Valen wrote:Could it be that some of those who are able to win a ring with cards I would never use just understand how to value all these ratings better? Could it be they have a better understanding of how all the individual and team settings impact a team player and team?
In other words just that someone wins with cards we would not use does not invalidate card reading.
Sure, somebody can always have more knowledge I guess. I'm not sure if how you understood what I was saying was what I meant to be expressing, so let me try and rephrase...
Let's use a model which consists only of real life MLB RC-27. In this model, $0.53 Delmon Young and $6.45 Matt Holliday both share a 6.20 RC-27. Now RC-27 takes into account some fairly relevant data (obp, slg, etc), I think we agree on that. And you do not have to be a math genius to intuitively understand that there's inherent value in that Young's RC-27 is 100% of Holliday's at
8% of the salary cost. There's a lot of what I would call "margin of error" built in there. So I have made a significant discovery, right?! I can have a nine man lineup of Young's costing $4.77 versus a nine man lineup of Holliday's costing my opponent $58.05, theoretically producing equal RC-27. And even if I'm really, really wrong, my $75 mil pitching staff will be taking on his $20 mil staff!
Why does this not work in reality (Strat reality, not real world reality)?
My ability to
recognize value does not necessarily equate to my ability to field a team who ultimately wins a ring. If I count points in the ratings book and try and maximize points to salary, I will come up with many, many efficient lineups. Just because someone else can do the same and ultimately win a ring, it doesn't necessarily follow that they were a better "card reader". It only means that in this particular instance, his selections worked out better than mine (ie, he won the ring). In fact, in a league of 12 experienced managers, a strict points per salary model might even indicate the manager with the least value added (points per salary) could still win the ring.
Now, let's go one step further and add clutch. On my last team, I had Beltran, who has 11 points of clutch on each side (very high). He was 4 for 4 in clutch opportunities - awesome! But did I originally draft him so he could contribute 4 extra awesome at-bats in a season? Isn't that a little too much can't see the forest for the trees stuff? How far in do we have to go to say we're a better "card reader"?
Maybe Strat already has the ultimate most perfect way to account for each and every variable in baseball and everything is priced in the most efficient mathematical fashion into each card. So building a better mousetrap might not be adding any value whatsoever. Then it might follow that the ability to
ferret out the clutch, and the bunts and the arm, and the rest of the "noise" from the salary is what card reading is all about. Making things
less complicated, not more.
Anyway, way too long. My point is, what we call "card reading" might be too difficult to differentiate between 12 equally good players. So I'm not saying "invalidates" is the right word, maybe "effectively cancels each other out" is a better way to say it.