Page 1 of 2

1964 Set oddities

PostPosted: Wed Dec 28, 2022 3:19 pm
by ScumbyJr
Along with RP pricing issue I'm not sure why 0-11 PH only Paul Dicken was included, but Joe Morgan (46 PAs) was left out.

Re: 1964 Set oddities

PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2022 12:21 pm
by djmacb
The pricing is interesting. Seems that defense is highly valued (overpriced) and SLG is priced over OBP. Overall, I don’t think the set is as interesting as ‘77.

Re: 1964 Set oddities

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 12:18 am
by Radagast Brown
ScumbyJr wrote:Along with RP pricing issue I'm not sure why 0-11 PH only Paul Dicken was included, but Joe Morgan (46 PAs) was left out.



That's what you call, an easily fixable mistake. I wish they would fix their mistakes once in a while.

Re: 1964 Set oddities

PostPosted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 10:40 am
by tdkearns
djmacb wrote:The pricing is interesting. Seems that defense is highly valued (overpriced) and SLG is priced over OBP. Overall, I don’t think the set is as interesting as ‘77.


Not sure I’ve ever seen a card like Dicken’s. No defensive rating in a non-DH year and zero positive outcomes on his card. What’s the point?

Re: 1964 Set oddities

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2023 4:10 pm
by goffchile
and he costs .50 which is the same as Clay Carroll 1.77 ERA 0.89 WHIP

Re: 1964 Set oddities

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2023 4:25 pm
by ScumbyJr
There are also several cards with excessive triples (due to low at bats). Hard to use them without a DH though.

Re: 1964 Set oddities

PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:00 pm
by milleram
I always liked this 64 set--actually it may be the best balanced set drafting teams without regard to pricing--the pricing of the set is horrible--pitching pricing is horrific, and even hitters are off (Callison 10M+ ?????)---obviously this was probably priced in the early days of on-line----I don't think they would make these obvious mistakes if it was priced a month or two ago.

It kind of sucks when you have to draft very underpriced guys early to have a shot in an 80M league.

That said--how hard would it have been to re-price the set before this re-release???

Re: 1964 Set oddities

PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2023 4:50 pm
by ScumbyJr
milleram wrote:I always liked this 64 set--actually it may be the best balanced set drafting teams without regard to pricing--the pricing of the set is horrible--pitching pricing is horrific, and even hitters are off (Callison 10M+ ?????)---obviously this was probably priced in the early days of on-line----I don't think they would make these obvious mistakes if it was priced a month or two ago.

It kind of sucks when you have to draft very underpriced guys early to have a shot in an 80M league.

That said--how hard would it have been to re-price the set before this re-release???


Was Ken Hunt a real player or was the $4.65M card put in the set as a joke.

Re: 1964 Set oddities

PostPosted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 4:23 pm
by johnlaw1564
It seems there are some really good reliever cards for under $1 million. I just looked at Bill Henry ... how can this card be $0.8 million? I agree about Callison. Definitely need to use some interesting draft strategies to try and land some hitting.

Re: 1964 Set oddities

PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:27 pm
by ScumbyJr
Gene Oliver's catcher rating shows up in a position search, but not listed on the card.