Pretty Good Drafting?

There is a manager in the Mystery Tournament that has not made one roster move and is tied for 17th in rankings. Only his 90s team has a losing record. Good drafting or just plain old luck. Not sure which.

Mike

If he still has not made any moves I would say either good or lucky drafting, or both.

He still has not made one roster move and is now ranked 10th in the overall standings.

That is interesting. I wonder what is up. Interestingly the very first Mystery League I played in had two teams that did not make a single roster move and one of them won the title. I have seen that manager's name quite often, he has been around for a long while.... I tell you what, I think it is smarter to not make any moves than to make as many as I see some guys make. Some guys will drop a player after one bad series, that is crazy to me.... I assume he knows how to play the Mystery game because he has been around on-line SOM for a long long time... I like looking at who is near the top of the standings.

I think it depends on the players you get. If most of your original players hit on good cards, then less moves is obviously smarter; but if most of your players hit on bad cards, then you have to make moves (sometimes many) to develop a winning team. Here's one of my winning teams (with 6 games left to play) that took 21 moves to become a winner:

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1119136

and I've seen Durantjerry, a better mystery player than I (and most of us) make 58 moves in one season en route to the playoffs.

I agree, I have had many winners with multiple transacations and some with very few. It really depends on what cards you get coming out of the draft. The person in question in this tournament has two teams at .500 and two teams that are way above .500. I am sure there must have been an injury reveal or two that would have shown bad seasons for players on those .500 teams. Interesting way to play a season, but it appears to be working if the ultimate goal is to make it to the championship round.

MIke

I think it depends on the players you get.

I would agree but would take it further by saying of course it depends on the player you get . You can play poker all night and get lousy cards all night you will lose. If you get good cards you can win. Your skill level will determine the extent to which you win or lose but if the cards are not going your way there is not much you can do. As an example, I am in an 80's Tourney league with Jablowmi, who is as good as anyone in the mystery game and probably more so in the 80's. He has gone through all the top guys he's drafted and most of the one's who have been cut and he's on a pace to lose 100 games half way through. Did he draft bad...no, Did he cut guys too early.....no.........Just very bad luck. To be able to stand pat with one team is ridiculously lucky. Three is like hitting the lottery lucky. I don't think there is any great insight to be gleaned from the success of this person(no disrespect intended) except that you should not cut good players, which we all at least try to do anyway.

I think that most of us, veteran or rookie, Strat legend or perennial cellar dweller, still can be grouped into 2 categories: those who prefer to stand pat; and those who, when in doubt, transact. But outside of a few times when the manager started the team and then was never heard from again, I don't ever recall anyone not making any moves whatsoever and being this successful at it.

Durantjerry is correct: that is some unbelievably good luck to hit on all of your expensive cards and be that successful on that many different teams without making any moves. However, I would guess that this manager's initial strategy involved not making any moves unless he got specifically bad injury reveals... and apparently has hasn't had any. I have also seen managers who I have played against previously, who never made all that many transactions, go through players at unbelievably high rates during this tournament, often trying out numerous players at one position and then going back to the one who performed the best over a short period. The extreme difference in approaches has struck me as specific tournament strategy: every win counts, so you might as well get the biggest bang for your buck (or so I would suppose the thinking goes.

Me, I always do a lot of transactions: obviously I do not want to cut good cards, but impatience and curiosity often get the better of me. However, it has been fun to watch managers at both extremes of the "to transact, or not to transact" question, with some of them at both extremes having success. Luck does play enough of a factor that, while we may have guidelines we follow and percentages we play, no one can offer THE definitive way to do things, because there will always be exceptions to any Mystery Game "rule".

I think it depends on the players you get.

I would agree but would take it further by saying of course it depends on the player you get . quote]

I was really saying the same thing in my post. Many times people preface their statement of fact with "I think" when they (as I did) actually mean "I know." I just said "I think" to add a less emphatic tone to my emphatic countering of Radagast's point.

My goal is to make as few moves as possible and it has paid off quite well. Almost nothing can be gleaned from a pitcher who pitches 1.2 innings or a batter who has 9 ABs and then is cut.