Yeah. I'm just saying that strikeouts are bad, not that you can't be a good player and still strike out a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Printable View
Yeah. I'm just saying that strikeouts are bad, not that you can't be a good player and still strike out a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Yeah. Any out is bad. ;) (Yes, I know, there are some outs which are beneficial to a win, such as a sac fly in the bot of the 9th in a tie game, but you get the point)
i think for the real in depth hardcore mogulers 2010 is a huge upgrade, but for less in depth crowd, theres not much change. the biggest change needs to be improved ai as far as re-signing guys and free agency and its still very lacking.
Kind of what the ball looks like after Dunn gets finished with it, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
<ducks>
The thing is, this forum creates a "living inside of a drum" effect. The "hardcore mogulers", as you put it, are the people who participate the most here on the forums. Therefore, "our" issues are the ones that are talked about... Even more importantly, the human attention span is only so large, and since those of us who are "hardcore mogulers" are the most active participants the issues that we care about the most are the topics which "stay alive" here on the forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by tob19
That's not to say that we're the only voice that Clay hears. He does receive email, let alone have his own opinions, after all.
My only point is that there's only so much a single (busy) person can pay attention to.
Also, Since those of us who are "hardcore" tend to like the game basically as is there isn't likely to be much support for wholesale changes (and that isn't even getting into the whole technical side that large changes create).
Besides, I know that I'm somewhat hard pressed myself to think of a really worthwhile, truly large, change that could be made (regardless of support). I guess... introducing management personnel (coaches, scouts, trainer) would be the only thing that I would really change. But even then, what I envision would only be a new face for the existing expense system.
Is there something that could legitimately be added?
I'm pretty sure making a free agent bidding system would qualify. That is one thing that Mogul lacks that basically EVERY other sports sim has.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohms_law
um, yea... good point. I completely forgot about that.
BMO even (basically) had a FA bidding system.
This is part of the RC (Runs Created) formula:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
RC '02 version
-.04*SO
If SO are equivalent to any other 'out' made, there wouldn't be a separate (negative) factor for them.
Nobody ever said that Runs Created was perfect.
What are you talking about? Are you nuts? Anything that backs up my preconceived notions is perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Can you now work on something important, like finding me stats that prove Andre Dawson should be in the Hall of Fame?
HUH? What kind of a cop-out answer is THAT?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
How about showing Dawson *never* should have won the NL MVP award in '87 while with a LAST-PLACE team?Quote:
Originally Posted by cfeedback
Ozzie Smith got cheated out the MVP (#2 in the vote), only because Dawson had the temerity to let the Cubs write him a 'blank check' for his salary that year and had a great season; but The Wizard had his best overall season and should have been picked--since the writers always say the winner should be from a division-winning (in this case, pennant-winning) team; and certainly not from a LAST-PLACE team. Somehow, they went against their own rule and voted for Dawson. A travesty in the MVP voting if ever there was one.
Another weird case where the absurdity for HR/RBIs is put ahead of everything else important in baseball such as fielding greatness, a good BA (.303 for Smith), and leadership for his team.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cards
But, just for fun. Adam Dunn has a career RC/G of 7.4, meaning that a team of Adam Dunn's would score 7.4 runs per game, meaning...he's very good.
Adam Dunn is a good hitter. This is not a discussion. Like, I'm sorry, but it's not.
Apparently, you can't acknowledge that fact without meaning that Adam Dunn is the most amazing hitter ever. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by SrMeowMeow
He's good. He's not amazing. He's better than most players that barely strikeout (note: NOT all).
Somehow, I suspect a team of Adam Dunn clones would score a lot more than 7.4 runs per game. And you'd probably see 40 run games -- maybe both ways!
the real question is, if you have access to that kind of cloning technology, why are you wasting your time with baseball?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lex Logan
Sorry I brought it up, I never said Dawson deserved the MVP in 1987. Ernie Banks also won a pair of MVPs on bad (but not last place) teams, it's sort of a Cubs tradition. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Cards
I really don't have the energy for this type of argument. I enjoy Mogul and running one of the premier online leagues (there's a few of them out there, but Outahere is definitely in the top five) and I try to post on SM once in awhile but my heart really isn't in it for this sort of thing.
