Game Strategy Forum?

[bjamesw22]

I thought another good forum that could be added to brewerfan.net is a game strategy forum. I don't know how it could be constructed, but I for one am a guy that loves to discuss game strategy. Other than rabid hyperactive in-game thread discussion there really isn't that much discussion on this board about actual strategy.

[bjkrautk]

I thought that was what the "venting thread" was for. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[H0FFY]

Finally, somewhere to post my disdain for letting Cappy go 116 pitches yesterday. Terrible. Cappy is going for 20 wins. He should have left after 80 pitches, fresh for his next start. Terrible by Ned.

 

That said, I think the idea for this forum is good. But really, only the fire of the game thread gets so many thinking. I am sure happy when Russ (not Branyan) explains the chances of scoring runs in certain scearios. It sure has made me like bunting less and less.

[pogokat]

In my opinion, there are already too many forums...

 

I think the in game threads can handle this...and if people would take their rabid nature to the chatroom, the igt would be a peaceful place...

[bjamesw22]

I guess I'm talking about baseball strategy in general not in-game baseball strategy (well I guess some could be).

 

For instance:

 

Hit and Run

Suicide Squeeze

Fielding position for batters (like Bonds, etc.)

1st and 3rd situations

etc.

etc.

etc.

[pogokat]

there are too many forums

 

no new ones, and i think we should get rid of a couple

[bjamesw22]

I guess I don't understand why we have a Statistical Analysis Forum then. Why make that forum if you're not going to make one for the opposite end of the spectrum?

 

EDIT: Why not ditch the Polls Forum? It's rarely used anyways.

[rwa12]

Couldn't this thread title have been "Russ and Brett got their forum, why can't I have mine?"

[bjamesw22]

Couldn't this thread title have been "Russ and Brett got their forum, why can't I have mine?"

 

It's a logical question. Why make a republican forum and not make a democratic one? I could go on and on. To me it doesn't make sense. You're darn right, why make a SABR forum if you're not going to make a game strategy/traditional knowledge forum?

 

The creation of the statistical analysis forum is totally biased and partisan.

 

Your feeble attempt to create controversy and raise my blood pressure failed. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/grin.gif

[brettac1]

I don't really think the creation of that forum was for Russ (who really does much more stat stuff with tables and the like than I do) and I. Moreso it was to be abale to preserve threads that are very good and would normally get pushed off the board and lost. I think you could take the discussion of game strategy to the stats forum, as a lot of us "SABR guys" base some of our views on in-game strategy on stats - things like bunts, SB's, etc. I'm sure if you wanted to post something related to that in that forum, it could generate discussion.

[DougJones43]

i'm not entirely sure i understand the request. would it be to discuss specific game decisions (like "should the brewers have had brady clark try and steal in situation X during saturday's game?"), or would it be more general discussion about, say, the benefits of stealing in certain situations, bunting during certain types of situations, etc.?

 

either way, most of that gets covered in the major league forum (i seem to remember participating in a 10-page discussion regarding a ben sheets suicide squeeze), and i really don't think it would be possible without stats being part of the discussion.

 

if in fact there was to be a forum that rivaled the statistical analysis forum, in order to truly be the opposite, it would not be a Game Strategy Forum, but rather the I Know What I Saw Forum.

[ja002h]

would it be to discuss specific game decisions (like "should the brewers have had brady clark try and steal in situation X during saturday's game?&quothttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif , or would it be more general discussion about, say, the benefits of stealing in certain situations, bunting during certain types of situations, etc.?

 

I understood it to be the latter.

[bjamesw22]

or would it be more general discussion about, say, the benefits of stealing in certain situations, bunting during certain types of situations, etc.?

 

Yes.

 

either way, most of that gets covered in the major league forum (i seem to remember participating in a 10-page discussion regarding a ben sheets suicide squeeze), and i really don't think it would be possible without stats being part of the discussion.

 

I'm sorry, but there are tons of situations where the statistics show an advantage to one decision to another that almost every single manager would disagree with. So people can't talk about it? It's called traditional baseball knowledge, not "I know what I saw".

 

I think you could take the discussion of game strategy to the stats forum, as a lot of us "SABR guys" base some of our views on in-game strategy on stats - things like bunts, SB's, etc. I'm sure if you wanted to post something related to that in that forum, it could generate discussion.

 

No, it would create heated arguments. Stat guys don't agree with traditional baseball knowledge because if their stats don't back it up, they don't believe it. If you ask me, there are MANY discussions here that totally degenerate because of statistical talk.

 

In a game that is so random like baseball, statistics that are formulated based on hundreds or thousands of simulations shouldn't be applied to many in-game situations if any.

