The advantage of playing against so called newbies may have some slight validity. However, almost everyone played the 86 set and the so called advantage of playing against newbies is the same for all. yes the 86 league may have more newbies, but all who play get to play against some newbies, so the edge is roughly equal.
For this first five game set its the purest measure of managerial skill of the ratings.
1986 Ratings Most Accurate Measure Skill all Player Sets
13 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
by durantjerry » Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:31 pm
[quote:242ec91ed7]That you gained experience over time because you became more familiar with the player set is an edge that anyone would get.[/quote:242ec91ed7]
True, but what seperates good players from bad is the ability they have and the insights they use after knowing the set. There is more skill involved in winning when everyone knows them and that seperation between SOMO players is the true indication of skill. Some players use that gained experience better than others. The line between being good or not good is a very fine line in most cases. A small amount of edge gained after playing and knowing the set is what makes you a skilled player, able to win in the long haul.
[quote:242ec91ed7]The normal ratings are skewed by the amount of teams you have.[/quote:242ec91ed7]
True.
[quote:242ec91ed7]So many have rightfully noted that manager ratings is purely a product of quantity.[/quote:242ec91ed7]
Ridiculous. Of course they are not purley based on quanity or the #1 ranking would go to the player with the most teams, #2 = 2nd most, etc. The ratings are obviously flawed(somewhat like your arguement) and TSN understandably wants you to play more, ergo more teams = a better chance at a higher ranking. In the 70's game I am ranked about #10. There is a smaller number of players and there are a lot of private leagues where you usually see many of the same names ranked in the top 30. I can vouch for the fact that they are mostly, if not all very good players. Are there also very good players ranked lower due to playing less teams? Of Course. Are there very good players who only play in a limited number of private leagues that could dominate the rankings if they wanted? Yes. You are telling me that a guy with 16,000+ rating points just plays alot? I have been in leagues with him probably eight or ten times and he seems pretty good to me. My first five teams of 2007 are 244 - 177. Oh, I forgot to tell you I am in all Public leagues, two or three of which I am easily the most experienced player with a smattering of relative beginners and that I am playing in my best type of parks. Does that put me close to the top of the 2007 rankings in your test of "True managerial Skill". Probably close to the top. Does it means it's true? Definitely open to arguement.
True, but what seperates good players from bad is the ability they have and the insights they use after knowing the set. There is more skill involved in winning when everyone knows them and that seperation between SOMO players is the true indication of skill. Some players use that gained experience better than others. The line between being good or not good is a very fine line in most cases. A small amount of edge gained after playing and knowing the set is what makes you a skilled player, able to win in the long haul.
[quote:242ec91ed7]The normal ratings are skewed by the amount of teams you have.[/quote:242ec91ed7]
True.
[quote:242ec91ed7]So many have rightfully noted that manager ratings is purely a product of quantity.[/quote:242ec91ed7]
Ridiculous. Of course they are not purley based on quanity or the #1 ranking would go to the player with the most teams, #2 = 2nd most, etc. The ratings are obviously flawed(somewhat like your arguement) and TSN understandably wants you to play more, ergo more teams = a better chance at a higher ranking. In the 70's game I am ranked about #10. There is a smaller number of players and there are a lot of private leagues where you usually see many of the same names ranked in the top 30. I can vouch for the fact that they are mostly, if not all very good players. Are there also very good players ranked lower due to playing less teams? Of Course. Are there very good players who only play in a limited number of private leagues that could dominate the rankings if they wanted? Yes. You are telling me that a guy with 16,000+ rating points just plays alot? I have been in leagues with him probably eight or ten times and he seems pretty good to me. My first five teams of 2007 are 244 - 177. Oh, I forgot to tell you I am in all Public leagues, two or three of which I am easily the most experienced player with a smattering of relative beginners and that I am playing in my best type of parks. Does that put me close to the top of the 2007 rankings in your test of "True managerial Skill". Probably close to the top. Does it means it's true? Definitely open to arguement.
- durantjerry
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by GlenBrummer » Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:43 pm
The normal rankings are not purely based on quantity of games played but its undeniably the single biggest factor. The system accrues points for wins, playoffs championships etc. The quantity of those s primarily a function of games played.
86--at least until it gets skewed by players purchasing more than their alloted 5 teams is THE purest measure of skill. All the factors that make sense-wins, championships etc but on even playing field with five teams each.
Whomever ranks high in 86 is truly the greatest manager.
86--at least until it gets skewed by players purchasing more than their alloted 5 teams is THE purest measure of skill. All the factors that make sense-wins, championships etc but on even playing field with five teams each.
Whomever ranks high in 86 is truly the greatest manager.
- GlenBrummer
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
13 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball Online 20xx
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests