Sports Gaming Digest (2-2-98)
Greetings Sports Gamers!
Lots of numbers this week. I have included the Bowl
Bound/Paydirt team power ratings list provided by Matt, and the
Bruce Jenner player chart for Decathlon. To create the Jenner
chart I used basically the same method as for last week's Avilov
chart. Let me know what you think.
Regards,
Jim Gordon
jgordon@library.berkeley.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Stadium/2125
*************************************************
From: "Matt Floray"
Jim,
I would very much like to create new team charts for Paydirt for
the years
1973, 74, 75 and 94 and newer. Also, I would like to do some
older years
from 1968 going back. Do you have any knowledge of how the
Charts are
prepared? Would you be interested helping?
Thanks,
Matt
[I concur with your desire to see additional Paydirt charts,
to fill in the
missing years, and recreate older seasons. I asked David Neft
(the
original designer) about how the charts were designed and he
didn't
remember much since the last time he touched the game was 1973.
He did
say that he was able to obtain play-by-play results information
from the
teams and the league, which sounds like a monumental feat in
itself.
I've even tinkered with some ideas for developing a hybrid
team/player
version of the paydirt system that would individualizes the
actions by the
star players. If you have any thoughts on how to procede, I
would be glad to
hear them.--JCG]
********************************************************
From: JSufrin@aol.com
I wish you the best in this project.
I have been searching for a site like this for years.
I have played sports games (table top and computer)
for over 30 years.
I began in the mid 60`s with APBA but quickly graduated to Strat
when they
incorporated the lefty/righty breakdowns.
As a kid I had...
all APBA board games
Strat football and baseball
Sports Illustrated Baseball, football and Decathlon
After a 20 year hiatus (to form a life and grow up), the computer
revived my
interest
in board games. I currently play...
Strat Baseball, Hockey, Basketball
Lambourne Championship Boxing, Soccer Replay ( I own Centre Court
Tennis and
Ryder Cup golf)
Dynasty League Baseball
Apba basketball great teams set
Faceoff hockey
However, the games I keep coming back to are Strat baseball and
hockey due to
the playability and accuracy.
Faceoff hockey is more accurate but not as playable.
Dynasty league baseball is probably just as accurate as strat and
has a great
feel
for the visualization of each play due to its intricate play
descriptions.
However, the print on the cards is so small and intricate that it
becomes
quite an effort in the 7th inning after squinting for 30 minutes
to find the
play result.
Is paydirt still available as I played SI as a kid. I find Strat
football an
impossible solitaire game.
[Avalon Hill does still have some of the Paydirt seasons
charts available, although they don't advertise them, and if you
ask the wrong person they will say that the game is out of print.
I think 1993 was the last season published.--JCG}
Never having played the Statis pro games, I am interested
in an opinion on Statis pro basketball?
[Like all Statis Pro games the action is driven by the Fast
Action Cards. The action is relatively fast although the full
game can take a while with keeping stats. The system is oriented
toward statistical replay and overall I give it good marks for
statistical accuracy and recreation of relative capabilities for
players and teams. The 1992 revision was an entensive overhaul
of the system and was a big improvement. I'm working on a system
for using dice isntead of the cards because I don't like
shuffling the deck.--JCG]
Keep up the great work and please add me to the list.
Let me know if you need a contributor.
Jeff Sufrin
Commack,NY
*************************************************
From: JSufrin@aol.com
Hi JIM,
As I mentioned previously, I have played virtually all of the
sports boards
games
available over the last 30 years with an emphasis on the Strat
games.
Recently, I have been purchasing many of the Lambourne games
which have good
playability, fair accuracy but few bells and whistles. However, I
applaud
Terry for venturing into sports that are unique to the table game
genre and
more often than not, succeeding.
You questioned Hockey in a previous post.
I have played Strat, Faceoff (board and pc) and APBA (board and
pc).
Without question, Faceoff is the most accurate.
However, the board version becomes a tedious exercise in
comparing math
ratings
without any semblance of the flow of real hockey.
Strat, although not as dead on accurate flows extremely well due
to a
combination of FAC`s, dice rolls and good visualization of what
is happening
on the ice.
It just feels like hockey!
Apba unfortunately is a lesser rip off of the faceoff game engine
w/o its
accuracy and w/o strats playability.
I strongly agree with the folks who think that Dynasty (formerly
PTP) IS THE
ULTIMATE in table top baseball. Its ability to let you visualize
plays and the
clutch
and jam ratings given to top pitchers and hitters removes some of
the problem
of
the infamous 50-50 dice roll split ( 1/2 off the pitcher/hitter).
