removing players with the lead

It removes the randomness and strange occurrences where some players get injured and others don't. Play the number of at bats the player is allowed and leave it at that. The player will miss the number of games he did during that season because the manager will be forced to rest him accordingly or have him unavailable down the stretch.

It removes the randomness and strange occurrences where some players get injured and others don't. Play the number of at bats the player is allowed and leave it at that. The player will miss the number of games he did during that season because the manager will be forced to rest him accordingly or have him unavailable down the stretch.

Strat is a simulation of MLB and its players, and its game and player cards do their best to simulate MLB players, games, and seasons. Injuries, the randomness when they occur, and the particularity of whom they plague are a regular and significant part of MLB...there's nothing "strange" about them. So, Strat enhances the accuracy of it's simulation, as well as the authenticity of experience of its players, when it incorporates injuries--and their randomness and discrimination--into its game and player cards.


P.s. If you're looking for "strangeness" in injuries, you should read about the current flurry of elbow injuries needing Tommy John surgeries for very young starters such as Matt Moore and Jose Fernandez...nobody's figured it out.

I think its a better way to play. Some guys get injured too often and lose more games than they did during the season the card represents, others don't get injured much at all and accumulate 600 ABs when they only had 400AB during the season the card represents. With AB usage everyone can accumulate the ABs they have on their card, less if a manager decides to use the player part time, but never more.

It removes the randomness and strange occurrences where some players get injured and others don't. Play the number of at bats the player is allowed and leave it at that. The player will miss the number of games he did during that season because the manager will be forced to rest him accordingly or have him unavailable down the stretch.

Strat is a simulation of MLB and its players, and its game and player cards do their best to simulate MLB players, games, and seasons. Injuries, the randomness when they occur, and the particularity of whom they plague are a regular and significant part of MLB...there's nothing "strange" about them. So, Strat enhances the accuracy of it's simulation, as well as the authenticity of experience of its players, when it incorporates injuries--and their randomness and discrimination--into its game and player cards.


P.s. If you're looking for "strangeness" in injuries, you should read about the current flurry of elbow injuries needing Tommy John surgeries for very young starters such as Matt Moore and Jose Fernandez...nobody's figured it out.

First of all, Scott, it's not an issue of whether it's a "better way to play;" it's an issue of whether it's a better way to simulate, since SOM (not its players) would be providing either the possible injuries or the manageable at-bats. As I mentioned in my post above, an integral part of SOM's success and the authentic experience of its players depends on its ability to most accurately simulate MLB. Players in MLB get injured at random times, managers rarely give players prescribed seasonal playing time in anticipation of possible injuries...with Strasburg a notable exception.

Also, your proposal would not necessarily result in "better play," and I would argue it wouldn't. Most managers, including myself, would not want to daily manage their players total possible playing time while also managing every other aspect of their team. It would be distracting and any misstep in that management could completely ruin an otherwise well-managed quality team.

Your simulation point is well taken and many people I would think agree with you. I would also say the when strat creates a card they are in the business of trying to accurately reflect what the player did during the season. With most stats being accurate, as much as accurate as you can be, considering the player will be facing different circumstances than he did in MLB (facing different pitchers, or facing pitchers more or less frequently etc.; playing in a different ball park more or less often etc). But with injuries its very rarely accurate. There is a good argument for better simulation, but there is also one for accuracy. AB totals reflect injuries more accurately that using the injuries from dice rolls. It also has the 2nd benefit of limiting part time players to part time rolls since part time players can be over-used and not worry about high injury frequency dice rolls off their cards (since they don't have them).

So if you want to more accurately reflect what a player did, injury-wise during a season than ABs are the way to go, but if you prefer injuries in general to simulate real baseball than using injury rolls is a better way to go.

Personally I think both options would be cool to have.

Scott the Complainer

But with injuries its very rarely accurate. There is a good argument for better simulation, but there is also one for accuracy. AB totals reflect injuries more accurately that using the injuries from dice rolls. It also has the 2nd benefit of limiting part time players to part time rolls since part time players can be over-used and not worry about high injury frequency dice rolls off their cards (since they don't have them).

I see your point here, Scott, and it's a valid one; accuracy is a significant element of successful simulation. That being said, however, I would still see problems with your "limited play" proposal as pertaining to accuracy:

Firstly, actual accurate replication of a player's season is not only not a goal of SOM's simulation, it would damage its gameplay. If SOM did everything to make sure a player's season actually replicated his MLB season, it would completely negate the input and work of his SOM manager and his opponents.

Secondly, if SOM wants to accurately represent a full-time player who was injured sporadically or merely rested a few games, it would not do so by making his card a part-time player...since he wasn't. It would, as it does now, represent him as either a full-time player prone to either significant, constant injury or rare, periodic rest time...as he was in MLB.

So if you want to more accurately reflect what a player did, injury-wise during a season than ABs are the way to go, but if you prefer injuries in general to simulate real baseball than using injury rolls is a better way to go.

Personally I think both options would be cool to have.

I agree with you here. Although I don't agree with your "limited time" proposal, it's not a bad one, and if many other players want to play in leagues without injuries, I wouldn't begrudge them...although it would further dilute our current player pool.

Firstly, actual accurate replication of a player's season is not only not a goal of SOM's simulation, it would damage its gameplay. If SOM did everything to make sure a player's season actually replicated his MLB season, it would completely negate the input and work of his SOM manager and his opponents.

I'm not sure of the meaning of this statement. I know strat does all the calculations etc. so that IF you play a particular player in the park he played in for the season the card represents, and IF he faced approximately the league avg. for pitchers, then his batting avg, slugging, on base %, and his doubles, triples and home runs (although these would adjust depending on what parks he went to when on the road) would reflect close to what he did statistically that season.

The variations would occur when a manager manipulates the different aspects influencing these statistics. Or the dice roles tended to favour that player. It would be difficult for strat to try and manipulate cards based on "what if" situations. If your statement means what I just said then yes I agree with you totally as it would be stupid for strat to try and manipulate its cards to try and counter what SOM managers and their opponents do.

Using ABs makes a manager pay more attention players who were injured during seasons they have cards for. At least in the way that they can't hope to draft guys like Ken Griffey Jr., Frank Thomas, and others that have cards during years with injuries, and hope they get lucky and are able to use them for the full year. And when you draft a low-injury player who you unluckily get injured over the course of a season 2 or 3 times more games than they actually sat out that season, then you might feel a bit taken advantage of (especially since you are not the one rolling the dice).

Another cool aspect to it is that it also forces managers to rest players who weren't injured similar to how the player was rested in the MLB during that season his cards represents. Un injured players who attained 500 ABs and didn't accumulate a large amount of walks did not reach 600 or 700 ABs because they were rested by their manager. If you want baseball simulation, that is a reality as well as injuries. With catchers it is even more a reality.

Secondly, if SOM wants to accurately represent a full-time player who was injured sporadically or merely rested a few games, it would not do so by making his card a part-time player...since he wasn't

I'm not sure what a part time player card is? The card for a player with 150ABs or 650ABs is structurally the same.

What I mean by part time player is a guy with low ABs. If that player was not injured during the season he will not have a high chance on his card for injury. So there is nothing stopping a manager in using a player with 50ABs and 10 home runs to start every game and lead the league in home runs when in that season in MLB he made a small impact over the season for his team. This pertains more to single season leagues rather than the ATG VII. If you use AB totals that player wouldn't be more than a pinch hitter, which was probably his role for his team that year, unless he was a late call up.

Scott the Complainer

Firstly, actual accurate replication of a player's season is not only not a goal of SOM's simulation, it would damage its gameplay. If SOM did everything to make sure a player's season actually replicated his MLB season, it would completely negate the input and work of his SOM manager and his opponents.

I'm not sure of the meaning of this statement.

The meaning of my statement is absolutely clear; read it again if you have to do so. As to the rest of your rambling response in your last post, it doesn't address what I actually said--it just continues to spout out your previous points--so I have no need to respond to it.

Secondly, if SOM wants to accurately represent a full-time player who was injured sporadically or merely rested a few games, it would not do so by making his card a part-time player...since he wasn't

I'm not sure what a part time player card is? The card for a player with 150ABs or 650ABs is structurally the same.

A part-time player card is exactly what your system would be creating: part-time players specifically limited to a particular number of at-bats. And in your system, cards for players with 150 ABs or 650 ABs would be decidedly different, their similar--but not equal--structures are irrelevant. One card (and its structure) would limit its player to 150 ABS (or its assigned approximation), the other card (and its structure) would limit it to 650 (or its assigned approximation).

As I noted above, you're no longer addressing my actual arguments, so I would no longer debate you on this any further anyway...particularly since my stances on the matter are clear and sound. But, as you know, since you extensively lied about my arguments in our last debate, I'm not going to extensively debate you on anything anymore...including this topic.

Ah you mean part time player in use rather than in what is shown on their card. Yes that's what would happen with player who had low AB totals. And when I started this post I was saying it would be a good thing. I guess you think it's a bad thing?

Most players I have come across have always argued that limiting players with low AB totals is a good thing. Especially with keeper leagues. Kinda pointless to go about working hard to get a third batter in your line up and protecting him, when you just need to find a guy each year that hit .370 in 60 ABs and play him the full season.

I remember back in 1988 how much of a storm was caused when one of the managers used Luis Medina full time and was knocking out homers left and right until the other managers voted in a rule to limit players with low AB totals. I think he had 15 taters in 20 games or something before action was taken to add the rule.

It was quite the kurfuffle lol.

Scott the Complainer

Most players I have come across have always argued that limiting players with low AB totals is a good thing.

Sure. Just like "most" managers argued how awful the autodraft feature was. And now that we have a live draft option, good luck trying to fill a live draft league.

In a face-to-face league, I think some kind of AB limit makes sense. However, I do not believe this to be true of the online game. Salaries are based on full usage, freak players are omitted from the set (except in unleashed), and we aren't conducting replays here. We are conducting what-if leagues. You are the manager and you get to play who you want when you want--this is as it should be.