The Equalizer aka rubberbanding
-
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@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.
Another strawman argument. I never said at all about what “should” be the case.
Latent skill - look it up
Style - to simplify the concept. Let’s call it user tendencies. If I only swing at low pitches or steal like crazy or use the shift those things impact the game.Please stop derailing the thread with personal attacks. Just not cool. Plus it undercuts whatever point you are trying to make
I googled latent skill and found nothing. Latent generally means hidden. As I didn't understand, I asked for a clarification.
Why would your tendencies influence the outcome of a 15/N? I'm gonna avoid reading into this to avoid straw manning you. What do you mean?
Also, kindly point to any personal remarks made by me in this thread. The only one I can identify is you calling the OP laughable.
Latent can also mean internal or being there without being placed. In this context it means innate or natural ability.
Why would tendencies impact outcomes. You do realize you are playing against another person and the outcome is contingent upon the interaction between your input and their. Part of your input is dictated by what your opponent has done prior. In sports we call it training your opponent. However, during the training process an opponent may realize you are training and may go along. In a super simplistic level throw 2 high FB you trained me for a third FB. You throw a curve and I am screwed unless I know you are training then i expect said curve. This mental chess supersedes the physical game in most sports when played at high levels. This is also known as Yomi layers.
I did point it out. Go back and look.
And how exactly does a player's innate ability influence the outcome of a 15/N. Who and what determines this innate ability? Has SDS announced this ability to factor into batting outcomes or where have gotten this info?
A part of my input is based on what has happened prior? How? A 15/N is a good/squared ball. Are you referring to pitcher confidence influencing the outcome of a batted ball or what is your argument? Will the trajectory of the ball be influenced by what has happened prior? Is this also something that SDS has disclosed publicly?
You can train your opponent to expect a low pitch and then pitch high, but what if he still reacts in time and gets a 15/N hit on it? Will he be punished simply because you've tried to train him but effectively failed?
Possibly....if you trained him he may put a bad swing in the ball despite all else being great. I am talking real life not the game. But this dynamic is reflected in the game via what people call RNG pitcher confidence wtc
I'm not talking about real life, I'm talking about the game.
So, in our example we have one guy getting 15 good/squareds and the other 3.
You're saying that the person getting 3 good/squareds and winning might deserve it for example if he attempted to tunnel his pitches but still failed at it? And the person who consistently got the bat on the ball as well as can be done, might deserve to lose because he, for example didnt try to do his (maybe he didnt even have to because the other guy showed no ability to consistently square the ball up)?
You seem to put a lot of weight on pitcher confidence and that it's fine if someone consistently lines out because before the ball was batted perfectly the pitcher had high confidence?
-
-
IMO it's an insane stance to take that the trajectory of a good/squared ball should be somehow influenced by something invisible like pitcher confidence.
I will also say that in the games that I've benefited from "RNG" (which tend to be vs. better players) I have never managed to boost my pitch confidence as you seem to imply. Instead, the cause of the opponent lining out seems to have been something else.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
IMO it's an insane stance to take that the trajectory of a good/squared ball should be somehow influenced by something invisibility like pitcher confidence.
I will also say that in the games that I've benefited from "RNG" (which tend to be vs. better players) I have never managed to boost my pitch confidence as you seem to imply. Instead, the cause of the opponent lining out seems to have been something else.
I agree with you that pitcher confidence should not factor in the trajectory of a ball, but just because it shouldn't doesn't mean it's not true.
I manage my pitching confidence very closely, because it does have a huge effect on the game.
It shouldn't, but it does. -
I kinda wish SDS would help us understand this hitting thing a little better. They just told me "sometimes in baseball you hit the ball perfect and it's for an out." That tells me its just an RNG thing that needs to be tuned. I'm not sure that they put all this real life baseball physics into as much as they say.
-
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
IMO it's an insane stance to take that the trajectory of a good/squared ball should be somehow influenced by something invisibility like pitcher confidence.
I will also say that in the games that I've benefited from "RNG" (which tend to be vs. better players) I have never managed to boost my pitch confidence as you seem to imply. Instead, the cause of the opponent lining out seems to have been something else.
I agree with you that pitcher confidence should not factor in the trajectory of a ball, but just because it shouldn't doesn't mean it's not true.
I manage my pitching confidence very closely, because it does have a huge effect on the game.
It shouldn't, but it does.No doubt it does, to an extent. But, let's take my game 6 as an example again.
I did nothing to increase pitch confidence, I didnt strike the opponent out (once in 9 innings), gave up hard contact over and over and over again, and yet there was nothing he could do. However, my pitch confidence bars remained relatively steady with Kershaw through 7 innings and when a new pitcher came in with neutral confidence bars my opponent continued to line out.
What could he possibly have done differently?
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
IMO it's an insane stance to take that the trajectory of a good/squared ball should be somehow influenced by something invisibility like pitcher confidence.
I will also say that in the games that I've benefited from "RNG" (which tend to be vs. better players) I have never managed to boost my pitch confidence as you seem to imply. Instead, the cause of the opponent lining out seems to have been something else.
I agree with you that pitcher confidence should not factor in the trajectory of a ball, but just because it shouldn't doesn't mean it's not true.
I manage my pitching confidence very closely, because it does have a huge effect on the game.
It shouldn't, but it does.No doubt it does, to an extent. But, let's take my game 6 as an example again.
I did nothing to increase pitch confidence, I didnt strike the opponent out (once in 9 innings), gave up hard contact over and over and over again, and yet there was nothing he could do. However, my pitch confidence bars remained relatively steady with Kershaw through 7 innings and when a new pitcher came in with neutral confidence bars my opponent continued to line out.
What could he possibly have done differently?
I don't know, I wasn't saying that that situation being the fault of pitching confidence. I was more commenting on this "IMO it's an insane stance to take that the trajectory of a good/squared ball should be somehow influenced by something invisibility like pitcher confidence."
It defintely does have that effect at times, so it's not an insane stance. Pitching confidence matters much more then it should.
-
-
Confidence impacts trajectory and it makes sense. If you haven’t thrown a curve all day and whip it out at pitch 60 it’s not going to typically be as sharp as it would otherwise be. Meaning it will more likely be a ball or meatball.
-
You keep using the term deserve as if only your input should matter. Do you deserve to get a hit with a common player or Babe Ruth all else being equal.
-
The game can’t perfectly replicate things that a real player has to take into account. Such as swing type. Or type of contact a pitcher usually surrenders. So it determines thing like that via stats. Gallo takes MANY bad swings Teddy not as much. So when every thing is lined up Gallo should have some bad swings despite lining it up. Teddy not as much. Furthermore, not too many dudes are hitting say Mo’s cutter. Even when “squares up”. Or Sales slider when they are throwing it with high confidence.
-
-
@MrGamebred said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I kinda wish SDS would help us understand this hitting thing a little better. They just told me "sometimes in baseball you hit the ball perfect and it's for an out." That tells me its just an RNG thing that needs to be tuned. I'm not sure that they put all this real life baseball physics into as much as they say.
But that is true. Especially when you have an OF of GOld glove level CF.
-
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@MrGamebred said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I kinda wish SDS would help us understand this hitting thing a little better. They just told me "sometimes in baseball you hit the ball perfect and it's for an out." That tells me its just an RNG thing that needs to be tuned. I'm not sure that they put all this real life baseball physics into as much as they say.
But that is true. Especially when you have an OF of GOld glove level CF.
Believe me, I understand it's true in real baseball. Im just saying I believe alot of us have some questions that can't be answered that simply. And it'd be nice to specifically understand the hitting engine and how pitching affects it, and so on, so it doesn't leave people feeling confused or robbed or however.
-
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
IMO it's an insane stance to take that the trajectory of a good/squared ball should be somehow influenced by something invisibility like pitcher confidence.
I will also say that in the games that I've benefited from "RNG" (which tend to be vs. better players) I have never managed to boost my pitch confidence as you seem to imply. Instead, the cause of the opponent lining out seems to have been something else.
I agree with you that pitcher confidence should not factor in the trajectory of a ball, but just because it shouldn't doesn't mean it's not true.
I manage my pitching confidence very closely, because it does have a huge effect on the game.
It shouldn't, but it does.No doubt it does, to an extent. But, let's take my game 6 as an example again.
I did nothing to increase pitch confidence, I didnt strike the opponent out (once in 9 innings), gave up hard contact over and over and over again, and yet there was nothing he could do. However, my pitch confidence bars remained relatively steady with Kershaw through 7 innings and when a new pitcher came in with neutral confidence bars my opponent continued to line out.
What could he possibly have done differently?
I don't know, I wasn't saying that that situation being the fault of pitching confidence. I was more commenting on this "IMO it's an insane stance to take that the trajectory of a good/squared ball should be somehow influenced by something invisibility like pitcher confidence."
It defintely does have that effect at times, so it's no an insane stance. Pitching confidence matters much more then it should.
I notice pitcher confidence kicking in when it's down. You definitely start giving up more and more homeruns.
However, this wasn't the case in my game 6.
I didn't get him to swing on pitches, didn't get him to strike out and didn't manage to boost my pitchers' confidence bars.
So pitcher confidence wouldn't explain what happened in that game. Nor would it explain the outcomes of any other games where one batter has significantly more 15/Ns while not striking out at all and still loses.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
The concept of good timing is also waaay off. It doesn’t exist. I think we would be better served without that system. The success of Where you barrell up and when you barrell up are dependent upon the type of swing you are attempting. NONE of which is controlled for on this game.
