Actually, Mudge being out for the season disappoints me more than the players I lost who are actually still on my roster and for completely irrational reasons. I really want him to catch and pass Powell for the career home run lead. I know he probably won't hold the title for long, as players like Valdes, Hukill, and Peppers pass him, but I really wanted him to be #1 for a while. Losing a full season, at age 34, is a big blow to that.
I also hate that our league lost Frison for the season. That completely sucks. Even though he regularly hits the crap out of the ball against me, watching him pile up gaudy 1.000+ OPS seasons is awesome.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Injuries may be realistic, but they're no damn fun.
I know I am in the minority, but I think that the injuries add to the fun of the sim.
Yes, it sucks when your best player is lost, but if you plan for the depth on your team then you should be able to weather it.
Just as in real baseball, an injury can give a young gun a chance to come up from the minors and show you what he has. And maybe he becomes a stud because of the opportunity, or maybe he is the dud that you always thought he was, but he had the chance.
I always build my teams on depth so that if someone is lost due to injury or just plain sucks when they shouldn’t, I can plug someone else in there and see how they do, for better or worse. To me that is the fun part of the game, working around the injuries and making the best of them.
I know I am in the minority, and if we plan on decreasing the injury setting I would probably be the only vote against it, but it is what I believe and where I think an added level of fun for the game comes from.
Jeremy, please. While the position that injuries add new and interesting strategic levels to the game is a perfectly defensible position (although not one I share), let's not pretend that an adequate plan could make everything better. No amount of planning in the world could have prepared Trevor's team to lose Frison. He's irreplaceable for them.
Yes, depth is important. Everyone should have it. I'm a big believer in it. But there's no amount of planning can effectively mitigate the effects of having your best player, one of the top two or three in the entire game, wiped out for the season.
If I lost Thomas for the season it would suck yes, he is going to be 75% of all of offense this season, but it is not the end of the world. I know, you are saying, I am not going to contend this season anyways, so it does not matter for me anyways.
You have done a great job of building massive levels of depth and you should still be able to have a dominating season even with your losses, and yes for Trevor losing one of the most (if not the most) influential players in the game is going to hurt his team more than anyone else's team. A VORP of 106.8 is redonkulious and probably will not be topped anytime soon.
But what do you think, should all the best players not be able to be hurt. We all knew that there were more injuries in Spring training, I have made it so most of my starters do not play that much and I have lots of players up in the majors for spring training with full depth charts to make sure that my best (and I use that term loosely) are PH for early in the games and have less of a chance to get hurt. It has worked relatively well for me this ST.
So while it sucks, I do agree, I think that if you limit the injuries, or say the good players can't be injured, then instead of having an equal amounts of players injured there will be less injured so then only one team will be hit with the big injury and the rest will skate through the season without any injuries.
Like I said from the beginning, I know I do not have the popular stance on this one, but I do not think the alternatives, which seem better on the surface, are necessarily better in pratice.
Jeremy: We obviously disagree on whether the level of injuries in version 9 of the game makes it more or less enjoyable, so there's not much point in further debate.
But, I did want to say that I think you're committing the more fundamental error of failing to differentiate between consequences that are controllable through good planning and those subject simply to the whims of random fate. Don't confuse good results derived primarily from luck with a good process.
It has nothing to do with results or random fate. Last season in the OEL, I thought I had planned for an OF injury, I was wrong...my CF Douglas was out for the last month plus, and that is right when my team tanked and Nate made the playoffs not me.
I was one of the people that asked about where the injury ratings were in this version right after we converted. I quickly learned to look at player's history (in the old web pages) to see if they were more prone to injuries or not. Just like in MLB if they get injured a lot in the past there is more of a chance that they will get hurt in the future, and players that come back from injuries are not always as good as before the injury.
It sure would have been cool if the Yankees could have turned of injuries on Carl Pavano, and the Red Sox on Mo Vaughn and the O's on Albert Belle, but that just does not happen.
As I said before if we go for lessening the injuries it would not be the worst thing in the world, I do not want to lose players via injury, but I am a more realistic simmer and I would like for it to be most like real life as possible.
You're conflating two separate arguments, Jeremy. As I already said, if you want to argue that a higher injury frequency adds to the game, that seems to me to be perfectly defensible. It's a matter of opinion. I understand you think it adds more "fun" to the game. I disagree, but there's not really a right or wrong there.
What I was objecting to, and still object to, is the separate argument that "if you plan for the depth on your team then you should be able to weather it." First, there are some injuries that are so severe in their impact (e.g., Frison) that no amount of planning will enable you to meaningfully reduce the harm suffered. You just can't keep "depth" sufficient to repair that hole. I think that, on past teams, I've come as close to that level as anyone, but there are some players that are just irreplaceable.
Second, there are no steps any of us can take that will fully protect from the risk of injuries occurring. We can do things to reduce the risk, but it's absurd to argue that the fact that someone gets lucky is somehow proof of anything more than that one team got lucky.
Man, this spring has been brutal. Frison (Saskatoon) and Mudge (Hickory) both are out for the season. I guess that's karmic payback to Mack.
ReplyDeleteI just think it sucks some of the fun out of it, even though they aren't my players (yet).
ReplyDeleteYeah. Ow. Even if it wasn't for the season I lost
ReplyDeleteMiller 1-2 weeks (dead arm)
Palacio 3 weeks (hyperextended elbow)
Blassingame - 2 weeks (blurred vision)
By total count I see 20 injuries since spring training began. Heck, Walla Walla's awesome closer James Fleitas has been injured twice!
