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.
CHRISTMAS SHOPPING
I saw in the November
Talk Show you mentioned a Strat History book in the making. Do you know
when it will be ready? And how can I order the book. I am really
looking forward to it.
Matt Poulter
Many
years ago I purchased replay guides for Strat Baseball from you and STRAT FAN.
I would like to get some more years. Do you still make them, I
hope? Please send me some information about purchasing these replay
guides.
Gary Powell
Thanks for asking, guys. My one-sentence “shameless
plug” in last month’s Talk Show attracted a flurry of interest that Matt’s
question represents. My book, Strat-O-Matic Fanatics: The
Unlikely Success Story of a Game that Became an American Passion is published by ACTA Sports in
Strat-O-Matic Fanatics
is more than 300 pages and costs $14.95. While devoted long-time fans of the
hobby will recognize some of the subject matter, the vast majority of it is
previously untold stories, including those that describe Hal Richman’s
difficult childhood that led him to create his own world of games, the
difficulty he had finding anyone who would share his dream and the ways
Strat-O-Matic often had to overcome steep odds to survive. The book describes
the many ways – some heart-warming, some heart-wrenching, some hilarious – this
hobby has touched so many of us. The stories of the fanatics include interviews
with the famous (Spike Lee, Jon Miller, Ken Singleton, Andy MacPhail,
Electronic Arts founder Tripp Hawkins and more) and the not-so-famous. The book
will give you a glimpse at Hal Richman’s early, pre-Strat-O-Matic cards and
take you, for the first time, into the company’s annual private meeting where
fielding ratings are decided. As you can tell by now, I had a ball reporting
this book. And the journalist in me is excited about being able to share what I
learned with you.
My Baseball
Replay Guides once were sold through STRAT FAN, then the game company. But
now they are purchased directly through me. New this year are
guides for 2004, 1984 and 1948. Here’s the whole lineup: 1911, 1920, 1927,
1930, 1934, 1941, 1948, 1950, 1953-56, 1959-70, 1978, 1984-99, 2002-04.
Seasons
are $15 each, two for $28, three for $39. Please send
check or money order (
Baseball
Replay Guides have the exact as-played schedule with actual starting pitchers
for each game. They have comprehensive in-season roster moves (seasons
1948-2004 have opening-day rosters, too). And a unique lineup guide to
distribute at-bats realistically. In a phrase, they offer more accurate,
“guilt-free” replays (the guides tell you when the star players must sit and
the bums must play).
STRAT VAN WINKLE
I last
played Strat baseball (computer version) in 1994, but am planning to play the
2004 season this year. I'm wondering what innovations there have been in
those 10 years I've been out of it. I know about pitch counts, but has
there been anything else?
Bruce Wilmot,
Welcome back, Bruce! Alas, if I were to look
up and write about the more than 100 improvements to the computer game since
you fell asleep, my beard would be as long as yours by the time I finished.
Suffice to say, you won’t be disappointed. The game is better in every way –
graphics, ease of use, functionality, stat packages and with many new options
whether you play solo, in leagues or head-to-head over the Internet. No other
games on the market make so many improvements so often. Beard or not, you’ll
feel like a kid in a candy store just exploring all the new ways to enjoy the
game. Oh, and since you’ve just awoken, 10 years might not seem like such a
long time – yet. But get this: The
FOUL PLAY IN THE
I played
my first
Tams and noticed an awful amount of fouls. Mel Daniels fouled out quickly.
Checking my Basketball Encyclopedia I saw there were no records for games
fouled out for the 72/73 season. I seem to remember that at one point the
Rod Jerred,
No.
From www.remembertheaba.com: “In
the
However,
Daniels averaged just 3.9 fouls per game while averaging 38 minutes per game.
While your one example does not a trend make, gamers often need to take
precaution with their big men. Gamers tend to elect their star centers for
shots as often as possible – and all those Inside shots come with the
significant risk of an offensive foul (results 9 and 11 on the Team Defense
card – a 5.5 percent chance, or one offensive foul for about every 18 “touches”).
Computer gamers need to be extra careful about electing the Power Move (which
has a higher scoring percentage, but a higher risk of an offensive foul) too
frequently. Backup centers tend to be foul prone to begin with. If your center
is guarding a high-foul-drawing opponent (Shaquille
O’Neal, Moses Malone, etc.), you have double trouble. If your center is a weak
defensive rebounder and will be fouling more often
while defending the shots after offensive rebounds, that’s a triple threat. In
contrast, star guards and small forwards are often shooting outside, with no
risk of an offensive foul.
