How Bad Can You Be?

You are describing pattern recognition, an advanced ability to read a card gained through repeated exposures.

Yes, pattern recognition is involved, as there are patterned distributions of data to be interpreted. However, my approach is not just pattern recognition. Pattern recognition does not account for the meanings of symbols within its pattern, nor does it account for anomalous patterns not fitting its system. I do read the symbols of each card and synthesize them with my readings of the pattern. I also allow for new unrecognized successful patterns without bias from previous pattern and semiotic recognition.

In other words, there's an aesthetic to this beyond mere pattern recognition. That aesthetic allows us to see both the "beauty" of a recognizably productive card and the "sublime" of a card with a brand new type of success. As I've shown before, I've had great success with this method, so your cardiologist's caveat doesn't apply to me or it. I need no, nor want no, "checklist" for assistance.

I still think your system is a variation of card counting, even though you may see it differently. I suspect you do count the HR flags (recognizing that 8 may be better than 2 when in a HR-friendly stadium), or gbAs, etc that you see.

My system is not a variation of card counting. I do recognize and appreciate HRs on 6-8; however, I never count out the results of a card and I never have. I love this game because its just a game. Actually counting out card results would turn my SOM pleasure into SOM work.


P.s. Speaking of pattern recognition, you should check out William Gibson's brilliant novel Pattern Recognition. It's his best work since Neuromancer.

The ratings guide is a very helpful tool that makes good managers better. To deny that statement is to be like the last professional manager to deny the use of computers.

Nobody denies ratings guides can make managers more successful, although it doesn't make them inherently better. What people rightly denied was your erroneous statement below:

I think NOT using a ratings guide makes someone a lesser manager.

Not using a ratings guide in no way makes someone a lesser manager. It just means he chooses not to use one, does not need one, and/or does not want to use one. And many of us who don't use them succeed as much, if not more, than managers who do.

Whatever makes each manager happy should be that manager's choice of approach.

I'll put my 2 cents worth in on the ratings guide--I started playing online 16 months ago and bought the 2012 & 2013 guides---I find it is both helpful and lacking.

First, buying it confirmed to me that I always counted the offensive part of the cards correctly from way back when I was playing the board game in the 60's & 70's. I add the ob + total bases for a general offensive rating--though ob is usually more important if two players add to about the same. (now with BP HR, it alters the OB-TB importance somewhat according to the park)--Just buying one guide can teach you how to count the card if you are a new player--it's not too hard to see how the numbers add up here.

The guide is helpful as a time saver in counting the offensive part of a card.

The most interesting part of the guide to me is the back section breakdown of the better players by position vs lefty & righty, but is lacking as far as the online game because low use players are not factored in---anyone with less than 150 AB is not in this section--a LOT of important players in online are under 150 AB--if the card is in the standard online draft it should be included here and is not. Same for low use pitchers.--so you still have to cull though the team sections to find them.

The other lacking part of the guide is it gives no clue how to count (or subtract) the defensive ratings (or the X charts)--which are very hard to count, and what new players would probably get the most benefit from--the OB+TB the fielder gives up. Outfielders are astonishingly hard to figure out now that throwing errors can be made when a runner tries to take an extra base.

The guide is better for the CD rom version of the game as low use players can't play full time--I wish the online game was the CD rom version of the game myself.

All In All I would rather have the actual cards to eyeball them at my leisure, instead of pulling the images up one at a time online--but buying them just means more clutter these days--and I can't get anyone to play an actual board game anymore.

strether, you are up in the 3 kings draft.

I picked. It's been a wild holidays, and I completely forgot about that league.

Hey guys,

Apparently I started a thread somewhat similar to this one back in 2006. Re-reading it was pretty funny, esp with all the complaining about how the "Good ol' Days of Strat" were long behind us in '06!

The icons and coding for bold, italics, etc are removed, so it's not as easy to read as a modern thread, but the dialogue is in there for your reading pleasure.

Tell me the conversations of the past don't blow away what we see in our boards today? No reason for a foes list, no red lines, no sock puppet clown shows. Just guys talking baseball, learning about the game and rhetorically snapping towels on each other's virtual behinds...

Enjoy:

http://forum.onlinegames.strat-o-matic. ... 12&t=96373

*Note: For all you newbs who have heard the name in various forms, MARCPELLETIER in this forum was also known as luckyman and marcus wilby at various times. He is the creme de la creme of Canadian Strat players and writers (even though his English was terrible!!! )

(even though his English was terrible!!)

I read that!! I Came back this fall, bought a few teams. I saw this thread this weekend. But I will write more on the subject on the other threads...this one seems too loaded. And I don't have time right now. Good year to all.

F the good ole days, I love SOM just as it is right now!

ps. I have been around since about 2006.

Yes, if you have enough experience you can look at a card and do a good approximation of how desirable that card is. But that does not make a ratings guide or other method of detailed counting of the card of no value.

I would compare it to watching several pitchers throw a baseball. I can tell who the hard throwers are just by watching. But there is no way anyone will convince me they can always tell who throws hardest from just watching if they are close to the same velocity. So if I were a scout I absolutely would want a radar gun reading. Same in Strat. I can tell by looking a Hank Aaron card is better than a Tommy Aaron card. It is the ones that are only slightly different that you want more precision.