Players I Wish Translated Better to ATG

Jim Palmer, Jack Morris, Robin Roberts, Steve Garvey, Jim Rice, Nolan Ryan.....

I never seem to get Pete Rose to perform as I remember seeing him...maybe I should let him bring his bookie's card with him.

Add Warren Spahn, Tommy John, Jim Kaat and Tom Glavine to the list of players with great careers whose numbers just don't translate well to SOM. Lefty pitchers in general seem to take a beating.

Players whose careers were based on speed and stolen bases like Lou Brock, Tim Raines, Lonnie Smith, Willie McGee, Vince Coleman, Bert Campaneris, Luis Aparacio, Ron Leflore, Ricky Henderson, Kenny Lofton, etc., etc. seem to make far less of an impact in SOM than in real life as well.

While SOM does a decent job at replicating hitters' power numbers, BA and OBP and pitchers' strikeouts, in general, it does a poor job reproducing the disruptive effect and added pressure that speed has on the defense. There are also those who feel that having a base stealing threat get on base increases the percentage of fastballs seen by the batter, resulting in an added advantage to hitters, an advantage unaccounted for by SOM.

The advantage to having an SB threat on base is represented by the gb+ signs on the hitter card. If the runner is held, and the batter rolls the gb+, it's a SI** rather than an out. Good baesstealers also run the bases better, and are more likely to score on an open-ended double than average base runners. I don't recall if they increase Balk chances.

On the subject of translation, I've never gotten a really good year out of Spahn. McGee nearly always is productive. Robin Roberts' 4.85 is often a decent pickup, because he's a 9* with a good WHIP. If you're in a bomber league, though, look out.

I feel like there are better Jack Morris cards we could be using. What's offered is a bottom of the rota card in g those cal league. You could say the same for Tommy John.

Rose has almost always been decent for me, but he's seldom at the forefront when I think of draft cards.

For me, the guys who get shafted are superlative gloves, like Maz, whose e rating isn't enough to get me draft that bat, especially when I can get more from a cheaper card, then defensive sub them later on. Those "platinum glove" guys need some other sort and bonus.

The advantage to having an SB threat on base is represented by the gb+ signs on the hitter card. If the runner is held, and the batter rolls the gb+, it's a SI** rather than an out. Good baesstealers also run the bases better, and are more likely to score on an open-ended double than average base runners. I don't recall if they increase Balk chances.

,

This is no longer true (and hasn't been for years). Read the super advanced rules

The advantage to having an SB threat on base is represented by the gb+ signs on the hitter card. If the runner is held, and the batter rolls the gb+, it's a SI** rather than an out. Good baesstealers also run the bases better, and are more likely to score on an open-ended double than average base runners. I don't recall if they increase Balk chances.

,

This is no longer true (and hasn't been for years). Read the super advanced rules

Well, **technically** It's still true:

(23.83) When an infielder is responsible for holding a runner and a gb()X is hit to him, add 1 to that fielder's range rating. Example: With a runner held at first and a lefthanded hitter at the plate, a shortstop rated 2e20 becomes 3e20. The maximum range rating is 5.

(23.84) Do not award a SINGLE** on a "gb()+" while runners are being held on base. Instead, when a gb()X to an infielder responsible for holding the runner results in a symbol followed by a "#", change that result to "SI2" (single, with all runners advancing two bases).


Held runners affect the Defense. And the better baserunning of most stealers still applies.


(and it's absolutely true if you don't play super-advanced...which I guess only occurs out here in the real world, where looking up chart results is a bummer):-)

You're absolutely right. I think the penalty for holding runners on is even stiffer under the new rules than it was the old way!

Play at a $60 cap and most all of the players mentioned will meet expectations.

You're absolutely right. I think the penalty for holding runners on is even stiffer under the new rules than it was the old way!

It seems that way, since the X chances are on every pitchers card, thus ensuring that every batter hitting with a held runner has a shot at getting through the gaps. With good fielders, the advantage is much less, of course. This does make me rethink using Causey anD Kuenn, as I have lately, since they're both 3's. Holding runners turns them into awful liabilities, if the wrong rolls come up.

Play at a $60 cap and most all of the players mentioned will meet expectations.

I wish there were more 60M leagues. I also prefer the smaller player sets. 1,000 players is a good, challenging number.