Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Capo
I love cross-era play. It's my favorite way to play OOTP, and previous games I've played. I like using A-G's random debut DB.
Years ago I wrote a whole routine that normalized cross-era players to any given year. Spent a lot of time on it. I thought it would be really cool. And when I implemented it, you know what? It sucked. It worked just like it was supposed to, but it wasn't any fun. Cobb hitting more HRs than triples isnt' Cobb. All that's left is the name and picture.
To me, cross-era play works just fine without normalizing, as long as you don't try to use pre-1900 guys. Deadball stars who probably batted third become leadoff hitters and still lead the league in batting, while modern guys bat cleanup and vie for the HR lead. Deadball pitchers' gaudy stats are held in check by the game's use of league totals (well, maybe a little tweaking here of league totals helps).
Much of the FUN in cross-era play comes from differences in stats resulting from the different styles of play. To me, flattening this out robs them of their personalities, and they might as well be fictional players.
|
I've come to the exact same conclusions, for the same reasons as you.
Your example of Cobb is precisely what I dont like about normalization. Yes it's true...Cobb in an equal setting would have much more HR's in comparison to today's stars or mediocre power hitters than his stats would indicate...but 25-30 HR's is not what I think of when I think of Ty Cobb. And certainly, thats what normalization would do.
Generally, I try not to use too many pitchers pre-1920...but I make certain obvious exceptions (Cy, Mathewson, Alexander, Johnson, etc.).