Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

Stratomatic counts a PLATE APPEARANCE as:

PA's = AB's + BB's


MLB's definition of a PLATE APPEARANCE is:

PA's = AB's + BB's + HBP's + SF's

visick, I voted no just for simplicity sake. Since HBP and Sacrifice Flies are not shown on a SOM card it would be difficult for the average SOM Manager to know if they had a 3 games max or 15 games max player. It is very easy to simply add the AB and BB to know as it is now. Is it perfect? No, but it works for this game in my opinion.

Thanks for voting Randy. I somehow knew you would vote no.

I get it, but don't get it.

If you can add 2 columns, there's a good chance you can add 4 columns.

I'm not a programmer. But it's a simple database thing. Add 2 more columns on the player card as well.

IMO, the graphs on the player cards are pointless. Who asked for them? Get rid of them. Make room for accuracy.
Go check out some of the quotes I pulled from the Strat site on the other thread.

They are claiming STATISTICAL ACCURACY, and STATISTICAL REALISM. Yet, they aren't delivering it.

A plate appearance refers to a batter's turn at the plate. Each completed turn batting is one plate appearance. Plate appearances can often be confused with at-bats. But unlike with at-bats -- which only occur on certain results -- a plate appearance takes into account every single time a batter comes up and a result between batter and pitcher is obtained.

Total plate appearances are used to determine which players have qualified for the batting title; at-bats are not used for this purpose, even though at-bats are used to decipher batting average.

My guess is I have no idea and it is Friday after a 65 hour work week. I am so happy that I could help us all understand nothing from my post. As always it is the message that matters most

Voted yes, not even sure why they do otherwise.

Bombers explained why he voted No - I don’t agree but I understand his point. Wish other No votes would chime in as to why the are not in favor...very curious

I'd also like the no voters to chime in, if they want to.

And chasenally, what's your message got to do with the price of rice in China?

I voted no because salaries are presumably impacted, albeit slightly, by plate appearances, so, unless salaries are slightly adjusted to reflect the new definition of plate appearances the issue is not being addressed in its totality. If the goal is to get the 5 million player to be worth 5.50 million without adjusting his salary, then, I suppose that's a reason to vote yes. Be cautious of any improvement tweaks that affect the relationship of the salary/performance variables.

I agree that the prices would change too.

But for a company to claim it's game is realistic, with statistical accuracy and then not have it, it doesn't make sense.

So if the prices are adjusted accordingly, you would register a YES vote?

visick wrote:I agree that the prices would change too.

But for a company to claim it's game is realistic, with statistical accuracy and then not have it, it doesn't make sense.

So if the prices are adjusted accordingly, you would register a YES vote?

Sure. I'm always in favor of a pollmeister changing the wording of a question until he gets the votes he needs!

hahahaha

I just assumed we all knew the prices would be adjusted accordingly...