Please refer to the post immediately above yours.

Please refer to my last post. Maybe think about it for a few minutes. I think you're only looking at one side of the curve.

I'll try to help.  Who do these better pitchers and hitter replace?   Do you think Owner A, who wins about 40% of his games over the last 50 seasons, will do as well in acquiring these better hitters and pitchers as Owner B, who wins about 60% of his games over the same time period?

I'll assume the better pitchers and hitters will replace lesser hitters and pitchers.   And I'll assume Owner B will still remain better at acquiring better hitters and pitchers.   So, assuming you agree, would you also agree that the better owners will have even better teams than the lesser owners?   Do you not think this will affect stats?

More variety doesn't just mean more good players.  Some players wouldn't perform as well as they do now.

No matter how the game works, some owners are going to be better than others.  Not sure what point you're trying to make.

Right now, some ratings are much more important than others.  I think most of the bad trades involve a P with a high OVR and low CNT.  Oftern with high VEL.  If a new owner is thinking MLB, they can expect to get an OK to good P if they see those ratings. In HBD, unless the other ratings are very high, they're getting crap.

Same for very good eye, very good power, poor contact, and OK vR/vL.  In MLB, those guys have a roll.  Walk 100+ times a season.  K over 100+ times. Hit a bunch of HR.  Lower than average BA.  No such player in HBD.  Players with those ratings barely hit .200, maybe with 20 HR, and don't walk all that much.  Another big advantage for some owners.

I also find it hard to believe there is such a human that can throw well enough to get out ML hitters, but they can only throw 10 pitches a day and then can't do it again for 4-5 days.  Lots of those in HBD.

If it's a MLB simulation, it should try to model MLB.  I think more player diversity would make it a better game.  Just an opinion.

My point is, if you're seeking outliers who strike out more or walk less, the better owners will find ways to acquire these better players.   And the better players will replace the lesser players.   The lesser players on the better teams.

As far as the DUR/STM combos that prevent pitchers from taking the mound every other day, it's a simulation.  That is to prevent us, because we would do it, running 8 man pitching staffs.   If every RP was capable of throwing 25 pitches every other day, we'd build our bullpens around those high control/splits/pitchers who typically can only throw 10 pitches every 4 days.  .

Not really, the outlier could replace the best player already, instead of being very good at 5 things, hes exceptional at 4 and merely good an the other. They turn up eventually given the random generation, but they are few and far between, but then again, you're looking at a mx of 20 seasons in an HBD world and comparing to thatt to 130+ of baseball history, there will be more outliers in 6 times the sample size.

Posted by Crump123 on 6/29/2011 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Not really, the outlier could replace the best player already, instead of being very good at 5 things, hes exceptional at 4 and merely good an the other. They turn up eventually given the random generation, but they are few and far between, but then again, you're looking at a mx of 20 seasons in an HBD world and comparing to thatt to 130+ of baseball history, there will be more outliers in 6 times the sample size.

Chances are when deciding who to leave off the roster, it would likely be the 25th man or the closest to the 25th man for the position in question. The outlier will rarely replace the best player as he would still be better than the other options you have

I was talking about the best player in the world, not the best player in the team. By definition an outlier, is rare, hence, not every team woud (or should) have one.

I don't think anyone is asking for bad outliers.   Quite frankly, the batter that strikes out 212 times or the pitcher that walks 7 per 9 doesn't get much play in HBD.  So, even if "good" outliers and "bad" outliers are put in play, the "good" will play in the bigs, the "bad" won't.   So, again, lesser players are removed from the BL or, at the very least, the good teams.

Again, this is a simulation using hard numbers.   The 27 control pitcher with 99 velocity and three pitches over 80 is exactly that.   He's not listed as "Hard thrower with three out pitches and some control problems".    So we have a real good idea of how effective he will be.   And, if you believe a 27 control should never pitch in the bigs, he'll never pitch in the bigs.

Posted by Crump123 on 6/29/2011 4:19:00 PM (view original):
Not really, the outlier could replace the best player already, instead of being very good at 5 things, hes exceptional at 4 and merely good an the other. They turn up eventually given the random generation, but they are few and far between, but then again, you're looking at a mx of 20 seasons in an HBD world and comparing to thatt to 130+ of baseball history, there will be more outliers in 6 times the sample size.

Based on a very quick look, I'll estimate there are 100 HBD worlds.  Average life seems to be about 15 seasons.  That's 1500 HBD season.  Over 10 times as many as MLB.  HBD is a much bigger sample size.  Your point about outliers is correct, just backwards.

You've effectively moved away from the point I was trying to make.  I never intended more different types of players to produce more super stars.

I'm thinking about Adam Dunn types.  His general type of player happens in MLB.  Not on every team every season, but there have been a lot of ave to low AVE, 30-45HR, 100+ BB, 100+ K players.  They don't existing in HBD.

I'm not debating if Adam Dunn types are better than Keith Hernandez types or Pete Rose types.  Making that call for your team is what this game is.

MLB has had plenty of super control Ps. Greg Maddux would be an extremely good example. There have been others that were 3-5 SPs that didn't come close to 300 wins or lasting 20 seasons.  No such Ps in HBD.

MLB has had plenty of high K, high BB, low to ave BAA Ps.  Nolan Ryan is probably the best known.  Oliver Perez was that before he blew up.  Sam McDowell if you go back.  I'm not going to go through the record book, but I'll stand by there have been a lot of them.  Some lasted just a few seasons because they walked too many or their BAA was too high.  No such Ps in HBD.

What HBD has is a lot of players with different rating numbers that end up performing about the same.

I don't buy into the argument that variety of player performance helps good owners and hurts bad owners more than any other aspect of the game.  I see it as leveling the playing field a bit.

First, your contention that those types don't exist is bogus.   I find hitters that are on pace to walk 100 times, strikeout 100  times, hit .220 and hit 30 homers.   Then they get benched.   You find a guy with 10/90/50/50/90 and there's your Adam Dunn.   It took me 2 seconds to find a Maddux(he averaged 1.8/BB9 on his career).   Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Delino Guzman  1.68 last season, 2.2 on his career.  It's all about usage with these guys. 

Again, the outliers will be good because no one wants bad.   Good owners will figure out how to use them, bad owners will be late to the party like always.

I knew the Maddux point was weak.  I shouldn't have use that example.  I'll give you that one.

I stand by the other 2 examples.  If they exist, I'm sure you can ll find 1 or 2 of each in a few minutes. I looked at a lot of worlds.  I couldn't find any.  A few Ps were close, but they were all 5th SP/LR at best.

You've decided you don't want, at any price, a 100+ walk, 30+ HR, .220 player, fine for you.  I'm not arguing you're right or wrong.  But you are not everybody.