Manager Rating formula - what do you think?

(2 pts for every regular season win - games played) + (5 pts for every post season win - post season games played)

Examples:
81 wins, no playoffs = 0 points
100 wins, lose semi-finals 4-2 = 42 points
70 wins, no playoffs = -22 points
90 wins, win semi-finals 4-1, win finals 4-3 = 46 points

You are rewarding those who buy themselves to the top. An owner improves with experience. His last year of play may be at a much higher level than his first few years, which pull his rankings down. Ranking should be yearly, like the college football, NFL, and MLB rankings. The easiest way to rank owners is to have an annual tournament and let the results speak for themselves. This type of ranking is earned, and not established by dollars spent.

Although I realize change comes from the top down, and ever so slowly, so it doesn't even matter what we think or propose as alternate / better solutions, plus I think SOM would want a system that favors heavy users ... I don't think a rating system like this rewards those who "buy themselves to the top". A common complaint I read on the "other" boards was all it took to have a high rating is to play hundreds of teams, regardless of how well you did with those teams. Volume trumps championships and winning percentage.

This is an approach that would result in negative or near-zero rating numbers for guys that play a lot but usually wind up with 80 wins or less and miss the playoffs. (Raises hand) But mgrs that only have a few teams but do really well will increase their manager rating each time - and guys like nevdullys weinberg Petrosian and DonFESQ of the world - that had a lot of teams and almost always did well, would rise to the top of the manager ratings, as they should.

What you should do is divide your total by the number of leagues played.

I think a good rating system is (# of total regular wins and playoff wins)/# of leagues.

How about this (ridiculous or simple) rating system -
Ratings -
1) number of leagues played (total and in most recent 12 months)
2) win percentage (total and in most recent 12 months)
3) playoff teams (total, percentage of all teams played, total for last 12 months, percentage for last 12 months)

Wins rewards managers who play frequently and is not an adequate measure. Granted, there are a lot of managers who play a lot who are very successful but there are those who play a lot and never win so that metric is not very accurate and doesn't reflect the level of competition either. But there is something to be said for the experience gained in playing so maybe instead of wins you count # of leagues played in it. Maybe the value of a manager can be broken into the follwojgn values for Leagues, Playoffs and Rings. As an example:


.20% x number of leagues - 15 leagues x .200 = 3.000
.40% x number of playoff appearances - 9 playoffs x .400 = 3.600
.40% x number of Rings - 3 rings x .40 = 1.200

Add them all - Rating of 7.800

to qualify for the Ratings Standings, managers should play in at least 10 leagues.

This system gives more weight to successful managers and also gives credit to the experience gained in playing frequently but not at an overinflated rate. The rating system really should be based on who is the most successful


This is just an idea I'm throwing out there - maybe others have a view on different rates that can be used?

I agree that the old system gave to much credit in points to owners who played a lot of teams,but you could still see how successful the owner was by looking at how many teams he had, and how many made the playoffs and won titles.
Example..2 separate owners..
1. 85 teams...57 playoffs....22 titles
2. 85 teams...15playoffs...2 titles
It was fairly easy to see when I was in over my head with the really good players.

Why waste time with a ratings system anyway?

Should the player who only plays Mystery Games be penalized because they have to 'match up' against those who play ATG?
Why should the player who can only play 3-4 teams a year be penalized for not making Strat a full-time hobby?
What about Keeper Leagues, Players' Championship & Barnstormers, and specialty leagues?

It's fine to list the # of teams, Playoffs & Championships won, and even wins and losses, but I'm perfectly happy with no ratings system at all ... and I was 'ranked' #2 in the 2005 card set -- mainly because I had the second highest number of teams (more teams, more chances at playoffs & titles, you get the picture), just as a bit of perspective.

Why do we need a manager rating? It means nothing to me.

All the manager ratings accomplished was managers avoiding leagues and or divisions that contained higher rated managers.

Perhaps next we can ask for ribbons based on our standings or certificates of participation from Start O Matic. Or better yet quit keeping score so there would be no losers in start land.