Quote:
Originally Posted by David Watts
Vanilla, I would love to get your opinion on something as you seem to be the person getting the most use out of random debut. Do you think the drafts following the initial draft are too stacked when using the random feature? I thought I would love random debut, but so far I haven't been able to get into it. For me, it always seems like teams develop into all star teams way too fast. Even with drafts being only 4 or 5 rounds it seems like teams end up with too many studs and not enough Tom Veryzers.
|
Short answer is "No."
Clarifying my answer -
I use recalc (have used 1, 3, and 5 years...any length qualifies for my opinion, here) and player dev (along with aging) at the default. I absolutely love how these game dynamics integrate with the historical players in a historical environment, random debut certainly included. I use ghost players for AAA affiliates, and have fictional players blocked from reaching the Majors (should, through some quirk, they be added to the pool, somehow).
I use the word "genius" in describing the structure of this game because, imo, it is absolutely that.
With a league being played in Major League environment (and when you use random debut, you are only getting Major League players), the game structure gives you aggregate results based on whatever year you choose to use (or fictional year you choose to construct).
There are only so many All-Star slots to be had in a given year. So, by definition, you cannot have teams stocked with All-Stars, across the board. Even if your initial draft produced nothing but RL HOF pitchers and nothing but RL Tom Veryzers and Duane Kuipers and Buddy Biancalanas, after you run through that season, if it is in a 2012 environment (just to pick one), your league will have an aggregate slash line close to 255/319/405 and your Veryzers, Kuipers and Biancalanas will have hit about 5000 HRs total.
With this as the game construct, it is impossible to get "too many" All-Stars or not enough Veryzers. They will be there. Their ratings may not look like it, but when the game executes, the output will represent MLB in your chosen environment.
What WILL happen in the early years of the league is that the good players will put up extraordinary...historically Earth shattering seasons, because there is a limited talent pool to dip into when attrition due to injury or age causes the good players to be that much better than everyone else.
We see this when starting a league in 1871, or thereabouts, and we get pitching records that are never challenged. We don't see hitting records set in this fashion in an 1870s environment because of the era modifiers. For me, these pitching performances were disguised by the era adjustments as being simply due to the era adjustments. I see this with pitchers no matter what year I start my leagues. This is because there are fewer pitchers on rosters, so it is more likely to have pitchers with talent Z scores well above those of hitters (meaning, it is easier for a pitcher to be twice, or three times as good than the average pitcher than it is for a hitter to be twice or three times as good as the average hitter).
I grew up on Strat. Once I got a handle on the fact that this game is not bsed on Strat-type cards (you couldn't have a fair game if you threw Walter Johnson's card in with a bunch of players from the 80s) and that it is based on relative strength (a 20 fielder on a 20 scale in a league stocked with 20 fielders is not necessarily going to be better than the 15 fielder playing the game in the same season but in a universe where the average fielder at his position is a 6).
I have found that any short-term anomalies play themselves out.
I think I have received the best career results (most "realistic") on the aggregate when I use High injuries....what do you know.....that is what the guy that programmed the game suggests to use for realism.....
As I do my random debut leagues, I love seeing names I am familiar with. Even if the player was really only an above average player for one or two seasons in RL, I remember him for those good seasons...maybe when he did make an AS appearance, so I have experienced the phenomena of "seeing" teams stocked with All-Stars, but in reality, these players weren't perennial All-Stars, but a glance at a roster that has Jody Davis on it makes me cheer because I love Jody Davis. But the reality is, he only had one year, in RL, with an OPS+ over 100. He won only one GG, but I think of him as always being a fine defensive catcher, even though he wasn't at the start of his career, and was never elite, but I cheered for him and loved him back in the day, and I still do now. He played in 2 AS games, but I think of him as ALWAYS being an AS....that is, until I look at his record with a dispassionate eye.
I think this a bit of what you describe when you say there are too many All Stars and not enough Veryzers. We recognize the guys that did have AS seasons, or were quality role players, from whatever team. We recognize the name of Tom Veryzer because he happened to play on the team we followed, but the names of all the other guys that hung around collecting 50 hits a year as a back up player, we don't. So, I think we "see" the notable names and don't really take into account all of the Veryzer types that are in the pools, when we take a casual glance.
I have been tracking RL HOFers as they enter my leagues, and they enter randomly. Sometimes I get a clump of them in a pool, sometimes I go 3 years without getting a single one. But they don't all come in early in a universe, by any stretch of the imagination.
I will stop here, as I have strayed off your original question, but I hope I have managed to tie my thoughts to your question.
I will attempt to be more succinct with any follow-up.
Bottom lines, here: Default dev/ageing, High injury setting, recalc of any length, no fictional players, ghosts in AAA, 5 rds per team per year of new talent, and give the game a chance to work out seeming abnormalities over the course of some seasons.