WOH Skills Testing/Data

JEDDDOGGYJEDDDOGGY Registered Users, Member 1,980 Posts
Hey guys, been a minute since I posted. Wanted to share some results from the past month or so testing some different skills during WOH. Might be kinda dorky, I admit, but I kept a spreadsheet and entered hits/at bats while playing. Obviously I didn't track anything while I wasn't at work, or wasn't sitting in front of my laptop. But this should be a good sample size, I think.

Here we go:

Reggie Smith (late innings/blowout) bats .838 over about 400 at bats when the score is >= 4 runs. When the score gets closer than 4 runs, his batting average drops to .696 over a sample size of about 600 at bats. The difference in number of at bats may be due to a number of things, including but not limited to extra innings.

Dwight Evans (vsR/blowout) bats .824 over a sample of about 200 at bats when the score is >= 4 runs. When the score is closer than 4 runs, his batting average drops to only .782 over a sample size of about 300 at bats. Again, same reasoning for disparity in number of at bats.

So that tells me blowout turns off in WOH. Pretty good sample size there for Smith, not sure why Dwight has been more successful, but then again a bit of a smaller sample with him.

Here's a really crazy one using man-on-base, and Red Schoendeist was an excellent test case since he is double man-on-base.

Red hits .861 over a sample of about 550 at bats with runners on. With no runners on, he bats .557 over a sample of about 90 at bats. Only way you really get no runners on is either 6.10 or you hit a homerun or ground into a double/triple play, so that gives us the reasoning for the disparity in number of at bats.

Now here's where it gets even sillier, and I did not start tracking this at first so the sample is not large enough for me to say one way or another. But, it seems runners on turns OFF if you start with it on, but does not turn ON if you start with it off. Using Red in situations like on 3.10 on Monday or 4.10 on Royale, his batting average with no runners on .563 is literally almost the exact same as it is when we *do* have runners on, which came out to .571 average.

So it seems runners on will turn off, but won't turn on. If that makes sense.

Here's another good one: Hot Hitter.

Using Bill Freehan (vsL/hot hitter) he hits .653 over a sample of about 200 at bats before he gets his first hit. Then, in a sample of about 400 at bats after he gets his first hit, his batting average was .644 which is actually LOWER than before the skill is supposed to turn on.

Another case of a skill that's supposed to turn on, that doesn't.

What do you guys think? This all makes me believe that skills turn off when they're supposed to, but then don't turn on when they're supposed to. How convenient....
Prev134

Comments

  • TheFullMonteTheFullMonte Registered Users, Member 1,262 Posts
    This is amazing data @JEDDDOGGY

    i think I would be more curious to see these stats of say Reggie Smith at 16/16 and at 20/16
  • MattattackMattattack New Member Registered Users 1,574 Posts
    Thanks Jed, glad to see a post from you again.  Hopefully all is well
  • retirepujolsretirepujols Registered Users, Member 3,668 Posts
    Please don't ever leave us again. I need this. Thank you!
    "It's amazing how much work you can put in without gangly-ass legs in the way" - Sir Tdub71
  • criffycriffy Registered Users, Member 625 Posts
    @JEDDDOGGY this is great data. my only concern is that there's some selection bias that's applied to this. not sure which situations you're using on this, as we all know that pitcher difficulty changes, as does upgrades, situations, etc. definitely is a helpful frame of reference though.
  • JEDDDOGGYJEDDDOGGY Registered Users, Member 1,980 Posts
    edited December 2019
    criffy said:
    @JEDDDOGGY this is great data. my only concern is that there's some selection bias that's applied to this. not sure which situations you're using on this, as we all know that pitcher difficulty changes, as does upgrades, situations, etc. definitely is a helpful frame of reference though.

    I pretty much use these guys in the same slot every time through. It's not like I can upgrade a player skill during a WOH round or the pitcher goes from gold 3 to gold 5 in the middle of the round either. I think it's pretty solid, and a good sample size, and I think it is shady that the skills seem to conveniently only change/update when it negatively affects the player.
  • criffycriffy Registered Users, Member 625 Posts
    @JEDDDOGGY i hear ya, but not sure that's true. i've been using mathews at 16/16 to close against gibson the past two mondays. he's been just as good as my boog at 20/20 was before. probably better considering the difference in skills levels.
  • JEDDDOGGYJEDDDOGGY Registered Users, Member 1,980 Posts
    criffy said:
    @JEDDDOGGY i hear ya, but not sure that's true. i've been using mathews at 16/16 to close against gibson the past two mondays. he's been just as good as my boog at 20/20 was before. probably better considering the difference in skills levels.

    What's your data / hits and at bats look like?
  • JCAM80JCAM80 Registered Users, Member 529 Posts
    Reggie at 16/16 is my setup. He destroyed the Royale with 36 cycles, only 2 video restarts needed for failed attempts. And still very early going, but he cleared 6.10 easily a couple hours ago.... back to it
  • criffycriffy Registered Users, Member 625 Posts
    haven't been tracking every at bat like you. but i went 11/16 last week against gibson. this week so far i'm 4/9. i don't think i'd be clearing if the skills didn't turn on in the middle of the at bat. i also have a different theory altogether but you can find it on the "On-fire skills" thread last week.
  • JEDDDOGGYJEDDDOGGY Registered Users, Member 1,980 Posts
    Just data here. No theories or anything like that.

    I use Reggie Smith on 6.10 and even though I think blowout turns off, it seems to still get the job done because by the time you cut the score to 3 runs or less you usually have enough runners on base to be able to eek through with just the one skill active.

    More importantly than that, the data compiled for the runners on skill using Red was very enlightening to me, to say the least.
  • EProspectPhilsEProspectPhils Registered Users, Member 112 Posts
    My 2 cents.  I think all calculations happen before the first pitch.  There is always a set sequence of pitches.  It is either a winnable sequence or not.  If I am not paying attention or miss pitch I can screw up a winning sequence but you can't win an unwinnable sequence.  My thoughts is they weigh certain skills at the beginning calculation.  An always on skill would result in the best number increase, other skills vary in what they add.  I play the lower rounds manually sometimes just for fun.  Occasionally my very best players in the very best situations go through the sequence of 2 outs, then you get all of the hits needed to win.  I don't think the skills were turning on or off, it  was just the winnable sequence for that round.  I think batting average in a round is tough measurement tool.  I love the data, but I think it is more winnable sequence or not.
  • JEDDDOGGYJEDDDOGGY Registered Users, Member 1,980 Posts
    The winnable sequence thing sort of seems a little “Flat Earth” to me. You’re using perception and not science.
  • drsmartassphddrsmartassphd Registered Users, Member 2,436 Posts
    JEDDDOGGY said:
    The winnable sequence thing sort of seems a little “Flat Earth” to me. You’re using perception and not science.


    I love this thread so much. TY

    I think there is a middle ground between a winnable sequence and players.

    For example, I made the switch today from closing with Cooper RHP/RPH at 17/17 (who dominated Gibson all weekend, but couldn't beat him last Monday) to Mathews and today is much more enjoyable experience. I'm not watching hundreds of unhittable pitches called strikes. Cooper will now be my closer at 1.10, 2.10, 3.10, 4.9, 5.9, and now dropping him to 6.8.  He kills Ryan, which I already knew.

    I also tried Musial last week on Gibson and he too went Ofer. I no longer believe in blowout.

    Kicking The Habit: Update 10/26/20 - Mondays. Once adored, now abhorred.   

  • fahhq2fahhq2 Registered Users, Member 850 Posts
    @drsmartassphd...guess Musial is a “silver only” closer😂
  • Punkers777Punkers777 Registered Users, Member 235 Posts
    fahhq2 said:
    @drsmartassphd...guess Musial is a “silver only” closer😂
    I closed with him today. I'm gold with skills at 13 and 14.
  • bigvivecbigvivec Registered Users, Member 2,134 Posts
    I appreciate the data tracking and was fun to read.  However, I disagree that data from one game mode can be assumed for another.  Reference Houmy’s Skillsgate thread.....in prime and bonus modes some skills don’t always fire.   It looks as if they should fire but they don’t always.  However, in WOH, qualifying skill combinations always fire on the first pitch, but is unknown if they toggle on/off after that.  
  • Edgar11Edgar11 Registered Users, Member 17 Posts
    I love the data, and it’s a good start. Would love to get more in depth with regards to slugging percentage, and winnable at bats. Also batting average before and after skill turns on, only considering winnable at bats.

    ive always been in the skills turn on and off camp. I notice a marked difference every time.

    today I went 7/8 with Lou Gehrig as my closer. On my 6th cycle Gibson got me to two outs no runs and a man on first. Out, single, out. I came back to win that round. I don’t think that would be possible really If skills didn’t turn on.
  • bigvivecbigvivec Registered Users, Member 2,134 Posts
    I just don’t believe they toggle in WOH at all.  If on the second pitch I recognize that I’m in a given preset sequence with a predetermined result, knowing this cause I’ve gone through the same exact scenario sequence many times...............if I know the sequence/if it is predetermined, there is no toggling as the scenario has been chosen prior to the first pitch.  If there was active AI involved that reacted to each pitch and adjusted the RNG accordingly we would have unique at bats almost every time and anybody who plays WOH knows that is not the case.  
  • dustyhunksdustyhunks Registered Users, Member 1,546 Posts
    edited December 2019
    @JEDDDOGGY Thanks for this if for nothing else adding to the debate. Also good to see a post from you.

    The one thing that sticks in my mind that makes me think outcomes are predetermined is the resulting hit to win a round. There is never a hit outside of the walk-off homer with animation that is greater than what is required to get the winning run home. Think about it. If there's a runner on third do you ever see a gap shot that would be a double or triple? You do not, ever. It's always a single bloop or otherwise right at an OF. 100% of the time. There are doubles and triples to win rounds, don't get me wrong, but in those cases the winning run is either on 2nd or 1st. I tend to agree with @EProspectPhils because of this.

    Edit: Some anecdotal evidence:

    Last week I used Cooper 20/20 at 6.10, he was 11/13. This week I used Mathews 20/20, 10/13. Cooper at 6.9 was 10/11. AVS 20/20 last week at 6.8, 11/11 and 10/10 this week. Only thing this tells me is that players have limits based on a slew of variables. My practice is to create as much disparity between hit and pitcher stuff for the round which tends to generate the best results. AVS isn't really a closer maybe because of BO but also consider his hit is nearly 20 points lower than Mathews whereas Cooper is only 10 or so. Also consider pitcher stuff and pitch calling for the round with the highest being in the final round 6.10.
  • JEDDDOGGYJEDDDOGGY Registered Users, Member 1,980 Posts
    bigvivec said:
    I appreciate the data tracking and was fun to read.  However, I disagree that data from one game mode can be assumed for another.   

    Yes, and I totally agree. What I did was meant to be useful for WOH only.
  • JEDDDOGGYJEDDDOGGY Registered Users, Member 1,980 Posts
    edited December 2019
    @dustyhunks I can sort of get on board with that and agree on hit vs pitcher stuff, but I don’t think the animation is necessarily a big tell here.

    Being a programmer myself and knowing how things like this function, I just cannot get myself on board with the idea that there’s a coin flip at the start of the round which then generates an elaborate sequence of events that ends in a desired result. It’s always vice-versa.


  • JEDDDOGGYJEDDDOGGY Registered Users, Member 1,980 Posts
    Are there any other tests you guys would like to see? I will add to my spreadsheet if they aren’t too crazy elaborate or time consuming lol.
  • dustyhunksdustyhunks Registered Users, Member 1,546 Posts
    JEDDDOGGY said:
    @dustyhunks I can sort of get on board with that and agree on hit vs pitcher stuff, but I don’t think the animation is necessarily a big tell here.

    Being a programmer myself and knowing how things like this function, I just cannot get myself on board with the idea that there’s a coin flip at the start of the round which then generates an elaborate sequence of events that ends in a desired result. It’s always vice-versa.



    I just referenced the animation as it's the only hit that produces runs that doesn't matter where the runner is on base or how many runs it takes to win. The non-homerun hits that score the winning run however are ALWAYS just enough to advance the runner however many bases it takes to get the winning run home. You never see a hit that is an easy double to plate the winning run that starts on third. There's nothing random about it.
  • drsmartassphddrsmartassphd Registered Users, Member 2,436 Posts
    fahhq2 said:
    @drsmartassphd...guess Musial is a “silver only” closer😂


    Glad he worked for you! I made the switch yesterday to Mathews as my closer with great results. I moved Musial down to 6.8. Have Cooper now at 6.9. I would have cycled a player at Gold yesterday had I put in the proper time.

    Yes, I saw similar winning patterns yesterday with Mathews that I had with Cooper/Musial when I closed with them at Silver.  I've played Gibson so much between Royale and HoF, that I know within four pitches if I will win the round or not. I know the sequences by heart now.



    Kicking The Habit: Update 10/26/20 - Mondays. Once adored, now abhorred.   

  • fahhq2fahhq2 Registered Users, Member 850 Posts
    Anyone ever get a sacrifice fly to score the winning run? Bases loaded, no out and hit a grounder??? It ALWAYS ends up being booted for an error when scoring the winning run...
  • drsmartassphddrsmartassphd Registered Users, Member 2,436 Posts

    Nope, never a sacrifice to win. Believe me I have tried. Especially if there is a man on third, it is tied, and I'm being curved. You can tie a game that way, but you won't win.

    Yes, I've had the booted win many times.

    Kicking The Habit: Update 10/26/20 - Mondays. Once adored, now abhorred.   

  • JEDDDOGGYJEDDDOGGY Registered Users, Member 1,980 Posts
    JEDDDOGGY said:
    @dustyhunks I can sort of get on board with that and agree on hit vs pitcher stuff, but I don’t think the animation is necessarily a big tell here.

    Being a programmer myself and knowing how things like this function, I just cannot get myself on board with the idea that there’s a coin flip at the start of the round which then generates an elaborate sequence of events that ends in a desired result. It’s always vice-versa.



    I just referenced the animation as it's the only hit that produces runs that doesn't matter where the runner is on base or how many runs it takes to win. The non-homerun hits that score the winning run however are ALWAYS just enough to advance the runner however many bases it takes to get the winning run home. You never see a hit that is an easy double to plate the winning run that starts on third. There's nothing random about it.

    What about the “barely fair” homerun to end a round that has no animation? 

    I may may not understand what you’re saying about not scoring the additional runs with men on base at the end of a round, but I routinely get a double to end a round with (let’s say for example) runners on 2nd and 3rd. The game is over when the runner on 3rd crosses the plate, and the runner on 2nd does not advance to score. Works just like real baseball.

    Also just so I’m clear- I do believe each at bat is predetermined, just not the entire round.
  • JEDDDOGGYJEDDDOGGY Registered Users, Member 1,980 Posts
    Also, yep! There’s no sacrifice to end a round. They should change that along with the runner on 3rd on ground ball back to the pitcher lol.
  • BigpredfanBigpredfan New Member Registered Users 2,972 Posts
    JEDDDOGGY said:
    JEDDDOGGY said:
    @dustyhunks I can sort of get on board with that and agree on hit vs pitcher stuff, but I don’t think the animation is necessarily a big tell here.

    Being a programmer myself and knowing how things like this function, I just cannot get myself on board with the idea that there’s a coin flip at the start of the round which then generates an elaborate sequence of events that ends in a desired result. It’s always vice-versa.



    I just referenced the animation as it's the only hit that produces runs that doesn't matter where the runner is on base or how many runs it takes to win. The non-homerun hits that score the winning run however are ALWAYS just enough to advance the runner however many bases it takes to get the winning run home. You never see a hit that is an easy double to plate the winning run that starts on third. There's nothing random about it.

    What about the “barely fair” homerun to end a round that has no animation? 

    That happens because I lean enough. Everyone knows that 
  • dustyhunksdustyhunks Registered Users, Member 1,546 Posts
    edited December 2019
    JEDDDOGGY said:
    JEDDDOGGY said:
    @dustyhunks I can sort of get on board with that and agree on hit vs pitcher stuff, but I don’t think the animation is necessarily a big tell here.

    Being a programmer myself and knowing how things like this function, I just cannot get myself on board with the idea that there’s a coin flip at the start of the round which then generates an elaborate sequence of events that ends in a desired result. It’s always vice-versa.



    I just referenced the animation as it's the only hit that produces runs that doesn't matter where the runner is on base or how many runs it takes to win. The non-homerun hits that score the winning run however are ALWAYS just enough to advance the runner however many bases it takes to get the winning run home. You never see a hit that is an easy double to plate the winning run that starts on third. There's nothing random about it.

    What about the “barely fair” homerun to end a round that has no animation? 

    I may may not understand what you’re saying about not scoring the additional runs with men on base at the end of a round, but I routinely get a double to end a round with (let’s say for example) runners on 2nd and 3rd. The game is over when the runner on 3rd crosses the plate, and the runner on 2nd does not advance to score. Works just like real baseball.

    Also just so I’m clear- I do believe each at bat is predetermined, just not the entire round.

    Sure, a homerun off the foul pole is still a homerun. That's the only hit where what I am talking about doesn't take into account mob.

    Not to dismiss your experience but I think you are mistaken about the 2nd and third situation and hitting a double if the winning run is on third. If your batter ends up at second the runner in front of batter advances two bases at least. Just try to recall any time you've had a tie score and winning run on third. Has there ever been a ball hit into gap that normally is a double? It's always a single or error as others have stated. Or homerun unless it's 6.10 lately. I'm confident of this.
Sign In or Register to comment.