Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: TABLE SETTER 11, whiterice; 76 anonymousDiscussion: Team Ratings
| Posted | Discussion |
| March 5, 2008 Brett Men's 55 239 posts | Team Ratings Has anyone else noticed the team ratings pages have changed within the last week? Old information is now relfected. |
| March 5, 2008 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | Yes, I certainly have. The posted ratings are from early 2007 and are definitely inaccurate. It's also my experience that these ratings are selectively applied and not based on facts, common sense, and published rules. Example: If a team wins a world in the previous year they can stay in the same division IF they only have FIVE players or less from the winning team. A team that does not win their world the previous year can only add THREE players who played in a higher division the previous year. Say whaaaat! Where are these rules published and what positive purpose do they serve. They also have been routinely ignored and circumvented by SSUSA over the years. Also, what exactly is a "major plus" player. According to the SSUSA CEO, it is anyone who was ever listed on a major plus roster the previous year. Does anyone else think this is a ridiculous stretch? You can be a third string, part-time pinch runner on a major plus roster last year, and then get cut from the major plus roster this year. According to our CEO, this person is now on a par with the Rich Plante's, Sal Formosa's, Ron Parnell's and the handful of other future hall-of-famers who truly are a cut above. The net effect is that these non-impact players are now branded and have a difficult time finding a new team. Major teams wishing to add talent that truly belongs in the major division are at risk of being bumped to division where they can't compete. WHY, you might ask? Well, according to the our CEO, it is to "avoid the controversy that ruins tournaments, and to eliminate the rampant complaining about teams trying to load up with "major plus" talent. AGAIN, HUH! I've been in the 50 Major division for 6 years and have yet to experience this controversy or participate in a "ruined" tournament. I believe the vast majority of 50 Major players welcome all competition and compete fairly within the Major division rules. My suggestion is to lighten up on micro-managing rosters and branding players as super-stars just because they suited up on a major-plus roster. Let a team compete with age-eligible players in a division until they win it. Even Bruce Meade or Monty Tucker would only get 4 AB's a game and are limited to 3 homers. To those that want to "legislate and whine away" the competition, get back in the Barcalounger and retire. Sincerely: Don Newhard Manager - Evolution 50 Major |
| March 5, 2008 Brett Men's 55 239 posts | You are preaching to the choir here. |
| March 5, 2008 MTaylor34 Men's 65 27 posts | I did notice yesterday that the team ratings had changed, but it appears to me that they have now been corrected. |
| March 5, 2008 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | Mr. Taylor: You are correct sir, the ratings have been updated from what was posted earlier today. What team are you with? |
| March 5, 2008 DoubleL10 Men's 70 907 posts | Tate22, This"branding" of any player who is was on a Major + roster must be a mistake! Unless this is a NEW rule, I know several people here in Houston who have played Major + within the last 3 years and are playing at the AAA level now. This is also the primary reason our 60 Major + team is having difficulty adding players who can help our team because they are currently AAA and don't want to get "branded" as Major + for future years. It is very difficult to get players to make the move to voluntarily move up to a higher level. There are many players in the Major + class who would not be "impact" players at the AAA level and should be allowed to drop down if they petition to do so. JMHO. LL |
| March 5, 2008 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Don & LL: I wholeheartedly agree that the methodology that has been used over the years is flawed, on its best day... and causes me to be suspicious on its worst. How do courtesy runners get in the SS HOF and how are others like them perceived as major plus players? How does someone that has a good tourney at the 'wrong time' become an 'impact player'. I believe that the root of all three of these rhetorical questions is simply that 'the powers that be' prefer to turn subjective considerations into objective ones. HOF - 'x' amount of points gets you in (in theory)... not that all teams disseminate points in the same manner. But I'm straying from the primary point. Major + player - It's not based upon his/her ability to change the nature of games but, instead, based upon his/name being submitted on a certain piece of paper. Billy Martin was on the same roster as Mickey Mantle many times. Does anyone really equate the two? How about Bobby Schantz... does anyone really feel that he was as feared as Whitey Ford? Why not, they were on the same pitching staff for a few years. Did you ever hear of Elio Chacon... he played with Frank Robinson (Reds)... he never won the Triple Crown though. Impact player list - this one doesn't even need an example as it was doomed the moment they tried to quantitfy it. When the 'powers that be' can stand up and truly make subjective considerations and stand by them, these sort of atrocities will be fewer and further between. Either they are inexperienced or have their own agenda... it appears that they don't really care about getting it right. There have been several teams over the past 3-4 years that have been allowed to play at the major level in spite of winning national events (major level). While I do not believe that winning one major event (year end event) is the same as dominating, it has been a listed criteria that has doomed other teams to play at the major + level for a year or two. Why some and not all? Don, I believe that your point on 'selective enforcement' is extremely valid and long overdue. Until the ratings committee includes players and/or managers (not bird dogs), the status quo WILL continue. IMO, the question isn't 'can we resolve it'... it's 'do we want it resolved'... I purposely made real liberal use of the pronoun 'we'... because it really ought to be a 'we' thing rather than a 'they'' thing... they = 3 guys; we = those 3 guys plus some folks that actually get out and see the teams play... and compete against them. Am I passionate about this? You bet I am... I've been victimized by it in the past (2001) and still see the 'checkerboard consistency' that we call ratings today. WE deserve better. Bob Woodroof. GSF BW |
| March 6, 2008 Tate22 Men's 60 280 posts | LL10: Your experience in Houston provides two concrete examples of what is wrong with the player rating system. It is not based on written rules, to Bob's (The Wood) point, nor is it based on the input of the players and managers who are actually impacted. It is based on subjective, selective manipulation by the power (one person) that be. As for the "branding" (my term) unfortunately it is real. I was told two days ago by Terry Hennessy that anyone who played on a Major Plus roster last year is considered a Major Plus player for this year. I was also told that if my 50 Major team had four players who were Major plus last year, my entire team would be moved up to Major plus. The four players in question were all released by a 50 Major team this year, but apparently being part of a Major Plus roster confers super-natural powers on all that are so fortunate. LL, The fact that you can identify players who recently played Major Plus but are now AAA just shows that the system designed to protect us from super-dominant teams does just the opposite. It makes it difficult for you to staff your team, and it makes players hesitant to play where they want. This is flat wrong. Bob - anyone who cites Elio Chacon is a literary giant in my book. You are right that "we" need to want it to change. This whole debate would be moot at our level if we merged major and major plus levels, and then struck a balance on the home run and run limit rules. There will always be a few teams that want to have basketball scores in softball games, but participation and competition will be better served by less interference from the Power that be. Something is wrong when the system seems to punish success and team improvement. I will never understand why I hear, "your team looks good, but watch out, they'll bump you up" How about letting teams actually win something before punishing them? LL and Bob, thanks for the input, I hope this dialogue continues and brings change like the pitcher protection discussions did last year. Regards Don Newhard |
| March 6, 2008 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | Bob, Don and Larry, many of us agree with you. When I found out this year that our 55 Maj Plus team wasn't going to play many tournaments I and a teammate tried to play with a 50 Major team. I was told by the 50 Major team that Terry and Ridge said that if I and my teammate played, the 50 Major team would be moved to 50 Major Plus. As a result we won't be playing with the 50 team. |
| March 6, 2008 Lecak Men's 60 1026 posts | Hi Don interesting about a month ago I sent a letter on one of your players behalf regarding his playing status review a major plus player. I hadn't received an answer I guess the answer is in your post. A little disappointing, I played a number of games with our friend on a SoCal based 40 team and I felt as a player I was very familiar with your teammates talents. Here are a few excerpts from the letter, "Although player i s an excellent player his being reclassified a major player will in no way change the balance of competition for any team he joins. Player strengths as a player lend themselves more to the AAA/Major game than in reality the major plus game. I would best describe player as an excellent defender who can play all defensive positions and he runs real well which all teams can use. He does not possess the homerun power that is most associated with the major plus game." "Please reconsider your options with player he is an excellent ambassador to the game and will be real asset to the major game," Don if you would like a copy of the letter email me and I will send one over to you if you think it would help. Who knows these guys better than ex teammates and now having to play against them. Joe Lecak j.lecak@cox.net |
| March 6, 2008 curty Men's 60 187 posts | while it seems that the M & M+ players are the most affected, it does bleed down. A possible solution would be to have managers classify players with a minimum number of their roster, say 8, designated within the respective division. This might allow some players to be able to be reclassified to one division.lower. If a player is used exclusively in a division he would automaticaly be classified there. Also, some players might need to be rated higher than the current division in which they participate. This would then come under review by the powers that be. Just some thoughts!! |
| March 6, 2008 udaplaya 90 posts | Keep it simple. Reduce each age group to two levels - upper and lower. This would not totally eliminate player rating issues, but it would get rid of a great majority of the marginals ones - whether one is Major or Major + would be gone as would AAA versus AA. Also, this would increase the size of the draws and not have the same teams paly each other again and again and again. |
