What ever happened to manager ratings?

Think it's safe to say that manager ratings went the way of: the 1969 game, FantaSim, all the cool aggregate breakdowns we got, half the die-hard managers we had, etc...

Who remembers all the spin we got about how much better this game and the features would be if Strat online was under the roof of the Strat-0-Matic website. I will give the credit, the price went down a bit, but EVERYTHING else is worse or took a TON of time to install. the live draft took YEARS.....how is that even possible???

The Last Druid wrote:we got aggregate records for each team that played in each park, also as a function of salary cap. That was a very cool thing.

If I remember right these were added toward the end of the TSN reign. It was very informative to look at that information and see several instances of how my perception of how bad or well I had done in certain parks differed from reality.

Well just consider how long this statement has been on the fielding page for your team. Since SOM took over. Is it that hard to figure out. Just publish the pitchers fielding stats!!!

(This pitchers section is under construction; pardon our dust while we figure out the best to present the relatively few fielding stats we have for pitchers...)

I'm choking on the dust!

i miss the ratings because i am way more amazing than i used to be!! it was like high school when acid wash levi jeans became affordable..then they were no longer cool...my timing sucks

A manager's rating in a specific Strat-O-Matic Player Set is computed as follows:

Code: Select all

(Wins x (Win Pct. - .400)) + (Reached Playoffs x 10) + (Championships x 20*)

Anyone have an idea why .400 is subtracted from win pct?

Probably the designer of that formula thought any manager trying should achieve a .400 winning percentage so that is used as the 0 points baseline. Another way of saying that is you only get ratings points for wins above the 40% threshold with points taken away if you win less than 40%.

Has anyone come up with a formula that would help improve Manager Ratings so they aren't as heavily weighted on number of seasons played? My thinking would to simply divide the old rating by number of seasons played.

Examples:
On my first "Past teams" page I have 33 seasons listed . My Manager Rating would be 735. The adjusted rating would be 22.

In the 2003 season I had 10 teams where I missed the playoffs 3 times and had two championships. My Manager Rating would have been 243 and adjusted would be 24.

The ELO Rating factors in strength of competition and would be the best solution IMHO.

I think it would be good to have number of teams carry less weight. But that should not be negated completely.
Even if my average ratings per team were equal to someone like Nev I still would consider his additional experience from all those teams as giving him an advantage. Besides, the primary purpose of the ratings was to reward extensive purchase of teams. Take that away and there is no value in the ratings. Just give the raw stats of overall winning percentage, playoffs, championships. Break that down by game such as ATG vs 2012 or whatever and by ballpark. Nothing else to me is really needed except as an incentive to buy more teams.

I think it would be good to have number of teams carry less weight. But that should not be negated completely.

I agree. If one guy wins at .550 percent over thirty leagues and another guy wins at .550 over 300 leagues, assuming similar percent of playoff success for both, the guy maintaining that winning percentage over a larger sample size should be the better rated manager.

I think it would be good to have number of teams carry less weight. But that should not be negated completely.

I agree. If one guy wins at .550 percent over thirty leagues and another guy wins at .550 over 300 leagues, assuming similar percent of playoff success for both, the guy maintaining that winning percentage over a larger sample size should be the better rated manager.

Agreed, but not by a multiple of 10, which is the difference in games played in your example.