Opinions on the 60's product?

LONG time SOM player here. Don't let the post count fool you.

I gotta say that I really am shocked about the lack of cards in the 60's sets.

In the 12 team mystery tournament league I am in, I was browsing the rosters on my opponents and I feel like they might share my sentiment that all of our rosters seemingly look like ass.

Overall, the era lacked on base pct across the board. Defense was meh and outside of the main super stars, overall slugging feels weak.

Did we miss out on card years for existing players? Did we not reach out of the decade far enough for cross over players in 50's and 70's?

Pitching seems fine, so I'm staying off that for now.

What am I missing here?

So you’re saying you like the way the rosters look?

Funny.

I think there's a really lack of cards that are worthy of a mystery product.

Would have been better offer leaving 60's players in the ATG format.

Leave the 6s alone. It is one of the few decades where pitching, defense and running have a chance to win. I'm not a fan of home run derby so my opinion is to expand and make a 50s decade and also expand the roster of players to 40 for each team. That would provide enough players in the leagues to run a 24 team league. But that's my opinion.

I like the 60s. It was a pitchers decade with Koufax and Gibson leading to lowering of the mound. So, it should be low scoring.

I love the 60s. Sure part of that feeling is I have had my most success there. And I agree that the number of good cards is definitely limited. In fact, I used to think it was ironic they called it the "Superstar 60s" because there were so few superstars in the set. However, the limited number of really good players does in fact make the superstars truly special. It makes drafting a real challenge since there aren't a plethora of players almost as good as the one you want.

Admittedly, it can be frustrating to get a bad year for a key player. My current season I had four duds on high-priced players--two at both first base and third base--which really hurt because when I got an average card for my third guy at both positions, I was pretty much stuck. However, this lack of depth also keeps every team being an all-star team by season's end, and statistics seem more normal.

So, if you insist on having an abundance of choice, then the 60s isn't for you. However, if you want to have a challenge where every managerial move you make could be critical, and if you want to have a set where your superstar (or two if you're lucky!) is super valuable, then the 60s is for you!

Sykes, The only blatantly missing player is Don Kessinger. The player pool is smaller because there were fewer teams than in the 70s. Four teams (Padres, Expos, Royals and Pilots/Brewers) were only added to MLB in 1969.

There are 637 players in the 60s game, 720 players in the 70s game and 647 players in the 80s game.

The 60s and 70s are basically fully represented by elligible players that had 5 viable seasons and at least 3 in their decade with only a few exceptions. The 80s game having basically the same number of players as the 60s is the decade that is very much under represented in the player pool by 100 or more players. Besides the four 1969 expansion teams mentioned above the Blue Jays and Mariners were expansion teams in 1976 so the 80s had 6 more teams than the 60s had and still only have about the same number of players in the player pool.

I did the research and presented a list of players that should be in the 80s game but aren't to SOM but they had no interest in revamping the old 80s game.

Sykes, The only blatantly missing player is Don Kessinger. The player pool is smaller because there were fewer teams than in the 70s. Four teams (Padres, Expos, Royals and Pilots/Brewers) were only added to MLB in 1969.

There are 637 players in the 60s game, 720 players in the 70s game and 647 players in the 80s game.

The 60s and 70s are basically fully represented by elligible players that had 5 viable seasons and at least 3 in their decade with only a few exceptions. The 80s game having basically the same number of players as the 60s is the decade that is very much under represented in the player pool by 100 or more players. Besides the four 1969 expansion teams mentioned above the Blue Jays and Mariners were expansion teams in 1976 so the 80s had 6 more teams than the 60s had and still only have about the same number of players in the player pool.

I did the research and presented a list of players that should be in the 80s game but aren't to SOM but they had no interest in revamping the old 80s game.

Long time no speak LMB. Hope all is well.

Thanks for the insight to the 60's set. That's the type of data etc that I hadn't tried to look into before asking my question.

That's extremely unfortunate to hear about the 80's set, although i'd love to see what we can do to get a salary re-calibration at the very least. Those values are still the same ones we had at launch.

Pitcher's decade in real life and in SOM. IF you want to play all all-star lineups play just about any other set of cards, especially ATG8, 1980s or 1990s. Best of luck.