I just ripped someone off
 

In one of my first packs, I got a 69 overall Mark Fidrych. He was awful, which a quick look at his rating suggests wasn't an anomaly. Seriously. The guy might be 69 overall, but most of that is from his insane 111 stamina. Stamina can be very useful, but only if the player is actually good. I don't want him pitching more than he needs to.

So I put him up for auction, and I guess because he's a 69 SP, he got some serious interest. In the end, someone gave me 600 for him. 600?!
Whoever my mysterious customer is out there, thank you.


https://i.imgur.com/UWWN70c.jpg

Ah, I was one of the people bidding. I didn't pay 600, that seems like a lot, but he's one of the best bronze pitchers if you're focusing on defense/trying to get opposing teams to put the ball in play. I'd certainly pay a decent amount for him, but ya, 600 seems a lot.

That's why you don't auto-sell! :D

600 is insane for any bronze!

Yeah, when it was around 150-200, that made sense. But 600 is insane.

Also, I feel like he wouldn't be a good pitcher for focusing on defense, isn't the "extreme flyball" going to be an issue? Usually the pitchers that rely on defense are extreme groundballers.

My biggest issue though is only having two decent pitches. That's scary with a 111 stamina guy who's gonna face every guy probably four times.

I'm guessing the person who bought the card was one of the sell out fans who used to attend the Tiger games that 'The Bird' was starting. About 20,000 for most games, in the 50,000 + range for The Bird. The guy was electric. His on the mound antics were something to see. And, he had the American League at his mercy. So, yeah, in a game with 'points' as the medium of purchase, I can see it.

Agreed, there was another copy that went for ~200-300, which I think is more likely the right price. People got swept up in the bidding!

Depends how far back your fences are/how much range your OF has ;)

Depends how quick your manager's SP hook is ;)

Pick a niche. Lean in. Hope for the best?

I don't necessarily think it was someone who saw him, but I do think we'll see people bid for their favourite players or interesting historical players and he was definitely that. Not everyone is going to collect just based on how well a player might do for them. I'm sure some people are going to want players just to have them in their gallery. I know in the beta I was pretty stoked to pull pretty much every all-time great Yankee (except for Ruth), but I usually didn't keep them on my active roster long, if at all, because I could get someone better. But I still liked that I got them.

I agree somewhat with the thing about the outfield, but if you put a short hook on a high stamina pitcher, that's a total waste.

Agreed, quick hook with high stamina isn't the most efficient, but I also have a large bullpen and allow SP use in relief, so I don't mind losing a bit of efficiency there personally. I certainly don't mind low stamina pitchers, but I'm not going to turn away a high-stamina one who fits my park and team well just because I'm not stretching them to their longest starts possible.

And, if they're not getting shelled, they'll still sometimes pitch complete games (or at least 7-8 innings) even with a relatively quick hook.

I snap-purchased the first Ichiro Rookie card in the AH I could afford for the 500 PP Buy It Now price. Overpayed? Almost certainly. Irrational? Yes. Do I care? No.

His rookie season is the reason I love baseball, so he's my RF, and I wanted the first copy I could get. The rest of the team can come later :laugh:.

Same, when a Nick Markakis or a 2011 Unsung Heroes Robert Andino comes in, I'm buying that, no matter how many thousands of points it is. :)

I drew that card and I think the 69 rating is a joke. There is enough top-of-the-lineup slap contact in the rookie Ichiro to be worth well more than your run-o'-the-mill bronze card.

Well, a 69 is better than 99% of the run-o'-the-mill bronze cards.

Plus, not all of the ratings are 100% perfect, which is by design to an extent.

If you pay attention, you'll definitely be able to find some values.

Speaking of this, and returning incidentally to the original player in question:

Mark Fidrych has two cards from 1976, a Rookie Sensation (74 OVR) and a One Hit Wonder (69 OVR); the Rookie Sensation has slightly better stats across the board it appears, as reflected by the ORV ratings.

So, I'm curious: why do player cards from the same year (but different card categories) have different overall and specific ratings? I thought the ratings came from the stats in a given year, but there must be some manual alteration here to distinguish these two cards, right? Actually, why have two different cards for the same player in the same year? I mean, I get that a player can fit nicely into two categories in a given year, but it just feels strange having the same player from the same year with different stats, as though they're coming from parallel universes or something. It's not a big deal at all, just feels a bit odd to me...

Whoever made the ground ball fly ball determination on a lot of these guys needs serious help. I’ve seen notorious ground ball pitchers listed as extreme flyball.

I just suspend disbelief and ignore the name on the player. It’s not just PT. It’s been like that with the rosters forever. It’s like whoever is doing it is throwing darts at a board.

I'll hazard a guess that it's about perspective. The rookie sensation is taken from the view that he just finished his rookie year and he has plenty of potential whereas the one hit wonder his career is finished and we're looking back at what was, not what still could be.

Wait... this is Airdrop01? Playing Perfect Team? Ludic loop guy? ;)

Examples please? This sort of thing is why we post a whole error thread each year and ask for contributions when folks notice something. You can sit back and just complain if you want, but it's much more helpful if you contribute where you see something that's off.

Some of this is random, and needs to be fixed, but most MLB-AAA level pitchers should be set reasonably accurately (at least as close as possible, given that we use a different way of calculating gb/fb that most sites with the data publicly available do). If they aren't then it's helpful to know that, as the only way to fix this currently is one by one, which means some guys will get missed.

Well, he already owns the current version of the game, so might as well. That's my logic.

Yeah. I won’t buy the product in the future because I disagree with the model and the ethics. But I’ve spent it already so I can play it without supporting the scheme.

Just look at how many people are itching to spend money on micro transactions for a 1/1000chance of a card...or how many are calling this addictive or suggesting new cards (pixels) or even expiring pixel cards.

It’s the ludic loop in action.

I would guess there was a mistake here somewhere, as we didn't intend to have multiple cards from the same historical guys for the same years.

Probably I accidently added Fydrich in each category and didn't realize it. Why the ratings are different in this case though, no idea. Also not intentional afaik.