How Bad Can You Be?

I didn't realize that you had to pay for a team in order to access the forums. Very enlightening strether!

All the productive discussion on this thread about manager tendencies, and the best you can do is attempt a troll "shot' about forum membership? Very disappointing.

If one can participate in the forum as a member without ever purchasing a team, please share how. That would be very enlightening.

In reading the forum over the years, I have occasionally come across squabbling and discourteousness instead of polite discussions. There is no reason that anyone should ever state that another person is wrong. We are all entitled to our opinions and thought processes. It is possible to bring up an opposing point of view without telling someone they are wrong or mistaken.

When one person seems to be in the middle of these arguments continually and nobody ever comes to their defense then maybe its time for that one person to look in the mirror. It cant be that the whole world is crazy and there is only one sane person on the forum.

Now, I will probably receive a discourteous post from that person in response to this but I can tell you that I wont be responding as it would be pointless to try and have a polite discussion based upon the track record that I have witnessed over the years.

We can all continue to have good baseball conversations on these forums but we may have to just ignore all the background noise.

First of all your post to me was discourteous. You don't address me directly, you speak of me in the third person, and you make allegations about me without support. So, your discussing courtesy is hypocritical and humorous. Apparently you are the one who should take a look in the mirror.

There is no reason that anyone should ever state that another person is wrong. We are all entitled to our opinions and thought processes. It is possible to bring up an opposing point of view without telling someone they are wrong or mistaken.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone or telling someone they are incorrect. Many people, including everyone on this forum thread does so. This is a discussion forum, not a touchy-feely group validation forum. Most debates and discourses depend on disagreement. If people get so sensitive that they can't bear refutation or disagreement, then the forum is pointless.

And your fallacious theories about what determines who is wrong in an argument or on a thread are just that: fallacious. And, like many people in this forum, you clearly can't support what you say with evidence and are just making hollow allegations. So, we'll agree to not think much of each other and move on. Hopefully, we can go back to discussing SOM.

Maybe you guys should all form a "see how bad you can be league" and see who excels at picking the team that sucks the most.

Let a couple of newbies join and win the pennant first shot.

The greatest single experiment I remember reading about on the boards was when 12 guys used free credits and formed a theme league where each manager (except one) purposefully set out to have the worst record. The one control team was used to see if a team could actually go 162-0 (if I recall correctly, the team went 160-2, or something like that). Several of the "all fitty cent 5e65 player" teams won 100+ games too! Now THAT is an experiment.

I think you might be misinterpreting what we were discussing here. If it were a theme league, imagine 12 managers each creating a nine man required lineup and posting it on the boards. Then each lineup is given a number and someone runs a randomizer. You are awarded one of the 12 created lineups as "your team" (and maybe the one you get is the lineup you yourself created). The point is to create the 12 most "average" lineups because if you create a "killer" lineup you will very likely be helping an opponent (assuming you have to hold the players you were dealt, etc etc).

This removes the "my card reading is better than your card reading" claims from the equation. One handful of guys equals any other. You can use 12 HAL Picks 'Em lineups for all that matters. Kind of like a level playing field for the frustrated beginner, because as we discussed, a veteran has an advantageous handle on "reading the cards".

So the point of the thread is not veterans mocking newbies (as I'm getting a hint of that's what you might be implying here). The point is, even veterans can't agree on what "bad" cards are because it's all in the eye of the beholder. So if someone loses consistently, what do they have to be doing wrong if it's not simply card selection?

I wrote all The Secret Formula threads over the years to discuss what winning teams have in common. To oppose those suggestions would be to embrace very specific reasons for losing (salary construction, middle defense, ball park selection, dropped salary, etc etc) that I would suggest for beginners to avoid.

The question I'm asking in this thread is, If you are doing everything right according to veteran best practices and you are still not winning half of your games, why would that be? What would THAT look like? What could you do to improve?

Just like the cop who assumes every accident is "probably" alcohol related so he goes looking for the open containers, I argue every Strat-O disaster should first be checked for drops and forfeited salary. These are the open containers at the scene for me (I know, it sounds fallacious, doesn't it?)

But I'm polling the community for their opinions on what they see as well. I think we have had/do have a pretty interesting discussion going.

As for your league suggestion, I lose to plenty enough newbies when I'm trying. No need to roll over for them by not giving it my all. The point I wanted to make from the reasonably unreasonable lineups was that my pitching could overcome the averageness of my handicapped lineup and I could compete. Because hey, I can read the cards! (and I won't drop salary)!!

Just like the cop who assumes every accident is "probably" alcohol related so he goes looking for the open containers, I argue every Strat-O disaster should first be checked for drops and forfeited salary. These are the open containers at the scene for me (I know, it sounds fallacious, doesn't it?)

