ATG VI New Card Batch #3 drops Thu, Nov. 17
by The Last Druid » Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:00 am
Very little comparison between Lynn '79 and Griffey '94. Jr is a two way player, Lynn a platoon hitter who is awesome against righties. Griffey '97 is a better comparison, not that I have much use for that card.
- The Last Druid
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Salty » Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:37 pm
[quote:3c5beead1d="AndyP92072"]Petrosian, I remember that Valle card as I was at a couple of those Glen Head tourneys too. He was either first or second in every draft (if he wasn't first, Eric Davis was).
Nothing wrong with some of these "ringer" cards (will '98 J.D. Drew or Shane Spencer follow?), as long as there is an AB restriction.[/quote:3c5beead1d]
there is no AB restriction that I know of.
Nothing wrong with some of these "ringer" cards (will '98 J.D. Drew or Shane Spencer follow?), as long as there is an AB restriction.[/quote:3c5beead1d]
there is no AB restriction that I know of.
- Salty
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by rburgh » Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:41 pm
This game would be greatly improved (to my mind, anyway) if there were strict PA and IP limits for all players. Once a guys hits the "wall", he's out for the rest of the season.
That would be a huge paradigm shift, though.
That would be a huge paradigm shift, though.
- rburgh
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by doug_tucker10 » Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:43 pm
The CD rom game does that to some degree..at least with the hitters ive noticed the superstar part timers like Rudy Pemberton get rested most of the time once they are around their actual PA's.
- doug_tucker10
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by dukie98 » Sat Nov 12, 2011 1:59 pm
[quote:f6b4c44a38="rburgh"]At some point, SOM decided that LH batters who had less than 15% of their PA's against LHP "couldn't hit lefties" and were just automatically given cards like that. I'm not sure when this came about, but it certainly seems sensible to me. After all, if they gave him a card that would hit .500 against lefties, he would be given a lot more than 2 PA's against them.[/quote:f6b4c44a38]
I'm certainly not suggesting that his card should generate anything remotely close to a .500 average against lefties, especially in light of the very small sample size. I'm just curious how SOM reconciles the logic behind his card with the '82 Ken Smith card that has 81 walks based on a single plate appearance. The approach seems inconsistent for very small sample sizes, but Brown's card is certainly more realistic in that respect.
Also of note-- Brown's card is further inflated because of offensive context. Not only did he hit .370 with power-- but he did so in the 1968 AL, where the average team hit .230 and scored 3.4 runs per game.
I'm certainly not suggesting that his card should generate anything remotely close to a .500 average against lefties, especially in light of the very small sample size. I'm just curious how SOM reconciles the logic behind his card with the '82 Ken Smith card that has 81 walks based on a single plate appearance. The approach seems inconsistent for very small sample sizes, but Brown's card is certainly more realistic in that respect.
Also of note-- Brown's card is further inflated because of offensive context. Not only did he hit .370 with power-- but he did so in the 1968 AL, where the average team hit .230 and scored 3.4 runs per game.
- dukie98
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by rburgh » Sat Nov 12, 2011 2:09 pm
Ken Smith = before change in card-making philosophy.
Gates Brown = after change in card-making policy.
Note that the original Gates 1968 card was before the left-right splits. The card we have was made AFTER the Ken Smith card, when Strat went back through the old basic game card sets and updated them.
Gates Brown = after change in card-making policy.
Note that the original Gates 1968 card was before the left-right splits. The card we have was made AFTER the Ken Smith card, when Strat went back through the old basic game card sets and updated them.
- rburgh
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Usage limits
by BDWard » Sun Nov 13, 2011 3:30 am
[quote:a68dd409d2="rburgh"]This game would be greatly improved (to my mind, anyway) if there were strict PA and IP limits for all players. Once a guys hits the "wall", he's out for the rest of the season.