WHEN THE SAINTS WENT MARCHING OUT
I was
excited to hear sometime ago that Strat was going to produce a WHA season
disk. I was disappointed when I found out the 1975-76 season was the
choice. I will admit I was a Minnesota Fighting Saints fan. (I need
to mention I made it to all the home games, regular and playoffs for the Saints
in ‘74-75.) The Saints folded after 59 games in ’75-76 along with the
Joe
Those Saints had a nice corps of forwards in
’74-75, with Mike Walton, Wayne Connelly, Ted Hampson
and Gerard Gallant, among others. I think the key here is in Strat-O-Matic’s carded set, which is limited to six teams
(the rest can be printed out from a computer disk and all the teams are in the
computer game). In ’74-75 there was one dominant team –
Like everything else, future offerings at SOM depend on the
sales success of earlier offerings. The absence of an NHL season thus far
suggests there will be much lower demand for hockey products. The game company
has not yet decided what it might offer in place of an NHL season, if it comes
to that. But it’s a sure thing that if there is no NHL season to reproduce,
then if Strat-O-Matic does any hockey at all next summer, it will be hockey from
the past.
COLLEGE SPORTS AND SOM
While
searching the Internet for college computer basketball games, I came across an
article written about SOM college teams for the computer only. Did SOM
ever make any college basketball teams? I don't see them on the product
pages. I for one would buy SOM college football or college basketball disks, even if they were only "computer
generated" and were for the computer game only (no cards). Any chance of this?
Matt Norris,
About ten
or eleven months ago, I wrote you about the possibility of SOM doing a College
Football game just for the computer. After reading about your undertaking
in the "For the Memories" series, my interest for a computer game was
sparked again. I would love it if SOM could do, at the very least, the ‘86-88
seasons on disk. I think gamers could get by doing the type of format you
used, or making one up on their own. They could also use all three
seasons to make up a rough league of their own. Anyway, I would definitely
purchase any and all
Henry Roman,
Strat-O-Matic’s inability to make a go of college football
and basketball rank high on the game company’s list of frustrations. If SOM can
find another way to make it work – a computer-only game is almost certainly the
only viable solution – I believe it would do so.
Computer college basketball (1994-95 season)
lasted just one year. It had only the 64 NCAA tournament teams, but the main
reason for its failure was the absence of player names. “At the last minute,”
Hal Richman says, the NCAA withheld permission for Strat-O-Matic to use them. STRAT
FAN published a utility that permitted easy insertion of the names, but not
everyone knew about that and the combination didn’t translate into sufficient
sales for SOM. Too bad, because the college game had all the
thrills of SOM’s pro basketball computer game.
Strat-O-Matic’s history shows
that when it introduces a new computer game, it likes to offer multiple
seasons. While the ’86-88 NCAA seasons SOM produced on cards seems like a good
place to begin building an inventory, that was, unfortunately, 15 years ago.
It’s very unlikely that a new game, built for the computer, would follow that
model. Let’s say, for instance, that a new computer college football game worked
like the current pro computer game. Much of what is in the old board college
game would no longer apply (the passing cards, the punting system and more).
Instead of a simple process to adopt the ’86-88 seasons, SOM would have the
much more demanding task of re-engineering them. I am among those who would
dearly love to see the great teams of college football history in Strat form,
but at this stage, anywhere SOM could revive college football would be a good
place to start.
In my ’88 tournament,
PASSING TRENDS
I seem to
remember reading “somewhere” that Strat designed the football
cards with the intention of a 60/30/10 flat/short/long pass ratio being called.
Does the game company still use this ratio (if, in fact, I remembered it
correctly), or does it change along with the changing game in the NFL?
Maybe a 40/40/20 ratio was used in the late 60s?
Kurt Conlan,
Both the cards and the sophisticated
computer coaches in Version 4 of the computer football game reflect the passing
styles of the eras. Strat-O-Matic’s ratings encourage
gamers to throw Flat Pass much more often, and Long Pass much less often with
21st-Century NFL teams than with the bombardier-style passers of the
1960s (Unitas, Namath, Lamonica et al).
E-6, AGAIN
Three of
us play a full season of Strat-O-Matic with cards and dice with the basic
game. Out of this experience I share a concern and make a
suggestion. The last two years, 02, 03, our shortstops cards, all rated a
level 2 for fielding. Actual MLB season error totals for these shortstops are as
follows compared to our Strat-O-Matic league.
