I haven't seen the points values or abilities yet, but I may have a problem with Trevor Hoffman being included in the set. He only pitched 9 innings last year and had no stats to speak of. The reason I'm so concerned is b/c Sportsclix is fundamentally based on a player's performance in a given season. If Wizkids balanced the game and dials with a super secret formula based on actual numbers, I can't see how Hoffman can have any value. What's to prevent Wizkids from adjusting his dial to what they "think" it should be, as opposed to based on hard, empirical data?
To a lesser degree, I can foresee problems with Griffey and Sasaki for similar reasons, too small a sample size of real stats to properly represent their abilities.

The reason I'm so concerned is b/c Sportsclix is fundamentally based on a player's performance in a given season.

Here's the catch. The players you mention -- Hoffman, Griffey and Sasaki -- have very high collectability value. Randy Johnson and Roy Oswalt also fall into this category (collectable but spent significant time injured).

It makes solid sense that stats for players who failed to meet a certain requirement (Innings Pitched for pitchers, or At Bats for hitters) would be combined with their [i]previous season[/] stats to get a composite. What few stats they genereated last year being part of the formula, you have an accurate depiction of that player in his most recent "playing shape" and he can be included in the set!!

I wouldn't have a problem with creating this years figure with stats from a players previous two seasons if he did not contribute significant playing time in the previous season, but I would have liked to have seen that players base read '03-'04 instead of the current '04 printed on those players bases.

This way I guess you can only look at those players from the standpoint of if they were healthy last year they would have played the same way they played in the previous season because that is the best information we have.

[QUOTE
Here's the catch. The players you mention -- Hoffman, Griffey and Sasaki -- have very high collectability value.
[/b][/quote]



are you suggesting that people won't be clamoring for Rod Beck? (Hoffman's replacement last year...) :p

The '04 on the base is their set designation only. They want to sell the product, so they use the figs that will help sell the porduct, eventhough they may have been injured for most of the prior year. If they wouldn't have included Roy Oswalt only because of his groin pull last year, I would have said, "SO? Use his stats from the prior year then! I MUST HAVE ROY!! (in a purely platonic and baseball-related fashion, mind you).

I'll admit I'm glad they included players that were injured from the '03 season b/c it definitely makes the game more fun to have the best players included. I was just raising concern b/c I can analyze actual '03 baseball stats to determine a player's worth and use those numbers to assemble the best Sportsclix team. If someone like Hoffman had his Sportsclix dial compiled from his '02 season, I just wish Wizkids would mention that. In fact, I think I'll e-mail them right now to do that... =)

I am also very interested in what they have to say. Make sure you let us know if they respond to you.

Heck, you can just look at the dials to see a figure's worth. I know...there's a LOT of figs, but think of it this way: Eventually all the figs' stats will be well known and we will know who to use more often than not.

But isn't part of the fun finding out which figures are more "broken" than others before anyone else? Sure, in time, strategies, surefire lineups and team themes will probably develop, but greatness is achieved through hard work and wouldn't YOU want to be the first to win a Sportsclix tournament based on your own research?

My God. Did someone say "broken"? Already? I would like to think that in a game based on REAL WORLD STATS there would be no broken players. Sheesh.

I've got to agree with Jester here.

The problem with some MK and MW:DA figures being obviously more or less valuable (in terms of game play) stems partially from the fact that there is no real, tangible basis to work from. Is an Orc Marauder really X amount more or less powerful than a Steam Gunner?

However, sports -- and specifically baseball -- has a WEALTH of existing statistics and information which is easier to prove.... And if not outright prove, at least argue.

You can look at AVG, OPS, SLG, RBIs and say definitively which of two players is a more productive offensive player. You can look at steals, times grounded into a double play, infield hits, number of triples and determine which players are faster than other. Fielding percentages, assists, put outs can tell you about defensive prowess.

The big step comes in putting value on those aspects as they relate to game mechanics. That's where all the playtesting, revision and hard work comes in. So far, I'm incredibly impressed with how SportsClix has come along.

That argument fails because of the point system. REGARDLESS of how good the statistics are they will still have a proportional point value, which is taken into consideration in team building.
If you want to make a team with a total point value of 3000 points, and go against a team worth 1000 points, the 3000 point team will MOST LIKELY win.
This point system balances out the players. Granted, most figs are close together or so it seems, but 80 points compared to 150 is a significant difference.
And besides, no matter how much this is based on realism, it still follows unique game mechanics. The figs still have different abilities and results on each click as compared to each other. So YES, there will be situations and clicks where some players are better than others. Finding out when and where that is, will be the problem solving aspect of team building, of this game.