THE TALK SHOW

Host: Glenn Guzzo

 

You can submit your question or insight on any Strat-O-Matic game to SOMTalkShow@aol.com. When you do, kindly include your name and town. Other gamers like to see that. And the display format below works better that way.

 

 

Reminder: Send us your “Great Moments in Strat” – your playing experiences that you just have to share.

 

 

In the last Talk Show, we invited gamers to share their rules to prevent abuse of dominant relief pitchers …

 

Beware the POW

 

In our six-team face-to-face league, the teams are obviously pretty set with quality arms in the bullpen.  However, this did not dissuade people from using their “studs” for multiple innings.  After one season where a manager abused this situation, we instituted what is now called “the Derek Liliquist Rule.”  Relievers who now pitch past their POW inning have to sit out the next game to rest.  Also, they can only pitch one inning past their POW rating before the “dots” on their cards become hits.  This has limited managers from using dominant closers for multiple innings to only crucial games, or games where they have used all other eligible pitchers (e.g. long extra-inning affairs.)  It has worked extremely well for our league, especially since we do not have a usage rule otherwise for relief pitchers. 

The Redbirds

 

            I like this rule. It’s very simple to understand and apply. It’s true to the game’s endurance ratings. And it ought to simulate the actual use of relievers.

 

 

NetPlay Hockey

 

I am writing to update all the hockey gamers out there about our all-netplay hockey league, which to my knowledge is the only one of its kind.  You can review the website, http://www.freewebs.com/barryb1124/.  If anything, I think that the website shows our commitment to netplay hockey, and certainly the website has as much statistical info as any league website out there.  My contact info is on the site for anyone interested in learning more about the league.

 

I am also writing about one concern regarding the hockey game:

 

Why not change Passing L some more to accommodate the more accomplished passers (more rebound chances and fewer outside chances for a Joe Thornton L reading for instance) and balance it by providing more outside shots from Passing L for the lower-rated L Passers?  It could be made optional in the computer game and would require absolutely no split-deck changes and only slight modifications to some goal-scoring cards.  It shouldn’t be terribly difficult to accomplish.  Strat is the best hockey game out there, but the one consistent complaint from SOM hockey gamers is about the passing.  I know that more complex passing systems would be very unlikely to be adopted by Strat due to split- and/or action-card changes.  But with the changes I am describing no action or split cards would have to be changed.  These changes would make Strat the perfect hockey game.  I hope that they will be taken under consideration.

 

Barry, Bronx, NY

 

            Congratulations on the web site and your league. Your web site is an impressive statistical resource and your league looks like it is flourishing. The site is a fine example of elevating interest in the sport and in SOM hockey.

 

            I had the same impression about the Super-Advanced Passing L system when it first came out. And when I published STRAT FAN in the 1990s, we printed many playing innovations – about passing and other facets of the hockey game. I think Strat-O-Matic has been receptive to gamers’ suggestions and the game company has improved an already-popular hockey game several times. The Super-Advanced rules were a major step, and the computer-game options were another. Your suggestion joins others on the company’s wish list.

 

 

Pass Block vs. Pass Rush

 

I play SOM Football solo C&D, basic game only. The simplicity and accuracy as well as the challenge makes for a great game. I have an observation on the differences between the big card (pre-1982) and the small cards (1982+). It seems to me that for the basic game, the big cards are more realistic because the QB sacks are distributed on both the defensive cards and the QB cards. A QB with few sacks (Marino) has no control under the new game, but would have in the old game (no sacks, no pass rush on his card). This is such a huge factor in the game.

 

Yes, I understand the small cards have penalties, the 7/8/12 special team rolls, receiver on defensive flat pass, but the QB sacks have always bothered me. Any thoughts?

Anthony N. Abilo, Madison, NJ

 

          Two thoughts:

1)                          The current card format is far superior, even with the tradeoff you mention. In addition to the advantages you cite, the offensive cards are vastly superior, without the blocking plays there.

2)                          To gain the contemporary advantages and get back what you have lost on the pass-rush, use the Advanced pass rush (not the Super-Advanced with individual pass-rush ratings). When playing solo, assume there is one blitzer whenever the offensive pass block or defensive pass rush is consulted.

 

 

Waiting for Zelmo

 

While purchasing the new computer basketball game this year, I noticed the 1970-71 ABA season was missing.  It’s the only old season left without the ABA counterpart.  This would be a great addition to the league I’m playing in.  Mel Daniels, Rick Barry, Charlie Scott and Zelmo Beaty, to mention a few, had great years.  Any possibilities it may be created to fill the gap?   

Kelly Robinson, Fort Meade, MD

 

            Possible? Sure. However, as an ABA stand-alone, I think it is less likely to come sooner than other seasons not yet created for the computer game. SOM has announced no schedule for reproducing past seasons, but its release of one historic basketball season per year means we have years more of “filling the gaps” in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

 

Another Vote for the WNBA

 

I have been wondering why women’s sports are not represented. The WNBA is 10 years old, excellent entertainment and represents a great league for young girls to aspire to.

Susan  Simpson

 

            All true, but the question for Strat-O-Matic is a business issue rather than a social one. We know, for instance, that many women are baseball fans, football fans and hockey fans as well as basketball fans. But we also know that few play Strat-O-Matic.  We also know that the NBA game is the least successful commercially of any SOM product. So I can understand the game company’s reluctance to go deeper into the niches of the sport. While the WNBA has a solid following, it is a small fraction of the NBA’s following.

 

 

Pitcher Injuries Needed

 

My draft league is currently completing its 14th season.  Over the last couple of years, we’ve been trying to fix the injuries to be more realistic and penalize players for over-usage.  We moved to the 15-day/60-day method with daily injuries with maximum rules.  However, it still does not seem to penalize teams and players appropriately.  We’ve had batters and pitchers at 110% to 135% get the injury selection yet they continue to shake it off more times than get injured and most times are able to stay in the game.

 

This is not the aspect that disturbs us the most.  Daily injuries and the occasional 15-day and rare 60-day (only once ever in our league) have kept our batters relatively in check (although that needs some improvement by SOM).  Our pitchers, especially starters, seem to get injured rarely or inconsistently.

 

For example, nothing is stopping one of our players from pitching Johan Santana 275 or even 300 innings.  We do not wish to limit our players by innings but rather want the game to punish and injure over-used players.  Will SOM improve the injury system? At least force pitchers over 100% who roll the 6-12 to be removed from the game.

 

Matt Phelan, Lansing, MI

 

            Your deeper experience with the Super-Advanced injury system actually encourages some of us using it for the first time in an eight-team league. In my second game of the season, I lost two pitchers to the 15-day DL. One was 261-IP Tom Seaver. In the first 47 games (total) of the league, four pitchers have gone on the 15-day DL, compared to three position players.

 

            According to the Help file in the computer game, “When using this system, pitcher injuries that occur from the pitcher’s hitting cards are ignored. Instead, all pitchers can be injured when a dice roll of 6-12 occurs.  An injury can occur to a pitcher with any player at-bat (not just the DH as was the case with the old rules).”

            That tells me pitchers have a 9 times greater chance of being injured than in other injury systems and a 9 times greater chance of being injured than a position player (although there are 8 times more position players in the game).

 

            At this point, I’d predict that the difference between your league’s two-year experience and my league’s two-week experience is random chance.

 

            Your larger point about an injury role automatically punishing an over-used player has much merit. That would raise the risk of over-usage.