Quote:
Originally Posted by frankbama
Anyway, there isn't a need for a couple players to be on every team especially when a lot of them do nothing more than hit singles. If power was more of a factor - which I think I remember them trying to do but not sure it worked - then there would be more teams with different players on them.
|
It was a point of emphasis this year but obviously not enough. It just seems to me that the drop off is too severe when scaling due to normalization. I think people look at a card with 100 contact and consider that a high amount - and when compared to all players, even non live perfects, it is. The issue is that if I used my roster as an example (I have zero chase cards, running FH3 with the standard fair Maddux, Rixey, etc) the average contact rating of my starters vR as a is 110.56. 100 contact rating is bad now.
The meta is high contact, and it just reinforces itself. In a balanced game you'd be able to say - hey, everyone is running a bunch of Tony Gwynn types so I'm going to run boppers out there, and because normalization my 150+ power guys are going to jack so many bombs it won't matter that they hit well below league average. In the current unbalanced way it works they hit so far below the league average that it more than counters the additional HR production. I'm sure someone with an advanced math degree could try and figure out the HRs required for a .200 hitter to make them outproduce the expected runs added compared to a guy hitting .300 with everything else (walks, Ks, XBHs, etc) being equal, but I can safely say it is higher than what you could realistically hope to get with any consistency.
So basically, the fall off is so steep it makes these power cards borderline unplayable. If those same ratings were getting you a .250 average then maybe it becomes viable?
I think the most simple way to say it is that if you took 100 power away from Babe Ruth and left EVERYTHING ELSE the same, he'd be a better card - how does that make sense?