Chance vs. Skill
34 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
by durantjerry » Fri Oct 13, 2006 10:20 pm
I am not saying it is all skill by any means. Even if you dominate Smoltz, as in your example, you will still lose say 35 of 100 games. I hate to say it, but I believe people play the luck card to explain their lack of success. If I am not winning, it must all be luck and mine must be bad. I won in the past and now I stink, the 2006 set must be so well priced that it is all luck and my luck must be bad. If it was strictly based on skill, my teams would surely be having success. Sounds like sour grapes.
- durantjerry
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Terry101 » Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:33 am
I agree with durantjerri. The randomness built into the system becomes for some people a sort of superstition and the judgements are based on incomplete data in most cases. For example, if you play two teams and after 320 games find yourself, playing .490 ball. Well, that is well within the .470-.510 normal range. You might be a good player who is experiencing a somewhat unlucky roll of the dice or you might be an average player. BUT, play 10 seasons and if you are playing .490 ball, you can figure that is about what type of player you are- at the moment- maybe you make some adjustments and become a better player [b:beeb01998f]but [/b:beeb01998f]after you play 1000 games- then you can not say [i:beeb01998f]Luck[/i:beeb01998f] or the "players are perfectly priced" That argument does not hold water. Even if (and it may be true) the players were perfectly priced, just the managerial settings alone-forget the ballparks and individual settings and division opponents and make up of the team- just the better employment of the settings would eventually (albeit a long time) separate those who use the settings better.
One season or two seasons is not a large enough sample to make a judgement. Again, if you are playing below .500 ball after 700-1000 games then that is your rating. Like in chess or tennis.
Lets use a J. Weaver example. Lets say he beats you when you have all lefties in your lineup. You cry, "the game is luck", but understand if J. Weaver did not win at least 30-35% of those games, then the Game itself would be invalid, worthless.
Lets say I have ten teams going. Some of those teams will be way below. 500 and some will be way over .500. Which type of manager am I? Luck below .500 and skill above .500? Thats superstitious thinking. The reality is I am probably (most likely, statistically) to be the average of ALL my teams.
Yes, randomness or luck plays a large role (IN THE SHORT RUN-less than 500-1000 games) but that is GREAT or else the game would not be any fun. It would be like, everytime I play vs M. Wilby or Uncle NY, I LOSE. Or, everytime I go against Clemens I lose.
Also, I believe the Game itself is so complex that you could spend years tweaking lineups, division and league stratagies, settings, learning HAL, etc. etc. that no one can master the game and everyone has an opportunity to improve their game.
And, to make another point which has been made before. Who do you think you are playing against? First graders? Everyone who plays this game is tough. They wouldn't be plunking down 25 bucks unless they could play. Again, that is what makes the game great. And, it is survival of the fittest. Players who are unsuccessful eventually drop out, so you are left with just plain old good players sticking around- so, year after year the game, I think gets tougher. So, good. I don't want to play tic tac toe or go fish, I want the challenge.
One season or two seasons is not a large enough sample to make a judgement. Again, if you are playing below .500 ball after 700-1000 games then that is your rating. Like in chess or tennis.
Lets use a J. Weaver example. Lets say he beats you when you have all lefties in your lineup. You cry, "the game is luck", but understand if J. Weaver did not win at least 30-35% of those games, then the Game itself would be invalid, worthless.
Lets say I have ten teams going. Some of those teams will be way below. 500 and some will be way over .500. Which type of manager am I? Luck below .500 and skill above .500? Thats superstitious thinking. The reality is I am probably (most likely, statistically) to be the average of ALL my teams.
Yes, randomness or luck plays a large role (IN THE SHORT RUN-less than 500-1000 games) but that is GREAT or else the game would not be any fun. It would be like, everytime I play vs M. Wilby or Uncle NY, I LOSE. Or, everytime I go against Clemens I lose.
Also, I believe the Game itself is so complex that you could spend years tweaking lineups, division and league stratagies, settings, learning HAL, etc. etc. that no one can master the game and everyone has an opportunity to improve their game.
And, to make another point which has been made before. Who do you think you are playing against? First graders? Everyone who plays this game is tough. They wouldn't be plunking down 25 bucks unless they could play. Again, that is what makes the game great. And, it is survival of the fittest. Players who are unsuccessful eventually drop out, so you are left with just plain old good players sticking around- so, year after year the game, I think gets tougher. So, good. I don't want to play tic tac toe or go fish, I want the challenge.
