no rhyme or reason to 1969 stats

[tomwistar]

I'm starting to get fed up with the 1969 game. I don't mind when a star player underperforms every once in awhile--the unpredictability keeps things interesting. But there doesn't seem to be any logic at all to 1969 hitter performance.

For example, right now I have Wynn in the Astrodome: .283 .579 slg .432 obp in about 120 games. That's fine with me. But in another league, in a very similar park (Anaheim), a manager just ditched him hitting .195 with 13 homers after 70 games.

Another player, Reggie Jackson, I've seen put up MVP numbers, but right now in his home park, Oakland: .219 ba, .430 slg after 70 games.

I see this wild inconsistency all the time from expensive players like Santo, Reggie Smith, Staub, Buford, Agee, Blair, even Petrocelli. And don't get me started on the high-end 2bs: McAuliffe, Green, and Andrews are all over the map.

Meanwhile, you have several goofy scrub cards--Francona, Held, Lock, Pagan, Hutton, etc.--that put up completely unrealistic numbers in platoons.

When a player in ATG puts up a bad year, the numbers are disappointing but within reason. In 1969 the player just flat-out sucks.

Is it just that there are so many Ks and gbas on hitter cards that they are capable of year-long bad dice rolls? I don't know, but it gets annoying to pay 6-10 mill for a player, think "okay, at least I have this position in the bag," and then watch them be not just subpar, but completely overmatched.

:evil:

[cwostevec]

I'm the mgr who ditched wynn. I got aaron for him (in a trade). he was just killing me. i had a 44hr 121rbi 123bb's .281avg and .407obp season from him on another squad (in Fenway, that helps). But should there be such a drastic difference? I totally agree with you.

The scrub cards are another issue all together. I have used them to my advantage for the most part. I think all the SOM games have this problem.

[tomwistar]

Oh, I agree that the scrub cards are invaluable--knowing who they are and how to use them is basically how you win in 1969. But what makes them so valuable is that you can't depend on the real starters. I think it makes the game kind of ridiculous when Held is a more reliable slugger than Wynn or Reggie.

I fully realize that none of the Strat games reflect reality and it's all about knowing the cards. But in a game like ATG--sure, I'm happy to use the unbalanced scrubs, but that's only as a money saver and because it's hard to get the best players. In 1969, it seems like the scrubs *are* often the best players. It's dumb.

[UrbanShockers]

I agree with you, as to those disappointing seasons where you've ridden a high $$ guy for the full year (or at least to say the 130 game mark). But 70 games isn't enough to be disappointed by: I had Wynn under .200 and contributing nothing but walks close to mid-season, no one would take him in a deal, and he finished the year second in the MVP voting.

I use McAuliffe a lot, and have found even full seasons from him to be strangely different in similar parks. Ditto Agee. But what the hey, that's why they play the games. . .

[pedakrla]

Hang in there, guys. There's lot of variability inherent in baseball stats. Look at the records for 1969 SOMO--Wynn has 2 of the 5 highest OBPs ever recorded in the game. For every monster season like those, there's gonna be a down season. I agree it sucks when the down season happens to your team! :x

[bleacher_creature]

Agreed that certain platoon guys would not put up the same numbers in "real life" because real teams and coaches would figure the guy out. However...

As stated above it is a scientifc fact that there can be wide variances in replays given THE SAME SET OF CONDITIONS. Strat has obviously studied this exstensively.

Let alone when you take a 12 team draft league with agressive managers doing crazy aggressive things to throw things into a different category. For example, I just joined a '69 league that starts Monday that has teams with something like 1/2 home the parks as Memorial Stadium.

With my home park being Candlestick, I am going to try (not that I'm 100% certain it will work) C. Taylor at first (3e22) and bat him FOURTH!. Banks will play in HR parks, and sub defensively and for Taylor's DL time. I am going to small ball it to death, and have great pitching, great D up the middle and OF.

The point is, with all these extreme factors, it is going to skew stats. It makes it fun in a way, although I think ballpark drafting should be par for the course even in standard auto leagues.

[childsmwc]

You should expect to see much more varying stats from the hitters in 1969, because 1969 was a pitchers year. When 50% of a players performance comes off the pitchers card on average, just moving this between 60% and 40% (a 10% variance) are going to have huge swings on an offensive players stats.

1969 is a pitcher dominated season and the batter stats reflect this. And while TSN left some very skewed cards in the set, the Woodie Helds of the world are not in any way shape or form more consistent hitters than McCovey, Jackson, etc. Playing 8 to 10 seasons is not statistically significant to get an "average" production out of any player.

The same law of averages applies to 1969 that applies to every other TSN product.

Bbrool

[franky35]

bleacher, I like Taylor batting 4th since he has a great OBP backed up by your best power hitter at 5.

bbrool, a 60/40 split ain't going to happen. Assuming 600 AB, the odds of a 240/360 split or worse are infinitesimally small. even a 5+% split (270/330 or worse) will occur in less than 1.2% of the seasons. Interestingly, the bionomial calculator tells me that 50% of the time, the split will be less than 292/308. So, to an excellent approximation, over the course of a season, a hitter's card will be consulted 50% of the time.

So, I'm pretty surprised at the variation I see in hitter's performance. Maybe manager settings have something to do with it. I have noticed that Rico Carty seems to finish in the top 10 in BA every time and I can't figure that out - I've seen some pretty weird hitters finish with really high BA, like Powell (.342) and Sanguillen (.329), Murcer (.319), Reese (.328). Actually, I see Powell finish with a high BA in all leagues and it doesn't make any sense to me.