Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

As 17.2 is coming to a close I wanted to start a conversation around the direction of 17.3. There are already some spirited posts on the topic...feel free to add your $0.02, who knows it might be worth more.

reposting the current annual cadence:
Spring Training Add or 17.1
February
25 Cards - Focus is on Pre-Exp players
Reasoning, our 16.1 and 16.2 Add was heavy on EXP players

Early Season Add or 17.2
May
25 Cards - Focus OPEN

Summer Add or 17.3
August
50 Cards - 1 whole team + 25, Focus to be based on May ADD

Fall Classic Add or 17.4
November
25 Cards - Focus OPEN or another Team here?

Of course always happy to open this up for discussion.
tks
Rosie

andycummings65
And any of these guys with 10 or so years in MLB with No Card.

FRANKMANSUETO
Agree with Andy on this. The next round should ONLY be for players without cards that will help in filling in gaps with any team through the years. Enough of players getting a 4th or 5th card.

Salty
Gents==

this has already become a franchise heavy process--
quite frankly for those of us who play higher caps it kind of sux;
Im not blaming anyone, although would have much preferred the process to only include 50 cards from the outset.

BC15NY

I guess it's all in the perspective. When I see Roger Metzger keep getting nominated but never voted in, along with almost every Rays player coming up empty, it doesn't seem like a franchise-heavy process to me at all. A lot of cards from the last add can only be played at higher caps, as I recall. (Ferdie Schupp, etc.)

Rosie2167

The beauty of this process is that we can dictate the parameters; no previous cards, high end, low end, lefties that had mustaches...whatever. We can bat that around after this vote.

I'm curious in particular with Salty's comments. Salty - to you what kind of card is playable at the higher caps. I have my idea but I think you probably play in those leagues way more than I do. tks

Salty

Thank you for asking-- and for BC--
no, there were only a few players in the last add that were suitable for high caps.

Basically if a guy is getting on base less than 40-45% on the card forget it-- they will essentially suck unless its all HRs, but even then maybe not.

So--- depending on position of course b/c guys that play 2b, SS and maybe C probably need to have an OPS around .950 or above and/or get on base at least 50% of the time vs. righties and/or maybe 55% vs. lefties (in a platoon situation either side works) and of course middle inf. need to be a 1 or a 2.
There are plenty of 1bs and DHs so they would need to be higher, defense means a lot less.

IF its an RF, LF or CF or 3B should be a 1 or a 2 in the field maybe a 3 if they can crush it. OPS of at least 1.000 imo.

So a couple of the cards that I wouldve used that were nominated were obviously Cano but also Chris Davis, and I think there are a few of the cards left like Snider, maybe Stargell, maybe a couple of the RPs, I mean haven't seen their cards so don't know. and def the Kershaw card would be used. The new TW and Mantle might work, potentially the Sheffield card of course the Bonds card could be used.

I like to look at the data so here's the breakdown from all 100 cards that we've added during this new process.

Salary - Total/Batters/Pitchers
10m+ - 5/2/3
9 - 8/6/2
8 - 15/8/7
7 - 22/16/6
6 - 14/9/5
5 - 14/11/3
4 - 11/7/4
3 - 5/3/2
2 - 1/1/0
1 - 3/1/2
0 - 2/2/0

All - 100/66/34

Ok let's get specific, adding my opinion but curious of all of yours
Batters
10m+ - Harper, Trout - both high cap contributors
9m - Foxx'38, Goldschmidt, Lezcano (vL), Miguel Cabrera, Thome (vR), Josh Hamilton (vR) - all high cappers with their stated leanings, although Foxx's 13m card is his preferred
8m - Flick, Bottomley, Delahanty'1899, McCutchen (vL), Ken Williams, Brouthers, Colavito, Votto (vR) - borderline based on Salty's parameters but I can see/have seen all these guys find homes in higher caps
7m - Kiner'51, Holiday, Kent, Ott'38, Schoendienst'53, Braun, Hanley Ramirez, Donaldson, Adcock, Vernon...stopped there. Kiner for sure although we all know he has a better card, Holiday ok, Kent no, Ott probably not. Donaldson and Adcock I see as yes.

Starting Pitchers
10m+ - Russ Ford, Schupp, Greinke - yep
9m - Arrieta, Randy - mostly yes on these two although their lefty lean does pose some problems
8m - Ellsworth, McDowell, Hahn, Hunter, Scherzer, Pascual, Shantz - hmmm, as 4th starters?
7m - Horlen'64, Peavy, Bumgarner, Felix Hernandez'14, Jose Fernandez, Sale - again depends on how much cap you're playing but these guys could also make those rosters

Relievers
4m - Lidge, Abernathy, Eichorn (vR) - Lidge yes, Abernathy (hmmm), Eichorn yes vR
3m - Mesa, Fingers - Mesa maybe Fingers no


So cards that can compete at higher caps...batters 10-20, SP 5-15, RP 2-4

We did test the 75 cards from 16.1 16.2 out in this league...but it was at $100m.
http://365.strat-o-matic.com/league/432084

I'm in basic agreement about adding players who have no cards. BUT..not in this add. For the reason that with a 50 card add, adding one whole team PLUS 25 players who dont' have a card before makes it all but impossible that any high end cards get added. In this case , the whole team (Tampa?) should represent the "new players without cards" and the other 25 should be open.

Speaking of Tampa Bay , and I'm not picking on them, but since we basically have known for awhile that we'd be putting a whole franchise in, why put in the Longoria card ahead of time? Seems like that makes it kind of a wasted pick.

PS I still can't believe that the Cano card didn't make it this round

STEVE F wrote:I'm in basic agreement about adding players who have no cards. BUT..not in this add. For the reason that with a 50 card add, adding one whole team PLUS 25 players who dont' have a card before makes it all but impossible that any high end cards get added. In this case , the whole team (Tampa?) should represent the "new players without cards" and the other 25 should be open.

Speaking of Tampa Bay , and I'm not picking on them, but since we basically have known for awhile that we'd be putting a whole franchise in, why put in the Longoria card ahead of time? Seems like that makes it kind of a wasted pick.

PS I still can't believe that the Cano card didn't make it this round

Couple reasons IMO we need to avoid saving spots is
1) the proposed cadence isn't set in stone. If we as a community decide that using 25 cards on a franchise isn't the best use of our picks than we pivot. For the record it is my preferred direction to add a franchise.
2) If we indeed stay the course and add a whole club, which club/yr is up for debate.

Overall I agree with your observation about the likelyhood of a high cap card getting into the next add, but there's probably a compromise in there somewhere depending on the collective community opinion.

The above statement I made on the card voting thread was in reference to the current vote add. There are some cards in this vote for players who played in MLB for over a decade who don't have a card. I'm not at all opposed to adding cards for players who already have a card in principle.

I am confused about why Cuckoo Christensen has 30something votes already, while other players with substantial careers can't get any traction in the voting process.

Rosie2167 wrote:

STEVE F wrote:I'm in basic agreement about adding players who have no cards. BUT..not in this add. For the reason that with a 50 card add, adding one whole team PLUS 25 players who dont' have a card before makes it all but impossible that any high end cards get added. In this case , the whole team (Tampa?) should represent the "new players without cards" and the other 25 should be open.

Speaking of Tampa Bay , and I'm not picking on them, but since we basically have known for awhile that we'd be putting a whole franchise in, why put in the Longoria card ahead of time? Seems like that makes it kind of a wasted pick.

PS I still can't believe that the Cano card didn't make it this round

Couple reasons IMO we need to avoid saving spots is
1) the proposed cadence isn't set in stone. If we as a community decide that using 25 cards on a franchise isn't the best use of our picks than we pivot. For the record it is my preferred direction to add a franchise.
2) If we indeed stay the course and add a whole club, which club/yr is up for debate.

Overall I agree with your observation about the likelyhood of a high cap card getting into the next add, but there's probably a compromise in there somewhere depending on the collective community opinion.

I'm sure hoping we stick with adding a franchise and I think it should be the 2008 Rays for obvious reasons. The Rays have only 3 cards in the entire set and don't even warrant being listed in the drop-down of teams in the ATG player set browser. They are the only one of the 4 newest teams even remotely in this condition and it won't be fixed this century by voting their player cards in (or not) one at a time.

Thanks,
Bill

STEVE F wrote:I'm in basic agreement about adding players who have no cards. BUT..not in this add. For the reason that with a 50 card add, adding one whole team PLUS 25 players who dont' have a card before makes it all but impossible that any high end cards get added. In this case , the whole team (Tampa?) should represent the "new players without cards" and the other 25 should be open.

Speaking of Tampa Bay , and I'm not picking on them, but since we basically have known for awhile that we'd be putting a whole franchise in, why put in the Longoria card ahead of time? Seems like that makes it kind of a wasted pick.

PS I still can't believe that the Cano card didn't make it this round

Im pretty much in agreement with Steve here.
Like the idea of 25 cards going to non-carded players and maybe could focus on adding some of the best cards in each franchise that aren't already in?
However this is done would be far superior to me than getting a team of guys where you have many players that really wouldn't get used except maybe for a very specific circumstance.

then 25 that would be done in another fashion-- obviously would love to have what I mentioned above regarding the cards for 200 mil and above.

and Steve thank you for empathizing regarding Cano--
Hes basically Joe Morgans best card but with more Power and even better defense, can't figure that one out.
And again, nothing against Vidro but the card isn't nearly as good.

We should do a all 90's add. Lots of players without cards. Most of the players we do have cards for are not their best card.

Salty wrote:

STEVE F wrote:I'm in basic agreement about adding players who have no cards. BUT..not in this add. For the reason that with a 50 card add, adding one whole team PLUS 25 players who dont' have a card before makes it all but impossible that any high end cards get added. In this case , the whole team (Tampa?) should represent the "new players without cards" and the other 25 should be open.

Speaking of Tampa Bay , and I'm not picking on them, but since we basically have known for awhile that we'd be putting a whole franchise in, why put in the Longoria card ahead of time? Seems like that makes it kind of a wasted pick.

PS I still can't believe that the Cano card didn't make it this round

Im pretty much in agreement with Steve here.
Like the idea of 25 cards going to non-carded players and maybe could focus on adding some of the best cards in each franchise that aren't already in?
However this is done would be far superior to me than getting a team of guys where you have many players that really wouldn't get used except maybe for a very specific circumstance.

then 25 that would be done in another fashion-- obviously would love to have what I mentioned above regarding the cards for 200 mil and above.

and Steve thank you for empathizing regarding Cano--
Hes basically Joe Morgans best card but with more Power and even better defense, can't figure that one out.
And again, nothing against Vidro but the card isn't nearly as good.

I think we should definitely stick with the team add, as planned, otherwise we will never have decent representation for the 4 newest franchises. Also, the full team adds are a good way to get a fresh crop of lower priced bench players and pitchers, that would never get added outside of as part of a team. Just because these types of cards aren't used by the high-cap crowd, doesn't mean they don't get used.

How many people are playing mostly at 200m and above, compared to 60-100m? Most of the cards the 200m crowd wants will likely rarely get used at 60m, if at all. So, it's all in how you play the game. I'd like to see a card for all players with 5 years or more in MLB. I also think that should be the threshold for getting a card at all.

I would hate to see this process get completely high-jacked by the high-cap lovers. The standard cap is 80m.

Thanks,
Bill