ATG III Team Teaser #9

[Mr Baseball World]

- Bert Campaneris ('73 A's)
- Willie Horton ('68 Tigers)
- Claudell Washington ('82 Braves)
- Tommy Boggs ('82 Braves)
- Nelson Briles ('71 Pirates)
- Darold Knowles ('73 A's)
- Dock Ellis ('71 Pirates)

[msheaf1]

From Bernie at the beginning of the post.

[quote:36c4664dcb="bernieh"]Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me. No, we're not going to have Kurt Bevacqua's .333/.365/.604 in 96 AB on this team; he'll stay on the '84 Padres. And also on the somewhat long list of removals from this team:
- Bert Campaneris ('73 A's)
- Willie Horton ('68 Tigers)
- Claudell Washington ('82 Braves)
- Tommy Boggs ('82 Braves)
- Nelson Briles ('71 Pirates)
- Darold Knowles ('73 A's)
- Dock Ellis ('71 Pirates)

Yeesh![/quote:36c4664dcb]

[tkl33]

OK, I was one of those complaining. I will say this, I still think some of these teams are worthless!!! Agreed there will be a hidden gem or two...we can find those on the good teams also. There were just better years to choose from. Why not a late 60's early 70's Giants team? We then get a good Perry, a good Marichal, Bobby Bonds, Jim Ray Hart, a couple those late Giant teams had some good bullpens.

Why are we saying it's OK to have mediocore years from guys like Perry, Marichal, Carew, Killebrew, McCovey, Ryan, Gwynn.......

This is after all ALL TIME GREATS, so let's get some great years from these guys!

If you want mediocore, play the 200X games. That's about as much fun as watching paint dry.

Since I can't seem to win any credits anymore, I am a paying customer, so I have a right to show my displeasure if so be it.

Have a great day! :)

Tim

[bkeat23]

Hargrove may be a cheap Jack Clark? I thought he'd be better than a D stealer.

[PJ Axelsson]

Is the point of the teaser to give us a forum to spew lavish praise on the teams regardless of what we think or are the teasers being tossed out like chunks of seal flesh to the sharks that are the paying customers?

There is a difference between being critical and being negative, but everyone here is afforded the right to speak his/her/its mind.


What I would love is a bit of discussion (once these are all done perhaps) as to why certain teams were added and why certain teams were left off. Maybe that would smooth over some of the negativity?

[childsmwc]

Doyle Alexander is also a duplicate on this team. Maybe they drop his Toronto season, but he is still a duplicate to add to the list.

Bbrool

[Naturaldoc]

I agree that I would really like to see the reasons for choosing the new teams for ATG III. It would be great if that information was included in the teaser. Maybe some of this "negativity" would be nullified if we knew the thought process behind the team selection. The TSN/SOM gang could tell us why they picked a team and we could tell them why we do or don't like the choice. I don't think commenting about the pros and cons of these teams is showing negativity as much as it is communicating. This should be looked at as free market research for TSN as we are the consumers and they are the providers. There really isn't much of a point in posting teasers to a message board if the only acceptable comment is "Thank you".

That being said, I would like to say thank you to the TSN/SOM gang for the hard work involved to bring us ATG III.

[Treyomo]

I don't think it's the critique of teams that's bothersome - it's the "All the new teams suck, I'll never play again, noone cares about the consumer" type comments that bug me. We all loved the 1st set despite having the 42 Cardinals, 74 Rangers, 82 Angels, and 60 Pirates that on paper look like below average team. We love the 2nd set, despite some teams that don't offer much at all. Disparaging certain selections is part of the process, but saying ATGIII is going to suck and I'll stop playing because TSN didn't pick the teams I like seems a bit excessive.

Just my 2 pfennigs (stolen from Rick in Vegas).

[The Last Druid]

The "community" could be thought of as a large focus group. And why wouldn't its opinion(s) be directly solicited by those marketing the product?? Just seems like good business to me. I agree with naturaldoc that knowing the thought processes behind the team selection process would be helpful. As it is though, I perceive it as fairly arbitrary and capricious. Yes there is some responsiveness, Lajoie's inclusion for example. But the problem with some of the teams added is that there are many better and more popular choices available, some of which are now clearly excluded by the teams chosen. So the opportunity cost of a sub-optimal addition to the player pool concerns me. And the overall quality of the pool suffers, at least in terms of my preferences.

Even the teasers have a paternalistic feel to them where TSN's expectation appears to be that a fawningly grateful response by a groveling community is the only appropriate one.

I have recently started playing the back to the '80's game where I have observed, albeit retrospectively, the cosmetic facelift of the game sold as Back to the 80's II where the player pool was left intact, the dated pricing structure unchanged and the interface so flawed that you never get to know who the opposing managers are. So I don't have much faith in TSN bringing us the best ATG III product possible. And that's unfortunate and could be avoided by allowing consumers more active participation in product development.

And the repeated lack of responsivity by TSN to questions by the community, such as why no Don Mossi is also disturbing.

So in a world where the individual is comparatively powerless relative to the mega corporation, of which TSN is a subsidiary, often one's only recourse is to vote with one's pocketbook.

And to those who are offended by these sentiments -- or other opinions contrary to their own -- oh well. Have another beer. Or case.

[DizandMiles]

How about it!? Howard, Epstien, Knowles, Bosman had great years Unser was pretty good too!
Plus it was the only year the Wash Senators (2nd go round) did not suck!