Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

If there are any fans of the hilarious Star Trek parody Galaxy Quest out there, you'll know that the stirring if somewhat redundant rallying cry "Never give up! Never surrender!" is the tagline of Capt. Jason Nesmith (the Kirk wanabee), played by Tim Allen.

Anyway, "Never give up! Never surrender!" became the rallying cry of this recent Minute Maid team.
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/821461

This team started with a a grim 17-31 record (.354 w/l, 12 games out of first, 14 below .500). After 75 games--with almost half the season gone-- we were just 32-43, still ten games out of first. I haven't had much luck in righty parks, but I thought the team seemed basically sound, and I didn't make any changes even after the terrible start.

That sad prelude is all here in the team schedule, yet the beginning isn't the whole story.
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/schedule/821461

In fact, the team managed to pull itself together, reach 90 wins, take the division title, and ultimately win a ring. That means we went 73-42 (.635) after the first 48 games, and we were 58-29 (.667) after the first 75 games. I did have some long injuries early on to key players, but it's still hard to figure how the same guys played .354 for the first 48 and .635 for the rest of the season. I think maybe the difference was largely luck. My hitters and pitchers just started getting really good rolls instead of really bad rolls. Most of my pitchers cut a run or more off their ERA's in the second half. The team ended on a 13-1 tear and went 8-3 in the playoffs. They also had a ten game regular-season winning streak, but also put together two six game losing streaks, one of them part of a 1-9 free-fall.

I am basically just offering this up as an example of how much changeablity there is in the game--and also perhaps as an object lesson in why it's not always a good idea to tear apart a team that isn't winning. Sometimes patience is a virtue.

Has anyone else had similar experiences with team turn-arounds, good or bad?

Meanwhile, remember the Capt Nesmith's immortal words, "Never give up! Never surrender!"

So, there's hope for me at 14-37?

this is one of the reasons why we play... managing a team to win a flag, and then a title... feels good...

This team was dead in the water for most of the season, then had a furious rally in the last 30 games to steal the division title: http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/807925.

At the 50-game mark, they were 17-33, and ten games out of first. At the 80-game mark, they were 30-50, they were 31-49- on pace for 99 losses. After 106 games, they bottomed out at 20 games under .500 (43-63), and thirteen games out of first. Although they started to play better, they still didn't pick up much ground in the standings-- after 134 games, they were 61-73, and 11 games out of first with just 28 games left.

Given that I'm responding to this post, you can probably figure out what happened... they won 19 out of 20 (including 14 in a row), and 24 of the final 28 games of the season to win the division by three games. Alas, the magic ran out in the playoffs, as they blew a 3-1 lead to a 100-win team.

I didn't make any major personnel changes, and at most, tinkered with some of the bullpen settings. They even had some injuries down the stretch to Pujols and Charleston, but kept on winning. I nearly pulled the trigger on cutting Sam McDowell after a 3-10 start... and he ended up 20-13.

dukie98 wrote: Although they started to play better, they still didn't pick up much ground in the standings-- after 134 games, they were 61-73, and 11 games out of first with just 28 games left.

In some ways, this comeback is even more impressive, since it began much later and dug you out of a deeper hole.

I nearly pulled the trigger on cutting Sam McDowell after a 3-10 start... and he ended up 20-13.

Or as Capt. Nesmith might say: "Never give up! Never cut Sam McDowell!"

paolocosmo wrote:So, there's hope for me at 14-37?

You never know!

I pick and choose my spots to surrender...and in SOM I am giving up. EVERY ONE (except one) of my hitters is about 100 points below real-life stats (BA and OBP) and EVERY ONE (except one) of my pitchers is AT LEAST a full point (or more) above real-life WHIP and ERA. I don't buy the bad luck argument. Bad luck for everyone on the whole team? Just smells too fishy to me. I can accept losing if my players are at least performing close to they way are supposed to- but not as a mere crapshoot. After this season I am done with SOM-I found another game, Dynasty Baseball, which looks far more realistic, and probably gives newbies a little more chance of being competitive. Too bad, because I really wanted to like this game but the player real-life stats seem totally irrelevant to what happens in the game. Either that, or the games are fixed in favor of the more senior customers.

I will give you that senior players have an edge. Because they have a better idea who the real values are and who is overpriced. And they will have a better feel for the trend of what players are going high in autodrafts and what players are slipping. And they put more time in to it. Who tends to be the best free throw shooter, the guy who just goes out and shoots once a month or the guy who spends hours each night?

But do not buy in to any theory Strat wrote in code that helps a vets teams do better. I love a good conspiracy theory. But this one is falling flat.

Regarding hitters being below real life and pitchers being above real life that is exactly what I would expect. After all hitters are hitting against all time great pitching and pitchers are pitching against all time great hitters.

Thanks for bringing back a nice memory. Absolutely loved that movie. Loved the tagline. And the character who was in a panic because he had not been given a last name was great.

Oh, and nice encouraging Strat story too.

Tim, I feel your pain. There is an enormous difference between playing face to face, which I have done for 25 years, and playing the computer game. I and my face to face opponents have taken many a team which by computer standards is not competitive, and wrecked much havoc and heartache on opposing dugouts. We have an old saying that there is no opponent you would feel comfortable against in a must win situation. However, in the computer game, I feel I am beaten before I even take the field. I realize there is a learning curve involved with this, but Hal's often stupid decisions (like trying to steal with 2 outs in the ninth & down by a run) really put a damper on this experience. Overall, i'm disappointed.