The Splendid Splinter batted .317 with 24 HR in only 89 Games for the Red Sox in 1950.
Other Links to Statis-Pro Baseball content
Link to Dropbox PDF Cards
Statis-Pro Baseball Great Pennant Races: 1950 AL (corrected pitching cards)
Note that I have every intention of finishing my 2024 baseball ⚾️ project; I purchased a copy of Great Pennant Races for my birthday, and decided I needed to try to quickly update the 1950 pitchers. I had to see if this could be done and if this would make the set at least playable, because the position player cards originally created by Avalon Hill were done very, very well. But the pitchers cards as received from the Game Co. were very difficult to play.
I’d owned this set at least twice before, and it contains the 1950 AL, 1964 NL, and 1967 AL. But the cards were made by Avalon Hill in 1978, before they updated the pitching card methodology using David C. LeSueur’s revised methodology (All-Star Replay, Volume II, no. 4).
AH All-Star Replay Vol 2 no. 4.pdf
The older versions of the cards, used for the 1978 and 1979 seasons as well as this set, were created by a methodology that was at best an approximation. You can apply this method from the second generation instructions, as they had the charts for pitcher’s results at the end as a service to gamers who wished to create their own cards. These charts used the number of batter’s hits, walks (net ibb) and strikeouts that the pitcher allowed per inning, referenced against the pitcher’s PB rating to provide gamers with the number of splits that should be applied to the pitchers card. The replay results were disappointing, and so I sold the sets.
It was David’s method that changed my line of thinking. Mr. LeSueur’s example was two pitchers with a PB rating of 2-7, and a 1.0 strikeout to innings ratio. That’s 18 strikeout results on their cards. Let’s also assume the first has a walk rate of 0.20 walks per inning- that’s two walk results. The second has a rating of 0.6 walks per inning- that’s 10 walk results. In actual play the first pitcher would have fewer strikeouts per inning because 8 results that are walks on the second pitcher’s card are outs on the first pitcher’s card. The effect was particularly pronounced for pitcher’s with 2-5 and 2-6 ratings; the results coming from batter’s cards were not removed from the chart’s columns the way they should have been, and so these pitchers allowed more hits and walks and received fewer strikeouts than they should have. Mr. LeSueur’s method changed this, and Avalon Hill used his method to manufacture the pitcher’s cards from the 1980 season on. They were an immediate improvement; they introduced the concept of the “good” 2-6, a pitcher like 1968 Mickey Lolich or 1984 Milt Wilcox, good enough to outpitch a 2-7 with similar stats.
When I had these sets before, I loved the batting cards, but the pitchers were an issue. The batting cards seemed like whomever made them really cared about the quality and balance of the players. But the pitching…. a good staff like the 1950 Yankees seemed to be embroiled in too many 13-11 games. But it wasn’t until I created a model with the std opponent and the stock cards that I saw just how far off these 1950 stock pitchers really were.
You can model pitching results against the team’s opponents, for this excel is a handy tool. When you do this for the stock 1950 Boston cards it becomes obvious that the mid tier Red Sox pitchers, guys like Stobbs, McDermott and Masterson, get badly represented by this method. Since they handle about 40 percent of Boston’s opponents they make the staff unsustainably bad. I’m not going to argue they are top tier pitchers- Parnell, Dobson and in particular Kinder held those roles- but all three of these men were actually winning pitchers, with a combined record of 27-16, a record that even with this historically great offense they would find difficult to match using these stock cards.
The predicted model from the LeSueur cards in the link above:
Clearly, this is more like what you’d expect. You’ll get some rounding errors and the simple model estimates HPB and sac flies where the more modern cards I’ve created do not, and of course intentional walks aren’t included on the cards. But a pitcher like McDermott in particular, a hard thrower who walked a lot of batters but was hard to hit, is carded much more accurately in the “1980 plus” methodology. He’ll still make you nervous, but on the days where he is right or against the right type of lineup he can now be very effective.
It’s instructive to also look at a better pitching staff, 1950 Detroit:
Note that this set is not normalized, meaning it’s not designed to be played against 1968 or 1977. It’s intended to be self-contained. Normalization I can also do, but it would require changing the batter’s cards, too, and possibly fine tuning that method for teams before 1960. I think before I attempt that, I’ll finish 2024. But, enjoy this pitching set!
Addendum: This wouldn’t be Statis-Pro baseball ⚾️ without a confusing off-card reference. There were several Pitcher’s Batting Cards done throughout their history. One set I have from 1983 (Courtesy Delphi Forum) is this set, which I would not use with the Great Pennant Paces cards:
It’s not that these are bad cards; it’s that they don’t match up with the numbers on the pitcher’s cards and the actual hitting stats at all. Pitchers Batting Card 10 is the best card in this set, but the worst in the set that follows!
This is the sheet that came in the Great Pennant Races game box (click on it):
And while I can’t be absolutely sure it’s the perfect match it does look roughly correct.
For those who don’t like those cards, here’s Individualized Cards.
1950 AL Individualized Pitchers Batting Cards (Chart)
Jan 2, 2025:
50AL_Pitcher_Bat_Cards_extras.pdf
Fred Bobberts
Original Date of Publication: 12/17/2024
