The Equalizer aka rubberbanding
-
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
Rubberband AI doesn't really work in a PVP environment.
Why wouldn't it?
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
My alarm went off. I woke up i took a [censored] and a pee. The sun came up and i then took a shower. Then I brushed my teeth. I put my clothes on.
Is it just me or does it seem like the sun is trying to make me cleaner?
That is pretty much what I heard. But carry on. I would like a complete read out from all your games.
Here is something I have noticed. If you throw a mid to low confidence pitch in the zone...bad things happen. If you throw a high confidence pitch. Even one that they should not be fooled on...better things happen
But this isn't what I'm talking about. When the game starts the confidence of all pitches is neutral. You dont start with poor confidence. Also, how am I supposed to lower the pitch confidence of the opposing pitcher other than by creating perfect contact? What if his pitches don't hang even with low confidence?
I will have to get a larger sample-size, but for now everything seems to indicate that 15s land as basehits at a larger clip vs seemingly better players (I'm not yet sure whether it would be the player's ranking, record or whatnot that would determine "better" though if this was indeed the case). Perhaps you would get the "fairest" form of gameplay in a matchup between two identically ranked guys with identical records.
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
-
I have never looked at confidence at first pitch. But I can tell you that early on confidence changes definitely within the first inning. It changes by lack of use and result. I tend to think they don’t start even because FB confidence always seems higher.
-
You can lower confidence by hitting the pitch. Or by taking the pitch for a ball. I actually think the perceived sense of comeback logic is a function of players not properly manipulating confidence. If raise the pitch count it means you are throwing relatively more balls, this confidence goes down.
-
“Deserve” is an Interesting term. Irl Does the player who practices more and eats healthy deserve to play better. Yes. does that mean that it ends up that way. NO!!! There are other factors involved including strength of comp, style of comp, timing, latent skill, luck etc. that have a greater impact on results.
-
-
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
My alarm went off. I woke up i took a [censored] and a pee. The sun came up and i then took a shower. Then I brushed my teeth. I put my clothes on.
Is it just me or does it seem like the sun is trying to make me cleaner?
That is pretty much what I heard. But carry on. I would like a complete read out from all your games.
Here is something I have noticed. If you throw a mid to low confidence pitch in the zone...bad things happen. If you throw a high confidence pitch. Even one that they should not be fooled on...better things happen
But this isn't what I'm talking about. When the game starts the confidence of all pitches is neutral. You dont start with poor confidence. Also, how am I supposed to lower the pitch confidence of the opposing pitcher other than by creating perfect contact? What if his pitches don't hang even with low confidence?
I will have to get a larger sample-size, but for now everything seems to indicate that 15s land as basehits at a larger clip vs seemingly better players (I'm not yet sure whether it would be the player's ranking, record or whatnot that would determine "better" though if this was indeed the case). Perhaps you would get the "fairest" form of gameplay in a matchup between two identically ranked guys with identical records.
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
-
I have never looked at confidence at first pitch. But I can tell you that early on confidence changes definitely within the first inning. It changes by lack of use and result. I tend to think they don’t start even because FB confidence always seems higher.
-
You can lower confidence by hitting the pitch. Or by taking the pitch for a ball. I actually think the perceived sense of comeback logic is a function of players not properly manipulating confidence. If raise the pitch count it means you are throwing relatively more balls, this confidence goes down.
-
“Deserve” is an Interesting term. Irl Does the player who practices more and eats healthy deserve to play better. Yes. does that mean that it ends up that way. NO!!! There are other factors involved including strength of comp, style of comp, timing, latent skill, luck etc. that have a greater impact on results.
Let me get this right...
Instead of user input, latent skill (which means what, hidden skill? what is that?) and luck should have a greater influence on batting outcomes than actual inputs?
Strength of comp? What does that mean? My results on a good/squared should vary based on how good my opponent is?
Style of comp? What does this mean? How exactly would the playing style of my opponent influence the outcome of a good/squared ball?
Timing is already included in my analysis when I refer to 15/N -> The N indicates that the ball was batted at the best possible timing-window.
Interesting takes to say the least.
-
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
On a perfectly timed, perfectly squared up ball, how many stats does the programming have to take into consideration to produce an outcome? A batter’s power, a batter’s clutch factor? A pitcher’s h/9, their clutch factor, that particular pitch’s confidence level, the pitcher's overall confidence and energy. Are there other factors in play at the point of contact? How do all these variables work together? Does one or two override the others? I don’t think the game necessarily sets a narrative as to who is going to win or lose, but there is so much that occurs at the point of contact, I’m surprised the game doesn’t explode every time a ball is hit.
-
I think there is just too much randomness in the game. Couple that with the fact that we really don't know how any stats interact with each other and the fact that OF'ers especially that everyone uses are incredible and cut off the gaps like it's no one's business.
There are definitely things that make you scratch your head sometimes too. I've been hosed so many times with stuff like you mention happening and feel like I never get those breaks. Last night I won a game 7-3 against a person ranked higher. I did outhit him pretty significantly if I'm remembering the game right. I struck out more, which I have a tendency to do, but I had him swinging at a lot of bad pitches. I had the most incredibly crazy play happen though that made me keep a bigger lead when it could've been chipped down to a run in the 6th inning.
TwoLetters batting. Grandal lined to right for a single. Mancini pinch hit for Ryan. Davis in bullpen. Corbin in bullpen. McGee in bullpen. Mancini grounded to left for a single. Grandal advances to 2nd. Bregman substituted for Jones. Henderson lined into a triple play on a deflected hit (L1-6-4-3 TP). Mancini out. Grandal out.
Do I think this play won me the game? No. Have I ever had a ball deflect off a pitcher though into a DP and keep me from scoring? Numerous times. The game is what it is and the randomness of outcomes in a way is baseball. I would say I don't necessarily like it either and think there should be more consistency towards user input for sure.
My biggest gripe in random things happening though is as a pitcher I hit my spot and have a perfect release and my breaking pitch stays up and in the zone or my fastball out of the zone or on the black stays middle for an easy HR. Pitches where half the ball is in the zone called a ball that should've been strike three and the million check swings people do that should be called strikes. Those things drive me nuts. ha ha -
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
@vagimon said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
On a perfectly timed, perfectly squared up ball, how many stats does the programming have to take into consideration to produce an outcome? A batter’s power, a batter’s clutch factor? A pitcher’s h/9, their clutch factor, that particular pitch’s confidence level, the pitcher's overall confidence and energy. Are there other factors in play at the point of contact? How do all these variables work together? Does one or two override the others? I don’t think the game necessarily sets a narrative as to who is going to win or lose, but there is so much that occurs at the point of contact, I’m surprised the game doesn’t explode every time a ball is hit.
That's probably at least partially what happens.
But it sounds weird to me that a good/squared contact would be so heavily affected by the pitcher's numbers and that a hit may not be a hit due pitcher confidence or what not. If that is indeed the case I can only say that I wish it wasn't.
It does however seem very convenient to me that when I play against someone better than me my 15/Ns no longer line out. It's almost as if the game knows or recognizes that I wont get as many 15s vs this guy so better help him out.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
That is just one aspect of the game. So not necessarily. Just like the QB that throws for 350 yards shouldnt win over the guy who threw for 175. Or the NBA team that had 2 40 point scorers shouldnt beat the team that had zero. Many more factors at play. There is no way all other things are even.
-
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me. -
@ChuckCLC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
That is just one aspect of the game. So not necessarily. Just like the QB that throws for 350 yards shouldnt win over the guy who threw for 175. Or the NBA team that had 2 40 point scorers shouldnt beat the team that had zero. Many more factors at play. There is no way all other things are even.
What else could come in and close that gap other than intentionally misfielding ball[s]?
It means that however good the pitches were, the batter did better by squaring the balls perfectly and with ideal timing.
It also means that however poorly that player was pitching the other person was much less successful at hitting those pitches.
What is that factor that closes the distance between 15 good/squareds and 3 good/squareds?
Even if the other person hit them sporadically throughout 9 innings and the other all in 1 inning you would still expect the former to win.
-
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ChuckCLC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
That is just one aspect of the game. So not necessarily. Just like the QB that throws for 350 yards shouldnt win over the guy who threw for 175. Or the NBA team that had 2 40 point scorers shouldnt beat the team that had zero. Many more factors at play. There is no way all other things are even.
What else could come in and close that gap other than intentionally misfielding ball[s]?
It means that however good the pitches were, the batter did better by squaring the balls perfectly and with ideal timing.
It also means that however poorly that player was pitching the other person was much less successful at hitting those pitches.
What is that factor that closes the distance between 15 good/squareds and 3 good/squareds?
Even if the other person hit them sporadically throughout 9 innings and the other all in 1 inning you would still expect the former to win.
Well one thing could be how many 14 and 13 labeled hits there were compared. I dont really see the big difference, if any, in hits labeled 15, 14 and 13. In that area they all seem to have roughly the same exit velos. But yes, fielding, baserunning, just overall baseball decisions will mostly out weigh the hitting in almost any game.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
Do you see me claiming that? Where did I say a 15 isn't the best possible swing? My point that we act like it's the end all be all still remains.
-
@ChuckCLC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ChuckCLC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
That is just one aspect of the game. So not necessarily. Just like the QB that throws for 350 yards shouldnt win over the guy who threw for 175. Or the NBA team that had 2 40 point scorers shouldnt beat the team that had zero. Many more factors at play. There is no way all other things are even.
What else could come in and close that gap other than intentionally misfielding ball[s]?
It means that however good the pitches were, the batter did better by squaring the balls perfectly and with ideal timing.
It also means that however poorly that player was pitching the other person was much less successful at hitting those pitches.
What is that factor that closes the distance between 15 good/squareds and 3 good/squareds?
Even if the other person hit them sporadically throughout 9 innings and the other all in 1 inning you would still expect the former to win.
Well one thing could be how many 14 and 13 labeled hits there were compared. I dont really see the big difference, if any, in hits labeled 15, 14 and 13. In that area they all seem to have roughly the same exit velos. But yes, fielding, baserunning, just overall baseball decisions will mostly out weigh the hitting in almost any game.
A 14/N is good/good and is definitely good input.
However, I've never encountered a situation where a person would have 10+ 14s. I suppose with a high enough count of 14s it could be close to being fair and leave the window open for luck to play a factor. That being said, in my experience the amount of 15/Ns is generally a good indicator of a players input in a game and with a low count of 15s a player isnt likely to have a ton of 14s either.
With respect to baserunning and fielding, I disagree.
In comparison to hitting routerunning and baserunning are very easy and most average players are good enough at it that it just doesnt create any separation between players. I've also never seen someone who excels at hitting suck at routerunning or baserunning.
