1986 Ratings Most Accurate Measure Skill all Player Sets

[GlenBrummer]

Rating thee top five teams is the most accurate measure of pure managing skill of all the player sets. No one is on unequal footing by gaininng false points for wins based on quantity. The normal ratings are skewed by the amount of teams you have. If you play 15 teams with a .500 record you would accrue a higher rating than a .600 manager with 5 teams b/c you would get more overall victories and playoff appearances.

So many have rightfully noted that manager ratings is purely a product of quantity. More teams you have more victories, more playoffs etc.

Here all are on an equal footing. Best of 5. Truest measure of managerial skill on TSN.

[wavygravy2k]

I think it was explained in the forums somewhere a while ago that the ratings are more based on experience so you have an idea how much experience your opponent has.

[GlenBrummer]

maybe but that experience, i.e., how many games someone has played, is no measure of skill.


Thw 5 game set puts everyone on equal footing over 5 seasons with the same players. Whomover rank high as a manager there can truly claim to be the best.

[RICHARDMILTER]

I agree to some degree!

[DizandMiles]

First five teams would reduce some of the variables - but not "best five" I have 7 teams - picking my best 5 would give me an advantage of being able to toss out my "worst 2" In a case like Grindi's with 8462 :shock: :wink: teams - his top 5 should put him in the top of the heap, with 8455 more options than me.

[GlenBrummer]

I'm not suggesting the best five. That would skew things. The present system is perfect. The first five teams. All on equal footing.

[DONALDFOSCOE]

I agree with you guys, except for one small thing. They told us that these leagues wouldn't count at all. At that point I had only used 2 of my free teams. Knowing that they didn't count I did some "different" things with my other teams, then they decided that the first 5 would count.

This would be the perfect system, if we all knew in advance. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I really don't much care about my rating, just wish people would quit changing their minds.

[durantjerry]

I don't think it is an accurate measure of skill. It is probably the fairest solution though. I, like many, just jumped in at the beginning because they were free. As I got into it, my teams got much better as I studied the players, went through a live draft, etc. Also, much more of the competition was inexperienced, so if you beat up on a buch of guys who never played before, you can easily have a better ranking than someone who played in private leagues with SOMO Vets. Not trying to knock anyone, but I think it is no better or worse than the other rankings.

[GlenBrummer]

[quote:a280b3f9f8="durantjerry"]I don't think it is an accurate measure of skill. It is probably the fairest solution though. I, like many, just jumped in at the beginning because they were free. As I got into it, my teams got much better as I studied the players, went through a live draft, etc. Also, much more of the competition was inexperienced, so if you beat up on a buch of guys who never played before, you can easily have a better ranking than someone who played in private leagues with SOMO Vets. Not trying to knock anyone, but I think it is no better or worse than the other rankings.[/quote:a280b3f9f8]

That you gained experience over time because you became more familiar with the player set is an edge that anyone would get. This system measures skill based on the same level of experience with the player sets for all. Each of us drafted our first 5 teams without prior study.

As for inexperienced competition, I suppose that has some minor validity. But again we were all thrown into the same leagues and having five should equal that out. This system is certainly a much better measure than the present system which awards points PRIMARILY on the quantity of games played while win percentage, percentage of playoffs etc are secondary.

[keyzick]

This is the same exact system...everyone just is starting out with their 5 freebies. A couple months from now once people start buying the premium version, it will be just like the ratings for all the other sets.

Other than through the Tours, I don't think there's one right answer on how to actually rate who is "the best". Playing against inexperienced newbies can be a HUGE advantage. Not because they don't know the game of baseball, but rather the nuances, pricing, strategies of TSN SOM baseball.

The ratings are great to know who has how much experience, and how well they've done with it. Even that does not come close to telling the whole story, because a lot of people like to join fun theme leagues where skillsets aren't really tested. Or some like to test new strategies out for the heck of it, which may turn into flops.

I guess what makes the ratings great, is everyone uses them in a different way, or gets something unique out of them for his- or her- self. This thread being a perfect example :)

So just sit back and enjoy.... :)