Over at Tecmobowl.org, we had a discussion based on which of the original 12 Tecmo Bowl teams had THE MOST talented team...regardless of playbook or which positions the best players are at. http://tecmobowl.org/topic/53615-most-talented-team/ (http://tecmobowl.org/topic/53615-most-talented-team/) The Bears who I rank as the 3rd best "team" in TB, actually have the "most talent" on the field. The Bears conservative playbook is a hindrance. They have more firepower on defense in terms of sheer numbers of elite fast players (McMichael/Singletary/Duerson) than the New York Giants. The Giants only have 2 elite defenders (LT and Banks), but those 2 are in far better positions on the field than the Bears stars....really separating the 2, as the Giants are the preeminent defense in the game. Bears also have elite players in 2 of the 3 facets of special teams as well. Most teams typically have 1 of 3 standouts in ST play.
Translating this RBI, I guess you would need to put a value of sorts on certain positions...this is what would separate the discussion from Tecmo Bowl. A dominating starter is really huge in RBI. A really great reliever as well, but obviously to a much smaller degree. Batters exceeding a 900 power rating are really in a class of their own, but how valuable in the scheme of things are 890 type guys in this context? Speed as we've found is pretty much a non factor in RBI, but it does lend itself to "overall talent" in RBI, as Reggie Jackson is one of the most popular players and he's not even really that fast.
RBI has far few metrics to look at than Tecmo(playbook/3 different ST units/O-lines/etc) so, I don't think any huge discoveries will be made with RBI. Its very likely this look at RBI doesn't alter anyone's ranking of the teams much. One of the interesting things with the Tecmo discussion was rating some value based on "what if this guy was on a different team?, or what his impact would be in a different playbook?". That went a long ways towards affirming which positions were most valuable in Tecmo. Running back, and punter became really key positions in that context. WR really took a hit as a fairly dispensable position, because they were the easiest players to take out of the game by calling certain plays or being certain defenders. Outside of walks, you really can't assure certain batters won't do damage...just another way RBI and Tecmo are completely different.
I think under these type of parameters, a team like STL is in the realm of being valued closely to a team like Minnesota. Elite pitcher, 900 power hitter, and speed. Going further, trade Tudor for one of their starters, and I think people might say that Minnesota moves up a spot in the overall ranking....if not more. Houston probably draws closer to STL without Tudor.
In Tecmo the Colts rated near the bottom with overall player talent, but we have them ranked overall as the #4 team in the game. Dickerson, great playbook, and monster special teams play is what makes them one of the best teams in the game. Unfortunately with RBI, I don't expect to see anything like that in the discussion with the weaker teams, as there are far less variable in RBI.
I'm not sure where this discussion can go...but curious about people's interpretations of the teams talent levels.
Looking at elite starting pitchers.....
Tudor, Krukow, Rueschel(?) Valenzuela are in the discussion
Throwing out a few names of those on the fringe.....
Doyle Alexander, Bob Ojeda, Saberhagen
I have a hard time considering guys like Clemens, Ryan, and Gooden as elite. They throw hard, but when you take away some of their zip, you basically have Rick Sutcliffe, and Bob Stanley out there.
Whichever team I'm using is usually the most talented
Completely missed this discussion; I need to pay more attention to the RBI board.
I think that there's far less of a line between "most talented" and "best" in RBI than in Tecmo, because unlike in Tecmo, you get to use every player at some point, plus there's no playbook to worry about. I guess there are situations where guys who would otherwise play are replaced with a superior bench guy, so their talent doesn't end up affecting the team, but those aren't that common. I guess teams with multiple good starting pitchers are kind of an example, but even then, it's not like the Astros are going to climb up the rankings much.
Quote from: ShitPaw on 03/17/13, 01:39:10 PM
Great topic.
I think the pitcher debate comes down to Scott and Blyleven; maybe Saberhagen and Key. I think the sinker, curve, and stamina are more significant than fastballs, which I know you've already basically pointed out.
I think Mike Scott has the best blend of curve, sinker, and (less importantly) fastball.
I don't get the Mike Scott love. I trained myself to never swing at his sinker, and far more often than not it goes in the dirt. I've always been biggest on movement both ways. The only pitcher I have an issue with is Fernando. Too mucy curve can be too hard to control and when he slows down, he's throwing a beach ball out there.