Curious about sim settings

[KurtBevacqua]

I'm seeing people claim some real outrageously accurate career numbers on real folks. Just wondering if all those are being done on the option to recalculate ratings each year to match real life performances or if people are just letting the sim do it's best like it did before? I'm of a mind that I like this game because it bases it's ratings on talent, not stats like Diamond Mind. So I wonder if these great sims are done with the game the way it was meant to be or with the game emulating DMB.

[Nukester]

I think most have been with the 3 year recalc

Im kind of torn with recalc. I like the idea, but I also like things like in my old league where Frankie Frisch became a big HR hitter, becoming the first 25-25 player and ranking (in 1936 starting in 1903) 3rd in career HR's behind Ruth and Gehrig

[rbartlett]

I personally don't use the recalc feature.

When I rant and rave to people about the historical aspects of the game I tend to mean more about how it accurately recreates the ERA... and not so much how each player was supposed to do.

To each his own but I like a little mystery when redoing history.

I just like that I can play a historical game... and accurately recreate the deadball era... or for that matter recreate baseball in pretty much any way I want by modifying this or that.

[rasnell]

My raves always involve using recalc at the default three-year setting. We did so much testing with this before release that it's solid and my only way of playing historics.

[Ksyrup]

I only use 3-year recalc when simulating the entire portion of history up to 2007, but never when I'm going to play within the historical sim itself. The idea that I would know when guys' careers are going to tail off, or take off, or that, for instance, Dennis Eckersely will suddenly no longer be a viable SP candidate, would ruin trying to actually play as a GM during a recalc sim, IMO. So, for that, I take recal off, since it throws a bit of an X-factor into how players develop - some HoFers will flame out, some no-names will become HoFers. Outside of CEIs or players getting buried in depth charts, typically HoFers will perform like themselves with the recal on.

[chimanbj]

Originally Posted by rbartlett

To each his own but I like a little mystery when redoing history.

I get what you're saying, but the randomness of injuries can wreak havoc on a league, don't you think?

[Ksyrup]

Unless you turn off injuries completely, injuries can change things quite a bit regardless of whether you are using recalc or not. Most people who use recalc still use injuries, which means sure HoFers might never see the light of day. In fact, in one of my sims, Cobb had a CEI in 1908. The recalc doesn't affect the chance of injury. If they are healthy, they'll generally play up to their historical levels.

[TheeeeeeeeeYankeesWin]

Originally Posted by Nukester

I think most have been with the 3 year recalc

Im kind of torn with recalc. I like the idea, but I also like things like in my old league where Frankie Frisch became a big HR hitter, becoming the first 25-25 player and ranking (in 1936 starting in 1903) 3rd in career HR's behind Ruth and Gehrig

P.S.: Frankie Frisch was later implicated in the Balco drug enhancement scandal

In one of my sims Babe Ruth became the best Ballet dancer on Broadway.

[TheeeeeeeeeYankeesWin]

Originally Posted by rasnell

My raves always involve using recalc at the default three-year setting. We did so much testing with this before release that it's solid and my only way of playing historics.

Babe Ruth was a chump How could anyone get taken deep by that lightweight.

Seriously, I think Charlie Root is immortal becuase of that pitch. I don't think anybody thinks he was a lousy pitcher becuase the Bambino hit a hiomer off him. If that were the case, the Lefty Grove sucked too.

Someone will inevitably come along and win more games as a Cub than Charlie Root. But NO ONE will ever give up a called shot to the Babe.