Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad K
Its early enough to switch to chronological order if you want to. You'd only have a few skips at this point.
But pay me no mind on this. I just checked in with a minor interest and was surprised to see random order.
|
No, you make a good point. Here's the truth about my decision to do it randomly: I teach high school English. I have a massive stack of essays that I am slowly working my way through. This is a procrastination/coping technique. I love my students, but after a while their essays do start to sound the same. So the idea of 20 seasons worth of Dead Ball era...well, that felt like yet
another All Quiet on the Western Front essay that talks about the horrifically horrible and horribly horrifying horrors of war. (About 97 percent of the students use some form of "horror" about 15 times per essay.) I just couldn't bear it. Then I put the years in the random number thing and up popped a couple of recent seasons with players I knew, and I thought that'd be fun...
Just for kicks, I started a historical league and have run it through 1912. I have historical transactions set so the real players are on the correct teams - but of course by running it as a historical league, I'm going to end up with the right teams in the historically-correct seeds. For instance, the 1907-1909 Tigers obviously finished with the best record in the AL - but in the historical sim, they never finished better than 3rd. But mostly I ran it so see if I really would get bored with the same teams over and over again...So far, no. Again, I ran this as an experiment. If I
did end up switching to chronological, I would go back to a historical exhibition so I could put all the teams into the proper seeds.
For the record, of the 12 seasons I simmed in that other league:
- three AL champions matched the real results (1903 Red Sox, 1908 Tigers, 1911 A's)
- four NL champions did (1902 Pirates, 1904 Giants, 1906 Cubs, 1909 Pirates)
- two World Series champions matched (1903 Red Sox, 1909 Pirates)
So I think maybe that could work out too...and if somebody wanted to go back through these and see how everything worked out, they'd be able to find a particular year more easily. So I dunno. I think I may be leaning towards it. I do have 1976 (and a few others) ready to go, but hell. Maybe I should just run 1902?
I mean, ultimately I am doing these for me, and if anybody else enjoys reading any of it, then I'm glad for that. But now I am wondering if chronological is the way to go.
And no, those essays are not going to grade themselves. But that doesn't mean I gotta do it. Not tonight, anyway.
Eventually, of course, I
do gotta do it.