[DiMaggio5CF]

Many who play out the games have been frustrated when they give a runner a steal sign, only to get the message that the player can't get a good jump.

Some have suggested that the steal sign become a "hard" steal, where the player takes off regardless of whether he gets a good jump or not.

However, this might not work for everyone. It would be good when it is extremely important to try to move a runner over, but when the manager wants to simply "give it a shot" but doesn't want to risk running out of an inning, it wouldn't be a great tool.

So what I propose is changing the steal sign to a "hard" steal where the player goes no matter what, and adding an option to "give the green light" where the runner takes off only if he can get a good jump.

Managers might find it more useful if they can give the green light and hope that the runner gets a good jump on the first few pitches and then decide whether to take the sign off or roll the dice and give the steal sign.

Players with high stealing ability and low speed might struggle with the "hard" steal sign because they rely heavily on getting a good jump. Players with a high speed rating, on the other hand, might be able to handle a "hard" steal more easily because their speed can make up for a bad jump.

Either way, giving the "hard" steal would be more risky than giving the green light (because the runner may or may not get a good jump . . . in giving the green light, the runner should always get a good jump), but it's a way for the manager to take the risk when he feels that it has to be taken.

So instead of making it an either-or situation, add another option to give the manager more felxibility and make everyone happy.

[Night2000]

This is a very good idea, and I second it.

[mlyons]

I third it.

[gmo]

This is the best suggestion to address the issue I remember seeing. That said, I still have some misgivings about the idea of the "Go no matter what" option. Maybe more discussion would help me out. I agree that should definitely be much riskier in general if it was an option. If it was implemented I'd hope the wishes to be able force runners to go would be replaced here by complaints that speedy & good stealing runners forced to go are being thrown out too much by weak-arm catchers.

As it is now the in-game steal option seems to be just turning on the green light and it is up to the runner to "decide" whether or not to try. How often do managers tell the runner to go even if he is being hounded and kept close and cannot get a good jump? I would think occasionally, but not very often. Any ideas? I know it can be frustrating when a runner does not try to steal, but I worry about this turning into something a human player can exploit with too little penalty.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by gmo

As it is now the in-game steal option seems to be just turning on the green light and it is up to the runner to "decide" whether or not to try. How often do managers tell the runner to go even if he is being hounded and kept close and cannot get a good jump? I would think occasionally, but not very often. Any ideas? I know it can be frustrating when a runner does not try to steal, but I worry about this turning into something a human player can exploit with too little penalty.

IRL, if a manager puts the steal sign on (as opposed to giving a guy a green light), he had better take off at the pitch or he'll be in pretty big trouble. If there are a lot of throws over to first, a manager could take the steal sign off, but if he doesn't, the runner will attempt to steal.

[gmo]

Originally Posted by mlyons

IRL, if a manager puts the steal sign on (as opposed to giving a guy a green light), he had better take off at the pitch or he'll be in pretty big trouble. If there are a lot of throws over to first, a manager could take the steal sign off, but if he doesn't, the runner will attempt to steal.

Fair enough. So how frequently do you think this is the case in non-hit & run situations? I guess the '80s are too long ago now and I've been too long a more AL follower & Texas Rangers fan to know much about this "stolen base" thing.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by gmo

Fair enough. So how frequently do you think this is the case in non-hit & run situations? I guess the '80s are too long ago now and I've been too long a more AL follower & Texas Rangers fan to know much about this "stolen base" thing.

It is my impression that anytime anyone other than a 30 SB guy takes off, it is because his manager specifically signalled him to do so. In other words, most baserunners won't just get a "green light"; they have to be signalled to run. It's hard to tell, not being privy to the actual signs in-game, but that's how it seems to me.

[cdheer]

My old favorite, Computer Baseball, used to have three running "modes" you could select:

Run Aggressively
Run Normal
Run Conservatively

In RA, fast runners will constantly be trying to swipe a base. In RN, fast runners will try if the situation is right but won't take a ton of risks. In RC, they almost never steal and stay close to the bag.