- Terry101
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Eddie E » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:03 am
There is certainly a lot of luck involved. All you have to do is look at the exact same player in the exact same ballpark over two different leagues and you will find large discrepancies in the level of performance of said player.
That being said, I think you will find that over the course of the regular season, the cream rises to the top. If you do a good job of building and managing your team you will make the playoffs over 50% of the time. The hard part is winning it all because you now have to have the random factors go your way in three out of five games and then again in four out of seven games in order to win both rounds of the playoffs. The assumption being that there are 4 well built teams in the playoffs and in such a small sample size you will need LUCK to make it through.
That being said, I think you will find that over the course of the regular season, the cream rises to the top. If you do a good job of building and managing your team you will make the playoffs over 50% of the time. The hard part is winning it all because you now have to have the random factors go your way in three out of five games and then again in four out of seven games in order to win both rounds of the playoffs. The assumption being that there are 4 well built teams in the playoffs and in such a small sample size you will need LUCK to make it through.
- Eddie E
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by JOELKING » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:27 am
81 teams, 9 playoffs, one ring since i started in 2001 cards, thats not bad for rookie, but then again, not great, never played the board game, so i am sure i have ALOT to learn to understand the skill here, but in the mean time, read, read and more read, of the boards from the experts..
- JOELKING
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by durantjerry » Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:39 am
Also, when you are relatively new, you don't really even have the experience to make a distinction between luck and skill IMO. Most new players just are not that good. I started in 2001 when there was a core of very good players already and they beat me like a drum. I finished with one playoff out of seven teams, one title and barely got over .500 in total playing strictly in autoleagues. As I played, I aquired the skill and experience needed to excel. I have seen it many other times with some who are now considered top players. To me, seeing the effect experience has had on some of these guys over the years makes it obvious there is a skill level involved. They did not start out as unlucky and proceeded to get luckier as they played more. They started out inexperienced and aquired the skills to become successful. Last time I looked Snsfan was at or near the top of the Tour and he had a powerhouse team in a Tour league in which I was a member. I remember earlier times when he posted about winning his first title after plenty of tries. He liked to play, he kept at it and got more skillful.
- durantjerry
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MoCrash » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:20 pm
The skill vs. luck debate has not ventured beyond the paradigm of HAL, but there is much more involved. There's chance involved from the very start, when one drafts a team. In my last completed league, I got nearly all my key draft choices, only had to move marginal players in the preseason FA period and didn't have to do more than a couple of transactions during the season -- again among role players. That team led the league in runs scored, fewest runs allowed, record and won the championship. The previous team was one in which I got few major draft picks and was scrambling from the start. Was I any stupider in the drafting strategy that time? I don't think so, but by dumb luck everybody seemed to be looking for the same guys ... with a higher position than I had ... and it put me in a hole from the start.
Not that I can't pick stinker teams all on my own, but one thing I've found by NetPlay of Strat is that over the course of a season even teams which look good on paper -- and that seem like good teams when one simulates many seasons -- can have awful years/ They just don't seem to ever get the rolls or splits, even when the odds appear to be in their favor. Over the course of 10,000 games or so that would probably even out, but in 162 dumb luck can have more of an effect.
Of course, the more one plays this game, hopefully the better one becomes. I don't play many TSN teams -- I prefer NP leagues -- but of the seven completed 2006 seasons I've had four teams in the playoffs and two champions. That's a far higher ratio of success than in prior seasons -- although my season W-L record isn't substantially higher (I sometimes take a wild hair with a team, or play some goofy theme, and they tend to stink more than my good teams excel). Still, as one goes along, one learns better how to "game the game" -- which the truly outstanding players do well, even with teams which are less than ideal. But even the SOM Greats come a crapper every now and then -- and sometimes it's just bad luck, from the draft to FA availability to HAL's bad rolls and poor decisions.
Not that I can't pick stinker teams all on my own, but one thing I've found by NetPlay of Strat is that over the course of a season even teams which look good on paper -- and that seem like good teams when one simulates many seasons -- can have awful years/ They just don't seem to ever get the rolls or splits, even when the odds appear to be in their favor. Over the course of 10,000 games or so that would probably even out, but in 162 dumb luck can have more of an effect.
