Bad suggestion. 5 teams puts everyone on equal footing. Your rule would reward those who abused the system by picking too many teams.
by comparing 5 vs 5 this is the only pure system out there--no bias toward quantity over quality. BTW what is your win % for your five teams milter?
A Proposal for the 1986 Manager Ratings
42 posts
• Page 2 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
by RICHARDMILTER » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:33 pm
How did we abuse the system when no one told us there was a limit????It is not like I created 100 teams, or even 15. I am a rule abiding, paying customer. I do not think it is unfair to give people managerial credit for teams that they got in good faith, and put hard work into. I will spend several hundred dollars this year with TSN. I know there are many others who will spend more, but we all deserve to have our teams' records count.
- RICHARDMILTER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by DizandMiles » Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:27 am
I had 7 teams and did not feel like I was "cheating"
Regarding first five.
First Five would reveal who was the "best" if all the managers had agreed to a certain salary cap and played five games against each other - my seven teams are spread over 4 weeks - I am sure that other managers had five teams (or more) start playing in the first week. Hence my teams in week 2, 3, and 4 may be against managers with much more experience, likewise, my experience of five teams would assist me against those teams whom I play with my 6th and 7th teams.
My proposal would likely sell more seasons of 1986, remove the stigma from those who played more than 5 teams (we weren't cheating or trying to beat the system - there were no rules) and actually create a more accurate manager rating based on the existing structure (as I add teams - good and bad seasons would be added to my total).
Regarding first five.
First Five would reveal who was the "best" if all the managers had agreed to a certain salary cap and played five games against each other - my seven teams are spread over 4 weeks - I am sure that other managers had five teams (or more) start playing in the first week. Hence my teams in week 2, 3, and 4 may be against managers with much more experience, likewise, my experience of five teams would assist me against those teams whom I play with my 6th and 7th teams.
My proposal would likely sell more seasons of 1986, remove the stigma from those who played more than 5 teams (we weren't cheating or trying to beat the system - there were no rules) and actually create a more accurate manager rating based on the existing structure (as I add teams - good and bad seasons would be added to my total).
- DizandMiles
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by DizandMiles » Wed Apr 23, 2008 6:35 am
Hallerose's assumption of .500 is not correct - for all the "first five" to end up at .500 SOM would have had to set a tournament similar to Barnstormers where all the particiapants had to have 5 teams and all those teams played within the confines of a system.
The fact that first five's are being played against owners with only one team, or dozens of teams makes the possibility of "first five being .500" statistically improbable.
The fact that first five's are being played against owners with only one team, or dozens of teams makes the possibility of "first five being .500" statistically improbable.
- DizandMiles
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by keyzick » Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:35 am
Put another way....I have 9 '86 teams. The first 5 are doing just fine, all but one in first.
Of the non-counted 4, I have two teams running away with it, but they obviously are excluded from my rating. However, some of the other teams that are in those two leagues may be counting towards those managers first 5 '86 teams. So you can get leagues where some team's are being rated on the results, some are not: ie, no .500 overall PCT.
Milter - I agree with your post about not having abused the system, when no team limit was ever set.
The ratings are meant to reflect experience and success, and yes, it can and is overweighted by experience (ie, many teams equals higher ratings).
Those who want a system that purely ranks on success....good luck. You'd need equal number of teams, same rules, same competition, etc...
My town's 12-0 high school team is not going to beat the Boston Red Sox even once.
Of the non-counted 4, I have two teams running away with it, but they obviously are excluded from my rating. However, some of the other teams that are in those two leagues may be counting towards those managers first 5 '86 teams. So you can get leagues where some team's are being rated on the results, some are not: ie, no .500 overall PCT.
Milter - I agree with your post about not having abused the system, when no team limit was ever set.
The ratings are meant to reflect experience and success, and yes, it can and is overweighted by experience (ie, many teams equals higher ratings).
Those who want a system that purely ranks on success....good luck. You'd need equal number of teams, same rules, same competition, etc...
My town's 12-0 high school team is not going to beat the Boston Red Sox even once.
- keyzick
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by DizandMiles » Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:32 pm
Bottom line - if there is some consideration to adding beyond 5 in the 1986 leagues I will probably play at least enough to get my "free teams" liberated from limbo (one is doing well - the other is at .500). I would be reluctant to continue supporting 1986 fiancially with my efforts not being totally represented (sounds like Patrick Henry meets Billy Beane or Mr Bean or something)
- DizandMiles
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by RICHARDMILTER » Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:39 pm
I want to buy a five pack tonight, however I am worried that if I do it tonight and then they decided to unlock each 1986 team in limbo for each new team we buy I won't get credit for the six teams I will have purchased since the ending of the free teams. Does anyone really think they will allow us to unlock our non counting, 1986 teams at a later date,by purchasing more teams? If so maybe I should wait on buying some five packs. What to do??
- RICHARDMILTER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by dennisfs561 » Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:58 pm
I have a simple solution that will make, I am guessing, 90% of us happy. Unlock 20 teams instead of 5. In my view 20 free teams is not abusing the "system." This lets manager ratings be a guage of performance ( in this case) instead of the amount of money spent.
It would be a good PR move Bernie, and it would restore the measure of goodwill that the free 86 season was intending to create.
But........since Bernie has stated he mostly reads posts in the ATG forum, I doubt he has read this thread. But then again, maybe he will prove me wrong and post a reply to these suggestions........
It would be a good PR move Bernie, and it would restore the measure of goodwill that the free 86 season was intending to create.
But........since Bernie has stated he mostly reads posts in the ATG forum, I doubt he has read this thread. But then again, maybe he will prove me wrong and post a reply to these suggestions........
- dennisfs561
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by wavygravy2k » Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:57 pm
Is there anyone besides me who only had the opportunity to sign up for only 5 seasons?
- wavygravy2k
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
42 posts
• Page 2 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball Online 20xx
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests