Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

Would like a manager profile page for each manager. This page would show the manager all-time record and manager rating, of course. Also would like to see a manager vs manager head to head records.

There could also be a list of all players ever used by the manager. When you click on a player it will take you to the player's "career" stats. Let's say you used Willie Mays for 4-5 seasons. The simulated stats for each season would be listed along with the "career" totals. This way, you can sort of keep track of "career" milestones.

Would like a manager profile page for each manager. This page would show the manager all-time record and manager rating, of course. Also would like to see a manager vs manager head to head records.

This would be very cool and would be superior to the manager's ratings we had in the past. I particularly find the manager's head-to-head records intriguing. It would be cool to see who our most fiendish nemeses have been throughout the years.

There could also be a list of all players ever used by the manager.

This would be problematic. We don't want to make it easier for managers to surmise whom other managers are likely to draft. Obviously, some ATGers or keeper leaguers who play with the same managers already know this about some managers, but we don't want to provide such general information about all managers for all other ones.

l.strether wrote:This would be problematic. We don't want to make it easier for managers to surmise whom other managers are likely to draft. Obviously, some ATGers or keeper leaguers who play with the same managers already know this about some managers, but we don't want to provide such general information about all managers for all other ones.

Yes this is true but we are all playing just for fun. I'm sure there are a few hardcore guys who are already gathering this info. Also, if you play a lot, you can easily just go to your completed teams list and get past history. I think in the Strategy forum section, there's a list of 100 win teams that can be analyzed. There's so much info already out there that any manager can eventually figure out which cards are popular.

wavygravy2k wrote:Yes this is true but we are all playing just for fun. I'm sure there are a few hardcore guys who are already gathering this info. Also, if you play a lot, you can easily just go to your completed teams list and get past history. I think in the Strategy forum section, there's a list of 100 win teams that can be analyzed. There's so much info already out there that any manager can eventually figure out which cards are popular.

Of course we're playing for fun; I never said we weren't. As I said in my first post, we still don't want to make it easier for managers to know what players other managers are likely to draft. There may be some hardcore mangers who actually keep track of what players all other managers tend to draft, but I severely doubt it. That would take an immense amount of time and work for an unsure payoff of little substance. Even if such sadly obsessive managers do exist, they at least have earned such information. There is no reason for SOM to hand it to managers and give versatile managers an effective advantage over managers with particular team-building strategies.

And playing "a lot" in itself, as well as 100-win teams, will not give you such information. I, and many other managers, have played "a lot" for a very long time. That playing, alone, certainly hasn't given me or others such information about our fellow manager's team-building/drafting strategies. As I said earlier, that info would have to come from substantial and exhaustive analysis. And most (if not all) players don't have enough 100-win teams to provide other managers enough information to predict how those managers draft/team-build.

Finally, figuring out what cards are popular is decidedly different from determining what players each individual manager prefers. One is common knowledge gleaned from general game play. The other is "insider" information giving one manager an extra advantage over another. Big difference.

I'm familiar with the ELO rating format and I think this would be a more interested rating formula. ELO Rating is widely used in online video gaming. An average gamer would be at around 1500 and elite gamers would be around 1900-2000 and above.

l.strether wrote:Of course we're playing for fun; I never said we weren't

Well, I never accused you of saying we weren't playing for fun.

wavygravy2k wrote:Yes this is true but we are all playing just for fun.

wavygravy2k wrote:

l.strether wrote:Of course we're playing for fun; I never said we weren't

Well, I never accused you of saying we weren't playing for fun.

I never accused you of making that accusation. I corrected your incorrect implication I wasn't aware we weren't playing for fun...big difference. You really do need to work on your semantics.

And your only addressing that part of my post shows you can't adequately counter the rest of it. But I already knew that.

I'm familiar with the ELO rating format and I think this would be a more interested rating formula. ELO Rating is widely used in online video gaming. An average gamer would be at around 1500 and elite gamers would be around 1900-2000 and above.

I actually liked your original plan better, outside of your unfortunate "managers' preferences. How exactly would this ELO "rating formula" be interesting? Also, how would SOM determine what an "average" gamer and/or an "elite" gamer is, and how would they determine their ratings? You really need to give this information if you are to convince anybody.

I admit my interest mainly comes with my familiarity with it but it IS also a good gauge of a manager's success or failure compared to another manager's rating. Also, it's not based on how often a manager plays so a manager who has played for 30+ seasons could possibly have a similiar rating as a manager who only played about 5-10 seasons. I know it's not a perfect solution because managers can get into lucky streaks but it can still give you a general idea on how successful a manager has been.

With the ELO rating system SOM can determine if they want everyone to start with a 0 or a 1500 ranking. Your ranking will go up depending on the number of games you won and who you won against.

SOM, could handle this in their game engine. Or, they can hire someone who would start by reading the Standings page (which shows a list of all owner names and team names). "He" could store this info and then use it later in the boxscore pages - which provides the final results. While on the boxscore pages, the ELO ratings are generated and stored and then you go on to the next boxscore page to gather the next results based on the previously stored ELO ratings.

I know this is far fetched but it's fun to brainstorm.