 

So in a case when you are talking about a suicide squeeze, hit and run, etc that happen maybe 3 times a year for suicide squeezes and probably 20 times for hitting and running how can you apply the probabilities to those situations when the probabilities are based upon hundreds and thousands of simulations? You can't and you shouldn't even try.

 

It's traditional baseball knowledge and in-game strategy and we should be able to discuss it without an ounce of statistical reference.

[brettac1]

They're not based on simulations, they're based on play-by-play data.

[Brian the Automator]

[ No, it would create heated arguments. ]

 

I can't think of anything Brewerfan.net needs less of than more bjames/rluz bloodbaths. When those 'heated arguments' are the #1 source of misery for the moderators, we're not going to do something to make that situation _worse_.

[gregmag]

No, it would create heated arguments. Stat guys don't agree with traditional baseball knowledge because if their stats don't back it up, they don't believe it. If you ask me, there are MANY discussions here that totally degenerate because of statistical talk.

 

When I started reading this thread. I too thought about the idea of expanding the statistical analysis forum into a "strategy and analysis" forum. Then I read the measured, thoughtful quote reprinted above. Now I say to hell with the whole thing, if that's the amount of respect you have for other points of view.

 

Greg.

[bjamesw22]

Now I say to hell with the whole thing, if that's the amount of respect you have for other points of view.

 

WHAT?!? What does what I have to say have ANYTHING to do with not respecting other points of view? It does EXACTLY the same thing as the statistical analysis forum does. Many don't believe in relying on stats to make all of our decisions yet we have a forum that analyses just that. So why shouldn't there be a different forum for the other side. SABR guys have basically had their own forum created so that "everyone else" can reference to them when they deem us stupid for not relying on "facts" (stats).

 

The creation of that forum is so partisan it is rediculas. It shouldn't have been created in the first place. It's been created as the place where the "gospel" is kept.

[don1481]

BJames, wouldn't a *logical* solution be to create discussion threads on the MLB (or whatever appropriate) board and hold the strategy debates there? And then, at some point in the future, if there's enough interest, take this issue up again with Brian?

[bjamesw22]

Same can be said about all of the statistical analysis topics. Why are they any different?

[don1481]

Quote:

---

Why are they any different?

---

 

They're not, but that's not the point here.

 

The point is: There are more productive ways to get a Game Strategy Forum. Obviously the tactic being used isn't working, so try something else. Generate some interest, through threads. See how the people respond.

[bjamesw22]

If you read the beginning of the thread that's how the thread started off. And I'm not the one who made it go in a different direction.

[Katuluu]

Quote:

---

Why make a republican forum and not make a democratic one?

---

 

This is a rather entertaining Freudian slip.

[Brian the Automator]

[ Many don't believe in relying on stats to make all of our decisions yet we have a forum that analyses just that. ]

 

These kinds of generalizations irritate me greatly.

 

More importantly, why do you need to be in the center of every controversy on the site? I am EXTREMELY tired of it. You were banned because you couldn't let crap drop, and LO AND BEHOLD, here we are again. You're always on rluzinski like white on rice, and always playing the victim like you're somehow getting the short end of the stick.

 

After what we went through privately, you're LUCKY to be here. So, just freaking deal with it, or go away.

[don1481]

Quote:

---

If you read the beginning of the thread that's how the thread started off.

---

 

I did. And it didn't. I mean, you didn't drum up support through threads that showed an interest in this... you called out Russ and Brett for supposedly getting "their forum" after Pogo said "too many forums," and you're wondering why people are digging in their heels?

 

Please, for everyone's sake, please please please try not to pick another fight out of all of this. I don't think anyone wants to fight you. Except Ron Burgundy.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[bjamesw22]

You're always on rluzinski like white on rice, and always playing the victim like you're somehow getting the short end of the stick.

 

Whatever. Now YOU'RE making a generalization.

 

you called out Russ and Brett

 

I never singled him or them out. Someone else did. See directly below

 

Quote:

---

Couldn't this thread title have been "Russ and Brett got their forum, why can't I have mine?" ---rwa

---

 

I'm sorry, but I started off this thread as something I thought was a good idea NOT as something to create controversy.

 

They're not based on simulations, they're based on play-by-play data.

 

All a simulation is is a quicker way to accumulate the same data you would if you compiled the data for many play-by-play games.

 

Please, for everyone's sake, please please please try not to pick another fight out of all of this.

 

I'm NOT picking a fight. I'm voicing my opinion on how partisan I believe the statistical analysis forum is. I just don't understand why or how statistics are now more important than having strategical knowledge. I'm sorry I don't agree with it and I think it is ok not to.