That would be a huge paradigm shift, though.[/quote:a68dd409d2]
Many years ago I was in a play by mail annual draft league where there were usage limits limiting players to 10% more plate appearances or innings pitched than they had in real life. This was done to prevent overuse abuses of players who were bit players with unusually good stats. I thought the rule was a pretty good idea, as I had been in a long running annual draft no keepers face to face league where bit players like '71 Steve Mingori, '72 Roger Nelson, '73 Fred Beene, '73 Rick Auerbach and '77 Roger Freed (to name just a few) had a major impact despite limited roles in real life. The player on my team impacted the most by the usage rule was a bit player named Barry Evans, who was a 3B 2 with a low e rating who batted .323 in about 100 AB with the '81 Padres. Because of the rule, I had to limit Evans to pinch hitting, being a late inning defensive replacement and injury replacement for the somewhat brittle Bill Madlock, the regular at 3B. (Since 1981 was the "split season" due to a labor dispute and most teams played only 100-110 games, I think players were limited to an additional 60% above actual usage.) The rule worked well and everyone abided by it, despite being on the honor system.
Of course, in the online computer game, usage limit rules would be much easier to enforce, as the game program could (in theory) easily track such and bench a player or reduce his effectiveness, using a system similar to the pitcher fatigue rules, if he is overused. I, too, am in favor of such rules, as it would involve more strategy and make the game more challenging and enjoyable and could possibly serve in conjunction with the current injury system. With usage limits based upon a percentage of actual use over the course of the season, the online manager would have more of a say in when a player sits down, instead of having potential multiple injuries of random length at random times imposed upon him. Maybe a good solution would be to reduce the length of any injury by a game (or maybe even two games) for each game that the player was rested over the course of the season prior to the injury. Such a system would be a boon to platoon or bit players, who may have had no injury over the course of the season in real life, but under the current injury system, can get injured for 15 games in the online game. Regardless, the current injury system is an antiquated relic from the board game and is a part of the online game that has not benefited much from computer technology despite being in dire need of an overhaul.
In another thread there are many good suggestions for improvements to the new game platform. Having a choice to limit player usage in some way and an injury overhaul should be added to the wish list of potential improvements to the new game platform. - Bernie W
That would be a huge paradigm shift, though.[/quote:a68dd409d2]
Many years ago I was in a play by mail annual draft league where there were usage limits limiting players to 10% more plate appearances or innings pitched than they had in real life. This was done to prevent overuse abuses of players who were bit players with unusually good stats. I thought the rule was a pretty good idea, as I had been in a long running annual draft no keepers face to face league where bit players like '71 Steve Mingori, '72 Roger Nelson, '73 Fred Beene, '73 Rick Auerbach and '77 Roger Freed (to name just a few) had a major impact despite limited roles in real life. The player on my team impacted the most by the usage rule was a bit player named Barry Evans, who was a 3B 2 with a low e rating who batted .323 in about 100 AB with the '81 Padres. Because of the rule, I had to limit Evans to pinch hitting, being a late inning defensive replacement and injury replacement for the somewhat brittle Bill Madlock, the regular at 3B. (Since 1981 was the "split season" due to a labor dispute and most teams played only 100-110 games, I think players were limited to an additional 60% above actual usage.) The rule worked well and everyone abided by it, despite being on the honor system.
Of course, in the online computer game, usage limit rules would be much easier to enforce, as the game program could (in theory) easily track such and bench a player or reduce his effectiveness, using a system similar to the pitcher fatigue rules, if he is overused. I, too, am in favor of such rules, as it would involve more strategy and make the game more challenging and enjoyable and could possibly serve in conjunction with the current injury system. With usage limits based upon a percentage of actual use over the course of the season, the online manager would have more of a say in when a player sits down, instead of having potential multiple injuries of random length at random times imposed upon him. Maybe a good solution would be to reduce the length of any injury by a game (or maybe even two games) for each game that the player was rested over the course of the season prior to the injury. Such a system would be a boon to platoon or bit players, who may have had no injury over the course of the season in real life, but under the current injury system, can get injured for 15 games in the online game. Regardless, the current injury system is an antiquated relic from the board game and is a part of the online game that has not benefited much from computer technology despite being in dire need of an overhaul.
In another thread there are many good suggestions for improvements to the new game platform. Having a choice to limit player usage in some way and an injury overhaul should be added to the wish list of potential improvements to the new game platform. - Bernie W
- BDWard
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: All-Time Greats
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests