Quote:
Originally Posted by GrantDawg
The real criteria should be the old EA line. "If it is in the Game, it is in the Game." Rust is a part of the game. Ask any player, pitching coach or trainer. They'll tell you prolonged periods of not playing affects playing level. It is random (some starting pitchers feel fine on three days rests, some pitchers lose something on their pitches after more than 5). But as rule, players (esp. pitchers) have to work their way back after long lay-offs. Almost every pitcher is on a pitch-count on their first start back after a lay-off. Bench players that don't hit in a game for a couple of weeks are affected by not playing. It is a part of the game.
Rehab assignments are a part of the game, and I am happy that we are going to have them. I wish they were done while still on the DL, but that is minor compared to the flaw of not having them at all.
|
I believed that once. But experience has changed my mind on such additions. When there is no statistical guideline for something we end up the game being constantly tweeked. Someone finds an article that says one thing. Someone else remembers an incident with their favorite team that indicates something else. Someone who played (or coached) little league, high school, college or minor leagues will add their experience. Someone will make another comment after watching one game (or one week or one season) in OOTP and give another opinion. In the end, with these types of additions forces you (and i) to spend more time on the OOTP boards making sure that it doesn’t get messed up with what you (or i) think is an erroneous way to handle the feature. And you spend less time actually playing the game.
IMHO, the whole idea of introducing RUST into OOTP was a perfect example of micromanagement. Again, IMHO what we should add into OOTP are things where different strategies can reasonably be used. Some people don’t like the Rule 5 draft. But, at least in that case, you’re making a decision choosing one player over another. One person could make an argument for one player or one type of player another could make the argument for another. But no one would choose to use RUSTy players.
Spring training should have been about checking to see how close your star player in AAA or AA was to being ready to be called up, trying out different lineups with the new FA acquisitions, seeing who your fifth starter will be, seeing if an aging player still contribute to a team. It should not be about getting players ready. Not because that doesn’t happen, but because everyone will do it. If we were worried about people hiding stars from injury, just make it an equal chance that a player being injured during spring training whether playing or not. IRL teams play “B” games (to make sure everyone can be ready and no one is rusty) so injuries that did not occur in scheduled game could be from them.
The amount of “rehab” time that each player needed after injuries could have just been added on to the time that the player would be out. It would be something like “LF Dan McIntosh was injured on a defensive play. The Diagnosis: sprained ankle. It will take about 5 weeks to recover. After that he’ll need 5 days of rehab.” We would just leave the player on DL until he’s recovered and done his rehab. Why is the extra step need? If someone wants to play the player without rehab they could, he/she but why would they risk it?