1931 Lou Gehrig

[SayHey1]

I saw this card (an absurdly lowly rated 83) on the market the other day for 12k and snatched it up immediately thinking I could easily resell it just for the name and recoup my PP. Just 5 minutes prior to purchasing him I saw a different higher rated Gehrig go for 20k so thought it was a good gamble.


I immediately put him up for auction 3 times over the course of the next day for various minimum bids and buy nows only to get zero bids. Since this took place all in the entry pool phase, I thought perhaps the timing for selling wasn't right so I withdrew him to see how he would do.


Wow. So far, he's on pace after April to hit .341 with 50 HR's and 120 RBI's. I checked out his real stats from the year in question (1931) and discovered he hit .341 with 46 HR's and 184 RBI's!!!!!


It got me to thinking how this card could possibly be an (83) and came to the conclusion his fielding and baserunning stats are pretty low thus hurting his overall. Nevertheless, I feel this particular card at 83 is a steal (although I did pay that premium price myself).


In any case, I was wondering if any others here have had this card on their teams and how he did for them?

[Kushiel]

I have the 100 Gehrig and he is Gehrig.

[CrazyWR]

The devs have stated multiple times in multiple places that a lot of the historical cards have artificially lower OVERALL ratings. I think they said it was so that these cards are more available to all as well. But the overall rating doesn't usually tell the whole story on most historical cards.

EDIT: To your question, I had that same card in the beta in a lefty paradise park (before they lowered it to 1.1) and he was stellar. Drew Goldschmidt in a more balanced park in a pack right after the entry pool started though so haven't used him since beta yet.

[Westheim]

The overall rating is sometimes BS just like the overall rating in vanilla OOTP is sometimes BS. All the time, OOTP gives me "5-star prospects" that will never hit a lick in AA, but sure have a 20/20 glove. If the same algorithm is even partially responsible for the overall ratings in PT, nothing surprises me indeed.

[captainbuttercream]

I had 83 Gehrig in the beta and he was a monster. Definitely a great pick up!

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by Westheim

The overall rating is sometimes BS just like the overall rating in vanilla OOTP is sometimes BS. All the time, OOTP gives me "5-star prospects" that will never hit a lick in AA, but sure have a 20/20 glove. If the same algorithm is even partially responsible for the overall ratings in PT, nothing surprises me indeed.

I have a hard time grasping why people think that completely inaccurate OVR is a feature and not a bug. Seems like they're just trying to trick players who don't spend 10 minutes analyzing each card in the game.

[One Post Wonder]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

I have a hard time grasping why people think that completely inaccurate OVR is a feature and not a bug. Seems like they're just trying to trick players who don't spend 10 minutes analyzing each card in the game.

Not sure if this was intentional by the devs, but I look at it as being like a moneyball thing, where really analyzing cards can be rewarded.

It's also the reason why "whales" aren't wiping everyone out. People come on and post these lists of teams with 20 diamonds and 400 golds, but when I've seen these teams in leagues they never do as well as you'd expect. That variable OVR is an equalizer.

[captainbuttercream]

Originally Posted by zrog2000

I have a hard time grasping why people think that completely inaccurate OVR is a feature and not a bug. Seems like they're just trying to trick players who don't spend 10 minutes analyzing each card in the game.

It helps me to think of it this way, the historic card rating are rated relative to other historic cards, while live card ratings are relative to other live cards.

If historic cards were rated at the exact same scale as live cards, 75+ percent of them would be Diamond or Perfect and all live cards but Trout, Betts, DeGrom, Sale and Scherzer would be Gold or less.

[zrog2000]

Originally Posted by captainbuttercream

It helps me to think of it this way, the historic card rating are rated relative to other historic cards, while live card ratings are relative to other live cards.

If historic cards were rated at the exact same scale as live cards, 75+ percent of them would be Diamond or Perfect and all live cards but Trout, Betts, DeGrom, Sale and Scherzer would be Gold or less.

Good. That's the way it should be IMO.

I mean why on earth does a Justin Turner live card (97) have a higher OVR than a peak Ted Williams (96)? Most of these live diamond cards shouldn't be diamonds at all, let alone be ranked higher than freaking Ted Williams, the greatest or second greatest hitter in the history of baseball.

Why would a live Noah Syndergaard (98) have a higher OVR than a 1997 Pedro (96)? 8.5 - 4.2 fWAR in favor of Pedro.

OVR is absolutely meaningless in this game to the point where it is purposefully misleading. It's my biggest pet peeve with this game, and I'm including the regular game along with PT.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by captainbuttercream

It helps me to think of it this way, the historic card rating are rated relative to other historic cards, while live card ratings are relative to other live cards.

If historic cards were rated at the exact same scale as live cards, 75+ percent of them would be Diamond or Perfect and all live cards but Trout, Betts, DeGrom, Sale and Scherzer would be Gold or less.

Which is how it should be IMO.

