Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 11/19/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By firemanrob on 11/19/2009

No if you read my post carefully, there are 2 things to consider.

#1 that if you tweak the engine to reduce the upper end of HR frequency, whatever you do is going to cause a trickle down effect. If a guy that hits 90 HRs gets knocked down to 65-70 a game, you don't expect a guy hitting 30 to stay at 30 do you? It seems that is the argument you are trying to make. That they should only have touched the guys hitting the absurdly high amounts of HRs and everyone else alone, no changes in power numbers or average which is a tad bit "tard-like."

#2 Is kind of a caveat to #1. You had guys on your team hitting way better than they should have, at a level higher than they should be playing. If you are going to fix the upper end of HRs do it in a way that affects the power of everyone, so that MiLB arent hitting at an ML caliber. If you gave me those players stats and those ratings I would say that it makes sense for a guy at AAA or AA, but when you say he did that at the majors then I would say there is a flaw. The same flaw that allows those guys to produce like that at the ML level is the same flaw that allows a true stud to hit more HRs than have ever been hit in a single season (73) in real life.

In your HFA thread, you made an argument that HFA is real and should be included. Well, if in the interest of realism, you make an argument for HFA then you should also be the first to applaud a change to HRs that brings the numbers down to a more earthly level.

1 You say that it should trickle down, but that isnt what they said. They said this was aimed at top frequency. They said this was aimed at ending "The steroid Era". You than went on to read into it that all power is reduced, something they never said.

2 This is where you seem to go off. You said I had guys on my team hitting way better than they should. Based on what. Power has always been the single most important hitting rating since the game began, followed closly by splits and eye. If I have a guy with high power and low splits and eye and he hits 60 HRs with a .240 avg and 170 Ks isnt that about right?

Again you seem to make a jump from what WIS said, to what you think the ratings should mean.

There have been 5 guys in the history of MLB who have hit 60 HRs in a season. And only 3 of those 5 have done it more than once.

Are you honestly suggesting that this should be an "expected" result from ANYONE?

You miss the point again. How do you go about limiting the upper level of HRs without affecting everyone? Do you set a cap and once they hit a certain amount of HRs a player can't hit another one the rest of the season? The problem isn't my "reading into anything." The problem is you being naive and thinking everything would be business as usual.

Secondly, no I do not think that high power and low splits/batting eye has any business hitting 60 HRs at the major league level. That's just not realistic at all. Hitting .240 and 170 Ks is about right. I'd have no problem with his strikeouts being even higher and average being lower. You keep forgetting to include contact into the equation. Being able to distinguish balls and strikes before a ball reaches the plate, swing style and ability to make contact with the ball are all important with regards to hitting a HR. There is a reason body builders aren't baseball players. Besides just having Power, which can be expressed as strength, you need to have good eye/hand coordination (contact) and the ability to tell if a ball is within the strike zone and if so, where at in the strike zone (batting eye).

Quote: Originally Posted By iain on 11/19/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 11/19/2009

1 You say that it should trickle down, but that isnt what they said. They said this was aimed at top frequency. They said this was aimed at ending "The steroid Era". You than went on to read into it that all power is reduced, something they never said.

2 This is where you seem to go off. You said I had guys on my team hitting way better than they should. Based on what. Power has always been the single most important hitting rating since the game began, followed closly by splits and eye. If I have a guy with high power and low splits and eye and he hits 60 HRs with a .240 avg and 170 Ks isnt that about right?

Again you seem to make a jump from what WIS said, to what you think the ratings should mean.

There have been 5 guys in the history of MLB who have hit 60 HRs in a season. And only 3 of those 5 have done it more than once.

Are you honestly suggesting that this should be an "expected" result from ANYONE?

Barry Bonds - 73 HRs, .328 BA and 93 Ks

Roger Maris - 61 HRs, .269 BA and 67 Ks (important to note that he never hit more than 33 HRs in any other season)

Babe Ruth - 60 HRs, .356 BA and 89 Ks

Mark McGwire - 70 HRs, .299 BA and 155 Ks; 65 HRs, .278 BA and 141 Ks

Sammy Sosa - 66 HRs, .308 BA, 171 Ks; 63 HRs, .288 BA and 171 Ks; 64 HRs, .328 BA and 153 Ks

That's it. That's the list. HofFers and guys that would be automatic for the HofF if not for PED-tainted careers.

Swamp, Most of the BAs were much higher than .240 and even those that had 170Ks hit somewhat near .300. So by your logic, your career minor league guys would be pretty much equal to those guys in every way except BA. And that is absolute nonsense...

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

There are some serious issues with poor ownership/GMs in MLB. See Pittsburgh Pirates.

And if a game being played in 2009 is still running on design that reflects a era 9 to 19 years old, isn't an update in order? Especially with MLB instituting a drug policy that has cut down, presumably, on PED usage and on the amount of HRs hit. Since 2001, no player has hit more than 58 (Ryan Howard - 2006). In 2001, MLB drug testing started for minor league players, 2003 the survey phase started for the BL and 2004 the punitive phase of the JDA began. With that in mind, a change is due and WIS was just 5 years behind.

I am not disagreeing that a change might be needed. What I don't want to see is that a world that consists of good ownership, and has trouble hitting 40 homers in a normal MLB type ballpark, because a change was made in a world with poor owners and players that are hitting 75 homers in Sante Fe

Quote: Originally Posted By firemanrob on 11/19/2009
There are some serious issues with poor ownership/GMs in MLB. See Pittsburgh Pirates.

And if a game being played in 2009 is still running on design that reflects a era 9 to 19 years old, isn't an update in order? Especially with MLB instituting a drug policy that has cut down, presumably, on PED usage and on the amount of HRs hit. Since 2001, no player has hit more than 58 (Ryan Howard - 2006). In 2001, MLB drug testing started for minor league players, 2003 the survey phase started for the BL and 2004 the punitive phase of the JDA began. With that in mind, a change is due and WIS was just 5 years behind.

Apparently, you've never had to work with software developers. Five years is just about right...

The Pittsburg Pirates poor ownership is nothing compared to some HBD owners. When is the last time you seen the Pirates win 45 games or less.

Lol, no I have never had to work with software developers. I guess that explains why it always takes so long to put out new Final Fantasy games.

I don't think you are stating your point clearly enough plague.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

No one is bothered that super players have some of their wild stats limited.

I am bothered that even though they didnt indicate it, all they seemed to do was radically change the way that Power impacts the offensive side of the game.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By plague on 11/19/2009

Quote: Originally posted by firemanrob on 11/19/200
I don't think you are stating your point clearly enough plague. [/QUOTE]


In general I think there was too many Home Runs. I don't think that its as bad as it appears. Most of these huge numbers are in a combination of unrealistic parks and by unrealistic owners in unrealistic worlds. I am stating there was a problem, I just don't want to see a over adjustement based on the high end home run numbers.

If a guy hits 90 home runs in Sante Fe in a world with poor owners that might be the equal of say 70 home runs at a realistic park in a world with quality owners, which would still be a problem, but the correction should not be as great as 90 Home Runs.

Well put

My concern is that the delta between a player with 90 power and a player with say, 60 power has been decreased.