Here are a few that I wish were here.
Fred McGriff
Rollie Fingers
Jim Bibby
Barry Bonds
Jeff Burroughs
Greg maddux
Ruben sierra
feel free to add to the list, I'm sure that there are a few that are missing...
Who would you like to see in the 80s game
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who would you like to see in the 80s game
by rutkap » Sun Mar 05, 2006 2:04 pm
- rutkap
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by childsmwc » Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:47 pm
A lot of the players listed were in their prime prior to the 1980's and this raises an interesting discussion myself and Riggo have been having about the future of this product. If you include say Tom Seaver, should he have 1970 seasons on his card, or should it be limited to the Tom Seaver of the 1980's (an above average but not dominant pitcher).
Should the game be expanded to be a 1970/1980 product (the player pool is definitely a bit sparse)? If it is expanded to the 1970's then players from that Era could get some dominant seasons and we could add a whole additional group of stars.
The one thing I would like to see most of however, is the increase in value of certain superstars. I am all for having bad seasons on the majority of players, but some (like Boggs, Murray, Brett to name a few) were the picture of consistency during the 1980's and shouldn't have bad seasons on their cards. In the 1980's game you should be paying for consistency and reliability in your star players. To me its to much of a gimmick just to put a bad season on everyone's card. Some guys did not average 1 out of 5 bad seasons during the 1980's.
I have recently gotten pulled back into this product and am having alot of fun. I look forward to some major pricing revisions as well as an expanded player pool if/when changes are ultimately made.
Bbrool
Should the game be expanded to be a 1970/1980 product (the player pool is definitely a bit sparse)? If it is expanded to the 1970's then players from that Era could get some dominant seasons and we could add a whole additional group of stars.
The one thing I would like to see most of however, is the increase in value of certain superstars. I am all for having bad seasons on the majority of players, but some (like Boggs, Murray, Brett to name a few) were the picture of consistency during the 1980's and shouldn't have bad seasons on their cards. In the 1980's game you should be paying for consistency and reliability in your star players. To me its to much of a gimmick just to put a bad season on everyone's card. Some guys did not average 1 out of 5 bad seasons during the 1980's.
I have recently gotten pulled back into this product and am having alot of fun. I look forward to some major pricing revisions as well as an expanded player pool if/when changes are ultimately made.
Bbrool
- childsmwc
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by AdamKatz » Mon Mar 06, 2006 3:30 pm
The more players the better but I wouldnt expand it to the 70s. Pete Rose is in the 80s game and he is a 80s Pete Rose.
With the 12.50 discount, I bought a coupl of ATGII teams because I noticed alot of 80s players prefer it to the 200x games but it seems ridiculous. dimagio and Ruth and Cy Young are on the waivers wire. they aren't overpriced, I dont think, its just that there are 100 guys that cost over 10 million dollars. For 4 million you get someone who would be 6.5 million in the 80s. Its ridiculous.
There isnt exactly a shortage of good players in the 80s format but you do have to make intersting decisions. If there were 15 good SSs with 1 and 2 fielding, I think the game would be less fun.
I think any time spent on the "back to" format should be in a "back to the 90s game" (which would include years up to 2005). I think this format is just plain better than the regular 200x format and we could have alot more players in a format that used players that were more familiar to everybody. A real profit center would be "back to the 20th century" were you could play mystery cards with ATGs (but like I said- I like not having an unlimited pool of excellent players).
The engine is already there. I think all you need to do is have someone input new cards.
With the 12.50 discount, I bought a coupl of ATGII teams because I noticed alot of 80s players prefer it to the 200x games but it seems ridiculous. dimagio and Ruth and Cy Young are on the waivers wire. they aren't overpriced, I dont think, its just that there are 100 guys that cost over 10 million dollars. For 4 million you get someone who would be 6.5 million in the 80s. Its ridiculous.
There isnt exactly a shortage of good players in the 80s format but you do have to make intersting decisions. If there were 15 good SSs with 1 and 2 fielding, I think the game would be less fun.
I think any time spent on the "back to" format should be in a "back to the 90s game" (which would include years up to 2005). I think this format is just plain better than the regular 200x format and we could have alot more players in a format that used players that were more familiar to everybody. A real profit center would be "back to the 20th century" were you could play mystery cards with ATGs (but like I said- I like not having an unlimited pool of excellent players).
The engine is already there. I think all you need to do is have someone input new cards.
- AdamKatz
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by moodinator123 » Mon Mar 06, 2006 10:44 pm
Jeff Lahti
Tom Nieto
Kurt Kepshire
David Green
Mike Ramsey
Jim Lindeman
Joe Magrane
Tom Nieto
Kurt Kepshire
David Green
Mike Ramsey
Jim Lindeman
Joe Magrane
- moodinator123
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by FletchGriswold » Tue Mar 07, 2006 2:07 am
Brian Harper C - Twins (a poor man's Ted Simmons - w/o power)
I can see his rating now
2(+5)e12
I can see his rating now
2(+5)e12
- FletchGriswold
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by LMBombers » Tue Mar 07, 2006 6:29 am
If some new players are added I wish some others would be retired. I am afraid of expanding the 80's player's pool too much in the fear that it would turn into another ATG game where you have no worries about having an all-star at every position. That is no fun to me.
- LMBombers
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
9 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball: '70s, '80s, '90s
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests