Or we can leave the wives out of it and bet on the Stanley Cup spending the summer on American soil!
I know you're more of an eastsider, (how is it your not a Leafs fan, or are you?) but American victories are few and far enough between to relish this one for an evening or two.
Even the Cubbies won today, a statistical miracle in and of itself. My gosh, I cannot wait for tonite's SOM results...I can feel HAL's love warming my cubicle as I type...
Skill or Chance?
by MARCPELLETIER » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:31 pm
Nah, I don't need to experience shame when I see 1966-67.
Hey, it's gonna be 40th anniversary, next season. :twisted:
Hey, it's gonna be 40th anniversary, next season. :twisted:
- MARCPELLETIER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cummings2 » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:37 am
Well J, not quite a sweep you handed me but certainly felt like that.
Marcus, I didn't have a question before, your comment on the "Aargh" post made me laugh (I think that's where the mixup)
After failing miserably to get my latest experiment to at least function, let alone yield good results I am feeling pretty much like the game has got to be skill...and I seem to have lost my mojo :(
I haven't had time to go do the test but it sounds really interesting. Thnx for sharing Marcus. :D
Marcus, I didn't have a question before, your comment on the "Aargh" post made me laugh (I think that's where the mixup)
After failing miserably to get my latest experiment to at least function, let alone yield good results I am feeling pretty much like the game has got to be skill...and I seem to have lost my mojo :(
I haven't had time to go do the test but it sounds really interesting. Thnx for sharing Marcus. :D
- cummings2
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
How Do we Create More Strategy?
by kimkrichbaum2 » Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:04 am
This is a very interesting thread! I am a newbie at Som online (My second team just started), but I have played a lot of SOM and other games, and I have some thoughts. I did a statistical analysis of players and prices before I drafted the first time, attempting to factor in all values, speed defense hitting, etc. and then comparing it to price. I am sure my methods of valuing are not perfect, but the results were interesting. There are no fantastic bargains. I figured out a value number for each player, how much extra or less value you got for your money. One point is equivalent to a single on 2 or 12. I had a couple of offensive players at +10, and they were not bangers, but speed/defense guys. For the most part players stayed in the +6 to -6 range. Things are similar on the pitching side with even less range. The only exception is that a number of players approaching the .50 range are considerably less valuable. What this says to me is that close parity is pretty much guaranteed. With sublte situational strategies and more luck.
So what does this mean? Is it good or bad? I think it is good for the casual, fun manager who doesn't care as much about strategy. But it is bad for the more experienced manager, who wants to take managing on as a challenge, whihc I think includes most long time managers, especially the ones that post on this board.
So the next question is, what do we do about it? I think that the raters are probably are getting better and better at balancing salaries. And the atrategies that are out there are getting more and more known. I think what is needed to re-enliven the strategy is new variables. First with the draft, how do we have balanced salary values, and more strategy? How about a new salary system where how much you pay for a player depends on WHEN you draft him? Say the cost is double what it is now at the beginning of the draft and moves down to half by the end? Or the reverse? All of a sudden a whole new set of strategies. And then I would recommend changing something every two years, so by the time the good managers have mastered everything, there are new challenges.
Another way to increase strategy is to put another variable in the cards, and more control for online managers. How about for the online game only, SOM rated say high ball pichers and hitters and low ball, or inside/outside, or fast ball off speed? And we got to sset lineups for every game, not just the series? How about if pitchers had settings for "pitch carefully" - more walks, less hits, "average', and "right at 'em"- more hits, few walks, and then hitters had equivalent settings? This puts way more strategy in the game. These are only ideas, you who have played more online probsbly have better ones. And they require us getting SOM or the folks from SN to do them. But if a number of managers send in comments, as a group, we can have power.
As a last thoguht, I am not saying there is no strategy in the game now. But I suspect it is subtle, and chance may be a more powerful value than skill, which is less fun for managers who love strategy.
Kim
So what does this mean? Is it good or bad? I think it is good for the casual, fun manager who doesn't care as much about strategy. But it is bad for the more experienced manager, who wants to take managing on as a challenge, whihc I think includes most long time managers, especially the ones that post on this board.
So the next question is, what do we do about it? I think that the raters are probably are getting better and better at balancing salaries. And the atrategies that are out there are getting more and more known. I think what is needed to re-enliven the strategy is new variables. First with the draft, how do we have balanced salary values, and more strategy? How about a new salary system where how much you pay for a player depends on WHEN you draft him? Say the cost is double what it is now at the beginning of the draft and moves down to half by the end? Or the reverse? All of a sudden a whole new set of strategies. And then I would recommend changing something every two years, so by the time the good managers have mastered everything, there are new challenges.
Another way to increase strategy is to put another variable in the cards, and more control for online managers. How about for the online game only, SOM rated say high ball pichers and hitters and low ball, or inside/outside, or fast ball off speed? And we got to sset lineups for every game, not just the series? How about if pitchers had settings for "pitch carefully" - more walks, less hits, "average', and "right at 'em"- more hits, few walks, and then hitters had equivalent settings? This puts way more strategy in the game. These are only ideas, you who have played more online probsbly have better ones. And they require us getting SOM or the folks from SN to do them. But if a number of managers send in comments, as a group, we can have power.
As a last thoguht, I am not saying there is no strategy in the game now. But I suspect it is subtle, and chance may be a more powerful value than skill, which is less fun for managers who love strategy.
Kim
- kimkrichbaum2
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by J-Pav » Tue Jun 20, 2006 12:34 pm
[b:8927c580be]Kim[/b:8927c580be]:
Great post, thanks for jumping into the mix.
Personally, I would like to see sanctioned 24 team leagues, and more $60 million leagues; however, these are only personal preference and have been proven somewhat unpopular by the majority of players. I just think it would be more fun to dig deeper into the player pool, because like you said, there's not a lot separating any handful of $80 million worth of guys (barring obvious blunders, if there are truly any left!) as we're seeing it right now.
Still, it's pretty early to tell too much from all this. Strategies that are not obvious now could later become the conventional wisdom. The new crop of players, unburdened by what has worked somewhat routinely over the last three or four years, could stumble into a breakthrough (all 4s and 5s up the middle? $60 mil worth of pitching? Seven platoons?). Heck, if I can ever win any credits, there's a bunch of things I'd like to try still.
Best of luck with your own attempts!
Thx again for the post.
Great post, thanks for jumping into the mix.
Personally, I would like to see sanctioned 24 team leagues, and more $60 million leagues; however, these are only personal preference and have been proven somewhat unpopular by the majority of players. I just think it would be more fun to dig deeper into the player pool, because like you said, there's not a lot separating any handful of $80 million worth of guys (barring obvious blunders, if there are truly any left!) as we're seeing it right now.
Still, it's pretty early to tell too much from all this. Strategies that are not obvious now could later become the conventional wisdom. The new crop of players, unburdened by what has worked somewhat routinely over the last three or four years, could stumble into a breakthrough (all 4s and 5s up the middle? $60 mil worth of pitching? Seven platoons?). Heck, if I can ever win any credits, there's a bunch of things I'd like to try still.
Best of luck with your own attempts!
Thx again for the post.
- J-Pav
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cummings2 » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:34 pm
Food for thought of the day:
Could it be that one of the reasons for the difference between 05 results and 06 results is that we are trying to adjust to the 24 min. roster, as opposed to last year's 23?
This wouldn't really adress the skill/chance argument but merely adresses a difference between last year and this one.
My impression is that the extra man is finding it's way to the pitching staff. 10 man pitching staffs are, in my first impression far fewer than last year. This would perhaps lead to pitchers going on the mound which last year they wouldn't. Even if buried through settings, it is possible that the extra arm could cost the three games (between 86 wins and 83) that has been talked about.
Just food for thought.
Could it be that one of the reasons for the difference between 05 results and 06 results is that we are trying to adjust to the 24 min. roster, as opposed to last year's 23?
This wouldn't really adress the skill/chance argument but merely adresses a difference between last year and this one.
My impression is that the extra man is finding it's way to the pitching staff. 10 man pitching staffs are, in my first impression far fewer than last year. This would perhaps lead to pitchers going on the mound which last year they wouldn't. Even if buried through settings, it is possible that the extra arm could cost the three games (between 86 wins and 83) that has been talked about.
Just food for thought.
- cummings2
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by maligned » Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:30 pm
[quote:5cab5fb0e4="J-Pav"][b:5cab5fb0e4]Marcus[/b:5cab5fb0e4]:
Here's [b:5cab5fb0e4]maligned[/b:5cab5fb0e4] from the LOTO threads on his tour team:
[color=darkblue:5cab5fb0e4]Assmeriten...I wouldn't hide in fear. The other Strat teams I've finished or have now are a mixed bag...91-71, 87-75, 79-83, 75-87, 14-19. Everything went perfectly for me in our Tour league...I think I got something like 22 of the 25 guys I requested during the autodraft. In a 100M league, it's normally a battle to fill out a roster you're happy with. I got a once-in-a-lifetime sort of team. [/color:5cab5fb0e4]
Skill or chance? The discussion might be/is getting tired, but it's a valid question nonetheless.
I think deep down we all might be at least a little afraid we might be kidding ourselves...[/quote:5cab5fb0e4]
As long as I'm getting dragged into this, I might as well throw some newbie perspective into the tussle.
The fact of the matter is this: All the secrets are out if you want them. I had a peripheral knowledge of strat when I played my first team last winter. I had played the board game some as a kid and more recently played a few '01 face-to-face games with a friend. Even with only this, it was very easy to jump right into the mix and be successful because all the secrets are all over these boards.
Basically, I took a working knowledge of sabermetrics, spent about 5 or 6 hours reading posts like "The Secret Formula" and others (everything from constructing a team to preparing your bullpen settings to getting a high waiver position), asked lots of questions, followed all the directions--and had the best record with great run differential in a league of vets on the first try.
Quite honestly, I think the winning%'s of vets are down not because there's no skill involved with being successful in the game, but because it's so easy to take a working knowledge of how to score and prevent runs, then steal secrets from people who have played a larger sample size of seasons. Even in the six months I've been playing, the game has gotten more and more saturated with players that know what they're doing.
Let me break down my results a little more clearly:
2005:
91-71 (best record in a vet league)
87-75 (auto league, +100 run differential, 4 vets beat me out for playoffs)
75-87 (vet league, experimental Coors team trying to prove you could potentially overspend on pitching)
2006:
79-83 (Tour, +30 run differential)
14-19 (now 25-23, +35 run differential)
106-47 (Tour, best record in league)
I'm not explaining my "credentials" to brag, but merely to make a point: I didn't just "luck" into the tour team that's so good. I've been more than competitive right off the bat except for the experimental team....and anyone else can be, too, if you're a math dweeb (there are an inordinate number in this game), are willing to do some research, and are willing to follow the directions people lay out. We're just going to get more and more saturated with guys like me, and it's going to get more and more difficult to just mop up.
Finally, I'll say this about the 106-47 team: I got lucky in getting everyone I wanted. I didn't get lucky in the way I constructed the team. It was based on a theory about platooning in $100M leagues that has worked out great, obviously. I don't think the same thing works in $80M leagues.
This just proves my point all the more: We're just going to keep seeing more guys like me--guys that can follow directions, understand baseball, calculate, and be competitive right away. Then, we'll have more and more minds trying out unproven strategies like mine that will work and immediately get plastered all over this board and make it even more difficult to try the simple old tricks to dominate. We're all going to have to keep being creative and start being willing to settle for those flattening winning %'s. Guys like Lucky will always win (because we all know "deep down"--as J would say--that there is a certain degree of skill and ability to follow sensible mathematical patterns involved with winning). It just will get more and more difficult to win as much.
Here's [b:5cab5fb0e4]maligned[/b:5cab5fb0e4] from the LOTO threads on his tour team:
[color=darkblue:5cab5fb0e4]Assmeriten...I wouldn't hide in fear. The other Strat teams I've finished or have now are a mixed bag...91-71, 87-75, 79-83, 75-87, 14-19. Everything went perfectly for me in our Tour league...I think I got something like 22 of the 25 guys I requested during the autodraft. In a 100M league, it's normally a battle to fill out a roster you're happy with. I got a once-in-a-lifetime sort of team. [/color:5cab5fb0e4]
Skill or chance? The discussion might be/is getting tired, but it's a valid question nonetheless.
I think deep down we all might be at least a little afraid we might be kidding ourselves...[/quote:5cab5fb0e4]
As long as I'm getting dragged into this, I might as well throw some newbie perspective into the tussle.
The fact of the matter is this: All the secrets are out if you want them. I had a peripheral knowledge of strat when I played my first team last winter. I had played the board game some as a kid and more recently played a few '01 face-to-face games with a friend. Even with only this, it was very easy to jump right into the mix and be successful because all the secrets are all over these boards.
Basically, I took a working knowledge of sabermetrics, spent about 5 or 6 hours reading posts like "The Secret Formula" and others (everything from constructing a team to preparing your bullpen settings to getting a high waiver position), asked lots of questions, followed all the directions--and had the best record with great run differential in a league of vets on the first try.
Quite honestly, I think the winning%'s of vets are down not because there's no skill involved with being successful in the game, but because it's so easy to take a working knowledge of how to score and prevent runs, then steal secrets from people who have played a larger sample size of seasons. Even in the six months I've been playing, the game has gotten more and more saturated with players that know what they're doing.
Let me break down my results a little more clearly:
2005:
91-71 (best record in a vet league)
87-75 (auto league, +100 run differential, 4 vets beat me out for playoffs)
75-87 (vet league, experimental Coors team trying to prove you could potentially overspend on pitching)
2006:
79-83 (Tour, +30 run differential)
14-19 (now 25-23, +35 run differential)
106-47 (Tour, best record in league)
I'm not explaining my "credentials" to brag, but merely to make a point: I didn't just "luck" into the tour team that's so good. I've been more than competitive right off the bat except for the experimental team....and anyone else can be, too, if you're a math dweeb (there are an inordinate number in this game), are willing to do some research, and are willing to follow the directions people lay out. We're just going to get more and more saturated with guys like me, and it's going to get more and more difficult to just mop up.
Finally, I'll say this about the 106-47 team: I got lucky in getting everyone I wanted. I didn't get lucky in the way I constructed the team. It was based on a theory about platooning in $100M leagues that has worked out great, obviously. I don't think the same thing works in $80M leagues.
This just proves my point all the more: We're just going to keep seeing more guys like me--guys that can follow directions, understand baseball, calculate, and be competitive right away. Then, we'll have more and more minds trying out unproven strategies like mine that will work and immediately get plastered all over this board and make it even more difficult to try the simple old tricks to dominate. We're all going to have to keep being creative and start being willing to settle for those flattening winning %'s. Guys like Lucky will always win (because we all know "deep down"--as J would say--that there is a certain degree of skill and ability to follow sensible mathematical patterns involved with winning). It just will get more and more difficult to win as much.
- maligned
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Skill or Chance
by rossarino1 » Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:33 pm
So far I've had 2 2006 teams play in Minute Maid Park. The first finished 89-73 and 3rd in the league in hitting. http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/playoffs/team.html?stats=sim
Alex Rodriquez was either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in the league in most offensive categories including first in ba, runs, hits, total average, 2nd in rbi, 3rd in obp.
My current team has many of the same players and I felt at the beginning of the season was superior to the previous team. It is 31-56 and 2nd to last in the league in hitting. http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team.html
In this league A-Rod is ba .235, obp .334, and slugging .491. ? FYI, he is batting 3rd in both lineups. Can someone please explain how 2 very similar teams playing in the same ballpark can produce such wildly opposite results?
Alex Rodriquez was either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in the league in most offensive categories including first in ba, runs, hits, total average, 2nd in rbi, 3rd in obp.
My current team has many of the same players and I felt at the beginning of the season was superior to the previous team. It is 31-56 and 2nd to last in the league in hitting. http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/baseball/stratomatic/2006/team/team.html
In this league A-Rod is ba .235, obp .334, and slugging .491. ? FYI, he is batting 3rd in both lineups. Can someone please explain how 2 very similar teams playing in the same ballpark can produce such wildly opposite results?
- rossarino1
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Rant » Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:38 am
Clickety Clickety, clack, my friend.
Or maybe he choked after your crowd started to boo him ...
The correct way to post a team link is to go to the league statistics page, right click on your team's name, copy the link and post it here.
Or maybe he choked after your crowd started to boo him ...
The correct way to post a team link is to go to the league statistics page, right click on your team's name, copy the link and post it here.
- Rant
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to Strat-O-Matic Baseball Online 20xx
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests