Next in the queue, Manager Ratings?

It's called scouting! It's been an acceptable practice in the world of sports (particularly in baseball) since Day 1. If a manager takes the time to scour through someone else's teams, they absolutely deserve that edge. It is earned. Baseball is all about searching out and exploiting tendencies. Every pitcher, hitter, manager, and owner is tasked to do their homework and create a game plan based on that knowledge. In what world does a real-life manager/owner draft in a closet? Everything he does is available to the public to be analyzed. SOM strives to make the game as realistic as possible. Somehow cloaking drafting history goes against baseball to its roots.
If you are too predictable, you better change it up!! Someone might take advantage in the future. That's what its all about.

Actually, Kevin, what I proposed is called scouting. What Verbal Warrior and you suggest is called "everybody receiving the same inside information on every team so no scouting is necessary"...big difference. And I never said a real-life manager/owner lives in a closet; that's a false strawman you conceived. As I said in my last post, there is nothing wrong with managers drawing information from leagues in which they've played to predict another manager's picks. They've actually earned that information.

What would be wrong is providing complete information on every team on every manager for every opposing manager to use to manipulate the draft. That would both negate the need for actual scouting and would turn drafting into a massive guessing game instead of a way for managers to best construct their teams. As I said before, that would be terrible, and I'm truly surprised you would want that.


P.s. Have you ever taken advantage of a manager you thought was too predictable? If so, please share how. I see managers who use pitchers' parks in every season; I certainly have never altered my draft strategy to "take advantage."

At TSN you could get all types of information about the other General Managers you were facing.

At TSN you could get all types of information about the other General Managers you were facing.

You could not get the information on every team they ever had and which players were on them. That is the type of information we are currently discussing.


P.s. Radagast, what information did they actually provide? You have me curious.

I do not really see a big problem with that. Real life managers and scouts can access that information.

I don't remember everything about the old system...

I do not really see a big problem with that. Real life managers and scouts can access that information.

We're not talking about real life. We're talking about SOM online, where thousands of managers who have had more than hundreds of teams play against each other. That's a big difference from 30 major league teams. Also, MLB teams don't completely change every 8 weeks; so, that's another significant difference.

And, as I said in my last post, even major league teams do their own scouting. They don't have some third-party hand down complete insider information in every team. If we did it your (and VW's and Kevin's) way, that's exactly what would happen. Managers who play more against more managers would have no need, nor gain any advantage, for doing their own scouting. Managers who have never played would have just as much information as they. That would be terrible, as would having every manager drafting based on insider information, making the draft quite a farce.

At TSN you could get all types of information about the other General Managers you were facing.

I don't remember everything about the old system

But you did say, "at TSN you could get all types of information about the other General Managers you were facing." If you're so sure of that, you should at least know one type of information they provided. So, what information, which you're sure they provided, did they provide?

It's called scouting! It's been an acceptable practice in the world of sports (particularly in baseball) since Day 1. If a manager takes the time to scour through someone else's teams, they absolutely deserve that edge. It is earned. Baseball is all about searching out and exploiting tendencies. Every pitcher, hitter, manager, and owner is tasked to do their homework and create a game plan based on that knowledge. In what world does a real-life manager/owner draft in a closet? Everything he does is available to the public to be analyzed. SOM strives to make the game as realistic as possible. Somehow cloaking drafting history goes against baseball to its roots.
If you are too predictable, you better change it up!! Someone might take advantage in the future. That's what its all about.

Actually, Kevin, what I proposed is called scouting. What Verbal Warrior and you suggest is called "everybody receiving the same inside information on every team so no scouting is necessary"...big difference. And I never said a real-life manager/owner lives in a closet; that's a false strawman you conceived. As I said in my last post, there is nothing wrong with managers drawing information from leagues in which they've played to predict another manager's picks. They've actually earned that information.

What would be wrong is providing complete information on every team on every manager for every opposing manager to use to manipulate the draft. That would both negate the need for actual scouting and would turn drafting into a massive guessing game instead of a way for managers to best construct their teams. As I said before, that would be terrible, and I'm truly surprised you would want that.


P.s. Have you ever taken advantage of a manager you thought was too predictable? If so, please share how. I see managers who use pitchers' parks in every season; I certainly have never altered my draft strategy to "take advantage."

