Every One of My 13 100+ Win Teams in ATG9

Just so I have this right, Nev & Salt you believe the playoff results are predetermined for Strat, they want you to win when you have less than 100 wins but want you to lose with more than 100 wins, player injuries are not on the up and up.

OK since the Holy Trinity of Strat should not be doubted on any issue they have pondered, I resolve to take as apostopical faith in the arguement you make and this game is rigged beyond any hope. I certainly could never trust that someone who ran a website doing this is ever trust worthy in any element as it shows irrefutably if true that they are willing to lie to our faces for years while cheating people out of their money and time.

Therefore the only logical alternative is to not play the game at all, to continue to play means you spend your money knowing you are being cheated. Since NEV has played the most his opinion MUST override all and he has spoken, I will follow the only logical course then, since anything else is a waste of my time.

If expert players were running away with rings as consistently as you describe, it would only be an indicator that there were some seriously mispriced cards in the set. A properly priced set enforces parity by its nature.

This ties into the 100-win team question as well. When is there the most value? Under the most extreme conditions. Teams that spent the season beating up on a favorable division. But extreme environments create extreme teams. If you tuned your team to destroy your extreme division, it's very easy to run into a hard counter from a different division in the postseason.

Precisely.
Plus the pricing is never going to be perfect--you have to make assumptions to determine a value.
Average park, average number of lefties/righties faced, average number games missed, etc. And of course salary cap matters. The players who understand the pricing assumptions can tease value out of situations.

Everything is about the value.

And whether there is statistical chicanery going on--maybe so. But I don't know how you could purposefully construct a system that simultaneously allows extremely successful teams but somehow torpedos them later. But is there some statistical forcing to tame extreme player card performances--sure. Is already being done. To what degree, who knows.

Charlie, the guy that spent his money to try to prove there was a Dodger conspiracy here intentionally suppressing only Dodger performances.

Just so I have this right, Nev & Salt you believe the playoff results are predetermined for Strat, they want you to win when you have less than 100 wins but want you to lose with more than 100 wins, player injuries are not on the up and up.

soooo...
1. you initially did or did not deny there was any black box items- and went so far as to post almost constantly and consistently that our arguments for it existing were wrong? (remember how many times you said 'well here is an example from MLB that happened once???) PEPERIDGE FARM REMEMBERS...
2. you then turned around and said 'I believe it exists' bc I actually tried the whole dodgers thing?

can we get an amen before I repeat what my assertion regarding black box in the playoffs might be?

Anyway, there is a way to test once and all if there are black box things on the game that effect winning. See what happens when an expert players comes in as a new player. If people are going to constantly complain....why not attempt an experiment that could finally (mostly) nip these complaints in the bud?

I can help with that. My winning % has been in the .570s since my second team. I was a rookie who got to expert level almost immediately. In my first 27 teams, I only missed the playoffs three times. And during that time I only won 2 rings. https://i.imgur.com/V67uxgg.png

Well, when I have a theory I test it out to see if the actuality matches my theory. And I am willing to let the evidence change my opinion.
As in this one where I tested out whether there was normalization due to overperformance of Batting Averages and OBP. Everyone did well, exceptfor my Dodger player Jackie Robinson.
http://forum.onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/archivesn/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=72198

So I wonder "What would Bruce have thought about the playoffs having a bug and predetermining winners?"

Well we dont have to guess he actually commented on this very topic:
http://forum.onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/archivesn/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=96322&start=30

Now this was 17 years ago and Nev did post right AFTER me not before me and what I stated was not much different than what I stated in this thread.

Here's an example of the "Streakiness" that has been mentioned and I agreed about.

This team:

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/schedule/1677998

Started the season playing .731 ball with a record of 49-18

Now for the past 20 games they are playing .250 ball with a record of 5-15 over that period.

That just seems silly to me. How can a team be historically good for 67 games and then be historically bad for the following 20 games?

https://tht.fangraphs.com/losing-streaks-winning-teams/
IN MBL:

Over the past 30 years, roughly 11 percent of teams that suffered a double-digit losing streak in a single season finished that season with a winning record. About 1 percent reached the postseason.

One other observation: The Tigers are the only team that has had multiple losing streaks of 10 games or longer in a single season in each of the past three decades. They also are the only team that managed to post a winning record in three of those seasons.

Here's an example of the "Streakiness" that has been mentioned and I agreed about.

This team:

https://365.strat-o-matic.com/team/schedule/1677998

Started the season playing .731 ball with a record of 49-18

Now for the past 20 games they are playing .250 ball with a record of 5-15 over that period.

That just seems silly to me. How can a team be historically good for 67 games and then be historically bad for the following 20 games?

So this is a good example of something that 'SHOULD/COULD' happen once in a very long while, but most of us have seen similar things happen, and not with rarity.
And yeah-- some person who wants to quote an MLB stat doesn't get that we don't have reasonable access to all the data to 'prove' that the frequency is much greater than it should be, but that doesn't make the evidence itself less compelling.