However, I still play mostly Strat baseball for 2 reasons.
1. The amount of past seasons in Advanced format allows me to
truly get as
close to
Koufax pitching to Ruth is possible.
2. The print on the Dynasty cards is so small and dense in
spacing that it
becomes a chore to quickly find a result w/o squinting after a
few innings.
Has anyone else encountered this?
I have always found Strat football difficult at best to play
solitaire so my
interest was sparked when I read about an old favorite of mine in
your journal
Paydirt (when I got
my first copy in 1971 it was simply SI football).
I found a hobby store that had a copy with the `93 charts and I
was up all
night
calling plays and using the solitaire system that I believe
Nicely wrote for
the game.
(it was included). The elegant simplicity of this game is
unmatched on
tabletop
gridirons. I thank you for reminding me of an old flame.
Someone had mentioned that the 90`s charts were somewhat lacking?
I found the
results and the gameplay to be right on. Any comments?
You mentioned ASG baseball in one comment with Tom Gerbasi.
I believe this game is the forerunner of Chris Klugs Diamond
Dreams computer
baseball game. You may want to ask Dennis Nicholson who I have
seen in your
journal as he is one of the partners in that venture.
I would love to find out where Tom got the board game?
I played Decathlon as a kid and seeing it written about prompted
me to call AH
and order a copy along with Title Bout and SI allstar baseball.
[Did Avalon Hill actually HAVE SI ATAS baseball available?
If so, that's news!--JCG]
Please keep me informed on your progress with Decathlon.
The best Basketball game I have played is Strat Bball.
It plays fast (fac`s and dice) and the accuracy is fairly good.
(Rodman gets
his 15 rebounds, Jordan will score his 30 points and Stockton
will get his 12
assists)
However, they do not offer past seasons so I purchased APBA great
teams
version of there board bball.
This game boils down to a series of tedious rolls to find a
shooter by shot
frequency
and then rolling for a shot attempt based on each players field
goal %.
Here again it just does not feel like bball. There is no
discernible flow.
Wheres with
Strat, players pass, fastbreak and rebound with accuracy,
visualization of
the play and game flow. However even Strat does seem to lack
spark until the
last few minutes of a tight game. (This may be inherent to
bball). The beauty
of bball is watching these great athletes do there thing and I
believe that
does not translate well to cards and dice.
I know you pay Statis pro bball. I have never played that game.
How would you
compare it? Is it fairly fast and is the playability good?
Keep up the great work, we need a site like this.
Jeff Sufrin
*************************************************
From: "Matt Floray"
BOWL BOUND Power Rating Chart
Team Power Rating Yardage Factor
Compensation Rating
1970 Air Force 187.5 +2 114.5 +8
1966 Alabama 200.0 +2 108.0 +8
1978 Alabama 200.0 +2 99.0 +8
1979 Alabama 200.0 +2 90.0 +8
1975 Arizona St. 200.0 +2 54.5 +8
1986 Arizona St. 197.0 +2 70.0 +8
1969 Arkansas 194.0 +2 92.0 +8
1977 Arkansas 198.0 +2 113.0 +8
1945 Army 200.0 +2 72.5 +8
1966 Army 185.0 +2 61.5 +8
1957 Auburn 200.0 +2 97.0 +8
1983 Auburn 198.0 +2 90.0 +8
1984 Brigham Young 200.0 +2 70.0 +8
1978 Clemson 195.0 +2 58.0 +8
1981 Clemson 200.0 +2 80.0 +8
1970 Dartmouth 180.0 +2 9.5 +8
1969 Florida 190.0 +2 117.5 +8
1984 Florida 198.0 +2 80.0 +8
1987 Florida State 199.0 +2 70.0 +8
1968 Georgia 193.0 +2 107.0 +8
1980 Georgia 200.0 +2 95.0 +8
1952 Georgia Tech 200.0 +2 93.5 +8
1966 Georgia Tech 191.0 +2 114.0 +8
1979 Houston 196.0 +2 60.0 +8
1977 Kentucky 195.0 +2 59.5 +8
1958 Louisiana St. 200.0 +2 136.5 +8
1969 Louisiana St. 194.0 +2 95.0 +8
1951 Maryland 200.0 +2 116.0 +8
1987 Miami 200.0 +2 90.0 +8
1947 Michigan 200.0 +2 84.5 +8
1969 Michigan 192.0 +2 108.5 +8
1985 Michigan 199.0 +2 85.0 +8
1952 Michigan St. 200.0 +2 73.5 +8
1966 Michigan St. 200.0 +2 91.0 +8
1960 Minnesota 197.0 +2 131.0 +8
1961 Mississippi 196.0 +2 146.5 +8
1969 Missouri 195.0 +2 78.5 +8
1963 Navy 196.0 +2 100.5 +8
1970 Nebraska 200.0 +2 139.5 +8
1971 Nebraska 200.0 +2 78.5 +8
1983 Nebraska 199.0 +2 70.0 +8
1970 Northwestern 184.5 +2 34.5 +8
1966 Notre Dame 200.0 +2 97.5 +8
1973 Notre Dame 200.0 +2 92.0 +8
1988 Notre Dame 200.0 +2 85.0 +8
1954 Ohio St. 200.0 +2 119.5 +8
1968 Ohio St. 200.0 +2 100.0 +8
1955 Oklahoma 200.0 +2 97.0 +8
1967 Oklahoma 199.0 +2 155.5 +8
1969 Penn St. 200.0 +2 104.5 +8
1973 Penn St. 200.0 +2 64.0 +8
1986 Penn St. 200.0 +2 90.0 +8
1976 Pittsburgh 200.0 +2 80.0 +8
1980 Pittsburgh 199.0 +2 80.0 +8
1964 Princeton 180.0 +2 36.0 +8
1966 Purdue 195.0 +2 127.0 +8
1967 So. California 200.0 +2 109.0 +8
1972 So. California 200.0 +2 96.0 +8
1979 So. California 199.0 +2 80.0 +8
1982 So. Methodist 199.0 +2 80.0 +8
1940 Stanford 200.0 +2 105.5 +8
1970 Stanford 193.0 +2 117.5 +8
1959 Syracuse 200.0 +2 89.5 +8
1966 Syracuse 186.5 +2 105.5 +8
1951 Tennessee 199.0 +2 118.5 +8
1970 Tennessee 197.0 +2 157.5 +8
1985 Tennessee 197.0 +2 77.0 +8
1969 Texas 200.0 +2 121.0 +8
1977 Texas 197.0 +2 71.5 +8
1983 Texas 196.0 +2 100.0 +8
1985 Texas A&M 197.0 +2 94.5 +8
1954 UCLA 200.0 +2 52.5 +8
1965 UCLA 197.0 +2 124.0 +8
1982 UCLA 196.0 +2 75.0 +8
1960 Washington 200.0 +2 135.5 +8
1984 Washington 199.0 +2 90.0 +8
1962 Wisconsin 199.0 +2 140.5 +8
1968 Yale 180.0 +2 41.5 +8
The principle figures are for neutral-field play. For the home
team, add the amounts indicated; for the visiting team, subtract
the indicated amounts.
The power rating differential determines the spot (point spread).
Please note that the power ratings intentionally do not include
any adjustment for the (presumed) improvement in the level of
play (due to the increased size, speed, quickness and training of
the athletes) over the years, since the existence and magnitude
of any such adjustment is a highly controversial matter. If you
wish to downgrade the power ratings of older teams to simulate
this effect, decreasing the power rating by one (1) point, and
the yardage factor compensation rating by four (4) points, should
cause the team to play one point weaker per game; thus, if you
judge 1940 Stanford to be 14 points weaker solely due to the era
in which they played, this can be simulated by decreasing their
power rating by 14 points and their yardage factor compensation
rating by 56 points.
The yardage factor compensation differential determines the
initial yardage factor (percentage) advantage (IYFA) granted to
one team over the other. A team's YF advantage is reduced by 3%
for each point they are in the lead; alternatively, a team's YF
disadvantage is increased by 3% for each point they are in the
lead.
EXAMPLE: 1966 Notre Dame at 1940 Stanford. Adjusted power
ratings are Notre Dame 198 and Stanford 202; thus, Stanford is a
4-point favorite. Adjusted yardage factor compensation ratings
are Notre Dame 89.5 and Stanford 113.5. Thus, at the beginning
of the game, Stanford receives a 124% YF and Notre Dame receives
100 . Now suppose Notre Dame takes a 7-0 lead. Then Stanford
receives an additional 7*3=21% YF advantage (145% for Stanford
and 100% for Notre Dame). On the other hand, if Stanford takes a
10-0 lead, their YF advantage becomes 24% - 10*3 % =-6%, or a 6%
disadvantage (Stanford 100%, Notre Dame 106%).
The general scoring level can be adjusted (if desired) by
changing the base yardage factor from 100% to a higher value (for
more scoring) or a lower value (for less scoring). A second
method for reducing the scoring level is to use part of the
yardage factor differential to reduce the disadvantaged team's
yardage factor below the base yardage factor; for example, some
groups like to use 30% of the differential for this purpose. At
the beginning of the game in the example above, under this
scheme, Stanford would receive 116.8% (Base + 0.7*Differential),
while Notre Dame would receive 92.8% (Base - 0.3*Differential).
To emphasize the effect of the yardage factors, always round
fractional yards toward the 50 yard line. EXAXPLE: Team A is
receiving a 99% yardage factor, has 4th and goal at B's 1, and
rolls a l-yard gain. The gain converts to 0.99 yards, placing
the ball at B's 0.01, between the goal and the 1. The ball is
spotted at the 1 and B takes over on downs.
The yardage factor compensation ratings may be adjusted to
reflect the style of play of your particular group.
9/14/91
@ Copyright 1991 T. R. Nicely. A11 rights reserved.
PAYDIRT Power Rating Chart
POWER RATINGS
SEASON 1969 1970 1971 1972
COPYRIGHT 1970 1971 1972 1973,
DATE 1974
YDG FACTORS % 120/100 120/100 120/100 120/100
Atlanta 218.5 216.5 221 220
Baltimore 222.5 235.5 228 216.5
Buffalo 215 214 209.5 215.5
Chicago 209.5 218.5 218.5 215.5
Cincinnati 215.5 223.5 215 221.5
Cleveland 229 220 225.5 226
Dallas 229.5 229 235 228
Denver 217.5 217.5 215.5 216.5
Detroit 224.5 226 221 222.5
Green Bay 221.5 218.5 216.5 227
Houston 221 214 215.5 209.5
Kansas City 235 221.5 228 221.5
Los Angeles 229 224.5 222.5 219
Miami 214 226 230 240
Minnesota 232.5 230.5 229 220
New England 215 211.5 218.5 213
New Orleans 216.5 212.5 216.5 212.5
N Y Giants 218.5 223.5 215 221.5
N Y Jets 227 215 218.5 220
Oakland 232.5 226.5 223.5 228
Philadelphia 215.5 214 219 212.5
Pittsburgh 209.5 216.5 218.5 230
San Diego 221.5 219 218.5 215.5
San Francisco 216.5 229 226.5 224.5
Seattle --- --- --- ---
St. Louis 215.5 222.5 215.5 215 5
Tampa Bay --- --- --- ---
Washington 221.5 218.5 225.5 231
SEASON 1976 1977 1978 1979
COPYRIGHT 1977 1978 1979 1980
DATE
YDG FACTORS % 90/70 90/70 100/80 100/80
Atlanta 215 220 223.5 217
Baltimore 229 227 215.5 215.5
Buffalo 211.5 213 215.5 218.5
Chicago 220 224.5 218.5 224
Cincinnati 225 221.5 214 214
Cleveland 223.5 218.5 220 221.5
Dallas 229 236.5 230 226.5
Denver 223.5 232.5 225 224
Detroit 218.5 218.5 218.5 211
Green Bay 216.5 215 221 215.5
Houston 216.5 221.5 226 227.5
Kansas City 216.5 211.5 214 218.5
Los Angeles 229 227 229 225.5
Miami 218.5 225 225.5 225
Minnesota 231.5 226.5 223 218.5
New England 228 223.5 226.5 221.5
New Orleans 215 213 218.5 220
N Y Giants 213 216.5 217 217
N Y Jets 213 213 220 220
Oakland 238.5 230 221.5 221.5
Philadelphia 215 216.5 222.5 226.5
Pittsburgh 228 225.5 237 234
San Diego 218.5 220 221.5 228
San Francisco 221.5 216.5 211 211
Seattle 211.5 216.5 221.5 221.5
St. Louis 225 220 217 215.5
Tampa Bay 208 211.5 215.5 226
Washington 226* 223.5 220 223
*Is entitled to the Free Block Option.
The above listing Includes all teams for which PAYDIRT! charts
were prepared and copyrighted prior to 1981. Charts copyrighted
1981 or later have the Power Rating printed in the upper right
corner of the Offensive Team Chart and have Yardage Factors of
100/80%.
