Next in the queue, Manager Ratings?

Let's build some momentum now Glen Head, what's the ETA for delivering the manager ratings???

I'm not even looking for a rating. How about just a record of what you've done? It's kind of ridiculous you can't see how you have fared overall.

I haven't played for a year and a half. skipped entire 2013 season. When I left they were saying Manager rating would be coming soon. It's the first thing I looked for when I logged on. Ha. Just sayin.

I voted the 12 months. Do not expect it within the next year but also do believe eventually it will happen. So that crossed off the never option.

How is it useful?

I have to echo Blue Turtle's sentiment. The old manager ratings disproportionately rewarded players for total games won and total championships won. So, many players who bought many seasons, but had lower winning percentages, had higher manager ratings than players who bought less seasons, but had higher ones. So, they didn't really tell us who the best, or even better managers, were.

I don't care if we have manager ratings either way. However, if they do bring them back, it would be nice if they were actually useful by giving us some legitimate indication of who the better managers are.

How is it useful?

Good question. The various tournaments should give a decent indication of informal manager ratings. Plus just playing against the same managers. To me the return of the 1969 set would be more useful.

Good question. The various tournaments should give a decent indication of informal manager ratings. Plus just playing against the same managers. To me the return of the 1969 set would be more useful.

Most managers don't play in the various tournaments; so, tournament play would just tell us who the best tournament players are. And while playing against the same managers would give us a solid idea of those managers' skill, it wouldn't give us a knowledge of the many players whom we rarely, if ever, play.

I do, however, agree that a new league--such as the 1969 or (more preferably) a 2000s Mystery League--would be much more beneficial.

I have heard of this manager rating, and ran across a formula for it somewhere one time. My recollection in looking at the formula for points earned was that it 1) rewarded you for winning championships disproportionately, especially advanced league champs. 2) Rewarded you for playing more (probably part of the overall business plan).

I have only played this online game for a little over a year, so I don't think this rating has ever been around during the time I have been here, but it seems to me that any formula that ranks managers would have to normalize to the number of leagues played. That should be easy though, right?

Why is everyone so hung up on a 'Rating'?

I'd much rather just see everyone's past teams to get an idea of who's done what and then make my own determination. Wouldn't that be easier to do? Just give everyone access to every manager's past team records and results, possibly sorted by set and size if there were dozens of teams?

Doesn't SOM already do that with your 'past teams'? If they could plug that into a more sortable spreadsheet like the players are sorted then you'd know exactly who's done what and how well. End of story