Manager Ratings - quick question............

[KEVINEHLE]

Manager ratings are obviously not a big deal....but they do exist in this game. In the right context, they can be useful to look at.

The 2001, 2002, and ATG points are weighted at 35%. 2003 is 50% and 2004 is 75%.

Does it make sense to penalize the most loyal players who have been playing this game since the inception?

Were those teams I played with in 2001-02 less worthy? Did the teams cost less? (the answer to the second question is "NO")

I've always wondered why my early teams are discriminated against. Anyone else wonder about the same thing?

Kev

[Detroit-Tigers]

Just trying to make the ratings more relevant I think. Is Penngray still the best out there? (well probably, but his rating should be discounted a little since he hasn't played in a while).

[bigmahon]

Penngray the best? You have a bad memory D-T! :lol: :wink:

The ratings are useless. They are a marketing ploy to get people to buy more teams. Simple as that.

[theClaw]

yes the ratings themselves are useless. I do look at a players ratio of playoff appearances to total teams bought. As long as the player has a decent amount of teams, lets say 30 teams it is an indicator of how good that player is and what I can expect out of him in the league.

Dave

[the splinter]

[quote:5572bab076]Is Penngray still the best out there?[/quote:5572bab076]

The all time greatest self promoter SOM online has ever seen.....

damn good strat player as well...just ask him...he'll tell ya

[KEVINEHLE]

Baseball is based on a rich history. I'm just puzzled by the game's rationale at diminishing the importance from earlier seasons.
Based on this rationale, Maris should only get credit for 35% of his Homeruns in 1961. Cal Ripken only gets credit for 50% of his game streak. Many of the Yankees World Series titles would be at 35% or 50% (actually, I'm OK with that :wink: ).
Based on TSN-SOM online baseball's weighted stats reasoning......over time, the players from the early 1900s didn't even exist.

I'm up in arms over the whole thing. Who wants to join with me and march on Glen Head? :shock: :shock: :lol:

kev

[durantjerry]

It was to give more relevance to the ratings and give newer players a chance to see their name in lights. Just do like I did, double up on the purchase of new games and no one will ever catch you.

[ROBERTLATORRE]

The only manager ratings that are really reflective of how good a manager is...the 1986 game.

[keyzick]

Yeah, ratings are irrelevant, BUT...they sure do let you know experience levels of fellow managers! So I actually do think the weightings are meaningful, since someone who hasn't been active since 03, for instance, would have a lower rating than someone with the same exact experience in the more recent seasons. Makes sense, the one's most recently active will be more "up to speed".

And yeah, we all know buying more teams bumps up your rating (I'm living proof!!), but it also reflects added experience, which (presumably) would mean increased knowledge and skills (ok, I'm NOT living proof of that!).

Anyway, as with all things Kev-related, I thought it was important to give my 2 cents... :D

[the splinter]

one other factor we have not considered....

this game has evolved over the last 8 years

Its not quite apples and oranges...more like Granny Smiths to Red Delicious

The improvements Bernie and crew have made makes this a different game

now...I can only imagine that a savy GM from back in the day would certainly make these improvements work for them today



oh ..and the fact that it is a marketing gimmick