|
Interesting, SSG. Sorry I've never run across your observation before. I guess I should have assumed that if the game provides a decision point, it also allows for the consequences of that decision. If you argue and "win" (don't get tossed), subsequent close calls go in your favor (or are more likely to do so). I can buy that as a simulation of real human (umpire) behavior, I guess.
But, given the number of times a disputable play will crop up in one game, I'm not sure the upside offsets the downside. If I lose an argument and get tossed, all of my options as a human manager are negated for the rest of the game. (If I wanted to relinquish control of the game, I'd just sim it in the first place.)
As I've said before, in the real world when a manager gets tossed he has no trouble conveying his desires (if he wants to) to the coaching staff. In the game, I want the ability (through my coaches, or whatever) to keep controlling my team. In return, I would gladly accept this disadvantage: Because I tried to show up the umpire and got tossed, all close calls for the rest of the game will go against (or have a better chance of going against) my team. A consequence of that sort would make me more inclined to argue---because, again, I get the sense that close plays don't happen all that often, so I'm not risking all that much if I want to enjoy one of the game's "flavor" features.
I like the fact that "winning" an argument makes the umpires more favorably disposed toward youn for the rest of the game. What I'm looking for is a commensurate penalty for losing the argument, rather than the stiff penalty of losing control of your team.
|