Baseball Pro '96
Shaun Johnson
Hello
all in this newsgroup! I am new here, and I'm wondering if anyone
could please give me a list of all the known bugs in Sierra's Baseball Pro
'96. Personally, I think it is the best sim that I have ever played,
except for the hitting bug that prevents me from getting any more than 3
hits in a game (usually no-hit). Also, if anyone knows anything about
a patch release, could you please inform me of this also.
Thanks!
SF49er
Lawrence Joseph Wobker
: could please give me a list of all the known bugs in Sierra's Baseball Pro
This is probably not a complete list, but here's a start.
** Hitting = impossible. We've all been there.
** The infielder logic is far from perfected. The pitcher is very bad about
covering first on balls hit to the right side of the infield, and the
ball seems to roll a little bit slowly on soft liners, resulting in a
slightly inflated number of infield hits.
** The statistics are not adjusted for the stadiums. For example, the
Colorado team hitters all have artificially high batting ratings, simply
because they play half of their games in Coors Field, where home runs and
hits are much easier to come by. Not to say that Walker, Galarraga,
Bichette and Castilla aren't damn good hitters, but they wouldn't hit
quite so well in, say, the Astrodome.
** The simulation model has a bug which will sometimes hang the
association. This can be worked around with a keyboard command (email me
and I'll get you the text file on how to un-hang a season. This may be
related to the sound in some manner, people have said that this is less
frequent if you turn the music off, but I play without the music and I
still have my association hang.
*** a patch release ** Sierra is aware of most of these bugs, and from
what I have heard plans to release a patch for the game sometime in the
middle of August.
--
Lawrence J. Wobker NCSU Junior, Computer Science & MDS
Systems Administrator, Bell + Howell Mail Processing Systems
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~ljwobker/www/ <--> ljwo...@eos.ncsu.edu
Erik Simpson
Lawrence Joseph Wobker (ljwo...@unity.ncsu.edu) wrote:
: ** The statistics are not adjusted for the stadiums. For example, the
: Colorado team hitters all have artificially high batting ratings, simply
: because they play half of their games in Coors Field, where home runs and
: hits are much easier to come by. Not to say that Walker, Galarraga,
: Bichette and Castilla aren't damn good hitters, but they wouldn't hit
: quite so well in, say, the Astrodome.
Galarraga, Bichette, and Castilla are VERY far from being damn good
hitters. This is a huge problem.
Erik
Ted Frank
In article <01bb7ca9$7a454d60$684278cc@tim>,
Timothy Krasniewski <tjk...@toltbbs.com> wrote:
>> >The game IS physics-based.
>>
>> Then the game should compensate by adjusting the ratings of the players
>> that play in Colorado, rather than double-counting the altitude effects.
>>
>> If, as you imply below, the game doesn't even take into account altitude
>> effects, then the physics model is substantially deficient.
>
>"Substantially deficient"??? I guess that's your opinion.
I would imagine it's Robert Adair's, too, as well as any physicist's.
>> >Realism is the most important factor in the entire game.
>>
>> Then why is the game less realistic than any number of text-based games?
>
>"Realism" is a very subjective issue, and I suspect that your definition
>does not concur with mine. If you define realism as seeing a season end
>with Greg Maddux having a 1.62 ERA and 19 wins, and Belle with 50 HR and 50
>2B, then that's fine for you.
Nice of you to create a strawman.
>FPSB gives players skill ratings which allow them to approximate their
>actual physical attributes.
I agree with the first clause of your sentence. The second is demonstrably
false.
>And, that is my definition of realism: to create situations which are
>condusive to producing believable statistical results.
That's my definition, too. And FPSBB flunks both of our definitions. If
the Rockies trade Dante Bichette to Oakland, he's going to hit like Phil
Plantier instead of like Mark McGwire. FPSBB will be oblivious to this.
The most important offensive statistic is on-base average, yet FPSBB does
not even have a skill rating reflecting strike-zone judgment: Ozzie
Guillen is just as likely to walk as Frank Thomas, a patently
unbelieveable result.
