Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

anyone have a screen shot of the bonds card that is being voted on?

could only find 2001

So what would a card look like if a player played 162 games and in 600 at bats had 600 intentional walks? no walks on the card? Would he be a bullet proof player with nothing on his card?

A lot of times intentional walks are because they are scared of the batter. Bonds was walked with the bases loaded intentionally but strat won't recognize it on the card. How many times was Mantle or Ruth pitched around but not intentionally walked?

If strat doesn't want to acknowledge them then maybe they should have clutch walks.

Suggestion...next time around with card add, only accept nominations for players who have NO CARD available with SOM online.

Everyone has their own agenda. I'd say no active players unless maybe they're in the twilight of their career (or at least over 34 years old), but people want those cards

I agree Steve. I wish we'd do a 5 year lag in cards (not players). Just would like to make sure we don't add some flash in the pan who has one good season and then never amounts to anything.

doug_tucker10
Suggestion...next time around with card add, only accept nominations for players who have NO CARD available with SOM online.

Agreed.

toronto50 wrote:anyone have a screen shot of the bonds card that is being voted on?

this is what would actually make sense--
a lot of folks I dont believe realize that some of the cards they are voting 'in' are really not great cards
despite what a player's stats say.

Salty wrote:

toronto50 wrote:anyone have a screen shot of the bonds card that is being voted on?

this is what would actually make sense--
a lot of folks I dont believe realize that some of the cards they are voting 'in' are really not great cards
despite what a player's stats say.

In my opinion you really can't tell if it's going to be a worthwhile card until you know what it's priced at. (Other than for the 200m+ cap crowd). For those that enjoy playing at 100m and under, especially at 60m, any card might be a good playable card, but it all depends on the price.

BC15NY wrote:

Salty wrote:

toronto50 wrote:anyone have a screen shot of the bonds card that is being voted on?

this is what would actually make sense--
a lot of folks I dont believe realize that some of the cards they are voting 'in' are really not great cards
despite what a player's stats say.

In my opinion you really can't tell if it's going to be a worthwhile card until you know what it's priced at. (Other than for the 200m+ cap crowd). For those that enjoy playing at 100m and under, especially at 60m, any card might be a good playable card, but it all depends on the price.

That is true-- but I know that a lot of cards despite their stats will not be used at say 140 mil and above -
which is why its disheartening to see some of the few cards that actually would be used not voted in.