The card doesn't quite...

Bill
What a great post!

I remember as young man in the late 50`s early 60`S talking "baseball" with my buddies arguing over Cobb versus Ruth( I was a Cobb man). The old players with their great stats seemed mystical. Golly how awesome they must have been to hit .400 or win 512 games. At the same time I occasionally got to watch Roberto and Willie and Hammerin~Hank and Ernie with the hapless Cubs.

Now, in my dotage they come alive again!!! All the all-time greats actually playing FOR me!! Joltin Joe actually contributing to my teams success as Walter mows my enemies down. I could not possibly have imagined how fantastic the world of computers could contribute to my well being.

I agree completely with the sentiments expressed in this thread prior to Craig's post. I think the main issue is the game format itself, it just doesn't come close to simulating the visceral experiences we had as fans watching the real stars do their thing. That is one thing though that I don't fault SOM for. Certain intangibles don't readily translate into simulations.

What gets me is that certain guys routinely underperform statistically, Most of the players cited in this thread fit that bill, at least in my experience. Stargell in particular, even as a platoon player, usually sucks. The biggest underperformer is Gehrig, at least for me. I've written several times in various threads about how the ballpark effects screw up his card, he was actually a better road player, if memory serves, yet is penalized by Yankee Stadium which otherwise favors LH hitters. Guys with huge seasons with lots of OBP, like Williams, just don't hit as well in SOM, even considering that at caps above 80 million most teams are filled with All-Stars. The game just doesn't reproduce extreme outlier performances well.

One thing the bare bones nature of the simulation does offer, is the chance to use one's imagination when watching the replay, to picture your favorites doing their thing. It is perhaps small consolation vs really watching them, but it is a way to approach your experience of the game.

Thank you, Bruce, for finding the words that I couldn't to express that missing something. I'm wondering, for those of us playing in franchise leagues, if the fact that we don't have a Yankee Stadium from the 20s or 30s could play a small part in Gehrig's "limited" success. Why, in fact, don't we have Yankee '27 or Yankee '36 at the very least? And thank you, Tony, for giving me an additional mental picture of small (?) boys gathering on street corners to debate the merits of veterans they had never seen play. If that doesn't define our unique connection with the game, I don't know what does.

http://www.freesound.org/people/treblebooster/sounds/151373/

Bill

Just found the ballpark numbers for 1927 and 1934. Might be some interesting additions:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/digital_museum/Ball+Park+and+Weather+Effect+Charts/1927+BallPark-Weather+Effect.pdf

https://s3.amazonaws.com/digital_museum/Ball+Park+and+Weather+Effect+Charts/1934+BallPark-Weather+Effect.pdf

Bill