>> Any group of people that rates Dante Bichette as highly as FPSBB does
>> cannot be considered especially knowledgable.
>
>Well, you'd better mention that to those who voted him the 2nd best player
>in the NL last year.
I don't consider anyone who put Dante Bichette in the top five of NL
players, ahead of Barry Larkin, Mike Piazza, Greg Maddux, Barry Bonds,
or Reggie Sanders, to be especially knowledgeable. Bichette is a
mediocrity.
--
m...@radix.net | "See her [diver Becky Ruehl's] wrist guards? Those are
| to protect her wrists!" -- NBC's always insightful analysis
Timothy Krasniewski
Erik Simpson <esim...@dept.english.upenn.edu> wrote in article
<4taq02$6...@netnews.upenn.edu>...
"Huge problem"? I don't think so.
The only game I know of that takes this into account is Strat-O-Matic, and
that's a text game. Sure, this is something I'd like to see implemented in
the next version or two, but there are many more pressing issues to resolve
first.
Tim
Ted Frank
In article <01bb7c2f$25065620$674278cc@tim>,
Timothy Krasniewski <tjk...@toltbbs.com> wrote:
>> Galarraga, Bichette, and Castilla are VERY far from being damn good
>> hitters. This is a huge problem.
>
>
>The only game I know of that takes this into account is Strat-O-Matic, and
>that's a text game. Sure, this is something I'd like to see implemented in
>the next version or two, but there are many more pressing issues to resolve
>first.
I'm sorry, I think it's a make-or-break problem. If I want a simulation,
rather than an some arcade game, I want the game to accurately reflect
hitters' ability -- *especially* in a game like FPSBB, which is allegedly
supposed to be physics-based. A real baseball simulation would rate
Bichette as mediocre, and then compensate for his stats by reflecting
the park impact of Coors.
FPSBB does not do this, and I will not spend $60 on it. If TP97 or the new
Micro League does not do this, I will not buy their games, either.
(That's not to say that FPSBB does not have other make-or-break problems,
but I certainly don't want any lurking game designer to think that the
realism factor isn't a huge one.)
Timothy Krasniewski
Ted Frank <m...@Radix.Net> wrote in article
<4tftlk$8...@saltmine.radix.net>...
> In article <01bb7c2f$25065620$674278cc@tim>,
> Timothy Krasniewski <tjk...@toltbbs.com> wrote:
> >> Galarraga, Bichette, and Castilla are VERY far from being damn good
> >> hitters. This is a huge problem.
> >
> >"Huge problem"? I don't think so.
> >
> >The only game I know of that takes this into account is Strat-O-Matic,
and
> >that's a text game. Sure, this is something I'd like to see implemented
in
> >the next version or two, but there are many more pressing issues to
resolve
> >first.
>
> I'm sorry, I think it's a make-or-break problem. If I want a simulation,
> rather than an some arcade game, I want the game to accurately reflect
> hitters' ability -- *especially* in a game like FPSBB, which is allegedly
> supposed to be physics-based. A real baseball simulation would rate
> Bichette as mediocre, and then compensate for his stats by reflecting
> the park impact of Coors.
OK, first of all, where do you get this "supposed to be physics-based"?
Have you ever even played the game?
The game IS physics-based. And, it's the most beautiful recreation of the
game of baseball ever created. If you want canned plays and outcomes like
Tony LaRussa, then knock yourself out. I'd rather see a SS actually
haveing to make a TAG a 2nd on a steal, rather than just having the player
called out because the ball arrives before the runner.
Back to the ballpark issue, most of the parks will be represented just
fine. The walls are still set at the proper heights and distances. Also,
the climate of open-air stadiums is taken into effect. Before a game
begins, the weather (temperature, wind, etc.) is determined and has an
effect on the ball. About the only thing not taken into account is the
altitude of a stadium like Coors. For a handfull of HRs over the course of
a season, I'm, not going to let it detract from my enjoyment of this fine
game.
> FPSBB does not do this, and I will not spend $60 on it. If TP97 or the
new
> Micro League does not do this, I will not buy their games, either.
Well, then you're gonna be waiting a LONG time.
> (That's not to say that FPSBB does not have other make-or-break problems,
> but I certainly don't want any lurking game designer to think that the
> realism factor isn't a huge one.)
Realism is the most important factor in the entire game. The group of
people working on BB'96 are some of the most knowledgable baseball people
I've ever encountered. They know their stuff, and are working day and
night to resolve the outstanding problems. But, having seen their to-do
list, I just know that something like adding altitude effects for Coors
Field wouldn't even make the list.
Ted Frank
In article <01bb7c97$fed68c40$6d4278cc@tim>,
>> rather than an some arcade game, I want the game to accurately reflect
>> hitters' ability -- *especially* in a game like FPSBB, which is allegedly
>> supposed to be physics-based. A real baseball simulation would rate
>> Bichette as mediocre, and then compensate for his stats by reflecting
>> the park impact of Coors.
>
>OK, first of all, where do you get this "supposed to be physics-based"?
>Have you ever even played the game?
>
>The game IS physics-based.
Then the game should compensate by adjusting the ratings of the players
that play in Colorado, rather than double-counting the altitude effects.
If, as you imply below, the game doesn't even take into account altitude
effects, then the physics model is substantially deficient.
>> (That's not to say that FPSBB does not have other make-or-break problems,
>> but I certainly don't want any lurking game designer to think that the
>> realism factor isn't a huge one.)
>
>Realism is the most important factor in the entire game.
Then why is the game less realistic than any number of text-based games?
>The group of
>people working on BB'96 are some of the most knowledgable baseball people
>I've ever encountered.
Any group of people that rates Dante Bichette as highly as FPSBB does
cannot be considered especially knowledgable.
>But, having seen their to-do
>list, I just know that something like adding altitude effects for Coors
>Field wouldn't even make the list.
And, for people who are willing to settle for crap, they'll have a
successful product. But if I wanted to play an arcade game that had
a modicum of strategy instead of a baseball simulation, there are dozens
of arcade games that are more entertaining than FPSBB.
My recollection of FPS is that it sits and tries to quantify meaningless
information such as "ability to hit in the month of June" while ignoring
substantially more important indicators of ability -- such as strike-
zone judgment, and, yes, altitude effects. If an amateurish company
such as Strat-O-Matic can put out a poorly-programmed/miserable user-
interface/text-based piece of software that accounts for these things,
there is no excuse for the Front Page people to ignore it.
Carl I. Johnson
> FPSBB does not do this, and I will not spend $60 on it. If TP97 or the new
> Micro League does not do this, I will not buy their games, either.
Actually, I paid $39.99 for FPSBB at Best Buy.
Aaron Denney
<discussion of realism in FPSBB96 snipped>
>> but I certainly don't want any lurking game designer to think that the
>> realism factor isn't a huge one.)
>
>Realism is the most important factor in the entire game. The group of
>people working on BB'96 are some of the most knowledgable baseball people
>I've ever encountered. They know their stuff, and are working day and
>night to resolve the outstanding problems. But, having seen their to-do
>list, I just know that something like adding altitude effects for Coors
>Field wouldn't even make the list.
Sorry Moe, they may be some of the most "knowedgable baseball people
<...you've...> encountered", but that makes me wonder what circles you run
in. I'm sorry, that sounds meaner than I meant, and no offence is really
intended, but if they are such knowledgable bb-people, why would they
release FPSBB96 in the condition it is in? Sure, maybe they saw all the
HUGE problems and Sierra forced them to release it when it wasn't ready
yet. If so, I'd love to hear one of them say it.
We've seen postings from Ken Williams (CEO of Sierra) going on about how
it's such a great game, he's so proud, and they were'nt really sure a
patch was necessary (and even then, only really for the arcade hitting).
I wonder what the programmers really think? If they agree with him, then
my question about them being good bb people stands. Still, I'd love to
hear what they have to say, even anonymously. I have tremendous respect
for their abilities in many ways. I think they've done some great stuff,
but as it stands, the game is far from realistic.