Good luck to Pujols and the Cards this season!
I don't understand this whole last-place team garbage. If a player was the most valuable player to his team in the league, then he was the most valuable player to his team in the league...end of discussion. Why should a player who happened to have a sucky supporting cast have this held against him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cards
By the way I am not arguing for Andre Dawson, but I am arguing for a player on a team that finished last in the National League: Tony Gwynn of the San Diego Padres. The Wizard of Oz was surrounded by solid players in St. Louis. Tony Gwynn? Is it his fault that the Padres pitching staff was amongst the worst in the league despite having a better than average defense? Umm, no. Is it his fault that the only other hitters that performed at or near his level were Randy Ready and John Kruk? Umm, no. St. Louis had one of the top three pitching staffs in the league that year, while San Diego was in the bottom three. So we should give the award to Ozzie Smith over the better player that year Tony Gwynn because Smith happened to play for the team with better pitching? *smacks forehead* Please enlighten us all and try not to use the lazy writers way out, namely: "because he played on a first place team". That didn't get Alan Trammell, clearly the best player in the AL that year enough love to overcome George Bell's HR and RBI - and I am a Blue Jay fan, but the fact is Bell wasn't even the most valuable player on his own team that year (Tony Fernandez). I eagerly await your reply.
:rolleyes: Shut up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cards
Well, it goes back to what Branch Rickey once told Ralph Kiner: "We can finish last without you". Take a really good player and put him on a really bad team. Let's say he's worth 30 wins a season (using whatever metric floats your boat), and nobody else in the league is worth that much. Now lets say the team finishes last, at 61-101. He was worth 12 wins, so without him they would have been 49-113--but not really, because we can't assume his replacement would be worth zero wins. Let's say that his replacement is worth 4 wins, so their record would be 53-109 (it won't change the analysis mcuh how exactly what the value of the replacement is). The point is, this is a hundred loss team, and noboby was going to change that.Quote:
Originally Posted by actionjackson
Now look at the second best player in the league; let's say that he was worth 10 wins. His team though, finished 91-71 and made the playoffs as the wildcard. Let's assume a replacement worth 4 wins again, so without him, the team would have gone 85-77 and missed the postseason.
So, the question becomes: what's more valuable--the difference between going finishing last at 53-109 and finishing last at 61-101, or the difference between making the playoffs at 91-71 and missing the playoffs at 85-77?
EDIT: And the reason that Dawson won the MVP in 1987 because Ozzie and Jack Clark split the Cardinal vote.
I would say that making the difference between the playoffs or not is more valuable to a team's overall goal of making the playoffs....BUT....that the award is for an INDIVIDUAL PLAYER, and the player can't control his circumstances, so the player that provided more value himself, regardless of his team's place in the standings, should get the award.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
Not trying to argue for Dawson in 1987, because he clearly (sabermetrically) wasn't the best player in that year, but the reason he won was that he led the league in HRs and RBIs, which was what voters looked for back in the day. Not to mention the fact that he was still pretty good defensively (he might've lost a step or two range wise, but still had a cannon for an arm) and won a Gold Glove.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
That's a valid POV, but it's not the only possible take on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I'm not sure exactly how I feel about the issue. Mostly, I tend to look at it on a case-by-case basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfeedback
The homers and RBIs were why people voted for him, but if hadn't been 2 strong candidates on the Cards, there's a good chance that it could have gone to one of them.
You're obviously correct, but the fact is that human beings hand out the awards. "We" generally just don't give a damn how good an individual player may be as long as he's on a loosing team. That's just a fact of life, in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
"Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
Dear Cards,
No one gives a damn about the Cardinals.
Love, Sports Mogul Forums