Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballMan
Well i guess it doesnt matter what the strategy settings are since players are still gonna have to perform. But my main concern is will the team or manager adopt to each other's strengths? Would Earl Weaver's strategy work if he had then 85 cards? Or will the game adapt? How does it effect the teams draft and trade offers?
Then again how much effect does a real manager have on a team.
I mean even if you have slow but power heavy team would pass over a Tim Raines or Vince Coleman for an average power hitter.
I guess thats why i just rename them only. I just dont think a manager's skills & strategys can be rated fairly and some may have benefited or not from the teams they had. Was Casey Stengel a great manager or was it those 50's Yankees? Would any other manager have had the same success?
If we could rate the managers for each season and the teams still preformed close to what they did in real life for that season. Then maybe average the ratings for every season a manager managed then maybe i might see the historical managers working with the historical leagues.
Otherwise im not sure if they are really historical managers other than name only.
Though i sure would like to have them
|
I would call this paralysis by analysis.
I also think you are over-estimating the influence of the managers on ultimate outcomes. But you should do what you feel comfortable about. I just wanted to an alternative to the randomized characteristics of managers in OOTP. Nothing more than that.