I liked this because in a close game I could order RC to reduce or eliminate pickoffs, or I could order RA to try and make something happen.

The game also had a Steal Base command which was a hard go; the runner went regardless of the situation. It was riskier than RA because the runner's judgement was not involved.

That might be a good way to work it.

--chris

[Dan Theman]

I remember Computer Baseball and those modes - it was a pretty good system, and might be able to be incorporated here. Adding a simple difference between "green light" and "go" might also be useful (although I still like my "Run & Hit" mode, too!!!).

My only concern about all of these options (including the one I suggested) is how well the AI would handle it. For instance, could it effectively discern proper times to issue a blanket "go!" command versus just giving the green light? Would it effectively use the "run & hit" at any time besides when there are two strikes? Because the game doesn't have a pitch-by-pitch mode, would we see more pitchouts on the first pitch by the AI because it knows that the "go" sign would only work then?

New options also bring up new bugs, and perhaps the worst bug to watch out for would be the potentially extremely high number of stolen base attempts. I think to the games that I've played out and the number of times within each that I put the steal sign on. If the runner really went every time, I would have ridiculous amounts of SB attempts. Perhaps the best way to curb this would be to train the AI to use "go" sparingly and have the chances of success reduced accordingly due to the number of bad jumps that the runner may have.

Anyway, anything that can raise the level of realism within the played game I'm certainly for. Did anybody see something like this last night?:

[mlyons]

If there were a "green light" option, perhaps we also might see runners going on more realistic counts, as well. I've always been a little sick of seeing runners only ging on an 0-0 count.

[sebastian0622]

Yup, I really hate how everything happens on 0-0 counts. I'm not going to hit-and-run on 0-0 all the time! 2-0 is a good count to HnR. 1-0, maybe. 2-1, yes. but 0-0? Sometimes but not often, especially vs a good pitcher who can throw breaking balls for strikes.

And the same thing goes for steals. Part of my managing strategy vs a good pitcher is to make him throw a lot of pitches and take him deep into counts. Yes, this strategy is used by RL managers as well. I don't want my guy to run on 0-0 necessarily, especially with 2 outs. I'm going to make that pitcher throw pitches!

[SamP]

Word the hard steal + green light options is a great idea. However I would definitely be satisfied if the current "Steal" option was at least simply a green light. Currently the Steal option acts as a green light in the sense that the batter really has the choice to steal, but it is a hard steal in the sense that the batter does not swing. Typically when the batter has a green light the batter does as well. If the steal sign acted as strictly a green light I could let the batter choose to steal if he could get a good jump on a 0-2 or 1-2 breaking ball. Currently my only two options in those counts are Steal (which guarentees a strikeout on a good pitch and does not guarentee the runner will attempt a steal) or a run-and-hit (which does not give my runner the option to steal but forces them to regardless of the jump.

Hence what I mean to say is that if they so choose not to add a second button they should either make the Steal button strictly a green light (giving the batter a green light to swing as well) or a hard steal.

[Y0DA55]

I never use the "Steal" button because the guy never decides to go. If I want to send someone, I always use the "Run and Hit" button. It would make my "game" life easier if it were a hard steal sign.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by SamP

Word the hard steal + green light options is a great idea. However I would definitely be satisfied if the current "Steal" option was at least simply a green light. Currently the Steal option acts as a green light in the sense that the batter really has the choice to steal, but it is a hard steal in the sense that the batter does not swing. Typically when the batter has a green light the batter does as well. If the steal sign acted as strictly a green light I could let the batter choose to steal if he could get a good jump on a 0-2 or 1-2 breaking ball. Currently my only two options in those counts are Steal (which guarentees a strikeout on a good pitch and does not guarentee the runner will attempt a steal) or a run-and-hit (which does not give my runner the option to steal but forces them to regardless of the jump.

Hence what I mean to say is that if they so choose not to add a second button they should either make the Steal button strictly a green light (giving the batter a green light to swing as well) or a hard steal.

You do know that the chances of this happening=0 with the version referenced here?

It is in the current version.