Important Managerial Ratings headsup

[ArrylT]

You may have noticed your managerial rating has changed a lot since a day or so ago. I personally went from something like 2804 to 2530. I believe the main cause of this drop/change for many owners is because:

[b:ed315272e5]2005 is now being rated at 75% instead of 100%.[/b:ed315272e5]

Hence all points accured in 05 have been deducted by 25% I suppose. So if you had 1000 points from 2005, like RiggoDrill did, they are now only worth 750 overall.

Seems a little dumb to me to rate 2005 at 75% when BTT80s and ATG II are at 100% since 05 is a more advanced game product-wise. Not a big deal to me in the long run since I still rank 43rd overall, but owners who primarily play 200x like JeepDriver & qksilver took a major drop, while owners, like myself, who have a more varied 'resume' didnt get too affected or possibly got a positive effect.

I believe 2003 may have also been nudged downward, and I know 2002 was at 40 or 50% but is now rated at 35% like 2001.

End result still being - if you only/primarily played 200x, expect your rating to drop 10-15%, while if you also play ATG, BTT70/80s and or 1969, expect less of a drop, or even a move upwards.

[Play By The Rules]

According to my own calculations, ATGIII is still not being added to ratings points although wins losses playoffs and rings from ATGIII are...

2005 and 2003 are at 75%. I have no problem with this.

I agree that ATGII and ATG should have similar percentages, that is old news and, for me at least, ATGIII is a lot, lot harder.

Not sure what to say about the other games. To me, the mystery card isn't really Strat at all, but some people like it.

The bottom line is, this number is meaningless anyways because it is overly inflated to reward those that buy a lot of teams.

When I want to know who's good I look at win % and playoff % (more than ring %).

[CHARLESBELL]

yea, but does it really matter? It is so heavily weighted by the number of teams played that it's pretty meaningless.

Maligned and I have exactly the same rating at 351; yet he wins at a .540 pace compared to my more indifferent .505. He is a much better player - the only difference being I've played 40 teams and he's only played 18.

And both those numbers pale in comparison to the higher ratings. The highest ranked team with under a 100 games played (94) has a 1684 rating and is ranked 85. Yet his .527 winning percentage is better than 42 of the 84 players above him in the rankings by my informal count.

The ratings need some kind of averaging system that isn't so heavily weighted on just buying teams instead of subtracting the value of what was accomplished in earlier seasons. But that won't happen, because the ratings are by design intended to encourage us to buy more teams to improve our rating.

Just my two cents.

[Jerlins]

In 100% agreement with PBTR. First off, I also don't find the mystery card appealing and not at all interested in dumping a player or players I've spent hours on trying to find a perfect balance on a team, only to find out the player or players are not what I bought. Too much luck involved for my taste.

As for the ratings, I'm in agreement that its all about playoffs and win % as opposed to just strictly by the numbers, though I wish I had the time and the money to play more myself. And yes, while ring % is impressive as well, too often I've seen arguably the best team in the league get caught with some bad luck in the first round and quickly swept away in the playoffs (7 game semifinal round PLEASE).

[Coffeeholic]

You must've read my mind Arrylt T.

I took about a 700 point hit or so, and I was guessing it wwas due to a de-valuation of my ATGI, 2001, 202 and 2003 teams.

To be honest,I find my rating more of an embarrassment than anything else. I figure most managers with a rating of 200 or so have played enough to get a pretty good feel for the game. So when I match-up against these guys, it's a "lose-lose" situation. If they beat me, then it's a big "upset". If I beat them, it's a case of the big guy beating up on the little guy.

I wish my rating were about 200 or so... would be much more reflective of my actual skill at this game.

[KEVINEHLE]

I may be alone, but I find the weighting of any season ridiculous! Every game is equally difficult! When I played 2002, the competition was tough. I'm playing against the same level of competition today as I was in 2002. Regardless, I think the rating system adds interest to the game and is fun.....but the ratings don't tell the whole story. I think playoffs as a percentage of teams and championships in as a percentage of teams are a good barometer of the top owners.

Before any season begins:
Each team has a 33.3% chance of making the playoffs
Each team has a 8.3% chance of winning the championship

If your completed teams have a higher percentage than those above, you are better than average!

33.9% of my completed teams have made the playoffs and
11.3% of my teams have won the World Series

Woohoo, I'm a little better than the average guy! :wink: However, this past year I've been primarily in theme leagues against the best and my percentage is falling! :cry: ........but the leagues are more fun than the public leagues. :D

Kev

[durantjerry]

This must be some kind of sick joke. I spent $500 to climb from the top 40 to the very cusp of the top 30 and all of a sudden I'm blasted back to 40th. Well, I'm still ahead of JeepDriver, which should be everyone's barometer of success.

[AFDickie]

The Rating System is a cheap ploy to get folks to buy more teams. As the majority of us have indicated-Championships 1st, finals 2nd, semi's 3rd then win%...some folks have a high rating but less than 50% winning pct! Who you play and Championships are still what I look at.

[cirills]

Ditto. I still find it hard to fathom that people give ANY credence to a system which favors how much money you spend above anything else.

Bottom line -- who cares??? :?

I play the game for the competition and camaraderie and the better of both the better the experience.

I know I personally "don't need no stinking ratings!" ;)

[Valen]

[quote:a54c97b9cc]I may be alone, but I find the weighting of any season ridiculous! Every game is equally difficult! [/quote:a54c97b9cc]
I do not think it has anything to do with their estimation of how difficult a game is. It has everything to do with rating current activity higher than older activity. you quit playing and eventually you will drop off altogether.

Sandlot and others are right the ratings system is all about rewarding the spending of money. If that is a problem ignore the ratings like I do. Who needs them? All I ever gauge myself by is whether I can beat guys like Sandlot which I don't. No ratings system needed to tell me where I rank. :lol:

But if it is important to you to be ranked in the top whatever then spend the money. You all know what the system is and what the ratings really mean so where is the problem?