One thing I can believe is the length of their to do list :-)
Let's all pray for a patch aimed as much at simmers as arcade swingers (no
offence to either party)!
Aaroin Denney
aa...@ccnet.com
Ian Jalbert
It seems a major argument here is whether or not FPSBB96 is realistic.
While I may love the game, I would have to be an idiot to say that it
has anything resembling realism...
First of all, the most glaring problem that hasn't been fixed in the
latest version. No new ratings. Walt Weiss will never get 100 BB in
a season because there's no stat that includes patience at the plate.
The Rob Deer type player won't be played out right either because to
simulate the great strikeout ratio, he'll also have to have a low
batting average. It's impossible to have a .310 player with 150
strikeouts. It might conceivably happen, but you can't rate a player
to do anything like this.
Also, after 30 games in the 96 season, the Rockies lead the league in
ERA.
There's not enough key ratings to evaluate the everyday performance of
a player and too many stupid ratings to simulate things that don't
really matter. Shouldn't they have thought of a way to include player
patience before they include how the player performs at home vs. road?
Mind you, there have been a great deal of improvements over the 94
season. Randy Johnson has a 2.61 ERA this season as opposed to the
6.xx in 94 1.2 and 9.xx in 94 1.1. This also seems to apply to many
other pitchers, but there are numerous pitchers with great ERAs that
shouldn't have them. Again, it's 30 games into the season and I can't
say whether it's fluke or whether something is still wrong with the
game engine.
Really, as much fun as FPSBB96 is, it pales in comparison to
Championship Manager 2. The ONLY reason I buy the Front Page Sports
series is for the career mode. But with 4 versions of Football, the
career mode has not been improved a bit. ANd it looks as though it
will be the same with Baseball. If any other game comes out that has
a more intricate career mode, bye bye FPS.
Finally, I don't have any trust in the statistical engine. These are
not the real major league players, these are cardboard figures running
around with major league names on them that might perform like their
major league counterparts in SOME aspects.
Fun? Yes. Realistic? Get real...
George P. Murphy
* snip *
> > Any group of people that rates Dante Bichette as highly as
FPSBB does
> > cannot be considered especially knowledgable.
>
> Well, you'd better mention that to those who voted him the 2nd
best player
> in the NL last year.
The people that voted were sportwriters, who in large part seem
to have little
knowledge of sabermetrics. The MVP voters are by no means
experts when
it comes to true knowledge about the game of baseball.
George P. Murphy
Reyn Yates
> "George P. Murphy" <gmu...@crl.com> wrote in article
Ratings will always be subjective.
And besides, You can CHANGE them.
What is the problem?
Im more concerned with the AI, Realism, and Game Play.
For Example how the rankings are used
to dictate results. Particularly as it relates to Pitchers.
And if Coaching Profiles and Game Management options were avail. (like FPS
Football)
you could stop the cleanup guy from bunting w/ two outs and runners on...
and you could also get closers to CLOSE.
Reyn Yates
> "Timothy Krasniewski" <tjk...@toltbbs.com> wrote in article
> "Realism" is a very subjective issue, and I suspect that your definition
> does not concur with mine. If you define realism as seeing a season end
> with Greg Maddux having a 1.62 ERA and 19 wins, and Belle with 50 HR and
50
> 2B, then that's fine for you. To me, that's of little significance. If
I
> wanted to do re-plays, then we'd be discussing a game like SOM or APBA.
>
> FPSB gives players skill ratings which allow them to approximate their
> actual physical attributes. Those skill ratings do not guarantee any
> particular performance, just as Maddux' performance in the past 2-3
seasons
> does not ensure a sub-2.00 ERA in 1996.
>
> What the ratings do accomplish is to set the table for a season's worth
of
> play. A guy like Bagwell may hit .350 with 50 homers in one simulated
> season, while following that up with a .300, 40 HR campaign the next
year,
> even though his ratings have not decreased. But, that's the nature of
> baseball. There are no guarantees.
>
> And, that is my definition of realism: to create situations which are
> condusive to producing believable statistical results.
>
In theory, i agree w/ you.
But how many seasons have you simulated?
In my 3+ seasons Maddux has yet to win more than 12 games (there hasn't
been any 20 game winners) and he has yet to have an era under 4.00.
That is NOT realsim.
The guy has the best rankings BY FAR (90's). Yet he routinely gets
outpitched by pitchers ranked in the 50's.
IMO that is a serious problem.
RYE.
Shaun Johnson
Ian Jalbert <ianja...@icacomp.com> wrote in article
<4th1n3$s...@master.ftn.net>...
>
You make the game sound like it is totally unrealistic. That is not true.
Maybe when you have the computer generating a bunch of stats, some things
aren't realistic, but when you actually play a game, the realism is there.
And forget the hitting bug for a moment. Obviously, with the bug, nothing
is realistic. If you set the hitting to basic, then control the other
aspects of the game, you actually end up with a quite realistic game. And
your season with Colorado leading the league in ERA is probably a fluke,
because many others have reported much more reasistic stats than that. It
seems to be different for everyone. And how much more realistic is that?
Baseball is different every year, as new players emerge as superstars.
Some superstars have bad years too. You can't expect them to accurately
predict what every player will do in a given season.
I agree with you that a patience rating should have been included. This
especially applies to players like Tony Gwynn (who never strike out), and
Rob Deer (who always strike out). But the home and away ratings are a must
too. Don't say they aren't important. Just look at Colorado!
Shaun
Ian Jalbert
"Shaun Johnson" <jjoh...@oln.com> wrote:
>You make the game sound like it is totally unrealistic. That is not true.
>Maybe when you have the computer generating a bunch of stats, some things
>aren't realistic, but when you actually play a game, the realism is there.
>And forget the hitting bug for a moment. Obviously, with the bug, nothing
>is realistic. If you set the hitting to basic, then control the other
>aspects of the game, you actually end up with a quite realistic game. And
>your season with Colorado leading the league in ERA is probably a fluke,
>because many others have reported much more reasistic stats than that. It
>seems to be different for everyone. And how much more realistic is that?
>Baseball is different every year, as new players emerge as superstars.
>Some superstars have bad years too. You can't expect them to accurately
>predict what every player will do in a given season.
>I agree with you that a patience rating should have been included. This
>especially applies to players like Tony Gwynn (who never strike out), and
>Rob Deer (who always strike out). But the home and away ratings are a must
>too. Don't say they aren't important. Just look at Colorado!
I'm not looking for regurgitation of the previous year's stats.
Really, I just want to see that, in general, the pitchers with the
higher ratings finish with better statistics than pitchers with poor
ratings. I don't think that's much to ask for!
They actually seem to have fixed the fastball problem (re: Randy
Johnson). Now it's some other pitches where a 50 rating is actually
as good or better than a 90 rating.
I DO like all of the situational statistics, don't get me wrong. I
just think this should have come after they did an ok job of
simulating the basic game. And this, obviously, hasn't happened yet.
Here's starting the FPSBB97 wish list:
Plate Patience Rating
Better handling of pitcher's ratings towards their actual
performance
If they do just these 2 things, it could be one of the best sports
games ever! (except for the bugs)
Ian
mike
On 31 Jul 1996 19:09:29 GMT, "Shaun Johnson" <jjoh...@oln.com> wrote:
>seems to be different for everyone. And how much more realistic is that?
>Baseball is different every year, as new players emerge as superstars.
>Some superstars have bad years too. You can't expect them to accurately
>predict what every player will do in a given season.
Yeah, like, what if your game made Greg Maddux 10-9 with 3.0 ERA? You
would think it was unrealistic...well...:)
Shaun Johnson
Ian Jalbert <ianja...@icacomp.com> wrote in article
<4tp25s$c...@master.ftn.net>...
> "Shaun Johnson" <jjoh...@oln.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I'm not looking for regurgitation of the previous year's stats.
> Really, I just want to see that, in general, the pitchers with the
> higher ratings finish with better statistics than pitchers with poor
> ratings. I don't think that's much to ask for!