MLB
Strat-O-Matic
2002 2003 2002
2003
Renteria 16
19 38 26
Hernandez
(PGH) 19
32
Cabrera
18
35
Rollins
14
30
Gonzalez
(Fla) 16
26
The
totals are significantly different. Frustratingly
different. My suggestion: Reduce the number of error possiblilities
on the basic fielding chart for 2-rated shortstops from 3 to 2. Perhaps
take away the 9-2 or 10-2 error possibility. I believe doing so would result in
more realistic error totals. Realism is the mantra of strat-o-matic.
Please restore some realism in this area.
Don Sharp
Strat-O-Matic will be interested in your
statistics. Do keep in mind that the Advanced and Super-Advanced games offer more
precision for errors and many other stats. The single
Basic fielding rating has double duty – range and errors, and the range part is
the first consideration. Zero errors won’t assure a player of a 1 (or even a 2)
in Basic and 40 errors at shortstop won’t assure you of a 4. But high errors
can rob a player of the 1 he earned for the Advanced
game. The split, more precise range/error system in the Advanced
game leads more than a few Basic gamers to play “Modified Basic” – they like
the single-sided batting card, but use the Advanced or Super Advanced fielding
system, steal system, N/W power and/or individual bunt and hit-and-run ratings.
OLDIES AND GOODIES
As a
Strat-O-Matic baseball fan since 1982 (thanks, Brewers) the Hall Of Fame card
set is the most spectacular set I've ever used. In terms of the high
quality cards and the enjoyableness of using all of those great players in a
league, it can't be beat. I've been involved in two leagues with them and have
had a ball. I was wondering if there is any timetable for possibly adding new
Hall Of Fame cards with the new additions and sure to be future editions of the
Hall?
Bob Fuerst,
No timetable. I have reported before that
Hal Richman would like to have a sufficient number of players to add – at least
16, maybe more – to have a product to offer. Since the Hall of Fame set came
out, we have eight additions to the Hall – Kirby Puckett, Bill Mazeroski, Dave Winfield, Ozzie Smith, Gary Carter, Eddie
Murray, Paul Molitor and Dennis Eckersley.
Perhaps another player or two will be elected in 2005. Retired players Cal Ripken, Tony Gwynn, Mark McGwire and Wade Boggs are locks when they are eligible. That
could get us to 16, but only after a few more years.
Another
possibility, I’ve speculated, is that fewer than 16 of these players could be
added to a Negro Leagues set that would include many Hall of Famers. But there’s no timetable for the Negro Leagues set,
either, while SOM awaits ongoing research that would greatly improve our
knowledge of Negro League statistics.
BUNTING FOR HITS
Why is it
that we are not given the option to bunt for a base hit with men on base? Being
a Dodger fan and watching "small ball" for as long as I can remember,
I know that players do not only bunt for a hit when the bases are empty. Having
watched players like Brett Butler and Dave Roberts, I know that they on many
occasions attempted bunts to try and reach base with runners on. Now I know
that in their minds as players they are thinking that should their attempt to
reach base via the bunt fail, as long as the bunt is put into play, the runner
on base will most likely advance. But I still see a difference.
Not only
is it the slap hitting speedsters that do this, but I can vaguely remember a
Paul LoDuca bunt attempt with a runner on 1st. The
3rd baseman was playing deep looking for the double play and LoDuca surprised everyone by laying a bunt down the 3rd
baseline. I do not recall if he was safe or not but do remember immediately
thinking about Strat and how we are not able to do that. What is the reasoning
behind not allowing this?
Since a hit is possible on sacrifice
attempts – the better the bunter and the faster the bunter, the greater chance
of a hit – you can bunt with the hopes of a hit. And your bunter is better if the
rare-play LoDuca situation you describe above, because
the infield is back. In Strat, like real baseball, hits are harder to come by
on bunts with men aboard. The infield is more likely to be playing in and the
defense has more options to get an out. Many of the real-life bunts you
describe are done by players who are confident that the least they can
accomplish is a sacrifice. If they can manage a hit, that
much better.
BASEBALL: RULES AND RATINGS
I play in
a 10-man SOM face-to-face baseball league that has been in operation since
1981. In all these years, we have not been able to interpret the rule in
situations involving a runner at first base who attempts to advance to third on
a single. According to Rule 13.5 (on page 5 of the SOM rules), "if
the defensive manager tries to throw out the runner at third base, the batter
always takes second on the throw." However, according to the chart
of Super Advanced cut-off rule computations (on page 15), the trail runner in
these situations (i.e. the batter who hit the single) does NOT automatically
take second. Instead, his safe chances are to be computed as "running
speed plus outfielder's arm, minus 5." Can you resolve this apparent
contradiction in the rules? In the past
few years, we have decided to follow the computation chart on page 15 rather
than allow the batter to automatically take second, but without the minus 5, as
a compromise, since it doesn't seem realistic to allow the batter to
automatically take second in these situations. What's your opinion?
Bruce Young,
The man always takes second. Because he
does, there is no cutoff rule to apply. In addition to Rule 13.5, the computer
game always handles it this way, too. I understand how the chart on page 15 can
confuse the issue on the trail runner. It should say that the trail runner’s
advance is automatic.
How about
an outfielder throwing arm e rating? As the game is played now almost
all errors lead to a player reaching base. Players like Vlad Guerrero tend to make more errors throwing than
catching, advancing a runner not letting him
Jim Guracech,
The Super Advanced Fielding Chart was
developed in significant part to allow for one-base errors by outfielders on
throws and muffed hits. And in the computer game, there is the further
refinement in the Super Advanced Max rules: “Realistic Throwing Errors.” True,
outfielders’ throwing errors do not get their separate rating (as catchers
have), but in my replays, my high-error outfielders often show off their great
arms – their throws hit the backstop or the seats on the fly easily and often.
I have
been playing Strat-O-Matic baseball for over 15 years. The league I play
in uses the Advanced Steal System instead of the Super Advanced Steal
System. We like the simplicity of it. However, we wish that the
pitchers hold would be equated into the percentages. It relies entirely
on the catcher's arm and base runner's stealing, were missing the third part of
the equation. The members of my league like the Advanced Steal System
better but wish Strat-O-Matic could fine tune it to add the pitcher's hold.
Matt Phelan,
The higher the
complexity of a rule or system in Strat-O-Matic, the more likely it is to be in
the optional, Super Advanced features. If your league members are agreed,
there’s nothing to stop you from using some or all of the Super Advanced
features while otherwise playing Advanced. That’s the norm. Some leagues use
ballpark effects, but not weather effects. Some use closer rules, but not Super
Advanced pitcher fatigue. And on and on. Super Advanced rules are all optional. We do
not have to adopt them all to use others.
Now, then,
if you are playing the board game, Bob Winberry suggests that you could adjust
the steal-success chance according to the pitcher’s hold rating. Here’s an
approach that is similar to the way catchers affect base stealers in Advanced play:
Pitchers hold Adjustment
------------------ ---------------
-
-
-1 to +1 0
+2 to +4 +1
+5 to +9 +2
LOOKING AT IT ANOTHER WAY
Here's a
small suggestion for improving the look of the baseball cards ... for fielders,
all of the components for their fielding is included together, e.g.,
"2b-2e23". But on the pitcher's card, the range rating is in
one place and the e-rating is in another. Why not show the pitcher's
fielding as something like "p-2e30"?
P. Sean
Bramble, Fukuoka, Japan
That makes plenty of sense, though I doubt
SOM would reformat its card-printing program just for this. The game company
will note your suggestion for future reference, however.
WHERE TO GO FOR HELP
In my experience
as a computer league commissioner, most technical issues involve Key Disk problems
after a computer crash.
Charging
for support only works if there is value addition. If a customer calls for help
to use a function that is adequately explained in the help files, charge
them. If a customer calls for help because the product fails to function,
it seems like a product warranty or quality issue which is covered by the
initial purchase price.
I
personally find that the Tech Support staff has been very helpful to emailed
questions. However, if a user has a problem like inability to host games
due to his use of a router, I have found that the Internet Strat community has
been most helpful. My suggestion would be for Strat to post the websites
of the helpful groups such as the stratfanforum and
strat-o-sphere.net.
Jim Williams,
When Strat-O-Matic is able to confirm the
original purchase, it is ready to help gamers get back up and running after a
crash. In today’s computer world, the variety and mix of operating systems,
firewalls, networks, stealth viruses, software that reconfigures setups and
more, each of us has a nearly unique computer. So it stands to reason that
posting the problem and the specifics to an Internet board with thousands of
Strat fans could bring a faster solution than hoping the tech staff at
Strat-O-Matic can duplicate an individual’s problem in order to solve it.