My take on ATG III

[The Last Druid]

While I made no secret of my displeasure regarding some of the teams chosen and thus some of the teams not chosen, in the final analysis I have to say Bernie did a pretty good job.

Mostly, I love the new pricing. To be competitive in ATG II you had to have 1's up the middle with the possible exceptions of Hornsby and Banks. Now perhaps that is no longer necessarily the case. I think that TSN realized the great emphasis people were placing on defense at SS and 2nd and repriced things accordingly. So now people will need to rethink their strategic approach to the game. Isn't that kind of the point of introducing a new version of ATG?

I have never thought that small ball was the best way to go with ATG II. To be brutally frank, I've routinely beaten the most vociferous small ball proponents, and done so with gusto. Small ball worked with ATG II but so did every other style. In reality though, for the past 85 years small ball has not been the way to go in major league baseball. So if the new pricing policy shifts the balance somewhat toward long ball, fine by me. That is just more realistic as far as I'm concerned.

I love the ballpark diversity. Now you can pretty much build any type of imaginable team and find a tailor made ball park. That opens vast new strategic vistas. Kudo's to Bernie for including this.

I also like the weighted waivers.

One thing I don't like is the pricing of a few players. How often was Stewart drafted? And I thought a lot of the SR in the 2-3.5 M range were also overpriced and thus used infrequently. So I think their prices should have gone down in accordance with their lack of use. I am glad Schmidt went down, but perplexed that Barfield, rarely used, goes up.

I drafted a team tonight with my middle infielders being Randolph and Bowa. You now have to look even harder to economize somewhere to afford the big bats and the top pitchers. Had to save money to fit Greenburg in at first. YES!! It's challenging but I like challenges.

Overall, ATG III looks like a big improvement over II. I just wish we had Colavito and a better Killebrew. :roll: :) :wink:

[RiggoDrill]

[quote:97b64dc667="Petrosian"]While I made no secret of my displeasure regarding some of the teams chosen and thus some of the teams not chosen... [/quote:97b64dc667]
Good post - I agree. BTW, can you name a few of the teams that you would have included?

[The Last Druid]

61 Tigers
63-64 White Sox
1930 Phillies (just don't use their pitching!)

Replaced 29 A's with '30 or '31 A's.
88 Twins.
70 Twins
75 Red Sox

[nevdully's]

[quote:f6f7cb3abd]I think that TSN realized the great emphasis people were placing on defense at SS and 2nd and repriced things accordingly. [/quote:f6f7cb3abd]

In hopes to accomplish what exactly?

[The Last Druid]

Balance supply and demand. Now some of the top middle infielders may go undrafted the way Mantle, Ruth and Williams did in 80 M leagues anyway.

Also their increased prices more accurately reflects their actual value. Thus more realism. I won't always have 1's up the middle any more. And I think that is a realistic opportunity cost of having top players elsewhere in the lineup.

[RiggoDrill]

[quote:b254754212="nevdully's"]In hopes to accomplish what exactly?[/quote:b254754212]
...to give great players like [b:b254754212]Larry Doyle [/b:b254754212]and [b:b254754212]Bobby Avila [/b:b254754212]a chance in this game. In ATG2, I typically reserved one spot for a fielder who didn't have gold glove, "[b:b254754212]1[/b:b254754212]", range. After a while that got tiresome. Since you play this game more than anyone else Nev, I can't believe you of all people would complain. :wink:

[RiggoDrill]

[quote:81cf817bbd="Petrosian"]61 Tigers
63-64 White Sox
1930 Phillies (just don't use their pitching!)

Replaced 29 A's with '30 or '31 A's.
88 Twins.
70 Twins
75 Red Sox[/quote:81cf817bbd]
I wouldn't complain about inclusion of any of these teams, but I don't regard them as "must-haves" are substantially better than the teams chosen. For what it's worth, I would have liked to see...

* 1948 Boston Braves
* Another Washington Senators
* And I agree with both of your choices for the Twins

[raslavens]

My take on ATGIII is that it reminds me very much of the 200X, especially the pricing structure. In the 200X games you often had to cobble together the middle infield or take on lots of value platoons to maximize your offensive output, and that looks like it will be the same here, especially in $80M and even $100M leagues.

[Rob55]

[quote:9fa820e7bf] Nev, I can't believe you of all people would complain.[/quote:9fa820e7bf]

hmmmm ... i MUST have missed something....so let me repost

[quote:9fa820e7bf]In hopes to accomplish what exactly?[/quote:9fa820e7bf]

now....where is the complaint in that QUESTION? ... to ME it looks like a fairly straightforward question... I don't see even a HINT of complaint... curiousity ...perhaps...puzzlement ...maybe, but COMPLAINT?...I don't think so.

[CHRISTIANSTOUGH]

I think I agree;
if the result of all this is to force new choices and expand the diversity of the use of the player pool; then yes, these changes are good.

The more possible variations in how to win, the better.

I think part of the initial negtive reactions are just shock at the amount of change.

I'll admit to the fact that I've grown attached to certain cards; sentimentaly so; and I don't think I'm the only one.
Now as silly as that sounds (for grown men to grow attached to an abstract number set with a famous name attached),
that means there will be a bit of a (oh how I hate to say this, but I think it's true) grief process involved with the transition.

Once we let go of our old ideas, I think we'll have a blast.

" In reality though, for the past 85 years small ball has not been the way to go in major league baseball."

This, I don't think, is an accurate statement. If you look at the good team from about 73 and especially from '75 to about 83-85; small ball was the only way to go. What I mean is that HR's were few and stolen bases and pitching were abundent.
Stolen bases rose dramaticly in this time period. Sure, there were home run hitters, but the league leaders were never far from 30. Hitting 20 was a big deal
Look at the 75-76 Reds, or the Royals, or the Cardinals or the Astros or Pirates or the Expos or the A's for that matter. Even the Dodgers, although they had those 4 30 HR guys in '77, they were feared for their starting pitching.
This is a huge part of the reason that the '70's were such a golden age for Baseball.

I would even submit that this is the reason small ball is so popular on this site. Many of us were kids during that era.