Of course, the more one plays this game, hopefully the better one becomes. I don't play many TSN teams -- I prefer NP leagues -- but of the seven completed 2006 seasons I've had four teams in the playoffs and two champions. That's a far higher ratio of success than in prior seasons -- although my season W-L record isn't substantially higher (I sometimes take a wild hair with a team, or play some goofy theme, and they tend to stink more than my good teams excel). Still, as one goes along, one learns better how to "game the game" -- which the truly outstanding players do well, even with teams which are less than ideal. But even the SOM Greats come a crapper every now and then -- and sometimes it's just bad luck, from the draft to FA availability to HAL's bad rolls and poor decisions.
- MoCrash
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by tersignf » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:53 pm
[quote:ce83cbdd17]There is certainly a lot of luck involved. All you have to do is look at the [b:ce83cbdd17]exact same player in the exact same ballpark over two different leagues [/b:ce83cbdd17]and you will find [i:ce83cbdd17]large discrepancies in the level of performance[/i:ce83cbdd17] of said player. [/quote:ce83cbdd17]
Eddie E--Exactly--except not for the point you've made. The point is you can't just look at the player card--you [i:ce83cbdd17]have[/i:ce83cbdd17] to look at the team he's on and the opposition. Your team is only half the rolls--your opponent is the other half, on average. Plus, is he a pitcher with 2 different defenses behind him? A guy with lots of flies to fb (CF)? when you have a +3 out there? Or maybe sitting a lefty in a lineup behind a * runner who gets on 40% of the time for a manager who steals conservatively, with a high clutch guy hitting behind him and an opposing manager who plays the infield in starting in the 1st inning, etc etc. Big difference in outcomes with a few tweaks when you compare it to a leadoff guy who's on 35% of the time and is a non * runner etc etc.
Why wouldn't you expect the same player to perform differently in 2 different leagues in 2 different lineups? That's one thing you can be sure would happen. Think of how much "discrepancy" ballparks and opposing pitchers would introduce. Not to mention different owners.
A single player card plus a stadium does not a control group make...
Everybody's got the same luck over the long haul. If you tend to be "lucky" more than your opponents a majority of the time, then you may not be lucky...
cheers
Eddie E--Exactly--except not for the point you've made. The point is you can't just look at the player card--you [i:ce83cbdd17]have[/i:ce83cbdd17] to look at the team he's on and the opposition. Your team is only half the rolls--your opponent is the other half, on average. Plus, is he a pitcher with 2 different defenses behind him? A guy with lots of flies to fb (CF)? when you have a +3 out there? Or maybe sitting a lefty in a lineup behind a * runner who gets on 40% of the time for a manager who steals conservatively, with a high clutch guy hitting behind him and an opposing manager who plays the infield in starting in the 1st inning, etc etc. Big difference in outcomes with a few tweaks when you compare it to a leadoff guy who's on 35% of the time and is a non * runner etc etc.
Why wouldn't you expect the same player to perform differently in 2 different leagues in 2 different lineups? That's one thing you can be sure would happen. Think of how much "discrepancy" ballparks and opposing pitchers would introduce. Not to mention different owners.
A single player card plus a stadium does not a control group make...
Everybody's got the same luck over the long haul. If you tend to be "lucky" more than your opponents a majority of the time, then you may not be lucky...
cheers
- tersignf
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by tersignf » Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:11 pm
one other thing--the Smoltz example--loading up with lefties against him...he's not exactly a slouch vs lefties. Remember the balance cheat online is fine and handy, but don't make the mistake of platooning a $7M guy who hits as a 3R. It's a non-linear relationship, i.e., a 6R for a .50 guy means he's very weak against lefties compared to the average player...whereas a Smoltz at $6M+ is not too shabby.
[i:daaef7ccf5] [b:daaef7ccf5]Again, comes down to knowing the cards, the game, and your opponents. There is no substitute[/b:daaef7ccf5][/i:daaef7ccf5].
If someone would rather think they have the advantage when they bat all lefties against my Smoltz in Minute Maid, while I bat a balanced lineup against his half-the-price Aaron Harang, well I'll take that matchup all day.
[i:daaef7ccf5] [b:daaef7ccf5]Again, comes down to knowing the cards, the game, and your opponents. There is no substitute[/b:daaef7ccf5][/i:daaef7ccf5].
If someone would rather think they have the advantage when they bat all lefties against my Smoltz in Minute Maid, while I bat a balanced lineup against his half-the-price Aaron Harang, well I'll take that matchup all day.
- tersignf
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
34 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball Online 20xx
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests