Originally Posted by MrUmpire (Post 637997)

Sorry, I was just repeating from an email from MLB offices. I'll notify them of their error.

Originally Posted by Tim C (Post 637985)

APBA is a table top baseball game played with cards that have columns of dice rolls and a number after that that represents a play.

What made both Strat-O-matic and APBA different from other games is that they both used offensive, defensive and pitching statistics from the previous season to establish perfomance that was statistically accurate to real time games.

You had envelopes with 20 man rosters (you get get extra players @ extra cost) that you built starting lineups of your own. The included batting orders based on the "most used" line-up from the actual season.

Every player had a defensive rating (for positions played during the season) and there was a default value if a player was used out of position.

Pitching was based on a "Class" basis. An "A" pitcher was a top performer and the rest went dow to a "Class" D pitcher that was basically a spot starter or mop-up man.

Each pitcher also could have other highlights noted (strikeout pitchers had an x and/or a y rating, great control pitchers would have a z and wild guys would have a w).

Offensively there were three columns of dice roles:

11 or a 1 and a 1 was the start. We then progress through all possible dice combinations. Each of the combinations had a number to the right that indicated an action on a play board.

Double numbers were almost always good offensive perfomance and certain other outcomes wre consistantly bad.

The critical part of the game were play boards. Each board carried a possible opportunity of each individual runners on base possibility.

Now this is a real basic description of the game. All of us that played the game for years still have the play boards memorized so there were no long term searchs for play outcome.

If you consider that these games and statistics were (orginally) basically defined during a time without computers it is really amaziong the accuracy of both games.

Regards,

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve (Post 638062)

I feel deprived, as I had no knowledge of such a game as a youth in the 60s and 70s :mad: Can this game still be obtained at a reasonable cost?

Originally Posted by stratref (Post 637965)

Actually for accuracy Strat-O-Matic blows APBA out of the water.

Jasper

PS: This is just to start a holy war on table top baseball simulations, no malice intended ;)

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty (Post 638030)

[The Sporting News published the OBR for decades, including the early part of this one]

Originally Posted by Tim C (Post 637919)

My first set of APBA cards covered the 1957 season.

We played the game hours on end.

There has NEVER been a more accurate baseball board game.

Regards,

Originally Posted by Dave Reed (Post 638121)

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that The Sporting News was the only publisher of the OBR. They were not. Triumph Books has published the OBR for years-- and the pages have fallen out for years.

Originally Posted by Dave Reed (Post 638121)

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that The Sporting News was the only publisher of the OBR. They were not. Triumph Books has published the OBR for years-- and the pages have fallen out for years.

MLB can also claim to be a publisher, because the word "publisher" doesn't have a crisply defined meaning. "Copyright" does, though, and MLB holds the copyright on the rules themselves, while TSN and Triumph have copyrights to, for example, their cover art.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives (Post 638145)

Slow day.

Don't confuse a generic "publish" with the meaning of "publish" in a legal sense.

In legalese, one of the definitions of publish includes:

b: to distribute or offer for distribution to the public copies of (a copyrightable work) by some transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or loan

Note the "transfer of ownership" part. As MLB did not transfer ownership to either SN or Triumph, those companies did not, in the legal sense, "publish" the book. MLB is just protecting their rights when they state that SN did not "publish" the book.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 638133)

So did NBC. And, perhaps surprisingly, there were one or two (relatively small) differences. Personally, I preferred the format of the NBC book (it was smaller).

One of the differences: The NBC book said that when a pitcher was visited for the second time, he had to be removed "from the game." TSN just said he "had to be removed." The former is, of course, the MLB ruling (I think the rules on MLB.com at the time also omitted the "from the game" phrase.")