Kevin Pillar

I just watched this video on msn.com showing some amazing catches by Kevin Pillar. He is also described as being one of the best corner outfielders in baseball, although the source may be suspect.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mlb/kev ... vi-BBj3Aht

I have to confess I am a "homer" (and that's not short for home run!) for my Colorado Rockies, so I wasn't familiar with Kevin Pillar. When I looked up his card, I thought it was interesting to see he is only rated a 3 in the outfield.

So, is he an average outfielder who has just happened to make some spectacular catches, or is he underrated by SOM? What rating would you give him?

Either way, the video is worth watching.

They're nice catches, but they're hardly Trout, Lagares, Gomez, or even Blanco-worthy. One thing about them is it's hard to tell whether an outfielder with greater range, like those I mentioned, couldn't just have caught them without diving or hitting the wall. Since, I'm not a scout with the ability to discern that, i checked out his 2013 Baseball America scouting report which said:

His quickness and savvy also serve him well in the outfield, where he can play all three positions. He has average arm strength and accuracy.

So, he probably is more of a "2" in reality than a "3." However, that hardly sounds like he's greater than Jason Heyward or Alex Gordon in the field. It sounds more like media trying to stir some buzz.

If it's any consolation or indication Lagares was rated a 2 on his first card even though it as VERY apparent he had excellent if not elite range. The Range ratings do not just reflect the individuals ability they are also a reflection of overall team defense. A lot of times we forget that this game is really designed to be a very accurate replay of the MLB season if the cards were used to recreate the season. Sometimes that means an individuLs rating may suffer in order to bring team results I. Line with the replay. This maybe what is happening in Pillar's case.

Firstly, that's why I said he was more of a "2" in reality, not in SOM. Secondly, how exactly do the range ratings reflect "overall team defense?" on an individual player's card?

Firstly, that's why I said he was more of a "2" in reality, not in SOM. Secondly, how exactly do the range ratings reflect "overall team defense?" on an individual player's card?

Wasn't disagreeing with you not sure why you even need to mention it as I didn't even reference your post

Range ratings directly impact the amount of hits and extra base hits given up by a team so if you replay the Toronto season exactly the way it happened using the cards, the game is designed to very accurately come up with similar results. So in order to get the desired results in the replay one of the controls is range. This is also why clutch rating is not a reflection of actual clutch hitting but an device to control rbi's for hitters to keep stats in line if a recreated season is done,

Your post immediately followed mine and directly addressed a topic I, myself, addressed. So, my inference was perfectly sensible. No worries, though.

I'm not countering here, but how exactly do you know SOM tailors its individual cards to add up to and produce team results reflecting actual MLB team results? I doubt this for two reasons. Firstly, many managers don't actually play using the whole entire teams; they make up teams with players from many different ones. Secondly, how exactly do they both produce player results resembling their real stats while manipulating their cards to produce "real" team results? The two actions would seem to countermand each other.

As to clutch hitting, why would they make players who had significant playing time and didn't need their rbi's "reigned in" non-clutch players if that was the sole purpose of the clutch hitting aspect?

I know be wise it's been stated in old stray can articles and other interviews Hal Richman has given over the years. He invented the game as a way to accurately as possible replay MLB seasons. That's why the game exists. Is it used that way by most of its users/fans?? Nope. But that's why the game was invented.

Ditto the clutch rating. Again an old Strat Fan article asked this very question and the answer given was it was more about controlling RBI results than actual clutch results. i believe it was also asked about on these boards in the very early days and again the rbi answer was given.

As to your last question, again you have to look at card creation in th context of replay. If a 330 hitter has about 100 rbi's for example but in play testing that card winds up driving in significantly more with no. Out h adjustment thn negative clutch is applied.

This has also been one of my reSons for supporting inclusion of a all cards in this type of game setting we are already using the cards in a way not really intended skewing results so why should the fluke cards matter if they skew results.

Niners is absolutely correct. Hal Richmond's primary agenda is the stock replay. He has said this on numerous occasions.

Niners is absolutely correct. Hal Richmond's primary agenda is the stock replay. He has said this on numerous occasions.

No, that doesn't make him "absolutely correct," since what STEVE F says Hal's primary agenda is doesn't prove SOM does what Niners claims they do. Hal Richmond's primary agenda may be the "stock replay"...whatever that means. However, that doesn't prove they tailor their cards' defensive ratings to produce the most realistic team results. And since their doing so wouldn't automatically produce that result, we can't assume that's what they do with their cards.

So, when STEVE F actually gives proof Hal Richmond says they alter the cards'' defensive ratings to produce the maximum realistic team results, then he can say Niners is absolutely correct. He hasn't done so yet.

I know be wise it's been stated in old stray can articles and other interviews Hal Richman has given over the years. He invented the game as a way to accurately as possible replay MLB seasons. That's why the game exists. Is it used that way by most of its users/fans?? Nope. But that's why the game was invented.

Ditto the clutch rating. Again an old Strat Fan article asked this very question and the answer given was it was more about controlling RBI results than actual clutch results. i believe it was also asked about on these boards in the very early days and again the rbi answer was given.

As to your last question, again you have to look at card creation in th context of replay. If a 330 hitter has about 100 rbi's for example but in play testing that card winds up driving in significantly more with no. Out h adjustment thn negative clutch is applied.

This has also been one of my reSons for supporting inclusion of a all cards in this type of game setting we are already using the cards in a way not really intended skewing results so why should the fluke cards matter if they skew results.

I'll answer this very succinctly:

1. Hal's saying SOM's goal of maximum realism in no way proves or suggests SOM alters its individual players' defense ratings to replicate team defense. That's just a supposition on your part. Also, many managers don't even play with the actual teams, as you say they do, so team replication isn't always a factor, anyway.

2. If SOM literally said rbis were the reason for clutch factor, I'll take your word for it. However, it then makes making an actual run-producer like Beltre a non-clutch player irrational.

3. Finally, I can't believe you just re-opened our unleashed debate. But, since you did, I'll respond. Firstly, let it go. You are always free to play either set, so stop fretting about what others play. Secondly, as I've correctly said before, just because SOM can't achieve perfect simulation, it doesn't mean they shouldn't try for the most realistic simulation they can. Finally, since only the rare theme teams use the actual teams, supposed attempts at team replication have no bearing on the unleashed issue.