Actually, Mudge being out for the season disappoints me more than the players I lost who are actually still on my roster and for completely irrational reasons. I really want him to catch and pass Powell for the career home run lead. I know he probably won't hold the title for long, as players like Valdes, Hukill, and Peppers pass him, but I really wanted him to be #1 for a while. Losing a full season, at age 34, is a big blow to that.
ReplyDeleteI also hate that our league lost Frison for the season. That completely sucks. Even though he regularly hits the crap out of the ball against me, watching him pile up gaudy 1.000+ OPS seasons is awesome.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Injuries may be realistic, but they're no damn fun.
I repeat, then: where are they set?
ReplyDeleteI know I am in the minority, but I think that the injuries add to the fun of the sim.
ReplyDeleteYes, it sucks when your best player is lost, but if you plan for the depth on your team then you should be able to weather it.
Just as in real baseball, an injury can give a young gun a chance to come up from the minors and show you what he has. And maybe he becomes a stud because of the opportunity, or maybe he is the dud that you always thought he was, but he had the chance.
I always build my teams on depth so that if someone is lost due to injury or just plain sucks when they shouldn’t, I can plug someone else in there and see how they do, for better or worse. To me that is the fun part of the game, working around the injuries and making the best of them.
I know I am in the minority, and if we plan on decreasing the injury setting I would probably be the only vote against it, but it is what I believe and where I think an added level of fun for the game comes from.
Jeremy, please. While the position that injuries add new and interesting strategic levels to the game is a perfectly defensible position (although not one I share), let's not pretend that an adequate plan could make everything better. No amount of planning in the world could have prepared Trevor's team to lose Frison. He's irreplaceable for them.
ReplyDeleteYes, depth is important. Everyone should have it. I'm a big believer in it. But there's no amount of planning can effectively mitigate the effects of having your best player, one of the top two or three in the entire game, wiped out for the season.
... and that's the difference between winning 115 and 65 games a season.
ReplyDeleteToo extreme, Michael. Even the best players only move 8-10 wins per year, tops. More likely 4-6.
ReplyDeleteIf I lost Thomas for the season it would suck yes, he is going to be 75% of all of offense this season, but it is not the end of the world. I know, you are saying, I am not going to contend this season anyways, so it does not matter for me anyways.
ReplyDeleteYou have done a great job of building massive levels of depth and you should still be able to have a dominating season even with your losses, and yes for Trevor losing one of the most (if not the most) influential players in the game is going to hurt his team more than anyone else's team. A VORP of 106.8 is redonkulious and probably will not be topped anytime soon.
But what do you think, should all the best players not be able to be hurt. We all knew that there were more injuries in Spring training, I have made it so most of my starters do not play that much and I have lots of players up in the majors for spring training with full depth charts to make sure that my best (and I use that term loosely) are PH for early in the games and have less of a chance to get hurt. It has worked relatively well for me this ST.
So while it sucks, I do agree, I think that if you limit the injuries, or say the good players can't be injured, then instead of having an equal amounts of players injured there will be less injured so then only one team will be hit with the big injury and the rest will skate through the season without any injuries.
Like I said from the beginning, I know I do not have the popular stance on this one, but I do not think the alternatives, which seem better on the surface, are necessarily better in pratice.
Jeremy: We obviously disagree on whether the level of injuries in version 9 of the game makes it more or less enjoyable, so there's not much point in further debate.
ReplyDeleteBut, I did want to say that I think you're committing the more fundamental error of failing to differentiate between consequences that are controllable through good planning and those subject simply to the whims of random fate. Don't confuse good results derived primarily from luck with a good process.
It has nothing to do with results or random fate. Last season in the OEL, I thought I had planned for an OF injury, I was wrong...my CF Douglas was out for the last month plus, and that is right when my team tanked and Nate made the playoffs not me.
ReplyDeleteI was one of the people that asked about where the injury ratings were in this version right after we converted. I quickly learned to look at player's history (in the old web pages) to see if they were more prone to injuries or not. Just like in MLB if they get injured a lot in the past there is more of a chance that they will get hurt in the future, and players that come back from injuries are not always as good as before the injury.
It sure would have been cool if the Yankees could have turned of injuries on Carl Pavano, and the Red Sox on Mo Vaughn and the O's on Albert Belle, but that just does not happen.
As I said before if we go for lessening the injuries it would not be the worst thing in the world, I do not want to lose players via injury, but I am a more realistic simmer and I would like for it to be most like real life as possible.
I tried to make a new blog post but it won't go through. I wonder if there is a problem with the server again. I sent Zev an email.
ReplyDeleteYou're conflating two separate arguments, Jeremy. As I already said, if you want to argue that a higher injury frequency adds to the game, that seems to me to be perfectly defensible. It's a matter of opinion. I understand you think it adds more "fun" to the game. I disagree, but there's not really a right or wrong there.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was objecting to, and still object to, is the separate argument that "if you plan for the depth on your team then you should be able to weather it." First, there are some injuries that are so severe in their impact (e.g., Frison) that no amount of planning will enable you to meaningfully reduce the harm suffered. You just can't keep "depth" sufficient to repair that hole. I think that, on past teams, I've come as close to that level as anyone, but there are some players that are just irreplaceable.
Second, there are no steps any of us can take that will fully protect from the risk of injuries occurring. We can do things to reduce the risk, but it's absurd to argue that the fact that someone gets lucky is somehow proof of anything more than that one team got lucky.