Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?
-
I have two 99 Clementes. I love them both. And yet, to me, one is a 99, while the other is maybe a 102.
I just can't wrap my head around the 99 maximum. Contact L/R, Power L/R and Vision all go up to 125. Why don't we just bite the bullet and have cards that go to an overall 125? I've seen so many threads this year on "well, we got a 99, but it's not going to be his BEST 99". This makes no sense to my logical accounting brain.
Let's discuss this before the next, "best" 99 Griffey comes out. Or not. Maybe this is silly and I'm wrong. Feel free to tell me so.
P.S. I'm not wrong.
-
Overall has never mattered. People act like if they would have slapped a 98 on the corner of Griffey it would have been more acceptable. It wouldn't have made a difference
-
@the_dragon1912 said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
Overall has never mattered. People act like if they would have slapped a 98 on the corner of Griffey it would have been more acceptable. It wouldn't have made a difference
I know. But I'd kind of like it to matter. I'd love to see the debate of "why 101 2nd Half Griffey is better than 105 MS Griffey".
-
I honestly think they switched Mantle to a 98 to try and avoid the backlash they got for Griffey. It is odd to replace a 99 with a better 99. I'm a huge old school stats guy in that I love to see who has the best numbers over the course of an night, week, Mini season, whatever time you wanna measure. So I might be stubborn and keep using the old card for a while. Who knows? Anyway, I'm guessing it's all about maximizing big content.
-
@arvcpa_MLBTS said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
I have two 99 Clementes. I love them both. And yet, to me, one is a 99, while the other is maybe a 102.
I just can't wrap my head around the 99 maximum. Contact L/R, Power L/R and Vision all go up to 125. Why don't we just bite the bullet and have cards that go to an overall 125? I've seen so many threads this year on "well, we got a 99, but it's not going to be his BEST 99". This makes no sense to my logical accounting brain.
Let's discuss this before the next, "best" 99 Griffey comes out. Or not. Maybe this is silly and I'm wrong. Feel free to tell me so.
P.S. I'm not wrong.
Do you think that so called 99 Griffey is an actual 99? I agree they should have released it as a 95 or 96, not a 99. Though I believe Mays and Gehrig’s cards are 99s, they are not Mays or Gehrig 99s. I have made this point in my own and other people’s threads. I can live with Mays and Possibly Gehrig (who ha[censored]ting attributes much lower than Bagwell); but absolutely not Griffey’s card. It isn’t good enough for any 99.
-
People keep saying Gehrig has lower attributes than Bagwell - is this even true. I know Gehrig has 100s across the board contact and power, and 100+ on vision. Does Bagwell? I thought his vision was in the 90s. I could be wrong, but I think Gehrigs card is definitely the best LH 1B in the game unless you have Brett there. And Gehrig was better than Brett. So was Bagwell for that matter. Why aren’t y’all comparing every cards attributes to Brett?
-
@arvcpa_MLBTS said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
I have two 99 Clementes. I love them both. And yet, to me, one is a 99, while the other is maybe a 102.
I just can't wrap my head around the 99 maximum. Contact L/R, Power L/R and Vision all go up to 125. Why don't we just bite the bullet and have cards that go to an overall 125? I've seen so many threads this year on "well, we got a 99, but it's not going to be his BEST 99". This makes no sense to my logical accounting brain.
Let's discuss this before the next, "best" 99 Griffey comes out. Or not. Maybe this is silly and I'm wrong. Feel free to tell me so.
P.S. I'm not wrong.
Idrk how that works, but it sounds like it'd be more of an issue for programmers to cap at 125 and have cards that range from 40-125, instead of just only 99, which s way simpler, idk tho that's just what came to mind
-
@Possum80_MLBTS said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
People keep saying Gehrig has lower attributes than Bagwell - is this even true. I know Gehrig has 100s across the board contact and power, and 100+ on vision. Does Bagwell? I thought his vision was in the 90s. I could be wrong, but I think Gehrigs card is definitely the best LH 1B in the game unless you have Brett there. And Gehrig was better than Brett. So was Bagwell for that matter. Why aren’t y’all comparing every cards attributes to Brett?
He's in the conversation but yesterday's content drop added some solid competition. McCovey, Fielder and Helton all have comparable attributes. Votto and Giambi aren't far off either.
-
Not a bad idea in theory but in application I feel like it would be the same but different. If overalls maxed out at 125 then they would be releasing 125’s now instead of 99’s and all the same debates would ensue about why this guys 125 is more endowed than that guys 125
-
@Possum80_MLBTS said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
People keep saying Gehrig has lower attributes than Bagwell - is this even true. I know Gehrig has 100s across the board contact and power, and 100+ on vision. Does Bagwell? I thought his vision was in the 90s. I could be wrong, but I think Gehrigs card is definitely the best LH 1B in the game unless you have Brett there. And Gehrig was better than Brett. So was Bagwell for that matter. Why aren’t y’all comparing every cards attributes to Brett?
Brett is a third baseman. Griffey Jr, and Mays are OFs and Gehrig is a first baseman. Yes, I know Brett can play first, but do you have a problem with Brett’s attributes?
As for Clemente, I don’t see why people care. For people who got collections done, they probably did it a little while ago; and for people who haven’t been able to do it now they get to use Clemente too. I don’t see how it hurts anyone. Even if you got the collections done the week before, you got more than Clemente. Now you have a choice over the two. -
@the_dragon1912 said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
Overall has never mattered. People act like if they would have slapped a 98 on the corner of Griffey it would have been more acceptable. It wouldn't have made a difference
True, but if it said 96 or even 98, then I would feel like another one is definitely coming. I agree overall doesn’t matter. Zach Britton’s Milestone card is one of the top 4 or 5 LH relievers, that card is a low to mid 90s card.
