Ratings Guide Curse

Ah, now I get you. That's a great question, but probably one for another thread. I myself, prefer my offensive cards bunched up, my pitchers cards not as much. I am definitely not a mathematician or statistician, though. If we have one in the forum, he could probably chime in...if he wanted to share his secrets...

Ah, now I get you. That's a great question, but probably one for another thread. I myself, prefer my offensive cards bunched up, my pitchers cards not as much. I am definitely not a mathematician or statistician, though. If we have one in the forum, he could probably chime in...if he wanted to share his secrets...

Steve, check your PM's, I have a background in statistics and mathematical analysis. Be happy to share what I know.

Steve, check your PM's, I have a background in statistics and mathematical analysis. Be happy to share what I know.

Thanks Robert, that is very helpful! I thought I knew a thing or two, but that really opened my eyes!

While I don't use a guide book, I don't see anything wrong with using one. They are simply a tool that is available. If you were expecting them to magically produce championships, you're going to be disappointed. However, I don't think using one makes anyone "less" of a manager any more than I'm "less" of a driver because I have automatic transmission instead of manual.

I never said there was anything "wrong" with using one. They are legal. As, I said earlier, Ortiz is a great partial player in a league allowing partial players. He is not, however, a complete player. Like a talented partial manager who doesn't evaluate players on his own, he is a talented partial player who doesn't field...neither is complete.

Also, the automatic/manual analogy is a poor and insufficient one. Most drivers are not competing against other drivers on the road, so how they shift is irrelevant. However, if two racers were racing against each other, and the automatic function made it easier for a driver because he didn't use his shifting skill himself, then the racer using automatic would be less of a racer than the one using manual. In that case, your analogy actually proves my point.

It's very simple. As I said earlier, but you didn't address:

1. Evaluating the statistical/probability aspects of a player card is an important--if not the most important part--of being a complete strat player.

2. Players letting an outside ratings guide do this part of the game for them are no longer complete players because they do not evaluate players for themselves.

3. While using a ratings guide does give these players an advantage over most all players doing their own player evaluations and should help them win more, they cannot say they won their championships on their own.


P.s. I never said ratings guides "magically produce championships." That was irrelevant to my point. I accurately and correctly said that they help managers win their championships, and they do.

My comment about guide books not producing championships was not directed at you. It was a general comment to anyone who expects a ratings book to be a magic pill that will produce a winner. I don't think we disagree on that point.

However, saying someone is "less" of a manager for using a ratings book borders on name calling. It's your opinion and you're welcome to share it. In fact, I usually agree with your opinions, but this one...let's just say we disagree...a lot.

And if whoever wins the Player's Championship uses a ratings book, you are welcome to call him "lesser" or "partial" or whatever. I will just call him "Champion." And hold the asterisk please!

Steve, check your PM's, I have a background in statistics and mathematical analysis. Be happy to share what I know.

Thanks Robert, that is very helpful! I thought I knew a thing or two, but that really opened my eyes!

Right! That A-HA moment is something isn't it.

Coyote,

However, saying someone is "less" of a manager for using a ratings book borders on name calling. It's your opinion and you're welcome to share it. In fact, I usually agree with your opinions, but this one...let's just say we disagree...a lot.

First of all, I never said "less of a manager;" I said "less of a complete manager." That's a big difference and not even close to name-calling. David Ortiz is less of a complete player than Nick Punto. However he is not less of a player. The same dynamic applies to partial and complete SOM managers. Also, you may disagree with me, and I'm fine with that. However, you have yet to successfully dispute these three central points of my argument:

1. Evaluating the statistical/probability aspects of a player card is an important--if not the most important part--of being a complete strat player.

2. Players letting an outside ratings guide do this part of the game for them are no longer complete players because they do not evaluate players for themselves.

3. While using a ratings guide does give these players an advantage over most all players doing their own player evaluations and should help them win more, they cannot say they won their championships on their own.

If you truly disagree with these "a lot" (as you said), then you should have no problem disputing them. Otherwise, I'll take your reluctance to do so as acknowledgment of their validity...and they are valid.

And if whoever wins the Player's Championship uses a ratings book, you are welcome to call him "lesser" or "partial" or whatever. I will just call him "Champion." And hold the asterisk please!

If a player won the Player's Championship using a ratings book, I wouldn't be "calling" him a partial manager; he would actually be a partial manager, as I have previously shown. He wouldn't have broken any rules, and I, too, would consider him champion. However, there is no way I could see him having won that championship on his own, because he wouldn't have done so.

I do respect talented partial managers. I have learned from their team-building, their managerial strategies, and their team-running. However, the strat skill I (and many others) most respect is player-card evaluation, the ability to look at cards, see all of their strengths and weaknesses, and pick the best ones. Partial managers using ratings guides do not do this on their own; complete managers do.

Therefore, complete managers winning by evaluating player-cards on their own accomplish the most on their own and are the ones I (and many others) legitimately respect most. Talented partial managers using outside ratings guides to evaluate players for them, or significantly assist in their evaluations, just haven't accomplished as much. So holding the asterisk if a partial manager wins is fine. But I would add a star (or any symbol of accomplishment) to the complete manager who admirably won the championship on his own.

Steve, feel free to share it with anyone you like, it has easily been worth 10 wins a season for me.

...However, you have yet to successfully dispute these three central points of my argument:

1. Evaluating the statistical/probability aspects of a player card is an important--if not the most important part--of being a complete strat player.

2. Players letting an outside ratings guide do this part of the game for them are no longer complete players because they do not evaluate players for themselves.

3. While using a ratings guide does give these players an advantage over most all players doing their own player evaluations and should help them win more, they cannot say they won their championships on their own.

If you truly disagree with these "a lot" (as you said), then you should have no problem disputing them. Otherwise, I'll take your reluctance to do so as acknowledgment of their validity...and they are valid...

Yours is a circular argument that boils down to this:

1. To be a complete strat player, you must not use a ratings guide.*
2. Therefore, if you use a ratings guide, you are not a complete strat player.

No one is arguing evaluating cards is important. Furthermore, who even cares if someone is a "complete strat player." It's your arbitrary definition. As far as I'm concerned, if someone drafts a team, responds to trade offers, and wins, that's all that really matters. (In a keeper or theme league, I'd also expect them to promptly make their draft picks and enter their team on time.)

And finally, if someone ever asks for advice or reads the strategy section in the forums, are they also not able to say they won their championships on their own?

My opinion is that a ratings guide is simply a tool. Your opinion is using one means you are not a complete strat player. Bottom line is they are both opinions, so neither of us can "prove" anything to the other. Actually, you did prove your point IF someone is willing to accept your premise that a complete manager must do their own player evaluations. Since I reject your premise, I still disagree with you.

*As you put it, a "complete" manager must do their own player evaluations (i.e., not use a ratings guide).

Yours is a circular argument that boils down to this:

1. To be a complete strat player, you must not use a ratings guide.*
2. Therefore, if you use a ratings guide, you are not a complete strat player.

No, it's not a circular argument; you just incorrectly say it is. A circular argument gives no support. I gave three legitimate and true points supporting my argument; you just can't dispute them. Here are those three points again:

1. Evaluating the statistical/probability aspects of a player card is an important--if not the most important part--of being a complete strat player.

2. Players letting an outside ratings guide do this part of the game for them are no longer complete players because they do not evaluate players for themselves.

3. While using a ratings guide does give these players an advantage over most all players doing their own player evaluations and should help them win more, they cannot say they won their championships on their own.

Try to actually address these next time...if there is one. Your continuing reluctance or refusal to do so just galvanizes their validity.

No one is arguing evaluating cards is important. Furthermore, who even cares if someone is a "complete strat player." It's your arbitrary definition.

I never said anyone said evaluating players isn't important, that's your second straw-man this post. Turtle did, however, erroneously argue that the Ratings guides didn't evaluate players for managers or significantly assist them in evaluating them. However, since you acknowledge that evaluating players is important, you have to admit that those who use a ratings guide to do it are not as complete strat managers as those who do it on their own. So, you're starting to see the light.

As to "who cares if some one is a strat player or not," that is your third straw-man. We're not debating whether or not one should "care" about partial or complete players, we're debating whether or not there actually are complete players. However, your use of "partial" player in your question does show you've apparently accepted that players using ratings guides actually are partial players. I'm glad you've accepted that as well.

As to why it's important, it has to do with who actually achieves a full championship on their own and who does not. It is also about which managers have earned the most respect and who haven't. For my full feelings on these matters, just refer back to the last paragraph of my last post to you.

And my definition isn't "arbitrary" at all. It is well supported by logic, reason, and explanation in all of my posts. So, try to erroneously attack my points less, and thoughtfully critique them more if you disagree.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone drafts a team, responds to trade offers, and wins, that's all that really matters. (In a keeper or theme league, I'd also expect them to promptly make their draft picks and enter their team on time.)

That's fine. You can think whatever you want. That doesn't change any of the validity of my arguments about partial and complete managers. It just shows you don't care about it, and that's your prerogative.

And finally, if someone ever asks for advice or reads the strategy section in the forums, are they also not able to say they won their championships on their own?

That's a good question and will probably be best answered in a thread focused on forum assistance. I will say, that, if a manager asks for assistance, and another manager or managers give him enough assistance for him to use in lieu of his own evaluations and work, then he could not legitimately say he won his championship on his own.

My opinion is that a ratings guide is simply a tool. Your opinion is using one means you are not a complete strat player. Bottom line is they are both opinions, so neither of us can "prove" anything to the other. Actually, you did prove your point IF someone is willing to accept your premise that a complete manager must do their own player evaluations. Since I reject your premise, I still disagree with you.

This is erroneous and beneath you, Coyote, as have been much of your "arguments" on this post. You are usually a direct debater who fully addresses his interlocutor's arguments sincerely. You have not been so on this post.

I didn't just give an "opinion" on this forum thread. I have clearly articulated my arguments and supported them with sound reasoning and evidence. You, who have not done so, are just giving an opinion. They are not equal. Also, proof of one's argument is never dependent on someone else "accepting" it's premise. It's either proven or it's not, and I have proven my arguments quite well. If you don't think so, you should finally address them. Disagreeing with me alone, is not even close to proving I'm wrong.

I'm looking forward to your actually addressing my arguments. If you can't do so, we should just move on. I am more than satisfied with how I have presented my points on this thread.

Oh please!

Let me repeat myself--since that seems to be the theme here--but I'll make it really simple:

1 and 2 are circular despite your protests to the contrary.

3 is opinion, nothing more.

Anyway, feel free to pontificate further. But please spare me more of the lame "if you don't respond it proves I'm right" argument.