Only in this STUPID game ...

This from Glenn Guzzo


And, in fact, SOM has disclosed that it addresses clutch pitching as an option in its Windows game. This is from the Help file:

“This option implements the starting pitcher clutch system. An internal clutch rating is determined for each starting pitcher based upon a number of factors including his "expected ERA" compared to his actual ERA. During game play the system alters the results so that pitchers who pitch poorly in the clutch give up more of their hits with men in scoring position while pitchers who are good in the clutch give up more of their hits with the bases empty. The total number of hits added and subtracted for each pitcher is computed so that their basic stats (hits to innings pitched) is not skewed. Every starting pitcher receives his own clutch rating individually computed to match his real-life ability.”

Right, clutch pitching is an actual max rule, one that Strat explicitly says is turned OFF.

This is from the official help page:

The Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365 game engine is essentially the same as the one the Strat-O-Matic Baseball Windows game uses with some significant improvements. This engine allows the customization of many different optional rules, including those that take advantage of a computer's processing power to improve upon minor limitations of the original cards-and-dice game. Please be aware that some of the play results as shown on the cards may be slightly altered due to these rules. You can read all about which of these rules are being used, their effects, and the improvements we've made to the game engine here.

Which then links to a page that details exactly which max rules are on and which are off. It's all right there in black and white. No mention of any double-secret unlisted rules that would alter card results.

I see why Bruce couldn't stand Ragedasst

I don't know. I'm digesting all the info -- will say I respect what Nevdully and MaxPower say. Two absolute titans. Will dig deeper ...

Actually, I'm tired of digging deeper. I don't care!

FWIW
When working on BPv2 Bernie said he found one feature *on that was supposed to be *off...and one feature that he said "worked in complete opposite of what is was intended to do"

We also heard from the powers that be for about 2 years *assuring us time and time again* that no home run normalization feature existed, when one of our own, Treyomo, use his own $$$ and ran his own controlled private league, and proved to them and the community that *it was on*.

We also heard from the powers that be for about 2 years *assuring us time and time again* that no home run normalization feature existed, when one of our own, Treyomo, use his own $$$ and ran his own controlled private league, and proved to them and the community that *it was on*.

I don't know what "home run normalization" is supposed to be but from what little I know about statistical significance, I highly doubt that its existence could be proven or disproven by a single league.

When working on BPv2 Bernie said he found one feature *on that was supposed to be *off...and one feature that he said "worked in complete opposite of what is was intended to do"

Stuff like this about coding errors is much easier for me to believe than Strat intentionally constructing double-secret black box rules and then lying about their existence. Strat has an entire help page devoted to which black box rules are operative, no one has yet explained why these rumored settings would be intentionally omitted from the page where the actual max rules are described.

The data from multiple owners on "home run normalization" was extensive and went way beyond one league, just as many of the other "modifiers" being discussed here are not isolated examples, they are based on recurring patterns that owners have notated.
The fact that STRAT has acknowledged that "modifiers" have been used, and Bernie has told some of us that modifiers were being used, certainly does not give us confidence that some of these are not still in place.

Which gets us back to the question of intention...i.e. why would STRAT use modifiers to begin with?
The STRAT community will grow, more new owners will get attracted to the game and buy more teams, if they feel that they have a chance, and if they get to win a championship without having to buy 20 or 30 teams to do it, then that will keep them involved.
So what happens when a new customer joins and buys some teams?
They can get discouraged as they discover their baseball knowledge and even their STRAT board game knowledge, does not necessarily translate successfully to the on-line version of STRAT---i.e. its a very different animal.
So after spending a couple hundred dollars without success, some owners drop out.
So my sense is that STRAT was looking at this, and decided to implement some strategies to keep newer owners interested.
In the earlier days the experienced pro owners figured out how to maximize homeruns, how to maximize extreme ballparks and players, how to use super relievers, how to use 4 stud starters and three .5 mill player bullpen etc.---and the complaints poured in from the neophytes...
If you don't think so, look what STRAT did.... they put in the homerun normalization modifier, they pulled the rug out from under the super-reliever strategy, they increased the bullpen requirement to 4 "relief only" relievers etc. --each of these changes was designed to thwart strategies that the pro owners had developed in order to gain an advantage.
If you don't think so, then consider this---remember when STRAT introduced the "ROOKIE LEAGUES" where only rookie owners could enter?..--that gave new owners a chance to win a championship early on. Of course that got subverted when some of the pro owners figured out by using a different username, they could enter rookie leagues which made for easy pickings to get credits.
And look at one of the thing that pops up on your team home page on the upper right. There is a list of owners that have won their first championship. Great incentive to newbies. As with many businesses, attracting and keeping new customers is vital.
So all these modifiers being discussed here (homerun normalization, playoff drama, streaks, clutch, run differential etc.)--have in common? They are designed to benefit and encourage new customers....

And to those that insist that this is all conspiracy stuff....
consider this example.
Nevdully's record with 100+ win teams in the playoffs is 1-25. That is just a glaring stat.
Now by itself, you could arguable say...well that is an anomaly....
but when it is happening to other owners as well, it is no long a conspiracy theory, it is a patterned reality.
And then of course, there are those that chime in and state that their record with 100+ win teams is 7-2 and so forth, which they then state that that nullifies the idea that there is any kind of modifier.
But what if the modifier is not applied universally? For example, What if it is applied to owners who purchase hundreds and hundreds of teams? (and thereby less at risk for discontinued participation)
And what if you do the research and find out that there is an abnormal percentage of teams with low number of wins that end up winning championships? STRAT has stated that playoffs have been "enhanced" for dramatic purposes....well I guess they weren't kidding....I mean I know several owners that as their teams approach 100 wins, they purposely try to lose games....

Now I don't blame STRAT for trying things to make this a profitable business, as otherwise they wouldn't be in business, but as we do pay for teams, some straight forward transparency would go a long way.
Transparency meaning clarifying which (if any) modifiers are being used, and if so, how do these modifiers specifically function so we get to know what rules we are actually dealing with, and giving full visibility to pitcher clutch and ballpark/doubles/triples info.

I started playing the board version of STRAT in 1965, I have played countless games/series/seasons using the cards, when the on-line game appearing on TSN, I was in right away, and since then, I have played thousands and thousands of games.

I do love this game, and enjoy it immensely. But I am at the point where I am considering ending my participation, as my own data, and data shared with me by other owners, has raised some serious questions as to the validity of results.

The above comment is dead on some interesting questions. I have been doing 365 for 2 years now. I have finished playing 23 teams and it took me the first 10 or so to find a successful strateogy and after being frustated with those first 10 to the point of wanting to give up I hit upon something that works for me and in my last 11 teams ive made the playoffs 7 times and now have 3 rings! Ive never had a 100 win team. I love to win but I too feel the new guys need to be successful! It is very difficult to be successful at the start and only true diehard players will pay this much money and except not winning. To get a new player to keep playing he will have to be competitive and have some success. All this said I dont want to play a game that is decided by 'dice rolls' that favors a new team owner and that knowledge is not given to all players because that would destroy game credibility. To be successfull as a company Strat must grow income. They are in a no win sittuation on this---favor new players and lose the old ones---the ones that keep paying and have learned how to be successfull make it difficult for the new players to want to keep throwing more money in this in hopes of finally being successfull.It was a thrill to win my 1st championship and every league Im in I still want that ring but I have felt bad for the guys in those leagues who also want that thrill too! I dont know if there is any funny stuff going on or not as I learned anything can happen for or against you and I accept that but if I found out the game was rigged in any way to punnish the successfull and reward the new or unsuccessfull teams Im not sure I could continue in 365.

As an aside, I’m trying to understand this one:

ATG 9 All Eras 104 teams 9,056-7,792 .538 49 playoffs 39-24 .619 46 Champs

If I’m reading this correctly, that’s 46-3 winning rings when they make the playoffs. This isn’t in the kiddie pool of Baseball Daily. This is a 47% making the playoffs rate in ATG9, and winning rings 46 of 49 times they are in the playoffs.

104 teams isn’t quite newb territory. I’m a little curious…