Important Managerial Ratings headsup

[bigmahon]

I can't believe that this discussion keeps re-inventing itself at regular intervals. :lol:

Anybody with half a brain knows that the ratings are a moderately clever ploy by the folks behind the game to 1) "reward" high value customers, and 2) encourage new participation. It is simply good business. Stroking the egos of those who buy 2 or 3 five-packs a year and then play mostly off credits is not.

Hell, I'm not stupid enough to believe that I'm the 13th best manager playing the game. Probably not even 130th. I know that I am cursed by having too much money and not enough time (read: lots of teams that run on autopilot). But I also play lots of bizarre theme leagues which tend to devastate my winning pct, particularly in ATG. I don't see a lot of the "12 teams total, .545 winning percentage" guys in many of those leagues (Shifting Sands anyone?).

It is foolish to equate quality with winning percentage in a vacuum, as though all leagues were equal. They are not. I play to a .540 winning percentage in autoleagues in the 200x games, and if it mattered to me to be "respected" by the winning percentage brigade, I would simply play only autoleagues (like many do), and stay out of theme and vet leagues.

But I'd rather have fun! :D

[Play By The Rules]

Hey Sandy, haven't seen you 'round these parts in some time now, happy holidays and all the best.

[ArrylT]

I made my initial post solely to give people a headsup & to create discussion on the valuation of different SOM products, however I am not surprised that some people have taken the thread to post their opinions on the value of the ratings themselves, rather than the decision by TSN to alter the valuation of certain. Kudos to ehlekev for being one of the few people able to stick to the topic at hand. ;)

Personally I believe it is up to each owner to decide how much value they place upon the ratings. Since others have already expressed their viewpoint, I shall do the same, although I am quite certain that, as per usual, it will be misunderstood or ignored. ;)

Do I feel that the rating system is perfect? Definitely not. It could always be improved, and I would definitely agree with ehlekev that rating all games, regardless of their current status of activity, should be rated similar.

However I do feel the Manager rating systems have merit, and like many things, can be used as a tool to help you in your game. People are free to dismiss the ratings out of hand, just like they are free to dismiss the use of the Ratings Disk, Simulating seasons, using Player rating systems like that of JoeTheJet and/or other tools. However they do so at their own risk.

I also doubt that the sole intent of TSN was to act as another ploy to get people to spend their money. Is TSN displeased if people look at the ratings and that spurs them to spend more on teams. Of course not, it is a business, and TSNs first objective will always be to make a profit. However the Ratings System was designed by people like Bernie & Larry & Erik B., all of whome love Strat-O-Matic, and want to do their best to bring out a great product.

If the ratings system does cause some owners to spend more, then I say bully! The more that is spent, the more TSN sees SOM as a profitable product, and the more investment comes back our way with improved tools & support. Every extra team bought means leagues fill up faster & Bernie is more likely to be back the next year with new improvements to the game system.

However, I believe, in order to truly enjoy SOM and succeed at it, you need to be smarter than the 'average' person, and while I am sure some people would question the intelligence of some owners from time to time, I doubt many of us would disagree that the average SOM owner is smarter than the average person. Therefore SOM Owners are less likely to be 'duped' into buying more teams just so they can improve their ratings, even if that was the purpose of the Ratings System, which I doubt it is.

Could the rating systems be improved - I am sure that it could. Things can always be tweaked. But obviously the valuations will never appease every owner, just as we'll never have 100% consensus on who is the best player of all time.

However I do think they have merit as it, and need to reward higher team usage, because if you think about it in baseball terms, who is more worthy of being in the Hall of Fame?

A 1 year wonder who hit 40 HR and batted .340 and then never replicated that performance, or a guy who consistently hit 25-35 HR for 12-15 years and had a lifetime AVG of .300.

I doubt many people consider Roger Maris the best player of all time, even though he had one of the best statistical seasons of all time. I am sure though that most people would rank Henry Aaron as top 5.

So yes, I think an owner who played 400 teams and won 75 championships through 3-4 different SOM Products is a better owner than a guy who played 10 teams and won 3 championships. I think an owner who consistently succeeds on a regular basis, especially if they have a high # of teams going at any time, is more worthy of recognition than a guy who does great with 3-4 teams a year and is always at .560.

Do I think Frank Bailey is the best SOM owner of them all, simply because he has the highest rating? Of course not. But any ATG owner who has played for a while can confirm that Frank is one of the best owners there is, and his rating merely recognizes that.

Any owner that has a .543 % over 500 teams is worthy of being considered one of the best owners.

If you want to be one of the best owners, you need to prove it on a consistent basis over a long period of time, and no I do not think 2-3 teams a year cuts it, even if you won a championship 100% of the time.

If the Ratings system simply listed people from 1 to whatever, then they wouldnt be useful. But because you can break it down by season, by W/L, by Win %, by Playoff % and so forth, you have a tool that allows to know about different owners & how well they might be doing at any one time.

Thanks to the Ratings System I have come to realize that owners like Cummings2, Terry101 and Jerlins are noteworthy & very serious competition, and I can honestly admit, that without the Ratings System, because of my focus on my enjoyment of my teams & the forums, I would have taken them more for granted. But because I realized that these guys are skilled competitors and some of the best Owners at least in 2006, I am forewarned and this helps me to ensure that teams I have in leagues with them are more likely to be better competition and hopefully succeed, than they would have if I hadnt been aware, thanks to their 2006 rating.

Do I think I am the 43rd best owner, just because I am ranked 43?

Definitely not, but I do think I am a good owner, and the rating system gives people awareness of that fact. I definitely believe I am, and this is no ego at work, one of the 75 best owners in SOM, based on my continued success over the years & varied products I have played. I know I could be one of the 50 best if I really wanted to be, but since I really enjoy SOM, am somewhat addicted, and love trying different themes & crazy formats, the fact that I am ranked '43' simply shows that despite all this, and a lack of public autodraft play (maybe 8% of all my teams), should suggest that I am an owner that shouldnt be dismissed out of hand.

Is the Rating System perfect. No. Can it be improved. Yes. Is it useful as is, most definitely. And anyone who dismiss's it out of hand simply because they feel it is a marketing ploy, or simply rewards # of teams purchased is simply choosing to ignore a tool that could benefit them. That is their choice. :)

[bigmahon]

Excellent points AT. You have earned my respect, even if I don't necessarily agree with everything you say. :wink:

As an aside, I've never really understood the whole "stick to the topic of the thread" thing. To me, threads are conversations, and conversations naturally drift. You start in one place, and end up somewhere else. It's a good thing. :D

[KEVINEHLE]

Here is just a part of AT's novel: :wink:
<<<<"However, I believe, in order to truly enjoy SOM and succeed at it, you need to be smarter than the 'average' person, and while I am sure some people would question the intelligence of some owners from time to time, I doubt many of us would disagree that the average SOM owner is smarter than the average person. Therefore SOM Owners are less likely to be 'duped' into buying more teams just so they can improve their ratings, even if that was the purpose of the Ratings System, which I doubt it is." >>>>>>

AT, I loved your whole post. I believe the paragraph above is very accurate. I honestly believe the SOM team owners are brighter than your average person by a long shot. That is exactly why I enjoy the SOM game so much!! The idiots we all see on the public fantasy sites are draining and typically crude and clueless! The people on this site are die-hard baseball fans, are successful enough to be able to afford $25 on-line baseball teams, have great sense of humors and all seem to use this game to revive happy memories of playing the SOM board game when they were younger. :D
I'm heading to AZ in a couple weeks and meet up with Robvoz for the first time. He is a class act on these boards. Hopefully, I will get to meet my other buddies at some time as well. LMBomber lives in the Southeast while Doctax lives in Tennessee, and FAaron lives in NY, etc. Unfortunately, I live here in Siberia (AKA..Boise, Id) which keeps me many miles from most everyone! :cry: Oh well, we always have these boards.
BTW, I'm totally honored to be ranked the 116th greatest owner based on my rating!! :wink:

Kev

[cirills]

Holy Cow AT, I hardly had the time in my vacation to READ your post yet alone think about writing one so long.

Good points to be sure and I am sorry I "strayed" from the topic, but I still that think any discussion of the current ratings system does seem like a watse of time somewhat. I would counter that I certainly did NOT need the ratings system to recognize a player like Cummings2 (Chuck). I learned that simply by playing in leagues with him, just like I learned of the ability of guys like you, QK, Jeeper and others. In fact, I had no idea of Chuck's current rating in '06 until it came up in a recent league discussion. This is because I hardly ever even pay attention to the current ratings numbers. But, I am almost positive that there are names that are HIGH on that list, who have NOT made impressionable opinions on me in the leagues they HAVE played with me. I guess this is why I will always view the current system more subjectively than objectively, but I certainly don't feel like I will be missing anything by NOT viewing it as a "tool".

Also, I have always looked that these threads as exchanges of opinions and information and it seems/ed like many posts go off on [b:bde5843677]related[/b:bde5843677] tangents. I guess in the future I will have to refrain from posting anything if I am likley to stray (even the least bit), off the original post. :(

P.S. Thanks for the well wishes PBTR, and back at you! :D

[bigmahon]

[quote:3be728d61a]Also, I have always looked that these threads as exchanges of opinions and information and it seems/ed like many posts go off on related tangents. I guess in the future I will have to refrain from posting anything if I am likley to stray (even the least bit), off the original post.
[/quote:3be728d61a]
Why, is AT still a forum moderator? :D

[ArrylT]

[quote:603264b9f3]Holy Cow AT, I hardly had the time in my vacation to READ your post yet alone think about writing one so long. [/quote:603264b9f3]

You must be pretty busy then because it only took me 20min to write. :wink:

[quote:603264b9f3]Why, is AT still a forum moderator? [/quote:603264b9f3]

Nope I am not. :) I think all forum moderators on these forums, volunteer or otherwise, have the word Moderator by their posts.

[quote:603264b9f3]As an aside, I've never really understood the whole "stick to the topic of the thread" thing. To me, threads are conversations, and conversations naturally drift. You start in one place, and end up somewhere else. It's a good thing[/quote:603264b9f3]

I quite agree. :)

[quote:603264b9f3]BTW, I'm totally honored to be ranked the 116th greatest owner based on my rating!! [/quote:603264b9f3]

kev - I think you're vastly underrated and could easily be ranked 108th. :wink: :wink: :wink:

[quote:603264b9f3]Personally I believe it is up to each owner to decide how much value they place upon the ratings. Since others have already expressed their viewpoint, I shall do the same, although I am quite certain that, as per usual, it will be misunderstood or ignored.[/quote:603264b9f3]

No offense intended to sandlotshrink, but I definitely think this segment by me is very valid since it looks as though he misunderstood much of what I said. :(

I definitely have no problem with anyone going 'off-topic' especially since I think the vast majority of my post could have been considered 'off-topic'. Rather I was just poking fun at the fact that most of the posts had been jabs at the rating system, rather than any discussion on the recent changes to valuations. ;) ;)

On another note - obviously not everyone needs the rating systems to know the skill level of many of the owners. But I was honest & upfront about my not knowing how skilled Cummings2 was in 2006, as well as the others mentioned, and the same would go for about another 10-15 owners in 2006 alone.

If it was not for the Managerial ratings, I would not have been aware of their accomplishments. It was thanks to the Managerial Ratings that I have been able to keep note of their accomplishments, and follow the status of other owners whom I might not have had the chance to play in leagues with much recently.

And as I said before, it is up to each owner to determine what they feel the Managerial ratings are worth, and to determine whether it is of any use to them. I think it is a useful tool, albeit one that can always use some improvement, and for others to dismiss it out of hand, that is their prerogative, but might not be to their benefit.

Do I think the ratings are the be all & end all of who is good at SOM? Definitely not. I just think it is a good foundation and is very good at showing who is competitive & skilled on a regular and consistent basis. :)

I do think it is a shame that the recent valuation changes have downgraded the ratings of owners like qksilver & JeepDriver, but that may be to their benefit in the end because it underrates them & their skills and success.

[wavygravy2k]

I think this formula should be changed. (Wins x Win Pct??) Also, I think all seasons should have equal weight.

(Wins x (Win Pct. - .400)) + (Reached Playoffs x 10) + (Championships x 20*)

[durantjerry]

I think we should set the bar for being "smarter than the average person" at if you have ever failed to successfully transfer your live draft card from Penngray's site to your TSN draft card, with definite doubts being raised if you did it because you thought it was OK.