1940 Hank Greenberg

IN 1908 Johnny Evers played 1 part of 1 game 2.2 innings in RF, yet he is rated for CF, LF and RF why is that? He never played in the outfield at any other time. Seems like that is a bigger fielding miss than listing the greatest 1B of all time in Detroit at 1B. Or all the pitchers who were primarily relievers who are listed only as starters, the list is too numerous to mention here. Honus Wagner pitched in 1900 and yet we have no pitching card for him and he put in 3 innings as a pitcher 1 more than Evers in the outfield. Ralph Garr’s 1979 card has him playing RF yet he played only LF and DH in 1979 .

In 1976 Pete Rose played all of one inning in RF and for that we can play him 162 games in RF? In 1968 Pete Rose did not play LF yet we have him rated as a 1 -2 e3 about one of the best fielding LF in baseball, but the prior year he did play 124 games in LF so I assume he could play it…..

Also a player is rated for RF in 1921 that never played an inning in RF in 1921 —— Babe Ruth and the 1923 card does not show him eligible for CF even though he started 7 games there….

For those that are worried about Stratomatic purity and the grievous error of allowing Hank Greenberg to be listed as able to play 1B…..

Yes, all of those bother me. I have no question that Pete Rose could play leftfield. Obviously he could, but he didn't in 1968, so he shouldn't be listed there on his 1968 card. Ruth shouldn't be listed as a rightfielder in 1921 and should be listed as a centerfielder in 1923 and Garr shouldn't be a rightfielder in 1979. And if there are hundreds of examples like those (including the Cedeno and Clemente years you cite), then they need to be addressed (and incidentally repriced -- just like the whole set). Strat prides itself on being historically accurate, on delving into the boxscores in order to tweak the cards. And yet something as simple as what position someone played (though I will admit that early 20th century baseball has difficulties in boxscore notation that are still being explored) is treated as something negligible. This is indicative of a larger point. Either we are playing a game that has its basis in historical fact or we are just playing a game with made-up figures and position placements. I had presumed the former, but if people are happy with a fantasy-type experience with numbers and stats pulled from who knows where, so be it. As for calling me an apostle of purity, I'll accept that. Though I have never understood the attraction of complete season replays...