I hate to say this, but it sounds fallacious because it is. Firstly, there are numerous reasons, besides dropped salary, why a team can and does fail, and we've discussed them throughout the thread. Secondly, many good managers often judiciously drop salary en route to playoff seasons, and many bad manager fail without dropping salary at all. Finally, the amount of salary dropped isn't always enough to determine if salary dropped was the cause for failure. A good manager can effectively drop 5 mil in salary, while a bad manager can drop 1 mil in a very damaging way. So, the amount alone is also not enough.

So, poor dropping of salary is not necessarily the primary cause of a failing team; it is one of the many possible causes of it. So, it is not the equivalent of alcohol in a wreck. Alcohol found in a wreck would be the likely cause of an accident, salary dropping--unless excessive--is not the likely cause of a failed team

You didn't directly address me in the middle of a conversation in which I was participating. That was rude. And the only thing you have proven is you haven't read my posts well. I have never said "all vets" think or act in a certain way. If I had, you would have shown where I did so; you didn't. This is what I said about Splinter's theory:

Sure, the extreme beginner holds emotional attachments to, and aversions against, specific players. However, most players shed that irrational tendency quickly. What they don't shed quickly is the inability to identify the best cards/best deals and steer away from the bad ones.

"Most players" is significantly different from "all players;" I'm surprised you couldn't figure that out. I think you should apologize for your misstatement.

Haha, you were in the middle of a conversation with Splinter? I think that would come as a surprise to him! Maybe you should apologize for yet another misstatement?

And you just now stated that you never said all vets think or act in a certain way? Hmmm...you must have spotty memory:

All veterans of SOM and SOM on-line know player cards do not accurately correspond to those players' actual seasons. So most, if not all, are not going to construct their team out of their favorite players. Most new players learn that very quickly or become league fodder. Sure, some players incorporate a few sentimental favorites into their teams. However, unless those players are poor, which is unlikely, they aren't enough to account for a team's failure.

Pretty black and white evidence of still another misstatement. It was a nice attempt to salvage yourself by pulling a different quote though.

Again, your misreadings are glaring. I never said I was in the middle of a conversation with splinter. I said I was in the middle of a conversation, and I was. However, it was about a topic on which numerous posters, not just Splinter, were elaborating.

And I never said "all vets think or act in a certain way." The quote you posted proves that. I said some of them know some of the same facts:

All veterans of SOM and SOM on-line know player cards do not accurately correspond to those players' actual seasons.

It looks like you owe me another apology. Saying all SOM vets know something is extremely different than saying they all act or think in a different way. One refers to raw knowledge, the other refers to tendencies in act or thought. Most people know this. Apparently you don't...

To key,

I have to say I am somewhat disappointed with the foes list thing. I thought it would completely remove the foes' posts so I would never see his name or posts again. Unfortunately, the red lines just highlight his unwelcome and uniquely obsessive/compulsive need to post on my thread and selfishly draw attention away from a great informal discussion. He almost literally posts after every single new post on here.

I'm reminded of the Creepy Rob Lowe guy who doesn't have DirecTV, so he's down at the rec center "watching folks swim." How ill-mannered and ill-bred do you have to be to be given a polite chance to step away from a conversation with pride and dignity, only to embarrass yourself by jumping up and down like a petulant child who isn't getting enough attention?

Really?

We might be moving away from the Axis II clusters and getting closer to Axis I issues here. Apologies to all the posters and readers who are completely discouraged by the "unpleasant distraction." And many thanks for your personal pm's as well.

I will write SOM and request that if any person would like to open a thread, the people on your foes list will have read-only access. Posting in an online community should be a privilege, not a right, and like-minded people should be free to discuss something as simple as online baseball without the distracting clown show we are all being forced to endure right now.

SOM and Valen were right in the very beginning, although I refused to listen (at first), that the solution here is to not engage and simply add the offending party to your foes list (User Control Panel - follow some easy prompts). The only thing more liberating would be a complete removal of a foes online existence. But for now, this will have to do.

The foes list does hide the posts. J-Pav just clearly can't stop reading mine, which means I'm not really on ignore. He certainly can't stop squawking about me. If other people stop troll-posting at me, maybe he'd see less of my posts.

I'm reminded of the Creepy Rob Lowe guy who doesn't have DirecTV, so he's down at the rec center "watching folks swim." How ill-mannered and ill-bred do you have to be to be given a polite chance to step away from a conversation with pride and dignity, only to embarrass yourself by jumping up and down like a petulant child who isn't getting enough attention?

Considering J-Pav is the one who threw a hissy fit like a petulant child because I wouldn't leave a public thread, he's talking about himself. His continual talking about me has certainly creeped me out. He seems to forget that nobody has to leave a conversation of which he is part, or a forum to which he has significantly contributed. J-Pav is just still angry I debunked his erroneous "salary-shedding" theory and is trying to punish me for it.

Now everybody try to talk about SOM, not me. It would be best for everyone.