Hot/Cold Teams
-
I've done quite a bit of testing, now, and noticed some trends.
I first "evened" out the rosters. All the teams had a serviceable player(s) at every position. They all had 5 'decent' starters and the bullpens were comparable. Some teams were still loaded (Dodgers) and some teams were still 'weak' (Nats), but not everyone can be a winner.
So, I ran the same season about a dozen times. The results were crazy.
The first thing was that it wasn't the same teams winning every time. The Dodgers would win one season (surprise) and then finish last (!!) the next. Even bottom feeders would qualify for the post-season from time to time.
But what bothered me the most, is that teams all broke in one direction. Either the entire team had great seasons or they all took a big dump. There were no in-betweeners. The entire pitching staff was garbage or Cy Young.
Everyone that watches the game knows that this is not realistic. Even the worst teams will have one or two guys who have a good season. The best teams might have one or two who are sucking the hind teat.
This all makes me wonder about the sim logic of the game. Does the game have this 'finger of God' that just picks teams and chooses whether they will have good seasons or bad? Is it game by game? Does the game say 'oh, these guys are doing too well. Let's blow that up'?
I understand random players having good/bad seasons. That is how things are supposed to be. But not whole teams.
To quote a certain member of these forums, 'I'm worried'.