******************************************************
Bruce Jenner Player Chart
Long Jump Shot Put
100m Safe Avg AOut HJ Safe Avg AOut 400m
10 inj 22'0 inj 24'3 42'0 inj inj inj 11.8
11 10.7 21'6 inj 21'3 42'0 inj inj ng 11.8
12 10.9 22'0 24'0 22'0 42'6 44'6 44'9 6'9 11.8
13 10.7 22'0 23'9 22'3 40'6 46'0 inj 6'3 11.8
14 10.9 22'3 23'0 21'3 43'9 46'3 45'9 6'2 11.8
15 10.9 22'3 23'0 24'0 43'6 46'0 45'6 6'2 11.8
16 11.2 21'9 23'9 24'6 42'9 48'0 51'0 6'7 11.8
17 11.2 21'9 22'6 23'9 42'3 44'6 51'3 6'6 11.8
18 10.2 21'6 23'0 24'0 42'6 43'6 51'6 6'9 12.4
19 11.1 21'6 24'0 24'6 42'9 48'0 51'9 6'9 inj
20 10.8 21'9 22'6 24'3 44'3 47'0 50'3 6'0 12.0
21 11.5 21'3 21'9 21'9 43'3 47'9 45'3 6'8 12.0
22 11.7 21'3 23'6 21'0 44'3 45'9 46'3 5'6 12.0
23 11.1 21'3 23'3 inj 44'3 45'6 46'6 6'4 12.0
24 11.2 21'3 22'9 foul 45'3 46'0 47'0 6'2 12.0
25 11.2 21'0 22'9 foul 44'9 44'9 46'9 5'8 12.4
26 10.7 21'0 21'3 21'6 45'0 45'0 46'0 6'4 12.4
27 11.4 22'3 22'3 22'0 44'0 46'0 45'0 6'7 12.0
28 11.4 21'6 23'3 21'9 45'3 42'9 44'6 5'8 12.0
29 11.0 21'6 22'9 21'6 44'0 44'9 52'0 6'3 12.0
30 11.0 22'3 22'3 22'3 44'0 45'3 50'6 6'7 12.0
31 11.0 20'9 22'9 foul 44'6 44'0 foul 6'6 12.2
32 11.4 20'3 foul foul 41'0 47'0 foul 6'0 12.2
33 11.4 20'6 foul foul 41'3 foul foul 6'4 12.2
34 11.0 21'0 foul foul 41'9 foul foul 6'3 12.2
35 11.0 20'9 foul foul 41'6 foul foul 6'3 12.2
36 11.1 20'0 21'6 foul 40'9 43'6 foul 6'6 12.4
37 11.3 19'6 23'9 foul 44'0 42'0 foul 6'6 12.4
38 11.1 19'3 22'6 foul 43'0 47'0 foul 6'3 12.4
39 11.3 19'0 21'0 foul 42'3 42'9 foul 6'9 12.2
Discus Javelin
110h Safe Avg AOut PV Safe Avg AOut 1500m
10 inj 140 160 139 inj 181 206 176 6
11 inj 137 inj 143 13'8 177 inj 177 6
12 inj 144 166 143 nh 190 228 179 6
13 14.8 147 163 138 14'4 180 210 181 5
14 15.6 145 158 140 15'8 183 208 186 6B
15 14.6 136 150 170 nh 179 207 229 6B
16 15.4 143 167 171 13'0 189 225 233 6B
17 14.2 138 139 172 13'8 175 227 229 7B
18 14.6 141 138 174 15'0 176 182 236 6B
19 14.7 136 170 175 15'4 179 225 238 inj
20 15.1 142 165 169 15'8 187 217 228 7B
21 15.7 136 142 142 14'4 175 192 185 6B
22 15.0 137 143 145 13'4 174 194 188 6
23 15.6 138 162 146 14'0 172 210 191 6
24 14.5 148 161 148 13'4 171 207 foul 5
25 14.7 147 149 147 14'4 170 196 foul 6C
26 15.3 137 151 144 14'8 174 198 188 6C
27 15.1 138 155 141 15'4 187 180 182 6C
28 14.5 139 159 139 13'0 184 205 178 6C
29 15.2 140 139 173 13'8 183 218 234 6C
30 15.2 136 141 inj 15'8 185 198 inj 6C
31 14.3 130 144 foul 15'4 164 183 foul 6C
32 14.9 132 147 foul 15'0 166 foul foul 6C
33 15.3 133 148 foul 15'0 167 foul foul 5A
34 14.7 135 foul foul 15'0 168 foul foul 5
35 15.0 134 foul foul 14'8 169 foul foul 5
36 15.4 131 146 foul 14'8 165 195 foul 5
37 15.5 129 145 foul 14'8 163 178 foul 6
38 14.4 128 140 foul 14'0 162 200 foul 6B
39 14.9 127 164 foul 13'4 161 212 foul 6
Return to Sports Gaming Digest
Contents Page
To receive the Sports Gaming Digest, contact Jim Gordon at
jgordon@library.berkel
ey.edu
This page hosted by 
Get your own Free Home Page