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.
Hockey
History
Which old-time hockey seasons are going to be created? Is the goal to have from 1954-55 to the present? I would like to see the 1954-55 season. Imagine the Stanley Cup Champion Red Wings with both Terry Sawchuk and Glenn Hall as the goaltenders.
Bill Donnelly,
With some of the great Hockey Hall of Famers going in over the past few years and some greats names this year could we see an updated Hockey HOF set or at least the new players set?
Stephen Soltis,
Uniontown PA
Strat-O-Matic
has not revealed its future plans for old-timer hockey seasons. However, the
pattern seems fairly clear that we might expect all seasons since 1955-56, at
least. I join you in wanting one team from the Red Wings dynasty of the ‘50s.
The 1956-57 season released this year has a first-place
It’s too soon to expect
a Hall of Fame update set because in the three years since the original set,
only eight players have been inducted and three of those – Mark Messier,
Patrick Roy and Scott Stevens – already are included. So we lack only right
wing Cam Neely, left wing Dick Duff and two of this year’s four honorees,
center Ron Francis and defenseman Al MacInnis, from the NHL, plus Russian
winger Valeri Kharlamov.
The
Strat-egist
In a real game played in 1979, the Pirates brought in Grant
Jackson to face Darrell Evans. They put the previous pitcher, Kent Tekulve, in
left field, and Evans flied out to Teke.
Is it possible to use this type of maneuver in the computer version of Strat-O-Matic Baseball, and will the associated statistics be correct?
Richard Zaborsky,
Yes, you can do this.
The only limit I know of is a limit imposed by baseball. In a game with the
designated-hitter, placing either the pitcher or the DH in the field cancels
the DH and, under baseball rules, the DH cannot be canceled until he has batted
at least one time. The box score shows the position changes properly. I see no
reason why the stats wouldn’t perform equally well.
Wanted: Variety in Hockey Play-by-Play
I love
the computer hockey game, but when will the PBP be expanded? It seems to be the
same Play By Play every edition. Thanks for a great game!
George Wazeck, Detroit (Hockeytown)
That’s
a wish-list item and your inquiry adds a vote for that in future versions of
the game. Personally, I find the play-by-plays in Strat-O-Matic’s games amusing
and interesting, but I prefer my imagination. Keeping the settings on minimal
or no play-by-play keeps my games moving, too. I get to play more and enjoy it
just as much. I realize, though, that I may be missing out on the play-by-play
“announcer’s” citations for statistical milestones, streaks and tips on in-game
situations that can make any broadcast or computer game more rewarding.
Gamer to
Gamer: Baseball
In
response to Alan Meier’s Talk Show question on called strikeouts vs. swinging
strikeouts, our league has decided that if the strikeout is on the pitcher’s
card it is called and if it is on the batter's card it is swinging. This may
not be the best resolution, but it seems logical. A batter who doesn’t
strikeout much would probably K due to the pitcher rather than his own penchant
and vice versa.
Mark J. Varvil, Kenosha, WI
Gamer to Gamer: Hockey
Various gamers rushed to assist Talk Show writer Jimmy Jr.
of Lewisburg, PA, who last month wondered if there shouldn’t be a disincentive
to intimidating on the last Action Card of a hockey game. Here are their
thoughts:
I always continue playing after the last
Action Card draw of the period until something happens that requires a
fast-action card draw. In this person’s case about the penalties: If a penalty
occurs on the last Action Card due to intimidation, and it contained a reading
of “opponent fails to take away the puck,” I proceed normally (delayed
penalty) until the puck was frozen, or touched by the penalized
team. Assuming no goal was scored and the defense touched the puck,
Strat-O-Matic rules indicate that the ensuing faceoff would be taken in front
of the defensive goaltender. (This would happen if the opponent took the
puck away, as well). This would necessitate putting the penalty units on the
ice and holding a faceoff. If the power play team wins it they could
shoot, penetrate or pass until the penalty timer reaches 7 or
the short-handed team gains control.
For those
of us who prefer to be really persistent: If a goal did occur, and you
were keeping faceoff statistics, you would hold one last faceoff at center ice
before the final buzzer sounded.
