Soler

The absence of certainty or allowance for deviation from practiced principle does not necessitate arbitrariness. If SOM's methods of assigning cards were arbitrary, we'd be seeing players with 2 AB's included in the regular set and players with 500 ABs or more included in the Unleashed Set; we never do. The fact there are notable anomalies--as opposed to notable regular examples--to their principles of pitcher inclusion shows two things. SOM is mostly consistent in following their rules/principles and they allow themselves latitude to work around those principles when necessary. Those are both good things and show SOM's assigning of cards is far from arbitrary.

Of course, as I said earlier, if they actually articulated their principles of judgment, as well as their principle for deviating from them, there would be less unwelcome surprises for managers expecting certain players' inclusion.

If they're not consistent in unleashed v leashed, in terms of Games, ABs, or IPs, or any other qualifier, how can their decisions be considered anything other than arbitrary? It doesn't need to be a 2 AB v 500 AB swing to be arbitrary...they're making inclusions/exclusions based solely on their own discretion, otherwise we wouldn't be surprised when someone is or is not carded.

If they're not consistent in unleashed v leashed, in terms of Games, ABs, or IPs, or any other qualifier, how can their decisions be considered anything other than arbitrary? It doesn't need to be a 2 AB v 500 AB swing to be arbitrary...they're making inclusions/exclusions based solely on their own discretion, otherwise we wouldn't be surprised when someone is or is not carded.

Yup It's what I like to refer to as the "dart board" method.

Which brings the mind a joke,

What to weather men and Baseball hitters have in common???



They are the only professions where if you are good 30% of the time you are considered an all star

If they're not consistent in unleashed v leashed, in terms of Games, ABs, or IPs, or any other qualifier, how can their decisions be considered anything other than arbitrary? It doesn't need to be a 2 AB v 500 AB swing to be arbitrary...they're making inclusions/exclusions based solely on their own discretion, otherwise we wouldn't be surprised when someone is or is not carded.

Actually, if their decisions were entirely arbitrary, we would see 2-8 AB players included in the regular set and 500+ AB players in the Unleashed set. We don't and they're not. You misunderstand the actual meaning of "arbitrary." Arbitrary, by definition means:

" 1.Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle. Or...

2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference."

Considering SOM does apply certain principles--such as the 30 IP minimum--and reason in deciding where to assign its players, the first definition doesn't apply. The inclusion of whim, chance, or impulse does not make SOM''s process arbitrary, unless you can determine they are the actual determinants of their decisions. I, myself, wouldn't pay for their product if I thought they were.

Considering SOM has many people working on its player assignment process, the second definition of "arbitrary" doesn't apply as well.

People need to remember that most professional decisions are made through a mixture of principles/rules and well-informed judgments of the moment than can wrongly appear whimsical. Physicians, teachers, lawyers, and financial analysts all reasonably allow themselves to stray from or modify known rules or principles, using their personal judgments. That does not make their decisions arbitrary; it makes them complex

That same complexity applies to SOM's current decision process until somebody can actually prove it's arbitrary. Nobody has done so yet.

If they're not consistent in unleashed v leashed, in terms of Games, ABs, or IPs, or any other qualifier, how can their decisions be considered anything other than arbitrary? It doesn't need to be a 2 AB v 500 AB swing to be arbitrary...they're making inclusions/exclusions based solely on their own discretion, otherwise we wouldn't be surprised when someone is or is not carded.

Actually, if their decisions were entirely arbitrary, we would see 2-8 AB players included in the regular set and 500+ AB players in the Unleashed set. We don't and they're not. You misunderstand the actual meaning of "arbitrary." Arbitrary, by definition means:

" 1.Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle. Or...

2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference."

Considering SOM does apply certain principles--such as the 30 IP minimum--and reason in deciding where to assign its players, the first definition doesn't apply. The inclusion of whim, chance, or impulse does not make SOM''s process arbitrary, unless you can determine they are the actual determinants of their decisions. I, myself, wouldn't pay for their product if I thought they were.

Considering SOM has many people working on its player assignment process, the second definition of "arbitrary" doesn't apply as well.

People need to remember that most professional decisions are made through a mixture of principles/rules and well-informed judgments of the moment than can wrongly appear whimsical. Physicians, Teachers, Lawyeres, Financial analysts all reasonably allow themselves to stray from or modify known rules or principles using their personal judgments. That does not make their decisions arbitrary; it makes them complex

That same complexity applies to SOM's current decision process until somebody can actually prove it's arbitrary. Nobody has done so yet.

This part of your statement is faulty as no 2-8 ip or ab players are included because they are relegated to the CD-rom game only, The one thing we know for sure is that all Regular set board game cards are considered and no Regular board game players have thresholds that low.

The biggest problem with the unleashed format/concept, is now that they've opened the can of worms they can't close it so they are now obligated to come up with 6-???? many cards of flukey performances. Other than the really obvious guys, someone that had a slightly flukey card this year and was placed in unleashed, may not have been in the unleashed set in previous seasons, as the card may not have been flukey enough, given the performance of the other players in the set.

So from year to year the performance threshold changes, not innings pitched or ab's, as they've shown repeatedly, that these stats seem to have no bearing, and makes it seem as though it's arbitrary in the dictionary definition of the word.
Which is why a borderline candidate like Ted Lilly from 2 years ago is out of the regular set and a guy that seemed like a slam dunk for unleashed, Brandon Moss was in the regular set.

There's no consistency from year to year and it drives those of us that advocate for total inclusion bat $#!+ crazy ( or maybe that's just me. )

But we've gone round and round on this topic ad nauseam and I know I'm not changing your mind and you should know you're not changing mine, though I expect a response that will try.

This part of your statement is faulty as no 2-8 ip or ab players are included because they are relegated to the CD-rom game only,

Actually it's not faulty, because it shows there are rules preventing such arbitrariness in SOM. So, it shows my knowledge of SOM's rules were faulty, but my argument about SOM not being arbitrary is further proven true.

The biggest problem with the unleashed format/concept, is now that they've opened the can of worms they can't close it so they are now obligated to come up with 6-????

This isn't a problem and hasn't been a problem. Where you subjectively see a "can of worms," SOM and many of it's players see an opportunity for a new playing experience.

So from year to year the performance threshold changes, not innings pitched or ab's, as they've shown repeatedly, that these stats seem to have no bearing, and makes it seem as though it's arbitrary in the dictionary definition of the word.

The key word here is "seems." As I showed in my last post, their decision process does not fit the dictionary definition of "arbitrary." As I said in my last post, nobody has legitimately shown it to be arbitrary. Mere perception is not enough. I don't understand why those who see the process as actually arbitrary still give SOM their money. If I thought it was, I wouldn't.

Which is why a borderline candidate like Ted Lilly from 2 years ago is out of the regular set and a guy that seemed like a slam dunk for unleashed, Brandon Moss was in the regular set.

Anomalies like Lilly happen and will happen with a complex decision process. They are hardly the norm. Moss was not an anomaly. He had more than enough ABs and Gms to qualify.

There's no consistency from year to year and it drives those of us that advocate for total inclusion bat $#!+ crazy ( or maybe that's just me.

There is consistency, just not absolute consistency. Again, that's one of the results of a complex process. One thing is clear, though, and that is not everybody wants to play with the players those wanting all included do. So, it makes no sense for one group of players to force all players on everyone when they can have them in Unleashed.

This part of your statement is faulty as no 2-8 ip or ab players are included because they are relegated to the CD-rom game only,

Actually it's not faulty, because it shows there are rules preventing such arbitrariness in SOM. So, it shows my knowledge of SOM's rules were faulty, but my argument about SOM not being arbitrary is further proven true.

Semantics

The biggest problem with the unleashed format/concept, is now that they've opened the can of worms they can't close it so they are now obligated to come up with 6-????

This isn't a problem and hasn't been a problem. Where you subjectively see a "can of worms," SOM and many of it's players see an opportunity for a new playing experience.

Problem is the wrong word, sorry, was using my viewpoint, Issue would be better.

So from year to year the performance threshold changes, not innings pitched or ab's, as they've shown repeatedly, that these stats seem to have no bearing, and makes it seem as though it's arbitrary in the dictionary definition of the word.

The key word here is "seems." As I showed in my last post, their decision process does not fit the dictionary definition of "arbitrary." As I said in my last post, nobody has legitimately shown it to be arbitrary. Mere perception is not enough. I don't understand why those who see the process as actually arbitrary still give SOM their money. If I thought it was, I wouldn't.

I went out of my way to state it isn't arbitrary, I'm not arguing this, only stating that because of a lack of consistency, it appears arbitrary.

Which is why a borderline candidate like Ted Lilly from 2 years ago is out of the regular set and a guy that seemed like a slam dunk for unleashed, Brandon Moss was in the regular set.

Anomalies like Lilly happen and will happen with a complex decision process. They are hardly the norm. Moss was not an anomaly. He had [b]more than enough ABs and Gms to qualify.[/b]

As did Carlos Baerga in the 2003 set who was left out and led to the discovery of the online game excluding certain players and eventually led to the creation of the Unleashed set, I'm guessing in the hopes that the vocal minority ( I think) would ceases and desist their complaints

There's no consistency from year to year and it drives those of us that advocate for total inclusion bat $#!+ crazy ( or maybe that's just me.

There is consistency, just not absolute consistency. Again, that's one of the results of a complex process. One thing is clear, though, and that is not everybody wants to play with the players those wanting all included do. So, it makes no sense for one group of players to force all players on everyone when they can have them in Unleashed.

That's redundant.


3 definitions for Consistency:

1. Firmness or thickness of a liquid
2. Agreement, harmony
3. Conformity with previous practice

Which there isn't, other than the practice of having an unleashed set, but as to the rules of exclusion/inclusion there is none.

But again, we've done this song and dance before, and I'm now done on the topic. I challenge you to do the same.

Actually it's not faulty, because it shows there are rules preventing such arbitrariness in SOM. So, it shows my knowledge of SOM's rules were faulty, but my argument about SOM not being arbitrary is further proven true.

Semantics

It doesn't seem like you know what "semantics" means, because you just used it incorrectly. My passage corrected your erroneous notion my statement was faulty. That's an issue of truth and logic, not semiotic presentation.

There is consistency, just not absolute consistency. Again, that's one of the results of a complex process. One thing is clear, though, and that is not everybody wants to play with the players those wanting all included do. So, it makes no sense for one group of players to force all players on everyone when they can have them in Unleashed.

That's redundant.

Again, your attempts at quick dismissal fail. There was nothing "redundant" in any of my passage above. If you truly thought there was, you would have shown how. Absolute consistency is not the same thing as consistency. The former never wavers in its consistency; the latter allows for significant wavering. That's a huge difference, so the terms are not redundant.

I already showed there is complex consistency that applies to definitions #2 and #3. You still are stuck on the almost unattainable concept of "absolute consistency." I suggest you drop that ideal in many things, not just SOM.

I'm done on the topic. I challenge you to be the same...

Speaking of "absolute consistency" you are never done on any topic it's one of your most endearing qualities

Good night.

Don't sell yourself short, NP. We both know you will never be done on the Unleashed topic...

Hasta.