MaxPower wrote:If you're upset about the popularity of extreme parks, you're actually upset about other managers playing the game on a higher level than you.
Well.bearing in mind that It really makes no difference to me what people do with their $20, I have to say that I don’t really think it’s a “higher level” of play to stack a lineup for a particular ballpark, especially with such a deep pool of players. You’d be foolish not to build according to park, which real teams do and have done (remember those rug burners St. Louis had under Whitey?). It’s hard not to double take every time I see one, though. It seems to say “I don’t care about anything that happens outside my own park,” which seems a bit shortsighted (or at least risky, especially if you’re an outlier).
On a related note, when I first ran the Randomination league, in which managers get assigned, random parks, and have a limited player pool, we had one manager who drew Veterans 10 one year, and another, similar park the season before. He managed to field great teams both times. It was so rare as to be noteworthy, because you just don’t see parks like that much - nearly never, outside theme leagues.
I guess the worst criticism one could level here is that it gets monotonous to see the same old shit every time. But, again, it’s the manager’s money. They can approach the game how they want. And if you see something enough, you can devise ways to work against it. I actually think those high average Forbes teams are tougher to deal with, since they’re not power dependent, and it’s really hard to keep those mother scratchers off base in almost any park.