NEW SET : Card previews Catcher & SS & 2B ?

If cards as low as 5 starts have been included--and I'd like to know who those starters were and how many innings and actual games pitched they had--then Strat made a mistake. However, that doesn't mean they should throw all attempts at criteria for inclusion to the wind and let all the players in...and make another mistake. The unleashed set is still a good idea since players such as 2012 Reimold, Kozma, and Falu (and probably Lilly) with such minimal playing time and minimal actual production shouldn't come in and become the leaders for the regular set, regardless of how they're priced.

all from the 2011 season, included in the 2012 regular players set:

Greg Reynolds S5/R3, 32ip, 3 starts
Yunesky Maya, S5/R3, 33ip, 5 starts
Ramon Ortiz, S5/R3, 32 ip 2 starts
Nate Eovaldi, S5/R3, 35 ip, 6 starts
Andy Sonnanstine S5/R3 36ip 4 starts

That's just 5 guys from one year, but I could go on...

.

If cards as low as 5 starts have been included--and I'd like to know who those starters were and how many innings and actual games pitched they had--then Strat made a mistake. However, that doesn't mean they should throw all attempts at criteria for inclusion to the wind and let all the players in...and make another mistake. The unleashed set is still a good idea since players such as 2012 Reimold, Kozma, and Falu (and probably Lilly) with such minimal playing time and minimal actual production shouldn't come in and become the leaders for the regular set, regardless of how they're priced.

all from the 2011 season, included in the 2012 regular players set:

Greg Reynolds S5/R3, 32ip, 3 starts
Yunesky Maya, S5/R3, 33ip, 5 starts
Ramon Ortiz, S5/R3, 32 ip 2 starts
Nate Eovaldi, S5/R3, 35 ip, 6 starts
Andy Sonnanstine S5/R3 36ip 4 starts

That's just 5 guys from one year, but I could go on...

Left you speechless huh

Sorry Eovaldi had 6, but it was still under Lilly's 8 so I thought it worth including.

If cards as low as 5 starts have been included--and I'd like to know who those starters were and how many innings and actual games pitched they had--then Strat made a mistake. However, that doesn't mean they should throw all attempts at criteria for inclusion to the wind and let all the players in...and make another mistake. The unleashed set is still a good idea since players such as 2012 Reimold, Kozma, and Falu (and probably Lilly) with such minimal playing time and minimal actual production shouldn't come in and become the leaders for the regular set, regardless of how they're priced.

all from the 2011 season, included in the 2012 regular players set:

Greg Reynolds S5/R3, 32ip, 3 starts
Yunesky Maya, S5/R3, 33ip, 5 starts
Ramon Ortiz, S5/R3, 32 ip 2 starts
Nate Eovaldi, S5/R3, 35 ip, 6 starts
Andy Sonnanstine S5/R3 36ip 4 starts

That's just 5 guys from one year, but I could go on...

No, your list didn't leave me speechless.. ...I just accidentally pushed "submit" before I wrote anything.

I would definitely say that Maya and Eovaldi (and perhaps Sonnanstine) were mistakes, but I wouldn't say the same about Reynolds and Ortiz who look like relievers who happened to make starts. But regardless of these (and other) past mistakes, Strat is still being wise by avoiding making a greater mistake by throwing all criteria for inclusion to the wind and letting everybody in to the regular set. Players such as the 2012 Kozma, Orr, Falu, and Lilly (and the 2011 Eovaldi and Maya) with limited playing time and actual production shouldn't come in and become the leaders of (or even significant contributors to) the regular set, regardless of how they're priced.

No, your list didn't leave me speechless.. ...I just accidentally pushed "submit" before I wrote anything.

I would definitely say that Maya and Eovaldi (and perhaps Sonnanstine) were mistakes, but I wouldn't say the same about Reynolds and Ortiz who look like relievers who happened to make starts. But regardless of these (and other) past mistakes, Strat is still being wise by avoiding making a greater mistake by throwing all criteria for inclusion to the wind and letting everybody in to the regular set. Players such as the 2012 Kozma, Orr, Falu, and Lilly (and the 2011 Eovaldi and Maya) with limited playing time and actual production shouldn't come in and become the leaders of (or even significant contributors to) the regular set, regardless of how they're priced.

We'll agree to disagree, as I've said before I fail to see in a game that allows for pitching on 3 days rest, 200 inning RP's, platooning of guys who were never even pinch hit for in real life, why it's so problematic for a guy with limited at bats or innings pitched, to lead a statistical category, in what is basically a fantasy simulation game, or why it upsets so many of you that it might happen.

It simply boggles my mind.

No, your list didn't leave me speechless.. ...I just accidentally pushed "submit" before I wrote anything.

I would definitely say that Maya and Eovaldi (and perhaps Sonnanstine) were mistakes, but I wouldn't say the same about Reynolds and Ortiz who look like relievers who happened to make starts. But regardless of these (and other) past mistakes, Strat is still being wise by avoiding making a greater mistake by throwing all criteria for inclusion to the wind and letting everybody in to the regular set. Players such as the 2012 Kozma, Orr, Falu, and Lilly (and the 2011 Eovaldi and Maya) with limited playing time and actual production shouldn't come in and become the leaders of (or even significant contributors to) the regular set, regardless of how they're priced.

We'll agree to disagree, as I've said before I fail to see in a game that allows for pitching on 3 days rest, 200 inning RP's, platooning of guys who were never even pinch hit for in real life, why it's so problematic for a guy with limited at bats to or innings pitched, lead a statistical category, in what is basically a fantasy simulation game, or why it upsets so many of you that it might happen.

It simply boggles my mind.

We'll definitely agree to disagree. As I've said before (in other forums), there is a significant difference between having mild variation between the Stratomatic game and the actual MLB game it simulates and having radical[b][/b] variation between the two. Pitchers pitching on 3 games rest, 200 inning RP's, platooning of guys who were never even pinch hit for in real life constitutes mild variation since those occurrences do not radically differentiate from actual Major League play. Having players with minimal playing time and production (in MLB play) come in and become statistical leaders and/or major contributors in a Strat season, however, would create radical differentiation between the two systems...which would spoil the minimal semblance of reality making Strat so enjoyable. So those of us who support the existence of an Unleashed set for such players would not be "upset" if they were included in the regular set; we would just prefer they stay excluded to preserve that minimal "semblance of reality" we find so appealing about the game.

I call BS, sorry but RP that pitch over 200ip when they only go about 60-80 in real life, is a HUGELY radical variation between the game and real life. You can't spin that one any other way.

And I'll say it again, the game, in this format with 12 team leagues and salary caps and 162 games straight in a row in no way shape or form is realistic. You want realism but with variety?? get the CD-ROM and randomly assign all the players to 32 teams and run the sim, that's about the only way you'll get the perfect blend of "realism" and "game" you seem to be looking for.

2011 Josh Johnson had nine starts and was the best non * SP in the set.

I call BS, sorry but RP that pitch over 200ip when they only go about 60-80 in real life, is a HUGELY radical variation between the game and real life. You can't spin that one any other way.

And I'll say it again, the game in this format with 12 team leagues and salary caps andf 162 games staright in a row in no way shape or form is realistic. You want realism but with variety?? get the CD-ROM and randomly assign all the palyers to 32 teams and run the sim, that's about the only way you'll get the perfect blend of "realism" and "game" you seem to be looking for.

You know, ninersphan, I thought we were gonna be polite and agree to disagree, but since we're being frank now, I think your opinion on the matter is full of sh-t, too...but I'll give you a polite response anyway. The problem with your argument is you don't recognize the significant difference between variations in simulated game play from actual (Major League) play and variations between the models of a simulation (i.e. players' cards) and the actual things they represent(i.e. the players themselves and the seasons they had)...and how the latter allows for less deviation from the first in preserving minimal (or acceptable) semblance of reality.

The first variation (game play) can and will be greater because, as you yourself noted the simulation itself (The Strat Game) is considerably structurally different from actually Major League play. As you noted, there are only 12 teams and there are salary caps; there are also allowances for 17 hitters (among other differences); therefore, it is an accepted given that game play will vary from what it is simulating...we all know that such variations are unavoidable. So relief pitchers throwing 200 innings may be a deviation from major league play, but it Is an unfortunate example of variation produced by simulation, a variation that actually allows the game to be more successful in avoiding other variations in its simulation of gameplay.

Allowing players with minimal at bats and production to appear in Strat as statistical leaders or significant contributors would not have such an innocuous effect on the game's simulation and it's acceptable semblance of reality. Strat is a fantasy simulation, but it is a fantasy simulation of a real world. Its stadiums represent real stadiums, its teams represent real stadiums, and its players represent real players who had real seasons What makes Strat a successful fantasy simulation is its ability to most successfully reproduce those elements of that world. And if the players and the seasons they have in strat do not adequately represent actual players and the seasons they actually had, then Strat fails to adequately represent the world it simulates and fails as a simulation. Allowing players with minimal ABs and production to become statistical leaders or significant contributors would radically damage that minimal degree of representation that makes Stat successful...Matt Dominguez hitting 35 homers stretches that degree of representation; Pete Kozma leading the league in hitting snaps it.