[captainbuttercream]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Which is how it should be IMO.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second: The current system allows for more versions of historic cards to be in the game. If historic cards weren't rated on a different scale there would really be no reason to have 2-3 separate Ted Williams cards if they're all just going to be rated 100 anyway.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by captainbuttercream

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second: The current system allows for more versions of historic cards to be in the game. If historic cards weren't rated on a different scale there would really be no reason to have 2-3 separate Ted Williams cards if they're all just going to be rated 100 anyway.

Plus then all these HOFers would be rated 90+, and no live card other than probably Trout would be above a 75.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Plus then all these HOFers would be rated 90+, and no live card other than probably Trout would be above a 75.

I look at this from the standpoint of a player and a fan, not a game developer. So please keep this in mind when reading my comments.

The players should be rated on the season that is represented by the card (or span of seasons in the case of "peak" legend cards). The ratings should not be "gamed" to manipulate the distribution of cards IMO.

The best season of Jacob deGrom could be in the range of the best season of other great right-handed starting pitchers when placed in a neutralized stats environment, so it makes sense to have a 100 Jacob deGrom card. Same goes for Trout. But Mookie Betts? Is he really on the same plane as Ty Cobb?

The 2018 season of Kris Bryant or Josh Donaldson is no where near the best season of Brooks Robinson or Mike Schmidt or Eddie Mathews. Historical third baseman are way underrated relative to current third basemen, and that's why we have a glut of current 3B on the AH at any time.

The honest truth is that most teams are filled with 2018 Live cards right now because (1) no one can afford the historical gold cards much less the diamonds due to high demand for historical players and (2) there are many many more 2018 Live cards in circulation from packs.

I am getting tired of seeing the same roster on every team and want some variety. But it is stupid for me to sell my Blake Snell card for 4000pp and buy a 1964 Whitey Ford for 6000pp when the Snell card is better. If the population of cards were more evenly distributed, then the Ford card would be selling for half of a Snell card as it should be and more people would own it.

[One Post Wonder]

This will probably come off a lot better in OOTP 20, where there are tournaments and all of these players will have their roles in different sub-games.

I agree that realistically, all of these historical greats should be diamonds/perfects. But PT has to balance that in order to appeal to fans of both modern and historical baseball. I think some younger fans might lose interest if modern players were just a puddle of iron sludge with some bronze nuggets bobbing around in it.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by captainbuttercream

Playing Devil's Advocate for a second: The current system allows for more versions of historic cards to be in the game. If historic cards weren't rated on a different scale there would really be no reason to have 2-3 separate Ted Williams cards if they're all just going to be rated 100 anyway.

Yes, in the case of Williams and perhaps a dozen others in the inner HOF circle. But you can't make that case for most historical players. It would be very easy to find a "gold" season for 95% of the players in history.

[Dogberry99]

Minor point of contention: Players are not static. They change through their careers.

My personal favorite example of this being utilized and incorporated into the game extremely well is in the difference between the Live and the 2016 All Star versions of Starling Marte. Both are potentially useful (at their levels of course, since we're talking low silver and high bronze respectively), but they are both useful in very different ways.

[Westheim]

How many pitchers did Lou Gehrig face that threw it at 100mph?

How many pitchers did Ted Williams face that threw it at 100mph?

How often did Lou Gehrig have to contend with a situational lefty being sent to replace an ailing starting pitcher in the sixth inning with two on and two out?

They were undoubtedly the best in their day, but it is hard to gauge how they would have fared in the modern game that has changed significantly since the 1930s, when there was probably less overall talent in the game.

So the 1931 Lou Gehrig was probably a 100 in his own right, but what would Max Scherzer or Craig Kimbrel do to him? Is he a 100 in the modern game? That is the question.

[One Post Wonder]

Originally Posted by Westheim

So the 1931 Lou Gehrig was probably a 100 in his own right, but what would Max Scherzer or Craig Kimbrel do to him? Is he a 100 in the modern game? That is the question.

Honestly I doubt 1931 Gehrig or even 1927 Ruth could play in the majors today. Ruth certainly would be too slow to play the outfield.

But then again how would a modern player do in 1915? Where it was fairly commonplace to throw at batters, there was no protective equipment or modern gloves, and where batters would be facing spitballs, emery balls, and shine balls? Where if you got severely injured, your career was pretty much over?

Or in 1890, where dugouts were pretty much an unprotected bench near abusive, drunken, sometimes violent opposing fans? Where you wore something that might barely resemble a modern glove, and played on uneven and rocky fields? Where players would brazenly cheat, like grab your belt when you're trying to steal, and where it was expected that opposing baserunners would be coming with their spikes up? Would modern players have the mental toughness that those guys had?

So there's no way of knowing. It was all different types of baseball, requiring different skills and levels of fortitude, and the best we can do is normalize.

[Clavette]

I find it hard to believe any player was better than Pedro.

I've yet to see anyone in my lifetime

[Kushiel]

Originally Posted by Clavette

I find it hard to believe any player was better than Pedro.

I've yet to see anyone in my lifetime

You must not have seen Koufax in '63 - '66. I did and the batters had almost no chance.