Radical idea/question?.....give me your thoughts

[Paul_Long71]

I hardly ever play 200M leagues so I was talking about 80 and 100M leagues when I said I frequently see teams with multiple 60 HR and 150 RBI guys.

just so you know.

[Valen]

[quote:5a0f2c96b2]There is no way on God's green earth to have the Babe Ruths and the Christy Mathewsons BOTH replicate their real life statistics. [/quote:5a0f2c96b2]
Problem is the Ruths of the set are not replicating their real life HR stats they are going way over in spite of facing allstar pitching staffs. The strat model is slanted toward hitters. It is that simple. I realize that is heresy to say but has the merit of being the truth like it or not. The game is simply incapable of reproducing great pitching performances.

[quote:5a0f2c96b2]We had that posted a couple of years ago by yours truly (although I suggested 7 sided roll) and it was quickly shot down...but it goes without saying that I think your post is pure genius.[/quote:5a0f2c96b2]
What you really would have then is a higher percentage of rolls on the pitchers card. That is part of what clutch pitching feature does. It shifts results more frequently to pitcher's card in clutch situations. That is really what made the great pitchers great, the ability to clamp down when men got on base. Alas, we do not have the option of using the clutch pitching feature.

You will never get an alteration where the number of colums on strat cards gets altered from 3 on pitchers and 3 on hitters. To do so would require reworking the cards for all seasons ever put out and making it impossible to play existing years verses the new years. Overnight you would make everone's collection of cards and teams useless. That would be a customer relations nightmare.

[gfg001]

60 million dollar leagues are the answer,you are lucky to have one super star per team and oftenhave sub million dollar players in the starting line up. The stars are truly head and shoulders above the competition and can truly shine.
Remember Christy Matthewson played in a time when some parks had 500 foot fences, teams like the Hitless Wonder White Sox could win a WS, and a guy who hit 12 homers a year could be called "Home Run" Baker with out irony. ( Not to mention , dead dirty beat up balls)

[ADRIANGABRIEL]

Strat umpires have a ridiculously small strike zone.

[JedimasterTjg1]

Adrian...You should of posted first and I wouldn't have had to wait so long in the post for the answer...TY

[rburgh]

Ruth hit his 60 HR in 154 games, facing pitchers who rarely allowed HR's because nobody else was trying to hit them. So there were no HR to speak of on the pitcher cards; he has to hit all 60 off his own card.

Unless you're in a live draft league (and, often, not even then), you can't afford a whole rotation (not to mention bullpen) that has no HR on their cards. (Yes, you can easily arrange no ballpark HR's, but most of those guys will have a HR/flyout split on their card).

Of the top 50 aggregate HR cards according to DD, exactly 8 are averaging 60 HR per use.

Bonds 2001 - he hit 73 HR that year, and averages 78. One of the most remarkable facts about that year was that he hit over 30 HR in Pac Bell Park; all other LH batters that appeared there during the season hit 1. Total.
McGwire 98 - He hit 70 that year, and averages 69. I don't know what the park HR factor for Busch Stadium that year was, but it wasn't a big number.
Kiner 49 - He 54 that year, in Forbes, in 154 games, and averages 67.
Ruth 27 - He hit 60 that year, and averages 63. But he also averages 703 PA here; he had 677 then. (AB + BB only)
Mantle 61 - He hit 54 that year, and averages 62. But he averages 701 PA here, and had 640 in real life.
Maris 61 - 61 and 61. But 622 PA here and 684 in real life. This is the only result in this group that makes me think his card is "juiced."
Hack Wilson 30 - 56 and 60. 693 PA here, 690 in real life. This could be a "juiced" card, or it could be that Wrigley was not such a great HR park that year.
Ruth 21 - 60 and 59. But 735 PA here and 685 in real life.

I'm sorry, I don't see much of a conspiracy here, or much bias toward hitters. Lineups here are very deep (no Jumping Joe Dugan's and Mark Koenig's, and no pitchers to hit most of the time) and generate lots of plate appearances for everybody.

The game is what it is. Statistically, it's pretty accurate for the most part. I repeat what I said a few posts earlier on this thread - ERA is a second order statistic, and is affected by both the increased on-base percentages of the average hitter in the game, and also by the increased slugging percentages. The top 150 hitters here, by salary, averaged 39 HR per season. The card set as a whole averaged 11. But everybody starts as many of those top 150 guys as they can.

You want to see pitchers have great years? Start a theme league, where there are no batters allowed with salaries over $6 million. Pitchers will dominate, but those batter cards are still good enough that they won't make their real-life numbers. I would guess an "average all-star" has about a $4.5 million salary here. There are a number of real-life MVP's with cards so bad they are rarely used (Dick Groat, Don Mattingly, Jeff Burroughs, and Don Baylor, to name a few).

[macnole]

rburgh--agree on all.

The cards are not a random assertion. There could be a better approach, but the chosen approach is tested, and contrary to the way we play it, it's designed to replicate the TEAM performances, in the parks they played in, against the opponents they played against. And it does that.

When used in that manner, it replicates the seasonal performance with a normal/gaussian distribution of results pretty amazingly.

It's not a guess; it's a fact--the results are all validated through repeated tuning and the cards are the end result of what amounts to a Monte Carlo scheme of homing in on the best answer that produces the most consistent results.

[ADRIANGABRIEL]

If Strat were going to change game mechanics, I might suggest that they add an additional 20-sided die roll on HR and BB off the hitter's card.

Pitchers would be given ratings that reflect their real life ability to not allow HR or BB. Greg Maddux, hypothetically, would be an 18 HR and 18 BB.

For example, HR roll comes up on the hitter's card against Maddux, 20-sided die is rolled and there is a 16--no HR; 19 or 20, yes HR. [i:ba2dca62c7]Then[/i:ba2dca62c7] the park effect is applied.

Same would go for a walk, but without a park effect.

[doug_tucker10]

I think the ballpark carries too much weight in the final dice result. No matter how many sluggers that pitchers like Ed Walsh face they shouldn't be giving up 60 home runs in a season, In my opinion i think its because of BALLPARK results..yes there are tons of hitters but there are also More Quality Pitchers Its sort of like stratroids with the way the outcomes are used to include ballpark ratings. If i remember right the board game ratio is/was 60/40 in favor of the pitcher with the dice rolls as opposed to 50/50 with the online game, unless the ratios have been changed since i last kept track.

[ADRIANGABRIEL]

I was just looking at the top 2 hitters and pitchers. Ruth and Bonds are hitting HR at roughly the same rate that they did in real life. Meanwhile, Maddux and Alexander are giving up HR at over three times their real life rate. And they are walking at least twice as many as real life.