[struggles_mightily]

I do think, as Le Grande Orange has intimated, that there lies behind this issue a deeper philosophical question of how one consciously defines "plausibility", and also how such conscious definitions are impacted by sub-conscious expectations.

There's no reason, a priori, why "plausible" should be defined as "resembling real-life events." Many events have occurred in baseball history that appeared unlikely before unfolding ; many situations seen as plausible or even likely have failed to come to pass (cf. recently -- the 'can't miss' Tigers of last season). Indeed, how many events at the macro level would have seemed 'implausible' before the season began? Washington Nationals, 2009 World Champions? Very unlikely, sure. But "not plausible"? I'd hesitate before using those words. I'm not sure that any possible permutation of World Series representatives could be called "implausible". (Other than, like, Red Sox vs. Devil Rays and so on.)

At the micro level, there are things that deserve to be called "implausible." I'm not sure that anyone would, or should, buy Alex Cintron as the 2009 N.L. Batting Champion. But once one starts considering the fortunes of teams rather than players and general outcomes ('wins') rather than more specific values ('batting average'), the scope of plausability becomes much more extensive.

Earlier in this thread, someone suggested that the minimal demand of historical players as regards talent evaluation should be that players import "correctly." That is, Ken Griffey Jr. should import as a big slugger who plays some D.; Craig Biggio should import as a valuable singles hitter with no pop who plays a premium position etc. But is it really valid to locate the moment of entry into the majors (since that's the point at which most simmers import their historical players) as the time when player talent levels are "set"? I'm not sure that it is, exactly.

I absolutely agree that the fun of accurate replay is marred by odd A.I. decisions. Unless a team has an atrocious (general) manager, it should not be fielding players without defensive ratings at positions and watching them put together a 1:1 games:errors ratio, nor should it be trading Garvey for Montanez straight-up (probably -- that's a little more debatable). But those are A.I. issues that affect all areas of OOTP, and aren't strictly to do with historical play. (Some aspects of defensive mishandling are, sure -- the Lahman data and the lack of a good trans-historical defensive metric is the root cause of those.)

It has been said that OOTP is "bad" for historical players. It is indeed bad for certain types of historical play -- strict replayers are unlikely to feel that their needs are being met and (as Styx has said) might well be better served by looking elsewhere. I mostly play historically, however, and I find OOTP to be fantastic. I like to hit the pinball and then be unsure of where it might travel -- to, as far as I can, shake-off fallacies of pre-determined outcomes. I think that the crimes of other games -- no Negro Leagues; no Japanese leagues; no minor leagues full-stop; no A.I. trading -- subtract much more from the "historical" experience than do OOTP's issues.

That's not intended to suggest that my way of playing is "better" or deserves primary consideration. But I think it is worth pointing out that "historical play" covers many different sorts of experiences and desires.