Has 2006 killed off the "Old Guard"??

[the splinter]

I've been around for over 4 years(april, 2002) so that's about as "old guard" as you can get. I love the 2006 set as much as any other. Each year offers its own set of nuances. I like that. Now I'm not a #'s cruncher, I'm not a ratings buyer. I'm a card reader ,pure and simple. My strategies differ from team to team year to year. I don't always draft a team expecting to win. I know some of my ideas are based on luck rather than mathmatical probabilities. I like to play the I'll show you angle.

Now imho, things went down hill around here due to 2 factors.

1- The Tour. I played the first year. Won some, lost some. Fun..kinda. But it spawned an attitude amoung players. It became a chest beating contest instead of a fun recreational diversion. Yes, my style of play did not lend itself to tour greatness. As I said, I'm a card reader not a #'s cruncher. In the end the Strato CPA's will win because start by nature is of course a game of pct's.

2- The change of boards. While the old board had its limitations the new board seemed to "scare off" many of the old guard for some reason. Also, with the new boards the birth of the [b:642419a5b0]bullpen [/b:642419a5b0]caused more divison amoungst regulars than all other factors combined. While this feature has allowed for some intelligent exchanges it is primarily an E version of a restroom stall.....a place where anyone with a penknife can scratch whatever absurb/derisive/ chiding statement that enters their mind with relative impunity.

just my opinion.....that and 25 bucks will get ya a happy ending down the street. :lol:

[BRADSANDBOTHE]

Do I need a password along with your opinion and 25 bucks, cause I am in need of a happy ending? :wink:

[The Turtle]

I'm certainly old guard , although I never had as many teams as most of the guys listed there, I did participate in the first live draft ever on the boards, run by On2stix. I had to cut down on my teams due to going back to school and paying those bills. I did enjoy 2001 most, but I have enjoyed every year. I had the most success I ever had last year winning 4 championships is just 12 seasons. (my fewest) So I don't think this is just chance. if it was than Luckyman would have come back down to earth, but he has not , he was in the tour championship last year and i think made the finals and if you look at the leaderboard this year he is there again.

I think one thing has changed is that there are more games to play I know one old guard member (BC Manager) pretty much just plays the 80s game now. I don't think JKolak ever made it past playing 2001. :)

I now play the 80s and the 200x seasons and can only have so many teams in both.

I think if they discounted the older seasons (2001, 02, 03, 04) people might pop up playing more. However, since they transfer all those credits to 06 now that will not happen.

But outside of Penngray most people are still here at least a little bit. I know sandlot had to cut back as well. Mav is one person i have not seen in a while. perhaps his moniker changed when we went to these boards. JaserD has surprisingly gone too though

....wait a second , Arryl is right, where is everyone???

[the splinter]

jaserD is at the store...buying pants. :lol:

[Roscodog]

One thing I've noticed about 2006 compared to 2005, that I don''t like, is that there is less of a difference between ball parks. By the way I'm still in favour of 1 ball park per league (ie each team has to have a different ball park) Another thing that I believe would help make things more interesting is making the league 18 team leagues, all 4 palyoff teams get a free credit and the winner still gets 2.

[markp65]

I've been playing a handful of teams every year since the get-go (would play more if not for the possibility of d-i-v-o-r-c-e)...

I think the myriad league options that now exist have diminished the enjoyment and competitive spirit of the game rather than enhance them. I'd prefer to have one hard-fast set of rules for league play -- one $ cap, one waivers option, etc. Endless varaiations on the essential rules of the game amount to a sort of "wouldn't it be cool if" gimmickry. None of the timeless fundamentally sound, incisively competitive games -- chess, Scrabble, backgammon, baseball, Strat itself -- need any kind of cute little tweaks or embellishments to enhance the pleasure of the game.

Poker is a good example of what I'm talking about. If you have to call "jacks are 3's, red 5's are wild and if you draw the ace of spades you have to drink a shot of Bushmills with one eye closed..." to stay awake, you should probably seek out another pastime, because the pure inherent pleasure of the game is escaping you.

I understand that mine might be a minority view. That's fine. If the advanced leagues, multi caps and so forth are keeping the online game afloat financially, so be it. Bring on the orange baseballs, exploding scoreboards and, oh yeah, the cheerleaders!

[the splinter]

[quote:7fbd9e4724]amount to a sort of "wouldn't it be cool if" gimmickry.[/quote:7fbd9e4724]

While I agree some of the extremes are just that...extreme...to a certain extent isn't the above quote what Strat is about?

[Jerlins]

I am in agreement with LMBombers here. You still have to put a team together with the right blend. Anyone thinking its strictly a game of chance now is simply incorrect. Maybe its MORE of a game of skill now that the pricing is correct and fewer bargains exist. How is it any less skill if the playing field is even and it all comes down to ballpark, divisional, and league opponents in constructing your team.

Maybe now that its all about team construction and NOT the ability to draft incorrect priced players one can use to their advantage is the reason we're seeing less dominance from the "old guard". 05 was really my first year ever of playing strat, so I didn't know of the Pedro Feliz, Eric Bedard and others folks like to mention about the good ole days other than what I read. I hear it was a great advantage to whoever was lucky enough to get them. Guess what, you don't have them anymore, so now it comes down one person's skill in team construction over another. And this is a bad thing how? This makes the game less skillful, how?

Oddly, I'm seeing the same names at the top in the ratings, so I'm guessing these folks can still play Strat at a competitive and successful level. They were good players before accurate pricing and their still good players now it seems based on how many playoffs and championships already earned in 06. Chance has always played a part in Strat, I'm not seeing a difference in the amount of it for 06.

[cummings2]

Ditto with Jerlins.

Good points.

[J-Pav]

Sorting through some of the posts here and in the [i:238a0ddd92]Skill or Chance?[/i:238a0ddd92] thread I started, there seems to be some confusion in the original argument.

To imply that the "Old Guard" benefits only from player mispricing is in my opinion, completely and totally inaccurate. [b:238a0ddd92]Jerlins[/b:238a0ddd92], do you really think that the Old Guard stars do not understand the diffence between speedy guys and power guys and ballpark advantages and divisional opponents' strengths and weaknesses???

The player mispricings from the days of yesteryear made the game fun because not everyone could have Barry Bonds or the highest priced pitchers. You could win with any wide variety of mixes (applied correctly, which equals [i:238a0ddd92]skill[/i:238a0ddd92]). Today, the player pool is virtually twelve deep at every position. There's less application of skill in the draft process, because for whoever you didn't get, a virtual clone awaits in the FA pool.

[u:238a0ddd92][b:238a0ddd92]Vanilla Is the New Spumoni[/b:238a0ddd92][/u:238a0ddd92]

It's way too early to throw in the towel; however, it is quite plain to see that the best Old Guard managers are playing just over .500 while many, many newbies are also playing at the exact same level. What more of a demonstration need there be exemplify diminished [i:238a0ddd92]skill[/i:238a0ddd92] and enhanced [i:238a0ddd92]chance[/i:238a0ddd92]?

Here's the way I see it (at this point early in the new card set). Perfect player pricing removes the ability to out-think your opponents by constructing specialized strategies. Now, it's still early, and maybe I'm a complete dunce, but studying many of the posted teams that have completed seasons leads me to conclude that the best route to a [b:238a0ddd92]CHAMPS[/b:238a0ddd92] team is complete and total balance across the board. The four CHAMPS teams that I've competed against so far all finished top six in vitually every category (of both offense and defense). They had roughly $30-32 million spent on pitching ($22/$10 split SP/RP).

To look at the teams, it appears like there's nothing special to see. Just a big scoop of plain vanilla. Take a look at the road records across the board in your leagues...I bet few top 45 wins on the road. Heck, most teams aren't winning 45 games at [i:238a0ddd92]home[/i:238a0ddd92], whether it be Petco, Safeco or Minute Maid or wherever.

Now, here comes the catch, and it's the long right tails. Right now, I'm guessing some folks are confusing their overachieving teams with skill, when in fact, they may have caught love from HAL in the form of a 95 win season that looks a lot like someone knows what they're doing, but is in fact an outlier series of coin flips. Only with the benefit of the seasons' hindsight can we know if the whole group of managers will cluster conveniently around .500.

I want to argue that the ability of fellow managers is the greatest determinant of wins on a manager this year, but if we're all playing .500 ball, then maybe that doesn't even matter all that much. Just one man's opinion, but SOM knowledge in the form of leagues finished (i.e., Old Guard) [i:238a0ddd92]should[/i:238a0ddd92] largely prevail over less leagues finished. It has nothing to do with "removing the old guard" or allowing new members in. This year (so far), I don't see that experience being rewarded with wins. I'm seeing a level playing field for managers of (virtually) any and all abilities.

That's why the game (appears) less skillful.

:wink: