Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

Based on Cobb's real stats for 3 of his seasons, he had 0 strikeouts. But on his cards there are bunch of strikeouts for those 3 seasons. Even the 6,7,8 roll has strikeouts. Why would his cards have strikeouts as an outcome if he didnt have any in real life play? If strikeout has to be added, then why not on the 10,11, or 12 roll?

Thanks

Cannot speak specifically to the card creation for Cobb in this case, but SOM has always had to make judgements to fill data gaps.

In this case, it would have been that batter strikeout data was either not collected, not available, or deemed unreliable.

This is common with older cards. The data fidelity did not exist. Some years or for some players there were no failed steal attempts, pickoffs, double plays, ground balls to a specific fielder, flyballs to a specific fielder, popups, strikeouts, etc.
A practical example is old time pitchers who don't have gbAs--there is no data.

For these cases, they have to make judgements, and just like the historical weather data smoothing we would do back in the day--you fill in the blanks with data you think may have been there, or you change the data to what fits a perception based on what you think you know.

Sometimes I believe SOM has relied on extensive manuscript-type evidence to make decisions on player tendencies if no other data existed or was unreliably documented. After all, how do you quantize the speed of a batter from 1889 or 1922 with something between 8-17? Or their bunting, etc. This is why super advanced can be a curse for those older cards.

SOM had a reason for doing that to Cobb--maybe it was love notes to his mistresses that said "Babe I struck out 10 times this week and I am gonna beat the next guy with my bat who strikes me out"

Ok, well that makes sense thanks for replying. I have often wondered how cards from those early days were created since data collection would have been sparse, lost to time or not reliable.

But having 7 roll with strikeout for a hitter like Cobb seems a bit extreme, even if the data or numbers are not there to say either way. Guess have to trust SOM did their research and used best educated decision on some of these old timer cards.

FrankieT wrote:



SOM had a reason for doing that to Cobb--maybe it was love notes to his mistresses that said "Babe I struck out 10 times this week and I am gonna beat the next guy with my bat who strikes me out"

LMAO!

Cobb stuck out 467 times in 13,103 plate appearances. Babe Ruth got 7 of those in just 76 plate appearances Cobb had against the Babe.

Cobb wrote love notes to Ruth?

PATRICKCASSIDY wrote:Cobb wrote love notes to Ruth?

Not that there is anything wrong with that...
But yeah, maybe. Prove it didn't happen!
Especially you SteveF!

Well played.

PETERLE wrote:Ok, well that makes sense thanks for replying. I have often wondered how cards from those early days were created since data collection would have been sparse, lost to time or not reliable.

But having 7 roll with strikeout for a hitter like Cobb seems a bit extreme, even if the data or numbers are not there to say either way. Guess have to trust SOM did their research and used best educated decision on some of these old timer cards.

And I wasn't arguing the for/against SOM's card construction, nor is SOM infallible...but just some of the reasons why individual seasons or stats are sometimes "fudged". As I said, I was not making any specific reference to Cobb, just to their process in general on older players. Charlie gave ground truth at least in the aggregate for his career.

And pretty amazing that he had that rate against the Babe vs what he was against all others.

When lovers let their emotions interfere, sometimes it's a performance drag. "Cobb may have had tears in his eyes after the Babe told him he was getting a little thick in the hips," said an anonymous source who went by the name "Blue".
Hard to see the fastball if that's the case.

And I wasn't arguing the for/against SOM's card construction, nor is SOM infallible..

SOM is not infallible?

Well hate to break it to you...