Alert's to Strat Staff as to card mistakes

Thought it might be easier to have a single thread as we identify abnormalities.

I'll start: Eury Perez's card shows a 3.17 ERA, he had a 3.15 ERA.

Evan Carter- 75 PA's, not carded in leashed
Garrett Mitchell- 73 PA's, Carded in leashed

Why not Evan Carter?

Evan Carter- 75 PA's, not carded in leashed
Garrett Mitchell- 73 PA's, Carded in leashed

Why not Evan Carter?

They think his card is too good. I wish they'd just abolished the Unleashed set and put them all in one set. But I've said this every year since the Carlos Baerga debacle led to the creation of the unleashed set to begin with. It's so ARBITRARY.

Tarik Skubal 15 Starts and 80 IPs, should be in the main card set and absolutely not Unleashed.

Is Jordan Romero missing from the set?

typo in our spreadsheet. Should be 'Jordan Romano'

Evan Carter- 75 PA's, not carded in leashed
Garrett Mitchell- 73 PA's, Carded in leashed

Why not Evan Carter?

They think his card is too good. I wish they'd just abolished the Unleashed set and put them all in one set. But I've said this every year since the Carlos Baerga debacle led to the creation of the unleashed set to begin with. It's so ARBITRARY.

Carter only played from Sep 8 on. That's a really small sample size at the end of the season. Plus, yeah, he's super good.

As for Mitchell, yeah, when guys aren't that good, SOM doesn't even worry about them. The purpose for Unleashed, as I understand it, is to keep one year wonders (or guys who didn't play much) from leading the league in hitting (for example).

An example, in 1987, Jose Lind hit .322 in 157 PA (playing from Aug 28 on) . Never topped .269 after that and finished with a .254 lifetime average, known as a good field, no hit guy.

Is it arbitrary? To an extent, but it's a desire not to have unknowns be the best players. If you don't like it... play unleashed. <shrug>

Evan Carter- 75 PA's, not carded in leashed
Garrett Mitchell- 73 PA's, Carded in leashed

Why not Evan Carter?

They think his card is too good. I wish they'd just abolished the Unleashed set and put them all in one set. But I've said this every year since the Carlos Baerga debacle led to the creation of the unleashed set to begin with. It's so ARBITRARY.

Carter only played from Sep 8 on. That's a really small sample size at the end of the season. Plus, yeah, he's super good.

As for Mitchell, yeah, when guys aren't that good, SOM doesn't even worry about them. The purpose for Unleashed, as I understand it, is to keep one year wonders (or guys who didn't play much) from leading the league in hitting (for example).

An example, in 1987, Jose Lind hit .322 in 157 PA (playing from Aug 28 on) . Never topped .269 after that and finished with a .254 lifetime average, known as a good field, no hit guy.

Is it arbitrary? To an extent, but it's a desire not to have unknowns be the best players. If you don't like it... play unleashed. <shrug>

And that's all well and good if what you want out of the game is a straight simulation of the actual MLB season, but that's not the format here. This format routinely has results that are not realistic, RP pitching 200 innings, Players hitting over 60 HR's or driving in over 150 runs, guys that total way over their IP's or BA's. So why do people get up in arms over a name on a leader board that wouldn't happen in real life? I fail to see the logic in allowing all the other unrealistic elements in this game but getting uptight because player X lead the league in batting average even though he couldn't/didn't in real life. It's inane, illogical and just plain stupid IMHO.

If you want a realistic Strat game, round up 31 friends, hand out each team, and play 162 with the card set, or buy the Computer game and run real season simulations until your hard drive overheats. I just don't get it, I never will.

But I realize I'm Don Quichote tilting at windmills in this scenario.

And that's all well and good if what you want out of the game is a straight simulation of the actual MLB season, but that's not the format here. This format routinely has results that are not realistic, RP pitching 200 innings, Players hitting over 60 HR's or driving in over 150 runs, guys that total way over their IP's or BA's. So why do people get up in arms over a name on a leader board that wouldn't happen in real life? I fail to see the logic in allowing all the other unrealistic elements in this game but getting uptight because player X lead the league in batting average even though he couldn't/didn't in real life. It's inane, illogical and just plain stupid IMHO.

If you want a realistic Strat game, round up 31 friends, hand out each team, and play 162 with the card set, or buy the Computer game and run real season simulations until your hard drive overheats. I just don't get it, I never will.

But I realize I'm Don Quichote tilting at windmills in this scenario.

Niners, not saying I would do the same thing if I were in charge, but I do understand why they do it. I was just trying to explain as best I understand it. As I said, just play unleashed....

Read all the post above and I get what everyone is saying. Here is my bitch. Reese McGuire.

187 total AB. 23 against LHP 1 Double and 1 HR. 1HR total and against LHP in 23 AB. W Power from that side. Small sample size I get it. His slash against LHP was .391/.440/.435. Against LHP in column #1 he has a roll of 2) for an HBP and 12) roll gets him a SINGLE 1-2. Column #2 he has no chances. Column 3 is where it really gets bad. 5) gives him a $ SINGLE. 6) gives him a single 1-8. 8) DOUBLE 1-17 Single 18-20. 9 @ 10 $ SINGLE 11) > SINGLE.

This guy hits .391 against LHP and he has only one roll that is an outright hit. Batting .391 against LHP and he has a 1 in 36 chance of getting an outright hit against LHP on his card. I don't care about sample size here; the card is just not even close. My guess his .391 BAVG against LHP will be around .040 at the end of the season. That is seriously dumbing down his year against LHP.