How Bad Can You Be?

As I said above, choosing favorite players who also happen to be good cards--e.g. Smith, Koufax, and Drysdale--does not apply to the common "error" Splinter and RB had said regularly occurs. That problem only occurs when you pick bad cards because of emotional attachment. So, Valen's anecdote, like J-Pav's, doesn't apply to the problem discussed.

Mostly good stuff here guys!

When I talk about trying to use some of my favorite players they are often not necessarily high salary guys.

Mostly good stuff here guys!

When I talk about trying to use some of my favorite players they are often not necessarily high salary guys.

Salary wouldn't be important in determining if the tendency you (and Splinter) speak of is actually prevalent. What would matter is if managers chose bad cards or not out of emotional attachment. As most of us know, many of the best cards are low-salary ones, and many of the worst cards are high-salary ones. So, we need to determine if many managers are choosing bad cards out of emotional attachment, not expensive cards out of emotional attachment.

If I have a favorite player, it's definitely a factor in whether I try to draft him. However, if the player is a poor fit for the team I'm trying to put together or if I think his card is a poor value, then I won't take him.

Another thing to consider is how easy is it to get the guy? For example, I gave up trying to get Koufax (in the 60s game). I'd love to get his card on my team, but I wasted too many #1 picks only to come up empty.

Sorry guys, I have to work the thread on both this side and the pm side. Posters want to discuss things without the "unpleasant distraction."

Unfortunately, sebastian will pass on the community assessment, so we can take off the coat and gloves, put away the stethoscope and settle in with an after-work drink. I'm really disappointed because I think a case analysis for someone struggling with success in the game could be helpful, not only to the volunteer, but the much larger volume of people who quietly read the posts and choose not to actively join in.

It's funny Valen brought up that 2004-2006 time frame...

I remember being absolutely apoplectic during a couple of those years. After cruising practically effortlessly through 2003-2004, it was worse than hitting a brick wall, because you might actually pick yourself up after a bad crash and right the ship. It was literally like being in a carnival house maze with the crazy mirrors. It was like driving a clown car in a carnival house maze with the crazy mirrors.

Then I had a board conversation with cummings2, who wiped some shaving cream pie out of my eyes and said, "Dude, check out the double-plays. There's something weird about it." And sure enough, there was some wacky mispricing on double-plays and I was hitting into jillions of them. And it goes without saying my pitchers were getting NO ONE to hit into double-plays.

It is maybe a little oversimplistic (but not fallacious!) to say it was entirely all about double-plays exclusively. But it was a major contributing factor and from that moment forward I realized if I worked hard enough, I would find the answers. Just because I couldn't find it previously does not mean it does not exist.

As an aside, I definitely stopped posting my boxscore questions. There is ALWAYS an answer, and you feel pretty foolish when you're told that no, David Ortiz was not out attempting to steal home with the game tied in the top of the 9th. There was a missed squeeze bunt and the runner is ruled "out attempting to steal." Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Duh.

Anyway, try being a Cub fan in Strat-O. It's almost as bad as Astros guy! But not anymore, baby!

*Note: My high energy emoticons and exclamation points are back too!

Maybe you guys should all form a "see how bad you can be league" and see who excels at picking the team that sucks the most.

Let a couple of newbies join and win the pennant first shot.

You can address me directly, Keyzick; this is an adult forum. If you have taken an English composition course--and I hope you have--you know "I think" is redundant in a personal statement involving objective evidence and personal observation. So, I and many others on this thread have made many statements without saying "I think." If that bothers you, that's your problem.

So, if you disagree with the arguments I have made, then address them--that's what men do--and stop talking about me. This is an SOM thread, not a gossip room.

I chose note to address you directly because I was speaking to Splinter. I'm surprised you couldn't figure that out. But since you are asking, no, I do not agree with your statements and have thus proven you wrong. You've incorrectly stated more than once, that "all vets" think or act a certain way - I think you should apologize for your misstatement.

I also see you stated you paid to be on this forum? Wow, that's news, who suckered you into paying to use this forum? Or, is this another one of your misstatements?

And finally, there is a difference between "I know" and "I think"...but I think you know that.

You didn't directly address me in the middle of a conversation in which I was participating. That was rude. And the only thing you have proven is you haven't read my posts well. I have never said "all vets" think or act in a certain way. If I had, you would have shown where I did so; you didn't. This is what I said about Splinter's theory:

Sure, the extreme beginner holds emotional attachments to, and aversions against, specific players. However, most players shed that irrational tendency quickly. What they don't shed quickly is the inability to identify the best cards/best deals and steer away from the bad ones.

"Most players" is significantly different from "all players;" I'm surprised you couldn't figure that out. I think you should apologize for your misstatement.

I also see you stated you paid to be on this forum? Wow, that's news, who suckered you into paying to use this forum? Or, is this another one of your misstatements?

I paid for this forum just like you did when I paid for SOM leagues. It's part of the package. I'm surprised you couldn't figure that out...

And finally, there is a difference between "I know" and "I think"...but I think you know that.

You really read my post poorly. I never said there wasn't a difference between "I think" and "I know." That's another misstatement for which you can apologize. I said saying "I think" is redundant in a personal statement involving objective evidence and personal observation. Big difference. As I said before, anyone who has taken an Engish Comp. course would know that.

I. Strether you often aggressively imply or outright state that what others write is wrong, even when others are not making what they claim to be a statement of fact. I think you have trouble debating without turning to the argumentative side, which is a shame because you do have a good handle on the game.

R. Brown, I do nothing you say I did. I sometimes dispute arguments--as everyone does--and use evidence to do so. Considering you make all your hollow accusations without backing them up, you are the one who is argumentative. How ironic...