Insuring the supply of new sheep

[Free Radicals]

Great thread all . Fantastic points . At one point we were all 'newbies' here , be it if you played the board game or not , this was something different . You can only control what your team does through Hal and don't have the hands on ability to make the moves you may have in the board game . I started the Ring Flings a while ago for the 'lesser ' managers who hadn't won much . I think its up to the 6th league now and its turned out alot of 1st time champs . A rated system of ranked players would not neccessarily work to anyones benefit . I played pool for years in leagues in the town I lived in in Wisconsin and they had leagues from A (best ) to F (worst) . If you played in the A league , you better bring your A game and so on down the line . But as was stated earlier without the competition level being higher , is your game truely improving ? There are ways to put together leagues where newbies and intermediates can play and learn . If I had come to the boards earlier in my strat career for the help I now seek on them , I wouldn't have had 20 terrible teams to start with ...maybe . There's quite the learning curve here on the boards and in just playing the game . When I started no one took Buck Weaver ( so I got him all the time ) now he's a staple on alot of teams . Its supposed to be fun , no matter where you end up ,and if everyone keeps that in mind then it should be fun . If a newbie jump into a frenzy with limited experience in ATG there's a good chance they will get eaten alive in it . Experience in this also plays . Knowing who does what in what park or versus X teams is something that is learned . When you join an autoleague you get whatever ( using that word in its proper context) is dealt your way . If you put together a specific league it may take a bit longer to fill but all in all have fun with it .

[traderj]

Excellent points Nev, I myself learned the hard way, a few sucky teams to begin with had me shaking my head. I asked questions on the boards and most were very kind to give advice. Also reading old posts (the old boards were better for that) about certain players,i.e....who used who and how they performed in certain parks. That certainly helped and I've won 5 rings, though it has been a loooong drought since my last one, :cry: but I'm not quitting. We were all newbies at one time. :wink:

[CHRISTIANSTOUGH]

Just to be my usual contrary self.....
1. Golf is lame. They should make the players sprint in between holes.

2. Nevdully, has laid down some some great stuff, but I'd like to point out that Checkers is a great game. Checkers and Poker were the natioanl games of the 1800's. Why is this a big deal? The games a culture plays influences how they think/ and vice versa. Americans tend to want to take ALL of the marbles, which is why we rock at certain types of strategic thinking. It's a checkers mentality.
A great exagerated exmple, for you civil war buffs is the difference between McClellan and Stonewall Jackson. Mc- a brilliant engineer and most definatly, a chess player. Jackson, a good mathamtician, a checkers player.

3. ATG is most definatly, a chess type game though, your circumstances (stadium, opponents etc.) are always fluid and must be manuevered. It's a great game, but there is no way to go for the jugular as their is in Checkers.
In other words, there is alot of foreplay before the money shot.

4. I agree that this game is more fun because you have to take your lumps and work up the ranks. I was feeling really good about my recent play and decided to check out my ranking. LMAO, I was like 250 or something compared to like, 5000 for first place. It was gloriously humbling.

5. I totaly agree with the monkey see /monkey do mind set. I slavishly copy tons of stuff. Thats nice as far as bringing me closer to the pack, but in the end I want to do my own thing and have it work.

6. I primarily liked the idea because I like hierarchy (got to let that Feudal streak out somewhere). I don't really think the idea is feasible, but if one wanted , one could just make a WEEZE-GOTZ-NO-RINGZ league and post an ad on the boards. I think that the members of this community are respectful enough that no Champs would enter it.
Matter of fact, now that I've thought of it and just bought a 5 pack....hmmmm

[Minoso Express]

I'm one of the newbies, both to ATGII and to Strat in general. Never played the board game. Jumped in tentatively with a couple of Back to the 80's teams (decidedly not my game), inched along to 1969 (liking that more than the 80s as the pitching surprises-- for better or worse-- seem more various), FantaSim (detest it), blitzed a round of 2003 and 2006 teams (vaguely boring).

And then, I found ATGII, which the 80s guys say is a draft 'em-set 'em-watch 'em go kind of game. In my extremely limited experience here (3 teams early in their seasons and another set to start Monday), I can't say I have found that to be the case. The permutations and nuances seem far greater and more subtle than I was led to believe. So it looks like I've found my Strat game.

That said, I know that if I and others like me were relegated to "A" ball, I probably wouldn't play at all. Life is full of enough hierarchy and herding to necessitate that my recreational hobbies, no matter how passionate, are enjoyed on their most basic and primal levels, which involves two key components: an obsessive autodidact instinct and a trial by fire at the hands of the masters. One doesn't work without the other.

I hope I speak for more curious newbies when I say that posting links to our teams and sitting back to wait for advice isn't all we do in trying to ensure that the teams we field in auto leagues aren't automatically going to tank, providing zero challenge or interest for whatever patient vets happen to be stuck in our divisions. I think a fair number of us take the time to read the boards, study the cards, weigh up the various and competing strands of information and proffered opinions, and come up with our often unsteady but willing teams. And while we can't offer experience, we can offer what comparatively little statistical data we have managed to accumulate from our teams on the boards.

An overriding desire to win pretty much kills the urge to experiment. In life as in Strat, it's often the beautiful accident, the unexpected juxtaposition, the collisions with conventional wisdom, that provide our most inspired-- and therefore successful-- endeavors. One may be able to win by imitation a few times, but consistent success stories only occur when the fear of losing is absent. As Samuel Beckett once said, "Fail better."

I remember this when I'm building teams. If a student of any game possesses the right combination of aptitude, instinct and sheer guts, those spectacular failures will one day yield a winner. But I'm certain the opposite is also true: build to win with impatience and without comprehension of the moves you're making, and failure becomes a quotidian banality. That's what lumping all newbies into "A" leagues would do because we'd all have banal successes and failures against each other rather than learn while staring down the loaded barrel of a 100-win vet team with nothing but Johnny Evers to protect you and your team from the shot. Me, I'll take the loaded barrel any day.

Comprehending the moves we're making is why we ask vets to share their accumulated wisdom. Sure, there are probably folks who just want all the work done for them, just as there are vets who get prickly when their impulse to share is met with seeming ungratefulness. However, I'm willing to wager that for every newbie who goes that route in an unthinking attempt to win a ring first time out, there are five who don't take that route at all. And we're truly appreciative of your generosity.

Perhaps for those vets who really do want Strat strata so as to compete only with the very best, and for those newbies who are easily discouraged by losing, there could be an option for "A" through "Show" leagues while keeping the present, general structure of leagues intact.

I understand the desire to compete only with one's peers; however, the only way to ensure a fresh supply of new peers is to allow the persistently interested and not altogether dull among us to annoy you for a time with questions and observations that might provoke eyerolls and headshakes. Hopefully, your tolerance will one day be repaid with a 7-game nail-biting final against one of your former Strat pupils.



:)

[traderj]

Wow Mr. Minoso, that is a mouthful :shock: well said,(I think) :?

[Free Radicals]

Hear Hear ! Bravo ! Cheers ! Broast ! Salute ! 8)

No "A" league needed there all "A OK " leagues any hoot ! :D

[Hakmusic]

I think these are good points.

I think a good newbie strategy is to copy cat first and post your teams for vets to help with, and when you learn some basics, and then branch out.

I also think experimenting is what makes it fun (as is trying to put fine tune that almost consistant winning combination). My best ATG team was one from a theme league where I had no players I usually have and lots of guys I always heard not to use (Schmidt, Carlton, Dawson, etc.). I thought my team was going to win 40 or 50 games. Instead I won 93 and the championship.

[CHRISTIANSTOUGH]

Does everyone in this community have an IQ of a gajillion?
Well said by all of you.

Just the same I started a No-Champs-league.
I figure it's like lying with your hand on the bible, "it's only awkward the first time".
Considering the number of leagues I'm presently in with the Strato-gods, my shame isn't so great as to prevent me from trying it.
Plus, it sounds fun. Somebody will win something that they haven't won before.

Also, if their are any other No-champs leagues out there , let me know and I'll disband mine.

[modmark46]

I love reading the comments from you all. Who would have thought the SOM community would attract the modern day versions of the Greek philosophers? And, I mean that as a compliment. :) I am a "Vet" who still routinely gets shellacked. Played well over 100 teams, with a winning % barely over .500, and, with only 7 rings, probably the worst playoff record in the top 100! I don't care. I play to have fun. I want to win, of course. But, I have found the sharing of ideas, stories, memories and experiences with other baseball history fans is what really keeps me coming back to this game. It's a great community. I love being in the leagues with the big guys like Nevdully, Petrosian and Frank Bailey. They are truly masters. When they cream me (usually), I shrug it off and try to learn something new. And, when I (rarely) can finish ahead of them, it's a real ego boost! :) But, I like playing and helping the young rookies, also. Don't offer tons of advice, because I feel there are others here who do it better. We all come from different backgrounds and experiences, but two consistent things you see on these boards is a love of the game of baseball and an appreciation for it's past. If new players stick it out through the rough learning curve, they will be rewarded with a whole network of cyberpals, and a game that grows more addictive with each team. Now, bring on ATG3!

[PillPop]

Is this a joke? I don't want hierarchies or a velvet rope in this game. I've never won an ATGII ring and maybe I never will but I want to compete against the best players. This AA, AA, A thing is a joke, right?