Unleashed vs Regular set, My annual rant

How much more whining on this topic will there be? I bet another 2 pages before the last whimper of not being able to see a Ted Lilly card in the regular game set for another year. Good Lord, I bet Lilly himself doesn't care this much...if he did, he would just play the unleashed set.

Controversy? Hardly.

It's not about Lilly, he's just the latest example, it's about getting rid of the unleashed set and just having one set.

If it bothers you you do not have to read it.

and I do play unleashed, where I'm able.

It does bother me and I will read it because if you have your way, I'll be stuck playing with the unleashed set. You can pontificate all you want, but SOM has given us a choice. The majority appreciate there is a standard set and an unleashed set, and the majority prefer the standard set.

Now if your goal is to convince more people to play unleashed, go for it. If you want to argue about specific cards that's okay, too. But when you suggest that SOM take away our choice, that's just wrong. You are welcome to your opinion except when your opinion is to take away my opinion!

If you can convince the masses that unleashed is the way to go, more power to you. But is SOM for some reason listened to you and gave us just one set, then it would be shame on you (and them).

i'm in favor of certain players getting the unleashed designation. I recognize it's a fine line and maybe not always so easy to make sense of but I do gain solace by the presence of the unleashed. To me it's sort of like Casper, the friendly ghost. I know it's there and I feel comforted because it looks out for the best interests of this game. There, I'm calling it Casper from now on.

Well, maybe not always...

And congratulations to Moss owners in Keeper leagues. You just got a Reggie Jackson card. A Babe Ruth card. A Lou Gehrig card. He's Brandon fricken Moss! Ugh. Sorry, I would never have made him part of the normal card set. No way. Maybe with over 400 at-bats. Definitely 600. But not 200+ ab's with his lackluster history.

When I picture true all-time greats my mind doesn't come close to Brandon freakin Moss. Yet his card is sure to be included in that SOM set very soon I would think. For not even half a season of at bats?

I suppose I'm the antithesis to Ninersphan in this area of the game. I say the game just tarnished itself a little by including Moss in the regular set. He's not that good. No where close to it. Give me a break.

i'm in favor of certain players getting the unleashed designation. I recognize it's a fine line and maybe not always so easy to make sense of but I do gain solace by the presence of the unleashed. To me it's sort of like Casper, the friendly ghost. I know it's there and I feel comforted because it looks out for the best interests of this game. There, I'm calling it Casper from now on.

Well, maybe not always...

And congratulations to Moss owners in Keeper leagues. You just got a Reggie Jackson card. A Babe Ruth card. A Lou Gehrig card. He's Brandon fricken Moss! Ugh. Sorry, I would never have made him part of the normal card set. No way. Maybe with over 400 at-bats. Definitely 600. But not 200+ ab's with his lackluster history.

When I picture true all-time greats my mind doesn't come close to Brandon freakin Moss. Yet his card is sure to be included in that SOM set very soon I would think. For not even half a season of at bats?

I suppose I'm the antithesis to Ninersphan in this area of the game. I say the game just tarnished itself a little by including Moss in the regular set. He's not that good. No where close to it. Give me a break.

And there you go, the other side of the problem. I'd agree the unleashed was a necessary evil if only the powers that make the decison were consistent in who they left in and who they took out. Make it consistent from year to year so it's predictable before the fact and I'll get off my soap box. But like fred, I'd agree that Moss had way more business being in the unleashed set this year than, Lilly, Luna, or Snyder.

Well, the only thing I can say is that LIlly is better than the other two so that probably played into it. Lilly would have probably been close to $7 mil. Anderson even more.

As for Valdes, he was in 27 games. That's a lot of games.

I guess I'm in favor of putting guys in the unleashed who could be considered not representative of the season; and are "super stars" or dominant via one side or the other.

If you like unleashed, simply play unleashed. <shrug>

I would agree, however, that it seems a bit random at times and I'm sure guys who maybe *should* be excluded (e.g. Feliz) that don't.

Why not take it one step further, and give us the table top league option of 110%... Could be an option of unleashed. 200 at bats for moss.. turns into 220... 27 games pitched for an R1 pitcher, turns into 30 games, or 30 IP...

I will not play the unleashed. However, if Unleashed offered a 110% useage option... THAT, would be the only game I played, as it would bring us closest to the real thing, than has ever been offered.

I smell a theme league coming on...

Why not take it one step further, and give us the table top league option of 110%... Could be an option of unleashed. 200 at bats for moss.. turns into 220... 27 games pitched for an R1 pitcher, turns into 30 games, or 30 IP...

I will not play the unleashed. However, if Unleashed offered a 110% useage option... THAT, would be the only game I played, as it would bring us closest to the real thing, than has ever been offered.

I smell a theme league coming on...

I think your suggestion would be better served for the regular set, how "Unleashed" can a player be if you impose a limit.

For the record, not a game I'd play, or even be the least bit interested in. I don't play this game for the realism, as I believe I've already amply pointed out. I certianly wouldn't oppose a set with those parameter's but it wouldn't be my cup of tea anymore than the unleashed set is your'ss or coyote's

Just because many things about the on-line game are "not realistic" in relation to real MLB happenings does not mean that you can then say, "why eliminating anything that is unrealistic?". I like the realism.

Many of the computer only players have as few as 8 at bats or as little as 4 innings pitched. Those cards are created for people who are replaying the season exactly as it was played,..which is not my cup of tea but I understand it.

I like a nice balance of realism and fantasy.... For instance; the real life Cleveland Indians are starting Michael Brantley in LF, Michael Bourn in CF, and Drew Stubbs in RF in 2013. In 2012 all three of those outfielders are only rated for play in CF. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO START CFers IN RIGHT AND LEFT FIELD WITH NO RANGE PENALTY, THE WAY REAL MLB TEAMS DO. This should have been changed years ago, you can do it with the CD-ROM, WHY NOT HERE?

Just because many things about the on-line game are "not realistic" in relation to real MLB happenings does not mean that you can then say, "why eliminating anything that is unrealistic?". I like the realism.

Many of the computer only players have as few as 8 at bats or as little as 4 innings pitched. Those cards are created for people who are replaying the season exactly as it was played,..which is not my cup of tea but I understand it.

I like a nice balance of realism and fantasy.... For instance; the real life Cleveland Indians are starting Michael Brantley in LF, Michael Bourn in CF, and Drew Stubbs in RF in 2013. In 2012 all three of those outfielders are only rated for play in CF. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO START CFers IN RIGHT AND LEFT FIELD WITH NO RANGE PENALTY, THE WAY REAL MLB TEAMS DO. This should have been changed years ago, you can do it with the CD-ROM, WHY NOT HERE?

Totally agree with this, it's in the board game too. Have neveer understood why it wasn't included.