Quote:
Originally Posted by David Watts
Well you last paragraph makes me think you might not be a recalc guy. If you do try recalc I think you may want to go 3 year over 1. But, recalc is going to be somewhat predictable, otherwise it wouldn't be doing its job. The reason recalc and development works so well together is the development takes over when players no longer have stats to recalc.
|
Hmm, not sure what option is best for me. Ideally, I'd like players to be like their real selves for the most part but not too predictable. Recalc sounds like it's pretty predictable. But is it pretty much exact when it comes to stats? Just how predictable is it?
I've always liked using the development engine, but I'm noticing that especially for pitchers, most of them don't live up to their real selves and in many cases it's not even remotely close. I'm seeing legends as career minor leaguers. I'm talking about star pitchers of the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's etc.. Now I get that that's the point of the development engine, but I'd still like it to be close to realistic. At least have these guys as regular Major Leaguers even if they don't live up to their real life careers. I wonder if the development engine is more harsh on pitchers than hitters? I guess a lot can determine what kind of career a pitcher has. Injuries, teammates, coaches, managers etc..
I wonder if it also has to do with using the historical minors. Maybe many of these players aren't being imported with as high potentials as they would if real minors were disabled?