Anyway, I hope you yourself enjoy that CD Rom you recommended, since your argument begs for a degree of "realism" and 'game" in Strat as well, albeit a different one than mine.

I call BS, sorry but RP that pitch over 200ip when they only go about 60-80 in real life, is a HUGELY radical variation between the game and real life. You can't spin that one any other way.

And I'll say it again, the game in this format with 12 team leagues and salary caps andf 162 games staright in a row in no way shape or form is realistic. You want realism but with variety?? get the CD-ROM and randomly assign all the palyers to 32 teams and run the sim, that's about the only way you'll get the perfect blend of "realism" and "game" you seem to be looking for.

You know, ninersphan, I thought we were gonna be polite and agree to disagree, but since we're being frank now, I think your opinion on the matter is full of sh-t, too...but I'll give you a polite response anyway. The problem with your argument is you don't recognize the significant difference between variations in simulated game play from actual (Major League) play and variations between the models of a simulation (i.e. players' cards) and the actual things they represent(i.e. the players themselves and the seasons they had)...and how the latter allows for less deviation from the first in preserving minimal (or acceptable) semblance of reality.

The first variation (game play) can and will be greater because, as you yourself noted the simulation itself (The Strat Game) is considerably structurally different from actually Major League play. As you noted, there are only 12 teams and there are salary caps; there are also allowances for 17 hitters (among other differences); therefore, it is an accepted given that game play will vary from what it is simulating...we all know that such variations are unavoidable. So relief pitchers throwing 200 innings may be a deviation from major league play, but it Is an unfortunate example of variation produced by simulation, a variation that actually allows the game to be more successful in avoiding other variations in its simulation of gameplay.

Allowing players with minimal at bats and production to appear in Strat as statistical leaders or significant contributors would not have such an innocuous effect on the game's simulation and it's acceptable semblance of reality. Strat is a fantasy simulation, but it is a fantasy simulation of a real world. Its stadiums represent real stadiums, its teams represent real stadiums, and its players represent real players who had real seasons What makes Strat a successful fantasy simulation is its ability to most successfully reproduce those elements of that world. And if the players and the seasons they have in strat do not adequately represent actual players and the seasons they actually had, then Strat fails to adequately represent the world it simulates and fails as a simulation. Allowing players with minimal ABs and production to become statistical leaders or significant contributors would radically damage that minimal degree of representation that makes Stat successful...Matt Dominguez hitting 35 homers stretches that degree of representation; Pete Kozma leading the league in hitting snaps it.

Anyway, I hope you yourself enjoy that CD Rom you recommended, since your argument begs for a degree of "realism" and 'game" in Strat as well, albeit a different one than mine.

WOW,

I'm not that wordy, so probably not that smart ( doff of the cap to you) but I'll give it a go, the reason I don't have a problem with Kozma and the others on the leader board is simple, his card is the way it is, 'cause that's the way he produced from the previous season. Was his (their) appearances limited ? Yes, but as you stated, the game doesn't allow for that. And, who's to say that if his appearances weren't limited in real life, that he wouldn't have gone on to produce a break through season?? But that's not even the real reason I'm against keeping them all in.

My biggest problem is, there is no set criteria for inclusion/exclusion, it's a constantly moving target. I've already shown you cases you stated were mistakes by the powers that be. And simply because of the mere fact that from a marketing standpoint, now that they've gone down this road, they have to make at least 8-12 cards Unleashed to justify having a separate set which leads to problems like last year where maybe 4 guys were truly unleashed ( Moss being the poster child based on past years, yet he wasn't) and the rest didn't.
If you just include everybody, there's no mistakes. The salary is great equalizer, price these cards high enough and they won't come into play in most leagues, just the high salary cap ones. And therefore won't be on most of the leader boards. Problem solved, your happy, I'm happy. There's no disagreements.

And you still haven't addressed the how RP pitching 200+ ( in the early years it was not uncommon for Gagne to be getting 250+ in some leagues) is any more "realistic" then Pete Kozma being on some simulation stats leader boards for batting average.

And 1 more time. the game in this format is not a simulation. The ONLY time it's a simulation is when you use the cards exactly as the real season played out, limiting at bats, innings pitched and setting match ups exactly as they happened. Once you mix the players up, it becomes a big game of "what if", in in a game of "what if", why does it matter who is on a leader board??

Sorry it just doesn't matter to me.

Great discussion though, thank you for your responses.

P.S. I've never bought the CD-Rom, I just play here, though I used to be in a face-to-face league in the early 90's