about knuckleballs for Candiotti and Hough.
>Have the computer player adversely affected by hard throwers.
>Really have the players stats (power etc) combine with the quality
>of your swing to determine result.  So no homers by Ozzie now matter
>how well you swing.  Homers by Canseco occasionally on mediocre swings.
>Computer position fielders depending on count and type of pitcher.
>
>Just a few thoughts.

Now that some of the glamore has wore off the graphics-based baseball
simulations, let's talk about potential realism.  APBA has released a
new version of their baseball game that allows programming of the
managers actions.  No, not just the cheesy 0-5 setting, but actual expert
system programming.  You tell the computer the rules that you want your
team coached by.  If your pitcher gives up 35 runs and 50 hits prior to
your relieving him, It's your own fault.  You only want your pitcher to
throw curveballs.  Then program it.  What only knuckleballs to Candiotti
and Hough?  Program it.  This game has real potential in the field of
arm-chair coaches.  No more can you blame your teams mental mistakes on
the computer.  It was you who gave them their brains.  Granted, the game
still has the computer coach, but you can program it too.  This may 
eliminate the senseless calls that it makes.

APBA is still the leader in statistical realism and league replayibility
(with PtP closing the gap daily).  With the addition of a externally
programable coach, your true coaching skills and knowledge of baseball
should shine through (or fade away).

I have no interests in APBA other than the respect they earned through
the play of their games.  The bottom line is:  If you want to *really*
coach a baseball team, then APBA has the answer (for a mere $100+ as
was pointed out a couple of days ago).

Bill Lechner
w...@pmafire.inel.gov