Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Arnold
When playing out stuff, IRL stats don't mean anything. It doesn't matter if a player hit .400 in a season, if his in-game contact is a 35, he's not going to play well in your league.
Now, how that can happen will depend a lot more on how the league is set up. If you're using a recalc, the guy who hit .400 likely won't have a 35 contact rating. But if your league uses the development engine, it's possible that basically in your universe, the player just never developed.
I would guess if the players are that different, even accounting for era, then this is a league that does not use recalc. In that event, you can basically treat it like a fictional universe, and the name "Babe Ruth" is basically only used to set their initial ratings when he first shows up.
|
I have one quick and easy (I hope) follow-up question for you on this.
Suppose that Player A and Player B have identical ratings. Let's say they both have 45 power, 50 gap power, 45 contact, 50 eye, and 40 avoid Ks, and they are both rated at 2.5 stars overall. Completely identical. Yet according to the 3-year recalc, Player A's IRL stats on hits per at bat, XBH, walks, etc., lead to a 115 wRC+, while Player B's IRL stats leads to a 100 wRC+—IOW, rated the exact same by the game, but different outcomes in real life.
Does the game look beyond just the identical ratings to each guy's IRL stats and note that Player A with the 115 wRC+ is slightly better than Player B and his 100 wRC+, thus giving A a range of potential outcomes that makes it likely he outperforms B? Or does the game look strictly at the ratings, nothing else, and conclude that the two players are completely identical and thus have the exact same potential range of outcomes?