Quote:
Originally Posted by satchel
As a Commissioner, I've found that the more intense the human's involvement with his team, the better the team does. Having a hands-on human in charge, versus one who is more standoffish, is worth some wins.
Then again, many human GMs just auto everything anyway. It's usually easy to tell which teams have been set up by humans, and which by the computer. For one thing, the computer will set all lineups, including DH and non-DH, in leagues which actually only use one. This approach is complicated, since humans can auto some aspects of their team, and not others; or they can auto things, and then change some computer decisions, and leave others.
My question is: how does a team under human control fare, versus how that team would do under computer control? Does the computer's intimate knowledge of the algorithms give it an advantage? Or does the human eye trump the machine's calculations?
|
My experience has been:
Good owner that is active > Good owner that is inactive > Bad owner that is active > AI > Bad owner that is inactive
Where good or bad is just a description of how well they "get" the game or understand how things work and can translate that to applying a strategy to a team to allow it the best chance to win.