For example if you are a bit early and hit the ball on the bottom part of the bat with a level swing. You may very well end up with a hard liner through the infield. Same thing but your swing is an uppercut...weak chopper. I could give tons of examples like this. where swing type influences outcome
As far as I'm aware, SDS has never stated that a singular players swing time in the same location will vary if you use the same button.
Cody Bellinger's swing on a X swing down the middle will always look the same. Where do you get this idea of swing variance and has SDS stated that such a thing exists in the game?
No but it makes sense to me and “feels” right. And the game would feel too robotic to me if this was left out. Plus SDS has not fully explained things so that reason is better than you. I also feel that hot zones partly embody this.
-
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
-
Confidence impacts trajectory and it makes sense. If you haven’t thrown a curve all day and whip it out at pitch 60 it’s not going to typically be as sharp as it would otherwise be. Meaning it will more likely be a ball or meatball.
-
You keep using the term deserve as if only your input should matter. Do you deserve to get a hit with a common player or Babe Ruth all else being equal.
-
The game can’t perfectly replicate things that a real player has to take into account. Such as swing type. Or type of contact a pitcher usually surrenders. So it determines thing like that via stats. Gallo takes MANY bad swings Teddy not as much. So when every thing is lined up Gallo should have some bad swings despite lining it up. Teddy not as much. Furthermore, not too many dudes are hitting say Mo’s cutter. Even when “squares up”. Or Sales slider when they are throwing it with high confidence.
Exactly, so all the more reason that curve should be crushed on a 15/N, but what if it's not? How do you explain it?
Well, no common hard has the power numbers of Babe, so you cant produce the same exit velocities.
However if you had a common with say the same power numbers as Honus. You should bat roughly for the same average with the common on 100 good/squared swings. It's simply way more difficult to do with the common.
-
-
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
The concept of good timing is also waaay off. It doesn’t exist. I think we would be better served without that system. The success of Where you barrell up and when you barrell up are dependent upon the type of swing you are attempting. NONE of which is controlled for on this game.
For example if you are a bit early and hit the ball on the bottom part of the bat with a level swing. You may very well end up with a hard liner through the infield. Same thing but your swing is an uppercut...weak chopper. I could give tons of examples like this. where swing type influences outcome
As far as I'm aware, SDS has never stated that a singular players swing time in the same location will vary if you use the same button.
Cody Bellinger's swing on a X swing down the middle will always look the same. Where do you get this idea of swing variance and has SDS stated that such a thing exists in the game?
No but it makes sense to me and “feels” right. And the game would feel too robotic to me if this was left out. Plus SDS has not fully explained things so that reason is better than you. I also feel that hot zones partly embody this.
Ahwell, suffice to say that I won't simply go by how you feel the gameplay operates.
-
@SefarR said in [The Equalizer aka
It defintely does have that effect at times, so it's no an insane stance. Pitching confidence matters much more then it should.
I notice pitcher confidence kicking in when it's down. You definitely start giving up more and more homeruns.
However, this wasn't the case in my game 6.
I didn't get him to swing on pitches, didn't get him to strike out and didn't manage to boost my pitchers' confidence bars.
So pitcher confidence wouldn't explain what happened in that game. Nor would it explain the outcomes of any other games where one batter has significantly more 15/Ns while not striking out at all and still loses.
There may not be ONE explanation that tidies everything up. Confidence, hot zones, pitcher ratings, hitter ratings, great advances and the interactions of each interplay for a result
-
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in [The Equalizer aka
It defintely does have that effect at times, so it's no an insane stance. Pitching confidence matters much more then it should.
I notice pitcher confidence kicking in when it's down. You definitely start giving up more and more homeruns.
However, this wasn't the case in my game 6.
I didn't get him to swing on pitches, didn't get him to strike out and didn't manage to boost my pitchers' confidence bars.
So pitcher confidence wouldn't explain what happened in that game. Nor would it explain the outcomes of any other games where one batter has significantly more 15/Ns while not striking out at all and still loses.
There may not be ONE explanation that tidies everything up. Confidence, hot zones, pitcher ratings, hitter ratings, great advances and the interactions of each interplay for a result
But this is just as much speculation as a full on rubberbanding engine. We don't know any of this.
None of these factors you listed or their interplay would explain what happened in my game 6.
We're talking about nearly identical lineups, with nothing extraordinary happening with pitcher confidence and yet the batter putting in consistently better inputs lost. It just so happens that player also had a much better record.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
The concept of good timing is also waaay off. It doesn’t exist. I think we would be better served without that system. The success of Where you barrell up and when you barrell up are dependent upon the type of swing you are attempting. NONE of which is controlled for on this game.
For example if you are a bit early and hit the ball on the bottom part of the bat with a level swing. You may very well end up with a hard liner through the infield. Same thing but your swing is an uppercut...weak chopper. I could give tons of examples like this. where swing type influences outcome
As far as I'm aware, SDS has never stated that a singular players swing time in the same location will vary if you use the same button.
Cody Bellinger's swing on a X swing down the middle will always look the same. Where do you get this idea of swing variance and has SDS stated that such a thing exists in the game?
No but it makes sense to me and “feels” right. And the game would feel too robotic to me if this was left out. Plus SDS has not fully explained things so that reason is better than you. I also feel that hot zones partly embody this.
Ahwell, suffice to say that I won't simply go by how you feel the gameplay operates.
Don’t. Instead describe every game in detail and wonder why things aren’t going as you think it tshould go while you wait for SDS to explain. Let me know how that works out
-
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in [The Equalizer aka
It defintely does have that effect at times, so it's no an insane stance. Pitching confidence matters much more then it should.
I notice pitcher confidence kicking in when it's down. You definitely start giving up more and more homeruns.
However, this wasn't the case in my game 6.
I didn't get him to swing on pitches, didn't get him to strike out and didn't manage to boost my pitchers' confidence bars.
So pitcher confidence wouldn't explain what happened in that game. Nor would it explain the outcomes of any other games where one batter has significantly more 15/Ns while not striking out at all and still loses.
There may not be ONE explanation that tidies everything up. Confidence, hot zones, pitcher ratings, hitter ratings, great advances and the interactions of each interplay for a result
This is what they told me. Which leads me to believe they should find a way to tidy it up to make it feel less random. And again, I don't take everything they say at face value.
-
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
The concept of good timing is also waaay off. It doesn’t exist. I think we would be better served without that system. The success of Where you barrell up and when you barrell up are dependent upon the type of swing you are attempting. NONE of which is controlled for on this game.
For example if you are a bit early and hit the ball on the bottom part of the bat with a level swing. You may very well end up with a hard liner through the infield. Same thing but your swing is an uppercut...weak chopper. I could give tons of examples like this. where swing type influences outcome
As far as I'm aware, SDS has never stated that a singular players swing time in the same location will vary if you use the same button.
Cody Bellinger's swing on a X swing down the middle will always look the same. Where do you get this idea of swing variance and has SDS stated that such a thing exists in the game?
No but it makes sense to me and “feels” right. And the game would feel too robotic to me if this was left out. Plus SDS has not fully explained things so that reason is better than you. I also feel that hot zones partly embody this.
Ahwell, suffice to say that I won't simply go by how you feel the gameplay operates.
Don’t. Instead describe every game in detail and wonder why things aren’t going as you think it tshould go while you wait for SDS to explain. Let me know how that works out
I'm not expecting SDS to explain anything (although it would be nice). I'm simply assessing how the community feels about this.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in [The Equalizer aka
It defintely does have that effect at times, so it's no an insane stance. Pitching confidence matters much more then it should.
I notice pitcher confidence kicking in when it's down. You definitely start giving up more and more homeruns.
However, this wasn't the case in my game 6.
I didn't get him to swing on pitches, didn't get him to strike out and didn't manage to boost my pitchers' confidence bars.
So pitcher confidence wouldn't explain what happened in that game. Nor would it explain the outcomes of any other games where one batter has significantly more 15/Ns while not striking out at all and still loses.
There may not be ONE explanation that tidies everything up. Confidence, hot zones, pitcher ratings, hitter ratings, great advances and the interactions of each interplay for a result
But this is just as much speculation as a full on rubberbanding engine. We don't know any of this.
None of these factors you listed or their interplay would explain what happened in my game 6.
We're talking about nearly identical lineups, with nothing extraordinary happening with pitcher confidence and yet the batter putting in consistently better inputs lost. It just so happens that player also had a much better record.
What does an identical everything have to do with what I stated. Plus things weren’t identical. Were all pitches the same were you both the home teams,were Pci in the exact same spot. Did both users get equal sleep, is the internet connection the same.
Not too mention maybe the slight differences in confidence interacting with the other factors creates and spectrum of results no one thing is a big deal but the Gestalt does
-
Here's the thing though, it doesn't really make sense for a pitcher's ratings to have much, if any, effect on outcomes. The pitcher's ratings should make it increasingly more difficult to achieve high hit probability inputs. Tiny PCI's, sensitive zones within the PCI where achieving good or squared contact is hard, that sort of thing. Fact is, in this game, a good/squared input will almost always result in 100mph+ exit velocity...with almost every hitter. In the major leagues, hitters hit .620 last year on batted balls at or above 100mph, and in the low-mid .200's below 90. This game doesn't come close to reflecting that reality. Should hitters line out - of course. Should they crush ground balls at people, of course. But not more than half the time. I highly doubt I have more 14/15 hits than I have 14/15 outs.