Good question. I can't say I've taken advantage of anyone in the public leagues because the participants are so random and there are random divisions. Since the players are random and the divisions aren't set until after the draft, it seems like a tedious task to try and scout out 11 teams by looking at each guy's game history. Once the draft happens, then it's just about making some changes to battle your divisional foes.
The only use for seeing other owner's past games for open leagues is if you see that you have a couple quality veteran managers signed up. I would like to see what they've been doing in their last few leagues. I find that to be kind of fun. It doesn't matter if they look at my past few teams. I like the cat and mouse game even before we've drafted. This is why I wouldn't mind having everyone's past seasons available to the public. It's just another tool to use for savvy players. Also, If I think those 2 managers are the type to scout me out, instead of going with another Petco, I go with the GAB and the personnel to go with it and see what happens.

When it comes to my ongoing leagues with buddies, I already know their tendencies and have all the history to go with it. It's not accidental that after they win the league, their next team looks nothing like their championship team. He knows that he has a target on his back and we're all gunning for him. However, I've correctly predicted a divisional foes strategy more than once in these leagues. There was a manager last year who won with a GAB team. I know I'm in his division the next season so I go with a pitching staff of low or no # on their cards. I've done this before and it worked. A 17-7 head to head advantage against him helped me win the division. There are lots of other things we can do vs. predictable managers in ongoing leagues.

However, with all that said, I completely understand your position. I think you are the type of owner who would like to hide out mysteriously in the shadows, plan, scheme, and then pounce! Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just a matter of preference.

The only use for seeing other owner's past games for open leagues is if you see that you have a couple quality veteran managers signed up. I would like to see what they've been doing in their last few leagues. I find that to be kind of fun. It doesn't matter if they look at my past few teams. I like the cat and mouse game even before we've drafted. This is why I wouldn't mind having everyone's past seasons available to the public. It's just another tool to use for savvy players. Also, If I think those 2 managers are the type to scout me out, instead of going with another Petco, I go with the GAB and the personnel to go with it and see what happens.

I've already pointed out all the problems with this in my last two posts. So, I'll let them stand on the issue. As to savvy players and "cat and mouse games," most savvy managers--including myself and the managers I've played and respect--would rather just beat the quality managers in a league. They have no time or use for "cat and mouse" games with the draft. Apparently you do, and you actually enjoy the "pouncing." Of course, you can't expect everyone else to pay for your feline predilections...

When it comes to my ongoing leagues with buddies, I already know their tendencies and have all the history to go with it. It's not accidental that after they win the league, their next team looks nothing like their championship team. He knows that he has a target on his back and we're all gunning for him.

This is exactly the type of scenario I mentioned where one neither needs nor should want general information on every manager's teams. Any decent manager playing in continuing leagues with his buddies would have no need for general information on every manager's teams. As you mentioned above, he should be able to anticipate whom each manager is going to draft without such help. I'm sorry you feel you would need that help in your leagues.

However, with all that said, I completely understand your position. I think you are the type of owner who would like to hide out mysteriously in the shadows, plan, scheme, and then pounce! Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's just a matter of preference.

With all due respect, you have no idea what kind of owner I am...although I would be delighted to better make your acquaintance. I only recall having played you in a theme league, in which we both made the playoffs. So, while I appreciate your baroque supposition; it Is simply wrong. I have played SOM online since its opening night in 2002. I have never spent one second trying to anticipate whom a particular manager would draft. If any manager would like to anticipate my draft, they are welcome to do so. I, myself, prefer to beat other managers on the field of play.

With all due respect, you have no idea what kind of owner I am...although I would be delighted to better make your acquaintance. I only recall having played you in a theme league, in which we both made the playoffs. So, while I appreciate your baroque supposition; it Is simply wrong.

Wow. Acquaintance? Baroque Supposition? I better break out the good china for the fancy tea if I want to continue reading this post.

Methinks this thread is purely nothing but a boar's head full of conjecture unless some fine gentleman from the SOM bureau finds it in his gracious heart to respond to our envoys regarding a rating system. Pinkies up and...sip

With all due respect, you have no idea what kind of owner I am...although I would be delighted to better make your acquaintance. I only recall having played you in a theme league, in which we both made the playoffs. So, while I appreciate your baroque supposition; it Is simply wrong.

Wow. Acquaintance? Baroque Supposition? I better break out the good china for the fancy tea if I want to continue reading this post.

Methinks this thread is purely nothing but a boar's head full of conjecture unless some fine gentleman from the SOM bureau finds it in his gracious heart to respond to our envoys regarding a rating system. Pinkies up and...sip

Verbal Warrior, I'm sorry you and Steve F don't know the meanings of "acquaintance," "baroque," or "supposition." Anyone with a college degree--and most with a high school degree--would. And just because most of your flawed assertions have been a "boar's head full of conjecture," it doesn't meant the other arguments on this thread have been. The fact you have yet to effectively counter any of them proves that.

So, keep enjoying that tea with your pinkies while your terribly flawed ratings proposal goes ungranted...