Windsor Greg (thomvan)

Fall Classic Baseball Game

Hosted by Windsor Greg (thomvan)|www.fallclassicbaseball.com

The Fall Classic Baseball community for Fall Classic Baseball Game.

  • 306
    MEMBERS
  • 1624
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

FAC problem   Discussions

Started Nov-27 by IRA72; 746 views.
IRA72

From: IRA72

Nov-27

Hi Greg- I have played a few games with the FACs as reported elsewhere in this forum. I have one issue. With bases loaded, in most cases the FACs do not allow a runner to advance from 3rd to home on a fly ball or only for an F runner with a Wd1. This should be corrected as, of course, deep fly balls typically allow at least F & A runners to score without a throw. You made this adjustment for bases loaded Out results 7-9 on the game charts but this was not carried over to the FACs. Help! Ira

  • Edited November 27, 2017 8:21 pm  by  IRA72
In reply toRe: msg 1

I would put a dot on a number of them. Let me take a look tomorrow. 

IRA72

From: IRA72

Nov-27

Thanks, Greg. I appreciate your always prompt response! Ira

In reply toRe: msg 3

The best I can suggest is to use the Runner on 2nd & 3rd chart with the bases full for fly outs only, 7,8,9 and 17,18,19.

The runner on 1st always holds unless there's a throw to the plate with a runner running with risk.

I would actually stroke out the Bases Full on a Flyout to LF, CF, and RF.  That's really too bad.  I will have to come up with some kind of compensation once I get it all figured out.

curtalva

From: curtalva

Nov-28

I thought there may be a maturation process to the FAC deck. I'm glad you are thinking about it. If anyone can figure it out and make it simpler yet better it's you! :)

BTW...how is it intended to handle the 51,52 results on the FAC if an OUT is recorded (51&52). Reference the actual chart to get the OUT result?

Reference the chart.  I think I might try to put a reference in to eliminate this chart reference.

IRA72

From: IRA72

Nov-28

Whatever you decide to do will be fair. For now, your suggestion to disregard the bases loaded results on outfield fly outs and use the results for 2nd & 3rd makes good sense. Thanks. Ira

In reply toRe: msg 7

I have been thinking about the FAC card theory.  Right now they emulate the boards, but the number of FACs there are to work with means a lot more could be done.  While there is only one board result, there are 9 FACs for each board result.  D20-17 on the board has one result, a Fly out to LF, with the runners doing something specific to that board.  However, with 9 FACs handling the same D20, rather than all saying the same thing it could go something like this:

Flyout LF - Bases Loaded

FAC1 - runner on 3rd scores, others hold

FAC2 - runner on 3rd scores, F! runner on 2nd to 3rd

FAC3 - runner on 3rd scores, F runner on 2nd to 3rd

FAC4 - S runner holds

FAC5 - S arm holds

FAC6 - F runner scores, F runner on 2nd to 3rd

FAC7 - W arm allows runner on 2nd & 3rd to advance

FAC8 - all hold

FAC9 - all hold

bogert53

From: bogert53

Nov-29

I think that’s the beauty of a FAC deck.   It gives opportunity for addd detail without having to wade through a chart book or find the appropriate base situation.  

IRA72

From: IRA72

Nov-29

I think you're on to the solution. I'm happy to make changes to my FACs. They are a work in progress--a good work. Ira 

TOP