Thanks for printing my on-the field-at-Wrigley story. I was also fascinated to read your story about the student who brought in the "Sealed With a KISS" page with your Detroit review. I remember thinking when we first discussed it and I mailed you a copy if anyone else would ever ask you about it. As I said before, anyone who is so important in the SOM world AND predicted big things for KISS over 40 years ago has my utmost admiration and respect!  

 

Can’t wait for those 2016 Cub cards – plus, my eyes popped when I saw the fielding ratings and saw that Kyle Schwarber was getting an additional player card (including his World Series stats, I’m assuming) instead of just being computer-only. 

 

            Thanks a million, Chris, for sharing your experience and your respect. I am not “important” – I’m just a guy who has lived long enough to do a lot of fun things and who has had the chance to share some of the experience. That’s been fun, too.  Like Tom Hanks in the movie Cast Away, where he is stranded on a desert island with only a soccer ball to talk to, we all need to express ourselves and we all need an audience. The Talk Show is here for all of us.

 

I saw a post recently about employing the defensive shift in advanced play but I’m still not sure how the above situation is presented on the players’ cards. Say a lefty hitter tends to hit to the right side of the field, but groundball outs are fielded equally between 2B and an out-of-position SS or 3B due to the shift. Which will the hitter card reflect, that he’s likely to hit it to the second baseman? Or will results of the card fully honor the fielders making the play over the course of a season? Is this more of an issue with pitching cards? I understand this is a complex issue and I was quite curious to know what Strat-O-Matic’s thoughts on it are

 

Also, and I’m sure many Cubs fans have asked, any chance a 1908 season would ever be in the works? If data from the time period is insufficient for advanced play, perhaps a basic-only set? Those pennant races would be a lot of fun to recreate.

 

 

 

I’ve wondered for years now why Strat doesn’t change the outfielders’ error rating, to be more in line with the catcher’s error ratings.  Most outfield errors are due to poorly thrown balls, and not so much dropping fly balls. If you changed the outfield rating to both a standard error chart, plus a throwing % chance for errors (T 0-x) then not only would you have a truer outfield fielding error rating, but also the chance of a throwing error from an outfielder making a player make even more decisions.  Just seems it would be closer to real baseball.

 

            I would amend your assertion to say that most outfield errors occur on throws AND by fumbling hits that have already hit the ground, rather than dropped fly balls. For that reason, an outfield T-rating alone also would be missing something. Strat-O-Matic addressed both when it moved from the Advanced Fielding Chart, where all the outfield errors are two- and three-base errors, to the Super Advanced Fielding Chart, where many outfield errors add only one base. The Windows game also incorporates throwing errors.

            All wished-for items that appear in The Talk Show are read by Strat-O-Matic decision makers and added to gamers’ request lists. Director of Product Development Bob Winberry has emphasized often that when items are requested often enough Strat-O-Matic tries to provide them. The history of game improvements – often suggested first by gamers – supports that pledge.

 

This probably been the most-requested item in Strat.  Any chance of revising Net Play to more of a Windows-based interface for all your sports?  This means online play internet would be housed by Strat instead of the individual players. The game will use Windows as its functions within the confines of its games. Any chance, Glenn, we can see this in the foreseeable future?

Last, is it possible for a revised rare-play chart for baseball, an X Chart with rare plays for football, an updated rare-play chart for hockey and an X Chart for basketball?  Thanks again.

 

It would be nice that you followed up with SOM Fanatics II to your very popular book.  So much has happened since the first book

Dozens of gamers have suggested a sequel to Strat-O-Matic Fanatics. The evolution of the company and its audience is changing so rapidly that I think we need more time to understand cause-and-effect historical context. Book-length storytelling requires tension and resolution – how did things turn out?  But I would cherish your suggestions, and those of others, about what you would want to read in such a sequel.

Can Strat-O-Matic make an IPad app?  It’s an excuse to print money, really, and would extend Strat’s popularity in a VERY significant way.  I would suggest that you look at the success of GMT’s foray into tablet apps as a window on the possibilities.  People really want to play sports on an app, and Strat could deliver something way better than they could ever get from anyone else!  I realize that it’s a capital investment issue (no capital, no investment), but I figure that if GMT can score, and they are playing in the same end of the small business pool as Strat-O-Matic, then this is a real chance to score even bigger! Strat rocks!

I’m a Steelers fan and so am a natural Pats hater but I was wondering if you’d consider releasing Tom Brady’s championship teams as a set from his five Super Bowl wins. As much as I don’t like them I think it would be cool to have all those teams and to see just how great those teams were; I’m sure there would be a lot of interest in the community for something like this with all the Patriots fans around the country.

 

That’s a creative way to repackage teams Strat-O-Matic already has produced. We have not seen best-team collections from Strat-O-Matic since the olden days of Strat when it produced basic-only baseball teams and then six NFL teams from 1958-1965. We could say those were the golden days – it’s been about 50 years since then, and it hasn’t happened in any SOM sport once the game company began expanding its line of complete seasons. Gamers do buy multiple seasons to assemble their own best-teams sets for tournament-like play and Strat-O-Matic would not be eager to discourage that by cherry-picking the best teams from those seasons.

 

 

I did ask STRAT if there is any chance of the company producing "All-Time Franchises." Its response was, "not in the near future." As an example, and as a Bosox fan, I would love to see a starting line-up that looks like this:

LF-YAZ … CF-F.Lynn … RF-D.Evans

3B-W.Boggs … 2B-D.Pedroia … 1B-D.Ortiz

C-C.Fisk … SS-N.Garciaparra … DH-J.Rice

 

Starting Pitchers:

R.Clemens … P.Martinez … C.Young … L.Tiant … T.Wakefield

 

These sets could be sold for $3.50 instead of the usual $1.75, and the company could start with perhaps just one set of 12-teams … to see how they sell.

 

 

 

 

 

Just wondering if there is any possibility that Strat might consider changing some card patterns in the not-too-distant future?  We have seen the same patterns for 25+ years now and, frankly, many gamers and myself feel like they are getting old.  Case in point, here with the release of the 2016 season set, Yadier Molina was the Cardinals’ leading hitter so he will have the 1-4 pattern.  Meaning, of course, that I know what his card is going to look like.  Albert Pujols, from 2001 thru 2006, his card was pretty much the same every year – always that 1-4 pattern.  He looked the same every year.  It would really be nice if Strat would change patterns every so often or at least mix up some patterns. In this age of computers/programs/printer capabilities, it can’t be very difficult to make some changes.  A lot of gamers always talk about the anticipation of getting the new card sets (i.e, Christmas about six weeks late) yet to a lot of us that anticipation is greatly reduced because we already know what patterns players are getting as well as what that pattern will look like.

 

 

 

 

Hi Glenn, I enjoy your Strat-O-Matic Pro Football podcasts with Tom and Dennis. I know you mentioned that, the way we play the game, via drafting teams, is not the norm, that the overwhelming majority play with stock teams. Still, we have come up with workarounds to make draft-League games more accurate.

 

As you know we can draft complete rosters on both sides of the ball. But what we can’t do is replicate the team defense cards. There are different ways to handle this. One would be everyone using the same card. So the commissioner will pick an average defense and every team will use that. Other leagues total the defensive ratings and then assign team cards based on the NFL club’s strength. While I may be playing as the Ironton tanks, my defense card belongs to the Minnesota Vikings.

 

I wonder if the company would consider creating generic defensive cards for draft leagues. They would review statistics for all 30 teams and create cards based on the 20th percentile, 40th percentile, 60th percentile, and 80th percentile and generate defensive cards with that data?

 

            Thanks for listening, Michael. I’m sure Tom and Dennis appreciate it, too, as they take a lot of care to prepare thoughtful questions on behalf of Strat-O-Matic’s most fanatic football fans. I enjoy those shows and being challenged that way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the December Talk Show under "LETTERS TO STRAT-O-CLAUS," Henry Roman suggested the need for older college football teams. I second that. I like the idea of using the older game versions, translating the card sets to computer teams. Also I like the idea of the best of each school, on season per school. But here is another suggestion.

 

In the ‘70s Sports Illustrated produced a game called "Bowl Bound." (It was a good game that I quite enjoyed for many years.) They approached 32 schools and asked for recommendations of the season each school thought was their best. Not all the teams chosen were of championship-caliber or undefeated. Later they added another set of pre-1980 teams [Note from Glenn Guzzo: Eventually, there was a third set of teams from 1979-88.] Here is a list of the teams of those first two sets.

1970 Air Force            1947 Michigan                             1966 Notre Dame             1940 Stanford

1966 Alabama             1969 Michigan                              1973 Notre Dame                 1970 Stanford

1978 Alabama             1952 Michigan State                        1964 Ohio State                   1959 Syracuse 

1975 Arizona State      1966 Michigan State              1968 Ohio State                  1966 Syracuse

1969 Arkansas             1960 Minnesota                     1955 Oklahoma                 1951 Tennessee

1977 Arkansas             1977 Kentucky                           1967 Oklahoma                1970 Tennessee

1945 Army                   1969 LSU                                       1969 Penn State               1969 Texas

1966 Army                   1961 Mississipi                              1973 Penn State                1977 Texas

1970 Dartmouth           1969 Missouri                                  1976 Pittsburgh                 1954 UCLA

1969 Florida                 1963 Navy                                   1964 Princeton            1965 UCLA

1968 Georgia                1970 Nebraska                              1966 Purdue                     1960 Washington   

1966 Georgia Tech       1971 Nebraska                             1967 USC                             1962 Wisconsin    

1951 Maryland             1970 Northwestern                           1972 USC                          1968 Yale           

 

Another option would have all National Champions, not including the ones already in the Great Teams set, and maybe teams that played in those "championship" games. I would also try to get as many different schools as possible included.

 

I have set up seasons with the best of 64 teams (8 conferences) from what is presently available. All the schools above and ones from the Great Teams set are included (such as Auburn, Florida State and Miami) but only one season from each team is used. I use a round-robin schedule within each conference (7 games each). Bowls are the only non-conference games. Each season ends with different results and no team tends to dominate its conference, although there are a few teams that struggle to get out of the cellar.

 

 

            Your conferences sound like great fun and I hope you will share the outcome for the Great Moments in Strat column. Alas, yours and Henry Roman’s are among the relatively few comments here at The Talk Show concerning college football. So I’d wonder if Strat-O-Matic would make the investment in more historic teams. There are many I’d like to play.

 

            When Steve Reiter led Strat-O-Matic’s research for the college football Great Teams set, he concluded that the mostly one-dimensional, low-scoring teams prior to 1966 had no realistic chance to compete with later, more dynamic great teams. Indeed, Bowl Bound’s first 32-team set, which covered teams from 1960-1970, had only three heavy favorites: 1966 Michigan State, 1966 Notre Dame and 1967 USC. A win by any other team over those three was a thrilling upset. So, while 1945 Army (Davis and Blanchard), 1947 Michigan (Tom Harmon), 1955 Oklahoma (coached by Bud Wilkinson), 1959 Syracuse (Ernie Davis), and 1963 Navy (Roger Staubach) have some of the biggest names in college football history, they belong in their own group.

 

Strat-O-Matic should look into adding clutch pitching, which would work the same as the clutch hitting. This would make pitchers who give up a lot of baserunners but don’t have that high of an ERA give up fewer runs. Thanks for everything! Strat-O-Matic is the greatest baseball simulation game!

 

            When I interviewed Hal Richman for the earliest issues of STRAT FAN, he revealed that some pitchers who had better seasons than their base stats suggest were adjusted. At the time, his example was Johnny Podres, the Dodgers lefty who frequently had winning records, and big-game success, without great WHIPs or the glittering ERA’s of his era (1950s and 1960s). The extreme Podres example is 1961, when he was 18-5 with a 3.74 ERA and a 1.31 WHIP after giving up 192 hits in 183 innings.  But he was a winner every season from 1959-64, and in several earlier seasons while only twice posting ERAs better than 3.10 and with only one WHIP below 1.27. We can identify other better-than-their-ERAs-look pitchers in the CERA (Composite ERA) stat found in the Bill James Handbook. Strat-O-Matic Baseball is a stats-driven game, but one of the many things that makes it so great is that the stats do not stand alone – there are other factors that drive performance and Strat-O-Matic works hard to honor them.