ATG VI New Card Batch #6: holdouts

[tomwistar]

Definitely no to both. I've never understood this push to add more and more cards to the player pool ... it's gotten ridiculous, and it's one of the reasons why I quit playing regularly after ATG 4. I guess the argument is that people get bored with the same cards ... but how can that possibly be true when you have thousands of cards to choose from? With major upgrades on the way
-- new stats to pour over, etc. -- there will be plenty of novelty. Please get rid of the more ridiculous cards.

Constructing a team would be much more interesting and challenging if there weren't so damn many cards.

[PotKettleBlack]

[quote:4b5e37d8f8="tomwistar"]Constructing a team would be much more interesting and challenging if there weren't so damn many cards.[/quote:4b5e37d8f8]

Disagree. The optimization of a team is more complicated with more options. Way more complicated. I will submit my win %age from ATG4 vs ATG6 as an example.

[doug_tucker10]

For those of us who are into franchise leagues the larger the player pool the better. If people want to limit the size of the player pool there's always ways to pare down the available players for any particular league. I'd be happy if every player that ever played the game of MLB was available for use.

[bernieh]

For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that we hold them out. And continue to hold out other cards with especially inflated HRs, going forward. You can believe that Eddie Mathews has this kind of power, but not so much with Eddie Miller.

At this point, I'm holding Elliott and Miller out. And I'll do a more thorough job filtering these kinds of cards for the next batch.

[quote:f098fbc11a="BDWard"]I find it more than a little ironic that this problem even exists for a product where the manufacturer has long prided itself on reproducing accurate results.[/quote:f098fbc11a]
To be fair, these aren't the cards that they are boasting about. They take pride in the fact that the rigorous and painstaking research that go into the Super-Advanced card sets they create by hand make for a realistic game. By contrast, these less accurate, "computer-generated" cards only exist as stopgaps until they can get around to creating Super-Advanced sets to replace them, which they are doing, as we all know.

Now as for the question of why they can't get us newer versions of cards/sets on a more regular basis, the only thing I'm told is "it's work". They have only one programmer over there running the whole show, and he's always juggling a ton of priorities. I'd love to have better access to the card library, but I just give him the benefit of the doubt when he tells me it's not easy.

[The Last Druid]

The last response would appear to beg the question, regarding strat o matic accuracy.

I don't think the issue has anything to do with computer generated vs. super advanced seasons at all.

Many, probably most, of the cards in ATG are from computer generated seasons. Back in ATG II that was overwhelmingly the case.

[size=18:bf45afff15]Prior to the introduction of fantasim cards there was no egregious home run inflation on the computer generated cards, apart from the overstated ballpark effects that afflict all cards. [/size:bf45afff15]

The problem is that the fantasim cards aren't remotely accurate with the representation of homeruns. Never mind Vaughan, look at the new Mathews card. Difference of one homerun in the same ball park and look at the difference in non-ballpark homers between the 46 and 47 homerun cards. I wouldn't be surprised if they originally added ballpark hrs. to the fantasim cards and then kept that addition as regular homeruns and then readded the ballpark effects. Nothing else comes to mind as to how the homeruns could be so overstated on the fantasim cards.

[Valen]

[quote:f1d90db3bc]#1 There will be a constant in game reminder -- Arky, Elliot and
Miller will give use 3 big reasons to get the improved accuracy
additions into the set. [/quote:f1d90db3bc]
[quote:f1d90db3bc]Now as for the question of why they can't get us newer versions of cards/sets on a more regular basis, the only thing I'm told is "it's work". [/quote:f1d90db3bc]
I know Bernie has made the right decision already. So this is strictly for conversation and not for swaying opinion.

In game reminder would be a valid point if those of us playing the games were the determining factor in how soon these cards get updated. It would be a valid point if it motivated us to nag Bernie and he was the holdup on getting improved accuracy additions in to the set.

But it is not up to us. And I see no reason not to believe Bernie when he says it is not in his control. He has an established track record of being honest with us.

So adding cards like these would not result in accurate cards being received any faster. Hopefully once the transition to strato ownership of this is complete and everything is on their server Bernie will be given full access to everything and can make something happen.

[Valen]

[quote:3628259761]I wouldn't be surprised if they originally added ballpark hrs. to the fantasim cards and then kept that addition as regular homeruns and then readded the ballpark effects.[/quote:3628259761]
I would not be surprised if you are right.

I also suspect the culprit is the nature of fantasim. If the cards were totally accurate with respect to reproduction of actual production it would be easy to predict who would put up what numbers. But as I understand the fantasim concept your success was based on the fantasy 5x5 numbers a player put up, not the win/loss record of the team you put together like in all other strat games. My suspicion is they enhanced many cards to inflate those standard fantasy stats and generate excitement among the fantasy baseball players that product targeted.

Few things excite a fantasy baseball player than someone they pick putting up numbers much higher than anyone expected. Added bonus people who played a lot of fantasim would be more likely to know who the huge overperformers like Arky were providing motivation to spend more money.

Do not blame TSN or strat for doing any of this if indeed it was done. But want more of a semblance of accuracy in ATG.

[The Last Druid]

[quote:999d25843c]
Constructing a team would be much more interesting and challenging if there weren't so damn many cards. [/quote:999d25843c]

I would think the author of this quote should have no problem finding challenges in the current card set given his current .465 win pct in ATG VI. Not that there is anything wrong with that record per se, it is just that there seems to be a great deal of room for improvement which in itself would appear to be a worthwhile challenge.

I spent about 90 minutes last night putting together the following team after waivers. Because we have so many cards, all the pieces are there, if one just takes the time to look and fit them together.

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=374743

I could never have crafted a team like this in ATG II or III. Granted I had a good draft and got Duffy, Speaker, Lajoie, Wagner. But most of the players I just took from the post waiver pool (having missed the waivers due to illness) until they fit to my satisfaction.

The game is nowhere near as draft (luck) dependent as the earlier versions (except at the highest caps). I think that is a really good thing.

[nels52]

Everybody's missing the point. The damage already has been done. Arky Vaughn is in the set and is now THE BEST HITTER. That's a problem. Also, in the right context, he's very underpriced. The card needs to be removed.

[PotKettleBlack]

Just a quick bit on Arky:

OPS+ of 190 in 1935. Solid. Outstanding. Very very very good. oWAR of 9.5. Again, very very very good.

But Ruth 1920. OPS+ 255. Yes, he was 155% better than the average player, park adjusted. oWAR of 12.8.

Ruth 21. OPS+ 238. oWAR of 13.7. (played in 10 more games... lower rates, but higher counting)

Ruth 23 is a nice season too.

What I'm getting at, is when you factor context, Arky Vaughan's best year wasn't better than Ruth's best. The only Ruth Yankees seasons that Vaughan's best year was better than were 22 and 25 (two seasons Ruth missed substantial time). In no way should he be even in the discussion of being a better hitter than any of Ruth's Yankees cards.

In Defense of Vaughan. 1935 he did lead the NL in OPS+. 190 is an exceptional number. But not as exceptional as his card.