whats the deal with Eppa Rixey?!?!

[Vapier]

Ok, i haven't said alot about the stats on PT for a while but what in the heck is going on with the domination of an average pitcher across the whole PT universe, from the real stats of some of the legendary pitchers this guy is dominating it makes no sense to me....

[Vapier]

So for an example, compare his career to Cy Youngs as just one example and maybe everyone will get why i'm scratching my head...

[bailey]

It's the ratings on the card that count. 11 points of movement for Rixey beats 11 points of stuff for Young hands down. Like a flush to your 2 pair.

[Hertston]

The only 'sense' is that the PT stats are designed to continually up the ante with each set released, to keep people playing and as many as possible paying, rather than being accurate representations of real people. Consequently, although some obvious 'big names' are being saved for FH3 many genuine legends introduced earlier rapidly become outclassed by lesser (albeit very good) players. Cy Young is an obvious example, but there are many more - the fact Stan Musial is barely playable in diamond narks me considerably, for example.

All you can really do is go with it, and the realization PT is much more a card collection game than a baseball game. For OOTP baseball fidelity, stick with franchise mode.

[ncap99]

If Rixey came out in the release set and Cy Young just got released a few weeks ago, Cy Young would be way better. It is just how it works to give people things to strive for. The alternative (and maybe better?) solution would be to save the all time greats for later sets but I think that would be a bummer in a different way. Until then enjoy Joe Morgan having more power than peak Sammy Sosa and other fun things like that.

[professor ape]

Completely agree with this conversation. The cards should slowly improve as the card and mission releases progress because it would be boring for us as players if the cards you get in April stay as the best cards all season. Of course that aligns with the company’s goal of keeping us engaged.
I think they could do a bit better at using the players’ individual seasons versus PEAK cards to have some of these make more sense. Using the Rixey/Young example; Young’s 1902 season was a great with a 166 ERA+ and a WAR just above ten. Rixey had a strong 1923 but his ERA+ was 139 and his WAR was 5.9. My suggestion would have been to make Rixey a PEAK card to justify it being a somewhat stronger card than Young’s from a specific season.

[frankbama]

Originally Posted by Hertston

The only 'sense' is that the PT stats are designed to continually up the ante with each set released, to keep people playing and as many as possible paying, rather than being accurate representations of real people. Consequently, although some obvious 'big names' are being saved for FH3 many genuine legends introduced earlier rapidly become outclassed by lesser (albeit very good) players. Cy Young is an obvious example, but there are many more - the fact Stan Musial is barely playable in diamond narks me considerably, for example.

All you can really do is go with it, and the realization PT is much more a card collection game than a baseball game. For OOTP baseball fidelity, stick with franchise mode.

Funny thing is Cy is still good for me, though not as much as earlier and Musial pulled down 3.0 WAR in 2043 in 113 games. That said, last year he got a 0 so who knows. At only 6pm on Monday he's doing pretty well too not that that really adds much.

[Vapier]

Originally Posted by professor ape

Completely agree with this conversation. The cards should slowly improve as the card and mission releases progress because it would be boring for us as players if the cards you get in April stay as the best cards all season. Of course that aligns with the company’s goal of keeping us engaged.
I think they could do a bit better at using the players’ individual seasons versus PEAK cards to have some of these make more sense. Using the Rixey/Young example; Young’s 1902 season was a great with a 166 ERA+ and a WAR just above ten. Rixey had a strong 1923 but his ERA+ was 139 and his WAR was 5.9. My suggestion would have been to make Rixey a PEAK card to justify it being a somewhat stronger card than Young’s from a specific season.

Agree with you on this one, utilize more of single seasons, would make alot more sense to me, even the greats had some less than stellar seasons. Just throw all the peaks out then and only have the very best versions toward the end of the PT life for Peak cards...

[Hertston]

Originally Posted by Vapier

Agree with you on this one, utilize more of single seasons, would make alot more sense to me, even the greats had some less than stellar seasons.

TBH, while I understand the reasoning, I think that would just cause more frustration. People like obtaining certain players because they are the true legends of the sport and expect them to play that way, not 'just' even HoFers who those not fans of the club or total baseball obsessives need to look up. While the greats did indeed have less than stellar seasons, what on earth is the attraction of "well, yeah, it is Ted Williams, but it's the 1959 season version so actually he's pretty rubbish compared with (*insert name of anyone you've never heard of who hit over. 300 in 1959*)?

The underlying problem is that variation in performance as determined by base statistics seems far too large. Take, for example, the dominance in movement as a pitcher stat. It just becomes absurd that a guy can have three or four great pitches that he can deliver with pinpoint accuracy at 95-100 mph (plus a change-up) becomes largely irrelevant because his movement skill is 80 not 95. Which, if nothing else, is hardly a surprise when the ball has significantly less time to actually move than if thrown 10mph slower!

[Meximemer]

One of the really neat things I like about the content set this year is the amount of lesser known legends that are added. The cards are designed for balance/power creep purposes that have to do with the metagame rather than a replica of the actual player’s dominance. Cy Young is an early cycle card and Eppa is a later cycle card to incentivize completing the new mission sets that get released.

[Hertston]

Originally Posted by Meximemer

One of the really neat things I like about the content set this year is the amount of lesser known legends that are added.

I suggest 'lesser known legend' might be a contradiction in terms contextually?

The cards are designed for balance/power creep purposes that have to do with the metagame rather than a replica of the actual player’s dominance. Cy Young is an early cycle card and Eppa is a later cycle card to incentivize completing the new mission sets that get released.

That's quite correct, of course, but your points combined point to one of my biggest disappointment with the game - the cards themselves. They are just numbers with no connection to the real people which would at least give each card some inherent interest beyond that. I accept, reluctantly, that the image rights problem that prevents using photos cannot be resolved, but how about cartoons? Or a 'back side' giving brief biographical and career details? 'Lesser known legends' are all fine and dandy, but at least let me know a little about them!

[chazzycat]

I for one don't really mind this type of thing. Everyone already knows about Cy Young, but getting us to talk about Eppa Rixey and bringing awareness to less famous (but still very good) players is a good thing. Plus if the cards were always strictly ranked by how good they were in real life, this game would get stale & predictable real fast.

[professor ape]

Originally Posted by chazzycat

I for one don't really mind this type of thing. Everyone already knows about Cy Young, but getting us to talk about Eppa Rixey and bringing awareness to less famous (but still very good) players is a good thing. Plus if the cards were always strictly ranked by how good they were in real life, this game would get stale & predictable real fast.

Agreed. My only comment using the Rixey/Young comparison, is that I feel that they should have designated Rixey as a PEAK card to justify the high ratings. His 1923 was solid, but Young’s 1902 was a good bit better.

[dishnet34]

Originally Posted by professor ape

Agreed. My only comment using the Rixey/Young comparison, is that I feel that they should have designated Rixey as a PEAK card to justify the high ratings. His 1923 was solid, but Young’s 1902 was a good bit better.

Rixey's card is designated as a "PEAK" card.

[professor ape]

Originally Posted by dishnet34

Rixey's card is designated as a "PEAK" card.

My bad. I thought I saw it was specific to 1923 and Young to 1902. Now I see both showing as PEAK. In that case I amend my suggestion to say that the Young card should have been a non-PEAK for a particular season whither the Rixey as a PEAK.

[Vapier]

Originally Posted by professor ape

My bad. I thought I saw it was specific to 1923 and Young to 1902. Now I see both showing as PEAK. In that case I amend my suggestion to say that the Young card should have been a non-PEAK for a particular season whither the Rixey as a PEAK.

But yet Rixey's best "Peak" performances were with Philly and it's a Cincy card...

[chazzycat]

Peak cards still do have a designated year, despite encompassing multiple years. In this case the year is 1923 (per database). And he played in Cincy that year.

[professor ape]

Originally Posted by chazzycat

Peak cards still do have a designated year, despite encompassing multiple years. In this case the year is 1923 (per database). And he played in Cincy that year.

Stop being all smart and rational ChazzyCat. Let me talk out of my rear and accidentally spread misleading information.

[chazzycat]

Ha! No worries, you were on the right track that 1923 year was relevant.

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by Hertston

The only 'sense' is that the PT stats are designed to continually up the ante with each set released, to keep people playing and as many as possible paying, rather than being accurate representations of real people. Consequently, although some obvious 'big names' are being saved for FH3 many genuine legends introduced earlier rapidly become outclassed by lesser (albeit very good) players. Cy Young is an obvious example, but there are many more - the fact Stan Musial is barely playable in diamond narks me considerably, for example.

Agree entirely. This discussion plays into my comments in another thread where I was complaining about the fact that each successive release of cards has to be better than the last (in order to keep the spending going). That leads to (among other things) problems like are displayed here.

If we're going to be honest with ourselves, the only way PT can be enjoyed is to think of these historical players as "fictional representations" of the real-life personalities.

In other words, what Eppa Rixey "could have been"... then it all makes sense.