Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Marlin
Well, The Wolf took a rather absolutist position on stats only and how realistic it is. Like No One said it isn't any more than colored rating bars are because we can't actually watch these little guys play and see their stance, swing, etc. Height and weight in OOTP is pretty much window dressing with no real impact on play. OOTP is THE most realistic baseball sim I've ever played or heard of but it IS still a sim not real life. The eyes are a wonderful scouting tool and you don't get to use them in ootp. The ratings are there to sort of make up for it.
But it's hard to argue it isn't more of a challenge without them. Since when is doing with less easier? But that does not make it more realistic and that was the claim that set folks on edge.
One thing that never has been resolved is do stats follow ratings or vice versa. In my own experience (take it for what that's worth) ratings follow stats/performance. So when you focus on stats you are looking at what the player is doing right now. There is a great line from the Moneyball movie "If he's such a good hitter why doesn't he hit good?"
But as Orcin pointed out they all just data points. How you use them is up to you. If your scout sucks your ratings are skewed so even that becomes a misleading (read challenge) metric to work around.
But if you are playing with scouting accuracy at 100% then don't ask about making things more challenging. You're clearly not into that!
|
as long as it's the same for all participants, it's slower and more tedious, which can be thought of as harder. (tedious may have a negative connotation to some, not intimated here.. merely an accurate description. you must wait for data to accrue before you can act. everything you do lags behind the actual change (like development or aging) or cause (anything else my little mind can't think of right now.)
concpetually, it's not more difficult and you are making the same decisions for the same reasons.
you will be wrong more often about players and take longer to identify which players are solid without any ratings whatsoever. this will be equall for all, unless you have a better system or understanding of what's going on of course, but that's a seperate issue.
is that harder? i think of it as a level playing field that all have to overcome, so as far as competition they are on the same footing. slightly different dynamic without any ratings, but same concepts applied. it has to be.
heh, i thought of a better way to put it: no matter how you play, it still takes the same degree of difficulty and same level of expertise to squeeze every win possible out of a team. you have to do the exact same thigns to do so, but in a slightly different way as far as data collection or which data set you have access to (stats or both). not knowing how to do these numerous 'things' will still result in fewer wins relative to any setting.
it's more bout personal knowledge and behaviours whether or not you succeed with any particular settings...
while i don't play stats only, i am confident i can make the same decisions based on the things with strong correlations that i always do. the dynamics may result in fewer wins relative to other settings, but my choices are what maximizes wins within any set of rules. apples and oranges to compare wins or winpct between 2 rule sets. within any 1 rules set you can compare to baseline and know if you are in the top 1%... which is likely just as difficult to reach as any other rule set. this is why i say the difficulty remains the same.. the curve is merely shifting left or right.