Quote:
Originally Posted by luckymann
The fact is this. People such as Garlon will present you with a set of results from a highly controlled environment that tells you the game is incredibly accurate. They are completely within their rights to do so and are strictly correct in what they say.
However, it is also misleading and disingenuous because, with every deviation you take from that controlled environment, the accuracy slips just a little.
So if you're using historical minors or ahistorically applying a DH or simply deviating in any way from the vast array of settings Garlon has listed the slippage begins and it increases exponentially the further you step outside the circle.
It's like you're wearing a jumper with a loose thread that you pull. Next thing you know you're wearing a vest, then a scarf, then nothing at all....
As the game continues to grow and offer ever more options, the tradeoff continues to widen between the "sandbox effect" and high levels of accuracy. This is only to be expected and 100% acceptable, at least in my book.
|
I think you are talking past each other. Both things are true. The game starts from a core of stunning accuracy - the ability to reproduce historical results among teams and players and leagues - that provides a solid base for experimenting with alternative realities, by design. There's nothing misleading about reproducing and praising that. Not brag; just fact.
For those of us who like to experiment (no color bar, high TCR, no WW1 or WW2 loss of players, no historical injuries), the expected "deviation" only makes sense if it is from a common, reliable, accurate "mean". Josh Gibson hitting 50 HR only makes sense if the original world had the Babe hitting 60 HR.
Changes based on user preferences are not "slippage". They are "accurate" given the variables that have been introduced, in the sense of "if this had happened (or not happened), this is our best guess as to how things would have changed."
Note that this is true even with very slight departures from IRL. I can leave everything as is, switch Kyle Schwarber and Trea Turner in the Phillies' batting order, and track the results. Does placing your (slow) best power hitter in the heart of the order, and a fast slasher leading off, produce more runs?
Not an old jumper unraveling; but patches and stitches (dye?) applied to the basic jumper. Oh, I'm not good at metaphors and analogies. As you point out, this is intended and 100% acceptable. It's why many of us play the game at all.