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

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. [/quote]


This is a great discussion, which is ironic since it all started with Scooter Gennett.

First of all, I completely agree with you about criteria. Strat should either set fixed criteria for inclusion or establish general criteria with established principles for changing that criteria. However, simply including all players and pricing them accordingly would not make everyone happy since, as has been stated before, many of us do not want to see players with minimal production and appearances in major league play coming in and dominating Strat play, regardless of their salary.

I did address how a reliever having 200+ IP was more "realistic" than Kozma leading the league in hitting; you need to go back to my last post and read again. If you have problems with the arguments I make there, I would be happy to address them.

Finally, Stratomatic is ABSOLUTELY a simulation. Simulation by definition means "reproduction of the essential features of something," or an "imitation;" it is NOT an exact reproduction of something. Stratomatic baseball doesn't exactly reproduce major league baseball but it absolutely, if not entirely or entirely successfully, simulates major league baseball and major league baseball play. So the players actually do matter. Nobody would want to play this game if all the cards were merely assigned numbers and given random data on those cards; a major part of the game is that minimal semblance between the player cards and the actual players they represent..........and I'm sure it even matters to you, perhaps to a lesser degree.

As someone who had dealt away Longoria in a deal that brought back a few pieces including Lily last year in a keeper league, Lilly not getting the card with his 8 starts but Jeff Niemann with the same number of starts and I think 16 fewer innings getting a card was a huge issue for me. You can imagine how tired my league mates were of hearing my complaint.

Again we'll agree to disagree, I did read your explanation of why you think a 200+ inning RP is "realistic" and it doesn't wash, at least not to my way of thinking. It amounts to the same thing, Your basic argument is the unleashed guys, if allowed in would squew the leader boards, basically because they'd be used more in the game than in real life. Well guess what, that's exactly what happens when a RP that threw 65 innings in real life is allowed to throw for 200+ which the game engine allows. So I'm sorry but I fail to see why one is okay and the other isn't, simple as that.

And here's the other thing you (and the rest of the leave em out crowd) haven't explained to me either, why the hell does it matter so much to you?? It's incongruous to be okay with the RP pitching 200+ but be so offended when a Kozma is in the top 10 for batting average??? I just don't get it, and I probably never will.

I'll tell you why leaving em in matters to me though. I pretty much only play in keeper leagues, some use the unleashed set, most don't though (much to my chagrin). As part of most keeper leagues we are allowed to draft uncarded prospect players, sometimes years before they appear in the game. Many times it's exactly theses types that are left out of the regular set when they get their first card, for a keeper owner I can't tell you how frustrating it is to have drafted a guy, held him on your roster, sometimes for 2 or 3 years and then not be able to reap the reward because somebody feels it's such an affront to the baseball gods to have his name on a leader board.

I still think the unleashed set is a good idea, as I think players who have played less than 40 games and had less than 80 ABs (maybe 100)--such as 2012 Reimold, Orr, Kozma, and Falu--shouldn't be among the dominant cards in the set. And there should be 10-15 players this year with such sparse playing time and skewed statistics, so I would think that Gennett (with his 213 ABs and 69 games played) would be included in this year's regular set.

As to Lilly with his 8 starts, I could see a theoretical argument being made for his (or any sp with 8 starts) inclusion, but Strat apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) has set the minimum at 10 starts for inclusion of a starter, and I think that's a solid floor for inclusion. It would allow for the inclusion of Sonny Gray and Jarred Cosart this year, both of whom dominated a solid chunk of the second half last year and should be exciting cards in this year's set.

This argument is bunk in sooo many ways. Again, look at the guy before, Niemann vs Lilly, or Josh Johnson in the 2011 set where he had the best pitcher card (data wise) and the best non * SP in the set at only 9 starts.

Again, why was Moss, who essentialy had a career year after a few seasons of not a lot of play included by that logic? He is always in the leaderboard, if not the leader, in HR's? That skews the leaderboards for someone who didn't play a lot.

We aren't talking about guys with 30 ab's, or 2 starts (though let's be honest, those get in the regular set sometimes too).

All we really want is clear guidelines. XXX ab's or XX games played for a hitter, XX starts or XX innings pitched for a pitcher. TBH is they had clear guidelines, then it wouldn't be an issue. But because they have to have a set big enough, with enough high $$ guys to make an extra set worth it, they don't set those guidelines. They take the possible candidates, and choose some for unleashed (to have enough for a worthy set) and some for regular.

That's why I say they draw name from a hat (maybe they actually do), he gets to be in the regular set, he's unleashed. we don't need a reason, F*ck you and give me your money!! Oh you play in a keeper or pre-card league? HAHAHAHAH tough sh*T, this guy who has less ab's and games played will be in, but this guy, nope he's unleashed. Suck on that!!

I still think the unleashed set is a good idea, as I think players who have played less than 40 games and had less than 80 ABs (maybe 100)--such as 2012 Reimold, Orr, Kozma, and Falu--shouldn't be among the dominant cards in the set. And there should be 10-15 players this year with such sparse playing time and skewed statistics, so I would think that Gennett (with his 213 ABs and 69 games played) would be included in this year's regular set.

As to Lilly with his 8 starts, I could see a theoretical argument being made for his (or any sp with 8 starts) inclusion, but Strat apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) has set the minimum at 10 starts for inclusion of a starter, and I think that's a solid floor for inclusion. It would allow for the inclusion of Sonny Gray and Jarred Cosart this year, both of whom dominated a solid chunk of the second half last year and should be exciting cards in this year's set.

This argument is bunk in sooo many ways. Again, look at the guy before, Niemann vs Lilly, or Josh Johnson in the 2011 set where he had the best pitcher card (data wise) and the best non * SP in the set at only 9 starts.

Again, why was Moss, who essentialy had a career year after a few seasons of not a lot of play included by that logic? He is always in the leaderboard, if not the leader, in HR's? That skews the leaderboards for someone who didn't play a lot.

We aren't talking about guys with 30 ab's, or 2 starts (though let's be honest, those get in the regular set sometimes too).

All we really want is clear guidelines. XXX ab's or XX games played for a hitter, XX starts or XX innings pitched for a pitcher. TBH is they had clear guidelines, then it wouldn't be an issue. But because they have to have a set big enough, with enough high $$ guys to make an extra set worth it, they don't set those guidelines. They take the possible candidates, and choose some for unleashed (to have enough for a worthy set) and some for regular.

That's why I say they draw name from a hat (maybe they actually do), he gets to be in the regular set, he's unleashed. we don't need a reason, F*ck you and give me your money!! Oh you play in a keeper or pre-card league? HAHAHAHAH tough sh*T, this guy who has less ab's and games played will be in, but this guy, nope he's unleashed. Suck on that!!

That's a little less eloquently then I've been trying to put it, but...

what he said.

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.

Ninersphan, you're clearly not agreeing to disagree, as you continue to argue. Although, seeing from how obviously personal you take this issue (you're getting a bit upset), I can understand why...

I'm re-posting my earlier post here to answer (again) your questions in your post above, since you either did not read my points, ignored them, or have failed to adequately understand them. Read them again, and addressing what I actually say, get back to me on the matter. They fully explain my stances on the matter and fully show the problems in your thinking.

As to your reason behind your thinking, I had a feeling you were a keeper league guy and your stances on "principles" were mostly because you didn't want your keeper teams messed up. And while I respect how much you value your particular keeper team's success, it's not fair to other players or beneficial to the game itself to foist a 10-70 ab card onto the rest of the league just to insure it.

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.

So where-in does your "line" lie. Dominguez played in 31 games and had 109 ab's. Kozma played in 26 games and had 79 ab's.

Does your theoretical line lie at 30 games and 100 ab's? Somehow they both played in very small amount of games. somehow one hitting 35+ hR's is ok, but the other hitting 15 HR's with a 300+ BA isn't?

I really don't get that theory.....

Again, if SOM would just post a line, there wouldn't be the belly-aching you are hearing here.

First, I'm not upset, this is a game, I have far more important things in my life to worry about than getting upset about a game. (check the keeper league chat threads I am commissioner for details USKL3 GMKL NAKL)

Second, You've given me a long winded explanation for why you FEEL the RP issue isn't the same, and I simply catagorically deny your reasoning. (I'm pig headed, sue me )

Over use is over use.

You don't want the unleashed guys in, because unless limited to their actual PA's or I'sP, you have a problem with them leading some statistical category. I can't for the life me me see why a RP on the leader board for innings pitched isn't the same issue. You have not convinced me it's not.

And it's not for me personally, or my keeper teams. I miss on more prospects than I hit on. It's not completely selfish. I simply want all the cards. Hell, I wish they'd give us all the "computer only" and "additional player set" cards as well.

I hate limits.

To me, it's FUN seeing somebody no one has ever heard of leading a category, not a reason for outrage, shock, indignation, or whatever it is you guys feel when you see an Unleashed stats leader board.

Third, I'm not arguing, I'm continuing the discussion and refusing to give you the last word.

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.

So where-in does your "line" lie. Dominguez played in 31 games and had 109 ab's. Kozma played in 26 games and had 79 ab's.

Does your theoretical line lie at 30 games and 100 ab's? Somehow they both played in very small amount of games. somehow one hitting 35+ hR's is ok, but the other hitting 15 HR's with a 300+ BA isn't?

I really don't get that theory.....

Again, if SOM would just post a line, there wouldn't be the belly-aching you are hearing here.

Speaking for myself, I disagree on this, I'll keep bellyaching until they leave em all in. I wouldn't mind hard fast limits, 'cause it would make some of my commissioner housekeeping easier, but I'm simply want every card in the game.......... P E R I O D

I still think the unleashed set is a good idea, as I think players who have played less than 40 games and had less than 80 ABs (maybe 100)--such as 2012 Reimold, Orr, Kozma, and Falu--shouldn't be among the dominant cards in the set. And there should be 10-15 players this year with such sparse playing time and skewed statistics, so I would think that Gennett (with his 213 ABs and 69 games played) would be included in this year's regular set.

As to Lilly with his 8 starts, I could see a theoretical argument being made for his (or any sp with 8 starts) inclusion, but Strat apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) has set the minimum at 10 starts for inclusion of a starter, and I think that's a solid floor for inclusion. It would allow for the inclusion of Sonny Gray and Jarred Cosart this year, both of whom dominated a solid chunk of the second half last year and should be exciting cards in this year's set.

This argument is bunk in sooo many ways. Again, look at the guy before, Niemann vs Lilly, or Josh Johnson in the 2011 set where he had the best pitcher card (data wise) and the best non * SP in the set at only 9 starts.

Again, why was Moss, who essentialy had a career year after a few seasons of not a lot of play included by that logic? He is always in the leaderboard, if not the leader, in HR's? That skews the leaderboards for someone who didn't play a lot.

We aren't talking about guys with 30 ab's, or 2 starts (though let's be honest, those get in the regular set sometimes too).

All we really want is clear guidelines. XXX ab's or XX games played for a hitter, XX starts or XX innings pitched for a pitcher. TBH is they had clear guidelines, then it wouldn't be an issue. But because they have to have a set big enough, with enough high $$ guys to make an extra set worth it, they don't set those guidelines. They take the possible candidates, and choose some for unleashed (to have enough for a worthy set) and some for regular.

That's why I say they draw name from a hat (maybe they actually do), he gets to be in the regular set, he's unleashed. we don't need a reason, F*ck you and give me your money!! Oh you play in a keeper or pre-card league? HAHAHAHAH tough sh*T, this guy who has less ab's and games played will be in, but this guy, nope he's unleashed. Suck on that!!

Actually Geekor, my argument is logical, incisive, and dead-on in so many ways, although you're rather bunk for attacking that argument without actually proving, much less explaining, why it's wrong. Instead of doing that, you
simply (and I do mean simply) mention that Niemann was picked over Lilly or that Josh Johnson had the best card with only 9 starts...as if that has anything to do with my argument above (which you clearly need to read again). I never claimed that Strat was consistent in their criteria for inclusion, and (as I've said in many of my posts) I've always argued that Strat should either establish such criteria or include established principles for the amendments of that criteria.

As to your continued obsession with Moss, you're just being foolish. Moss played 84 games and had 265 Abs, there Is no way that doesn't easily surpass reasonable minimums for inclusion. And I know you're gonna say "but Strat didn't let other players in who had seasons different from their career," and that would be foolish too. If Strat made that mistake in the past, they would have made a greater mistake by continuing to apply that criteria to Moss or future players; it would eliminate ALL breakthrough seasons from inclusion, which would be disastrous.

As to your last point, we both agree (as I said above) that Strat needs to work on it's criteria for inclusion. However, allowing certain players in with ridiculously minimal statistics just to keep certain keeper league managers happy would be harmful to Strat and unfair to the rest of its players.