ATG VI New Card Batch #6: holdouts

[sdajr76]

bernie,

will you still be adding cards from the super adv. set?

-steven

[rjohaire]

This may be a stupid question - but if the card is entered into Diamond Dope and you use a neutral park, wouldn't it tell you what the average season s/b for the player.
He can then be compared to someone else who has similar numbers.

The price is based on his actual stats, I beleive, so if these cards are off, then it would make it unfait to use them.

[Salty]

I am in full agreement with the decision to withold the Fanta-Sim cards.

Also- if a person wants to play a game with less cards- there are subsets they can use.

For the most part- I like the new additions-
just wish there were more live drafts because they really help shake the drafting order up- which had gotten incredibly stale towards the end there;


ALSO ALSO: not that we absolutely must have 20 cards each time- but I wouldnt be against it if Bernie found 2 other non-sim cards to put in with this set. :shock: :shock:

[216 Stitches]

[quote:3a37fc8194="rjoh"]This may be a stupid question - but if the card is entered into Diamond Dope and you use a neutral park, wouldn't it tell you what the average season s/b for the player.
He can then be compared to someone else who has similar numbers.

The price is based on his actual stats, I beleive, so if these cards are off, then it would make it unfait to use them.[/quote:3a37fc8194]

This is a good point.

The inaccuracies are with respect to their historical context.

The cards, their prices and their diamond dope numbers are all
presumeably in total agreement. They are inflated only with respect
to what the players actually did.

If there is evidence to the contrary, then someone should speak up (like
the Joe Morgan miscue that got cleared up).

[BDWard]

[quote:0b29b21dc0="Petrosian"]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=18:0b29b21dc0]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:0b29b21dc0]

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.[/quote:0b29b21dc0]

I agree wholeheartedly. Strat-o-matic ran ads in many sports publications for years, dating back to the 1960s, touting the statistical accuracy of its games, long before most people even knew what a computer was and when Super Advanced card sets hadn't even risen to the level of a gleam in Hal Richman's eyes. I have most, if not all, of the advanced cards published by the company prior to the super advanced cards and none come to mind as being as inaccurate as the Vaughan, Elliott and Miller fantasim cards. I find it counter-intuitive to suggest that some 40+ years later, with more tools than ever to assist in card creation, that because the non super-advanced cards are computer generated they are somehow less accurate than not only the super advanced cards, but the advanced cards produced 40 years hence. There obviously is something else at work here.

While the explanations offered for the card inaccuracies by Petrosian and Valen seem more than plausible, it seems to be somewhat idle speculation, as it is less important how the cards evolved than the fact that they evolved at all. I'm with Nels as being against such inaccurate cards. The issue isn't more cards vs. less cards, but accurate cards vs. inaccurate cards. I agree with jamesgang77 that the more cards the merrier and for those who wish to limit the player pool, there are many very smart and creative people in this community who are more than capable of devising themes to reduce the size of the player pool.

My question for Bernie is will any more cards be added to new card batch #6 to replace the Elliott and Miller cards? If so, how about Darrell Evans '73 and Bobby Murcer '71?

[YountFan]

[quote:57dc8b5b56]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.[/quote:57dc8b5b56]
The cards have to be just columns in a database for the dice rolls. I cannot be hard to enter the Fly-B code in column 1-2. Before there was the SOM computer game I made my own on my Comadore 64. I would hand enter the cards and store them in a file. I even solved the split number using integer values. If a kid with a c64 can do it....

Build a form and the community will enter the card data for you (us)

[nevdully's]

[quote:02114be9c6]I agree wholeheartedly. Strat-o-matic ran ads in many sports publications for years, dating back to the 1960s, touting the statistical accuracy of its games, long before most people even knew what a computer was and when Super Advanced card sets hadn't even risen to the level of a gleam in Hal Richman's eyes. I have most, if not all, of the advanced cards published by the company prior to the super advanced cards and none come to mind as being as inaccurate as the Vaughan, Elliott and Miller fantasim cards. I find it counter-intuitive to suggest that some 40+ years later, with more tools than ever to assist in card creation, that because the non super-advanced cards are computer generated they are somehow less accurate than not only the super advanced cards, but the advanced cards produced 40 years hence. There obviously is something else at work here.
[/quote:02114be9c6]

I agree with this.

[tomwistar]

[quote:641a9c701c]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.[/quote:641a9c701c]

Petrosian -- I've been in three ATG 6 leagues -- one was me messing around too much and going into the tank -- so please don't read too much into the .465. I'm not a complete idiot, win pct notwithstanding. It's been a long time since I've played consistently, and it's very true, I may not have a clue what I'm talking about.

But to throw in my two cents anyway (at my peril!) ... when the player pool was smaller, the draft was indeed all-important ... if you tanked in the draft, that made it that much more of a challenge to put together a competitive team. It could be done ... but you had to be creative. You had to learn the off-the-beaten-path cards that no one else used. To me, that was a tough but fun challenge -- sometimes I failed miserably, but when it worked it was gratifying.

It seems to me that now, as you suggest in your example, it's easy to jump into the player pool and find dozens of usable cards to fit a particular preferred strategy. In earlier iterations of the game, the good cards were rare. Ellis Valentine, Mike Garcia, Woody Fryman really meant something, because they offered value that no other card provided. Now there are plenty of options, regardless of your need.

I'm sure the challenge now is that with so many good cards, everyone can put together a good team ... and so to win, your team has to be even better. I respect that. But I also think that scarcity is the mother of invention ... and at some point there will be so many cards in this game, no one will ever need to venture outside their strategy comfort zone. You'll always get the team you want ... it's just that the other guy's might be better.

[The Last Druid]

Well said.

My argument basically is that more players has simply led to more tools being available while decreasing the semi-random effects of the autodraft. There is still scarcity, it's just more refined than in earlier iterations where it was more in your face. And the emphasis now is less on the draft than on goodness of fit and identifying and acquiring value. But scarcity is still a factor, it's just more subtle. I could see where for some people that could translate as less excitement over the whole drafting process. But challenges are more a function, I think, of how you define them than in any inherent property of ATG6 vs ATG III.

Going back to the link I posted as an example of challenges. The meta challenge I created for myself was crafting a team that would do well in a division where I was the only small ball team, but also in a league that was infested with other small ball teams. The more immediate challenge I set for myself was to find a way to keep Duffy, Speaker, Lajoie, Delahanty and Wagner on the team and still be viable. I don't recall ever having 38M invested in only three hitters on a small ball team at 100M. I'm thinking I pulled it off but I can always go back and keep tinkering as new ideas arise. And you just never know...

And you'd be surprised about everyone putting together good teams. It just doesn't happen that way, even at live drafts. If you really like scarcity though, just play at 200M. The player pool there is very restricted and drafts are very much a lottery as they used to be back in ATG II and III.

Oh an aside. When are we going to get a really good Honus Wagner card? Best SS ever, Arky Vaughan notwithstanding, and we don't have his best season.

[doug_tucker10]

Personally i think 200M leagues are the worst of all the possible cap leagues. Do a live draft with 200M cap and i might have a better opinion but the autodraft 200M leagues royally suck and are nothing but a crap shoot.