Ed Gross, Parma Heights, OH
Final
action card plays in STRAT-Hockey: I have always simplified the issue down to,
that play goes on until an Action Card draw is required and all Action Cards
have been played. A more restrictive
approach would be that as the last Action Card is played, count off all the
player actions on the super advanced penalty system “clock” with the game
ending when you’d need an Action Card turn over.
Jeff Fout, Westerly, RI
Then Frank and Rick Prather resolved things for themselves.
First, Frank:
If the
penalty was the result of intimidation, wouldn’t you actually draw a card for
the faceoff, and if the PP team won the faceoff, they would get to take an
outside shot (with the option to pass or penetrate), just like you would on any
faceoff following an intimidation penalty? That gives the PP team an automatic
outside shot, instead of having to draw an Action Card … This is at least how
we would have handled it in our league back when we played on the board, though
I’m not sure how the computer game would handle this situation. If a normal penalty occurred on the last card
of the game, the game would simply be over, but since this chance of a shot
could occur off of an intimidation penalty, there would then be at least a
small disincentive to try to intimidate on the last action card.
Frank
Prather
Then Rick Prather:
The
computer game does in fact have a faceoff after an INT penalty on the last
Action Card of every period including the end of the game. And you are
correct that a shot can result. The computer will continue to keep
playing in this situation and on rebounds as long as the offensive team
maintains control of the puck or even if there is a loose puck. The only
way to end the game or the period in these two cases is for the defensive team
to get control (or a goal to be scored). And in fact, if another faceoff
occurs, it will go through the whole process again until the defensive team finally gets the puck.
16 Skaters
I have
played a lot with 16 skater teams and have settled on a rotation like this for
Defense:
1-2, 3-4, 2-5//1-5, 3-4, 1-2//1-2,
3-4, 1-2//
with a forwards rotation of:
1-2-3, 7-8-11, 4-5-6,
1-2-3//1-2-3, 7-9-10, 4-5-6,
1-2-3//1-2-3, 7-8-9, 4-5-6,
1-2-3//
This
works out with top forward line (1-2-3) at 30 minutes of ice time and top D
pair (1-2) at 33 minutes plus of ice. At times I ignore LD/RD for 5 defenseman
teams, especially if a mixed season league with teams predating LD/RD.
Has SOM
got any thinking or have any strat hockey players out there got house rules for
players playing out of rated position/positions?
Jeff Fout, Westerly, RI
Thanks,
Jeff. I’m sure gamers appreciate hearing others’ techniques on line changes and
playing-time distribution. Out of position probably depends heavily on how far
out of position. Defenseman and forwards generally play the same side of the
ice as their shooting hand, primarily so the stick blade is nearest the boards.
This aids defensemen in their own zone, both to defend against players going
wide and to clear the puck along the boards. It aids defensemen at the point in
the attacking zone to block clearing attempts off the boards. It aids forwards
in the attacking zone the same way. And it aids forwards in their defensive
zones trying to receive passes along the boards. This is why you’ll see
references to teams needing another left-hand shot among defensemen or at wing
– sometimes minor trades are made for that reason alone.
However, as European
style demonstrates, wingers often benefit offensively by playing the “off
wing.” Their sticks are closer to the net and in better playmaking position. On
the power play, when defense is less of a consideration, defensemen often play the
opposite side. That puts their sticks in the middle of the ice, in better
shooting position. So, on power plays, I wouldn’t consider any deduction for
playing a winger on the off wing or a defenseman on the other side. At even
strength, there should be a defensive deduction (say 1 grade), but it’s hard to
figure the off-setting offensive benefit, so it’s best just to prohibit that
move. If it’s an emergency, then perhaps a deduction with no benefit is
appropriate. Similarly, I’d ban defensemen from playing at forward spots, and
vice versa, if they don’t have those positions on their cards. In an emergency,
perhaps require that the team choose a forward with at least a Defense-3 rating
to go back on defense, and deduct two from his rating there. Players who are
carded as defensemen only could only move up to a wing spot (never center) in
an emergency, but to avoid abuse even then, deduct one from his defense rating
and turn all his Goalie Rating results into X-Any Player.
As always, we welcome others to share
the innovations that work well for them.