Ratings Guide Curse

Coyote, those are all quotes that may or may not have come from my posts.

Nice try, but every one one of those quotes was cut and pasted directly from your posts. They are in order if you wish to track down the entire posts.
----------------
ROBERTLATORRE, I agree with you: This thread is laughable. It spiraled out of control when I simply made the statement I thought ratings books were just a tool, and that I disagreed with someone's opinion. I shouldn't have taken the bait by trying to do a reasonable debate with this person. In the future, I will know better. However, I confess that I do appreciate all the comments by others that followed. And, Salty, you nailed it!

EDIT: fixed typo (everyone --> every one)

He must do only lectures in school because he doesn't understand the concept of debates evolving as more information is offered.



You can't compare researching old time baseball with researching a guide that probably has only been available a few months. Old time baseball we have no choice but to investigate historical writings on the subject. Why rely on second hand knowledge about something as current as a guide for the 2013 season? Until you actually look at a guide, all opinions on the matter are weakened.

Coyote, I see that you edited your post...you MUST BE CONSPIRING AGAINST ME!!! LOL

This is all so ridiculous.

The ratings guide does not "evaluate" players. It merely provides the data from the cards.

I will agree with that evaluating cards might be the most important part; I would take it that last step and say it is the most important part of the game. I also consider it the most fun. But if the guide's authors did the work of counting the HR chances for a HR 1-5 on 2-11, on 2-12, and a 1-7 chance on 3-6, all they have done is save me time doing the math myself, not whether the player is a HR threat or a mediocrity.

The ratings guide absolutely evaluates players. No, it doesn't. Your statement, as absolute as it is, is also nonsensical. Counting outcome probabilities is not analysis. Heck, it is barely statistics. SOM counts the number of outcomes. Period. Common sense would tell someone a home run is worth more than a single; statistical analysis would tell one how much more the home run outcome is worth. Statistical analysis of player cards is a huge part of player evaluation. When ratings do their statistical analyses, they tell managers the optimal players to choose so a manager doesn't have to do so himself. So, telling managers which players are the best statistical options is evaluating players, and it is what complete strat players do on their own.

Almost none of us used outside ratings guides when we played the Strat board game as kids. We evaluated the players cards on our own, as we should have done. It made evaluating players on our own part of the Strat skill set, as I mentioned in an earlier post. That was also the way it was on online SOM at the beginning. As I said before, now some managers value winning itself more than winning on their own and being complete strat players, so they use outside ratings guides. Some of us have fuller lives now than we did when we were 9 years old. If someone wants to count the 21 single chances on Hanley Ramirez's card for me so that I can enjoy SOM, my job, and my family, well, they are providing a useful service that a nine year old can. So I guess by your standard, the SOM ratings disk usage means I am not a complete Strat player. Guess I will take solace on the attempted slight with the reality of being a more complete human being.

You apparently use an outside ratings guide, yourself, to evaluate players. As I said before, that doesn't keep you from being an excellent partial player. But, as you yourself said, evaluating players is the most important part of the game. So, by using an outside ratings guide, you cannot be a complete player who succeeds at the most important part of the game on your own.

For one who complains about assumptions being made about their posts and taking things out of context, you are actually pretty good at it.

Is using this forum to exchange knowledge about a game and to swap ideas about strategies and players another strike against the "complete" Strat player? After all, I learned on my own how to count card chances at age 9. Anyone who didn't figure that out on their own, but had to learn it from a book and teacher in school...well, you are still a pretty good partial player.

Seeing as the good professor has name dropped me into this, despite my intentions to steer clear I only have one comment, It must be tough for him, always being right, the last person that had that kind of pressure to walk this earth wound up nailed to a cross.