Why

This may seem like a dumb question but-why are some Strat teams better than others? After all, according to the Strat rating system all the teams are roughly the same -ie they have the same Strat total values. Obviously some teams do better than others and since the same managers often win over and over its not just chance.

Are the good managers finding descrepancies in the rating system? Part is matching palyers to Ball parks. Is it in team stratagies vis a vis the roster? What is the dominent factor?

Are the good managers finding descrepancies in the rating system?

I don't think they really make many, if any, extreme errors any more. They have had ten years to get the rating of players down, and for the most part I think they get it right or very close to right the large majority of the time. If there are any discrepancies, I think they are mostly in platoon players who are very valuable because they are underpriced but can not really fill full time rolls. A Garrett Jones/Travis Snyder platoon in the right park will get you 60 HR's for $6.00. I think if you don't take advantage of platoon opportunities, you are playing without what should be an important weapon in your SOMO arsenal.
The park is a huge factor in why some teams are better than others. Using players who fit your park allows you to legally circumvent the salary cap as far as the overall "real" value of your team. It is impossible to overstate it's importance. You can magnify the strengths of certain players and minimize the weaknesses of others. A guy like Colby Lewis, whose card is rated for a hitters park, has a low WHIP and gives up the long ball to LH hitters, becomes a potential stud in Fenway Park. His 3.82 actual salary value can become a measurably higher value for your team. How much higher is dependent on the division and league. See also Josh Willingham, Rafeal Soriano and many, many others who can excel in certain parks.
Luck also is a factor. Sometimes you just get lucky or unlucky and what should be a good team underperforms or visa versa. The season is long and exceptional performances are hard to maintain for 162 games, but sometimes someone in what you think should be the right situation just stinks or someone who is not really ideal for a particular situation has a great season. After a while though, it seems like you see the same guys getting "consistently lucky" when you are in leagues with them.































.

The park is a huge factor in why some teams are better than others. Using players who fit your park allows you to legally circumvent the salary cap as far as the overall "real" value of your team. It is impossible to overstate it's importance. You can magnify the strengths of certain players and minimize the weaknesses of others. A guy like Colby Lewis, whose card is rated for a hitters park, has a low WHIP and gives up the long ball to LH hitters, becomes a potential stud in Fenway Park. His 3.82 actual salary value can become a measurably higher value for your team. How much higher is dependent on the division and league. See also Josh Willingham, Rafeal Soriano and many, many others who can excel in certain parks.
Luck also is a factor. Sometimes you just get lucky or unlucky and what should be a good team underperforms or visa versa.

You put RH power hitters at Progressive or Single, high average guys at a place like Citi with no power hitters you won't do well. If you are in a pitchers park you don't need great pitching and in a power park you don't big homerun hitters like Davis just guys that can't hit HR's. A $4MIL SP can be as good or better than Verlander if he pitches a Petco.

As for luck it really plays a part in this game. It is a dice game. I have a keeper league going for 2 seasons this year and the first one they went 87-75 and won the division. This time they are 32-46 so far and everything that worked in season 1 is out the door and down the street this season.

Oh and I almost forgot that Jerry is the guy that I followed the most. If I noticed him in a league I signed up and kept a close eye on how he built a team. He beat me into next week but I got much better by stealing his idea on how to win this game!

This may seem like a dumb question but-why are some Strat teams better than others? After all, according to the Strat rating system all the teams are roughly the same -ie they have the same Strat total values. Obviously some teams do better than others and since the same managers often win over and over its not just chance.

Are the good managers finding descrepancies in the rating system? Part is matching palyers to Ball parks. Is it in team stratagies vis a vis the roster? What is the dominent factor?

One factor to consider -How much payroll is sitting on the bench, in the bullpen or on the DL. As for those 100 win teams-I haven't a clue. A look at their roster doesn't show anything exceptional.

I just scrolled though a number of leagues looking for $100 win teams. They were few and far between, especially at $80. As I said above, I think they have a pretty good handle on assigning salaries and there is not a tremendous advantage to be gotten just by grabbing certain guys all the time. Thast is, it is pretty much an even playing field going in. I

I just scrolled though a number of leagues looking for 100 win teams. They were few and far between, especially at $80. As I said above, I think they have a pretty good handle on assigning salaries and there is not a tremendous advantage to be gotten just by grabbing certain guys all the time and there are usually a number of other vying for the same players. That is, it is pretty much an even playing field going in.

As for those 100 win teams-I haven't a clue. A look at their roster doesn't show anything exceptional.

When I read that I thought it was kind of a silly statement. After looking at the few $80 100 win teams in my many leagues, the rosters do not look that exceptional, especially if you looked at them before the season. One thing they do have in common though is that they are well constructed teams built to fit their park. I would say they did get lucky in some way to win 100 games, whether it was with good rolls resulting in an over achiever or two or three, a favorable park set up in the division/league or some other random factor that went their way. However, their initial overall team construction put them in a position where if things broke their way they might win 100 games. And like I said earlier, when you play long enough you will notice the same ******* getting consistently lucky in many of your leagues.

I just scrolled though a number of leagues looking for 100 win teams. They were few and far between, especially at $80. As I said above, I think they have a pretty good handle on assigning salaries and there is not a tremendous advantage to be gotten just by grabbing certain guys all the time and there are usually a number of other vying for the same players. That is, it is pretty much an even playing field going in.
[url]As for those 100 win teams-I haven't a clue. A look at their roster doesn't show anything exceptional[/url].
When I read that I thought it was kind of a silly statement. After looking at the few $80 100 win teams in my many leagues, the rosters do not look that exceptional, especially if you looked at them before the season. One thing they do have in common though is that they are well constructed teams built to fit their park. I would say they did get lucky in some way to win 100 games, whether it was with good rolls resulting in an over achiever or two or three, a favorable park set up in the division/league or some other random factor that went their way. However, their initial overall team construction put them in a position where if things broke their way they might win 100 games. And like I said earlier, when you play long enough you will notice the same fuckers getting consistently lucky in many of your leagues.

you don't give specific as to these f-ers are. are they people who have a bunch of teams or does most of their teams
win 100 or close to 100 games?

I have been playing since 2001 and I have played like 1,000 teams in probably 15 different games, so I have played against more opponents than most and some of them are very good. There are many who don't play anymore or play very selectively who used to consistently put up gaudy win %'s. There are also many who play now that do the same. All you have to do is check out the manager ratings to see who is getting "consistently lucky". Ooop's, my bad, there are no manager ratings. There are just a bunch of guys that know what they are doing that if there were manager ratings, they would be at or near the top. You must have started playing after the ratings disappeared. Of course people don't regularly win 100 games or even regularly win 90 games. If you consistently play at .550 you are a savant and if you play at .540 your record is excellent, one of the or maybe the best in a given year. So no one that I know of is consistently putting up 100 or even 90 wins. When I look at my meager 33-27 record I am not overwhelmed, but the fact is if I could get all my teams to go 33-27 I would be pretty happy . Unfortunately, some of them are 27-33. I am somewhat rambling, but I guess you'll have to find out for yourself who knows what they are doing until the manager ratings reappear.

I think adaptability in general is probably key; all the teams I've had or played against that have done well have done so because they play great at home, hit the pitchers in their division well, have the team settings done well for the talent they have, and take advantage of every factor available. Another key I personally think is important is the concept of taking every strategy to the max. E.g., with an obp team, maximize obp aggressively. For my successful teams, this creates a sort of snowball effect, because every hit is more valuable due to each players generally high ability to get guys over and in. That's just my take.

Some really cool wisdom being posted!!