>
> They actually seem to have fixed the fastball problem (re: Randy
> Johnson). Now it's some other pitches where a 50 rating is actually
> as good or better than a 90 rating.
>
> I DO like all of the situational statistics, don't get me wrong. I
> just think this should have come after they did an ok job of
> simulating the basic game. And this, obviously, hasn't happened yet.
>
> Here's starting the FPSBB97 wish list:
> Plate Patience Rating
> Better handling of pitcher's ratings towards their actual
>
> performance
>
> If they do just these 2 things, it could be one of the best sports
> games ever! (except for the bugs)
>
> Ian
>
Once the bugs (hitting bug in particular) are corrected, I think this game
will be the best sports game thus far. This may be a little biased because
I am a huge baseball fan, and I love the Win95 aspect of the game, but
that's just my opinion. Those fastball ratings do need to be corrected
though. One thing you should notice, is that although a 50 fastball can
equal the velocity of a 90 fastball at times, the 90 is definitely more
effective. The 90 is able to hit the corners better and go where you want
it to go. It is also more consistent. The 50, I find, is more connectable
and ineffective, despite it reaching similar velocities.
I haven't tried using Randy Johnson, but I sure hope he is more effective
than he was in '94 (i.e. his ERA is below 9.00, as mine was).
Shaun
David K. Lee
Although I do not believe this game is unrealstic as some people might
suggest, I do have serious problems with ratings. First, control
pitchers including Greg Maddux simply do not perform well in this game.
Instead, pitchers with high arm strength tend to perform better because
they strike out more. Greg Maddux instead inducing batters into outs
gives up more homers just because he does not strike as many batters as
other pitchers.
Again, I really think the home-away rating to be bogus. When I dump all
the players into a common draft pool, I do not what their home-field
advantage/disadvantage tagged along as well. I belive Mike Piazza had
something like 42. I am sure Colorado batters have high ratings though
I have not checked. I find this feature to be very annoying since I
only play the game with totally new teams using the free agent draft
which I find to be the best feature of the game. I am sure the
programmers could have dealt with this feature through their engine but
chose not to do so, and instead relied on the home-away rating.
Regrettable to say the least.
David
Shaun Johnson
David K. Lee <dkl...@is.nyu.edu> wrote in article
<3203DC...@is.nyu.edu>...
David:
Are your problems with Greg Maddux giving up homers and not working
properly when you are controlling him in a game or just simulating? I use
Maddux myself all the time, and I haven't had any problems what so ever
with him. I think he the best pitcher I've used. I get everyone out with
him. You can't throw pitches down the pipe and expect the player just to
make an out.
Shaun
Septimus
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution:
Reyn Yates (hal...@seanet.com) wrote:
: In my 3+ seasons Maddux has yet to win more than 12 games (there hasn't
: been any 20 game winners) and he has yet to have an era under 4.00.
: That is NOT realsim.
: The guy has the best rankings BY FAR (90's). Yet he routinely gets
: outpitched by pitchers ranked in the 50's.
: IMO that is a serious problem.
: RYE.
Dear Rye--
I used to play the APBA Major League Baseball Game (non-computer version)
On rare occasions a "Grade A" pitchere like 1995 Maddux would be
outpitched by an average pitcher (Grade C), but over the course of the
season Maddux would be an outstanding performer. This is a
dice-and-cardboard sports sim. without a Pentium processor.
I agree that you have a problem. IMO the problem is in the algorithm that
determines the results of each at bat. PROBABLY the game designer
emphasized graphics at the expense of a realistic approximation of outs,
walks, singles, homers, GIDPs etc.
The trouble with baseball sims that are based on a physics model of how
hard and in what direction a ball is hit, is that we have NO STATS on how
often player A hit a fly 380 ft to left-centerfield or a blooper 125 feet
back of second base. Or how many singles resulted from infield hits or
bunts versus line drives. What we DO know is the incidence of singles,
doubles, triples etc per 500 plate appearences. If you ignore those hard
stats, as FPS Baseball apparently does, you will have untrue Stats like
Maddux' 4.00 plus ERA...
--Septimus