-
@arvcpa_MLBTS said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
Why don't we just bite the bullet and have cards that go to an overall 125?
Power creep. How many years then before we would have tons of 125 cards and we are saying, why don't they just up the cards to 150.
That said, I am not really a fan of multiple 99's unless it is a special case like post season cards and the like.
-
@brainfreeze442 said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
@Possum80_MLBTS said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
People keep saying Gehrig has lower attributes than Bagwell - is this even true. I know Gehrig has 100s across the board contact and power, and 100+ on vision. Does Bagwell? I thought his vision was in the 90s. I could be wrong, but I think Gehrigs card is definitely the best LH 1B in the game unless you have Brett there. And Gehrig was better than Brett. So was Bagwell for that matter. Why aren’t y’all comparing every cards attributes to Brett?
Brett is a third baseman. Griffey Jr, and Mays are OFs and Gehrig is a first baseman. Yes, I know Brett can play first, but do you have a problem with Brett’s attributes?
As for Clemente, I don’t see why people care. For people who got collections done, they probably did it a little while ago; and for people who haven’t been able to do it now they get to use Clemente too. I don’t see how it hurts anyone. Even if you got the collections done the week before, you got more than Clemente. Now you have a choice over the two.I love Brett’s card. I was just pointing out that others keep comparing the Bagwell card to Gehrigs but are ok with other cards that have better attributes. Just seemed weird to me. I’m not saying they should be complaining about those cards having better attributes, just saying I find it odd that I’ve seen 3 posts, I believe by three different dudes, comparing the Gehrig card to Bagwells
-
To me I don’t care about the overall and don’t care if there are multiple 99s. They have some formula that assigns overall based on ratings and it just so happens some cards with less than desirable stats is a 99.
-
His new 99 has been so good for me. He’s batting .500 with 9 home runs already. Way more home runs and always find a gap for doubles.
-
Rather than going to overalls over 99, I would rather take it back to max attributes of 99.
-
@Possum80_MLBTS said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
@brainfreeze442 said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
@Possum80_MLBTS said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
People keep saying Gehrig has lower attributes than Bagwell - is this even true. I know Gehrig has 100s across the board contact and power, and 100+ on vision. Does Bagwell? I thought his vision was in the 90s. I could be wrong, but I think Gehrigs card is definitely the best LH 1B in the game unless you have Brett there. And Gehrig was better than Brett. So was Bagwell for that matter. Why aren’t y’all comparing every cards attributes to Brett?
Brett is a third baseman. Griffey Jr, and Mays are OFs and Gehrig is a first baseman. Yes, I know Brett can play first, but do you have a problem with Brett’s attributes?
As for Clemente, I don’t see why people care. For people who got collections done, they probably did it a little while ago; and for people who haven’t been able to do it now they get to use Clemente too. I don’t see how it hurts anyone. Even if you got the collections done the week before, you got more than Clemente. Now you have a choice over the two.I love Brett’s card. I was just pointing out that others keep comparing the Bagwell card to Gehrigs but are ok with other cards that have better attributes. Just seemed weird to me. I’m not saying they should be complaining about those cards having better attributes, just saying I find it odd that I’ve seen 3 posts, I believe by three different dudes, comparing the Gehrig card to Bagwells
It is because they were both released fairly close. Plus, though I have played well with Bagwell’s card in the past, there is a large amount of people who have voiced their opinion on how bad his card plays. It’s also a fairly easy complaint to make as opposed to Brett. Brett was a great third baseman, his cards are always popular, and he was a collection reward. Bagwell was a phenomenal player, but when you think of Bagwell to one of the greatest players, it’s a fair observation to point out. I wish they didn’t make that Prime card. I’ve spoke to people on and off the board, and most think he will get a better card. I don’t think he will, he deserves a better card, but that card isn’t as noticeable as Griffey’s because all of Gehrig’[censored]ting attributes blink. it is also a good card. It would hold up to Foxx and Pujols (as long as they do their cards right), and then the Finest cards. It will be the first year he doesn’t get a true “end game “ card.
-
-
@arvcpa_MLBTS said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
I have two 99 Clementes. I love them both. And yet, to me, one is a 99, while the other is maybe a 102.
I just can't wrap my head around the 99 maximum. Contact L/R, Power L/R and Vision all go up to 125. Why don't we just bite the bullet and have cards that go to an overall 125? I've seen so many threads this year on "well, we got a 99, but it's not going to be his BEST 99". This makes no sense to my logical accounting brain.
Let's discuss this before the next, "best" 99 Griffey comes out. Or not. Maybe this is silly and I'm wrong. Feel free to tell me so.
P.S. I'm not wrong.
if everyone gets a 99, then no-one is a 99 - these numbers that SDS throws around at this point are just there for appearance - they have little basis in reality
-
@arvcpa_MLBTS said in Can we talk about the "99 conundrum"?:
I have two 99 Clementes. I love them both. And yet, to me, one is a 99, while the other is maybe a 102.
I just can't wrap my head around the 99 maximum. Contact L/R, Power L/R and Vision all go up to 125. Why don't we just bite the bullet and have cards that go to an overall 125? I've seen so many threads this year on "well, we got a 99, but it's not going to be his BEST 99". This makes no sense to my logical accounting brain.
Let's discuss this before the next, "best" 99 Griffey comes out. Or not. Maybe this is silly and I'm wrong. Feel free to tell me so.
P.S. I'm not wrong.
I think it's been a very poor decision to open the gate to many multiple 99's. I think many folks like to know when and if a card is the best for that specific player both in terms of collecting and using the card. Hitters are hard to parallel so I have no interest in using multiple 99's for any players (including my favorite ones).
