[One Post Wonder]

The way I play is thus:

Get an AI GM who thinks the same way I do, and let him draft. There is no way to get a decent draft otherwise. Even with feeder leagues playing 162 games, you're only going to pick players with the highest current rating at best. I don't mind giving up drafting because the draft bores me.

Leave speed/defense turned on. Not knowing a players speed is ridiculous IMO.

Change the AI settings on judging players to something like 10/65/25/5

I use 'managerial feedback', which people might argue is sort of cheating, but that's the way I choose to play. So if I think a player looks good but the manager is using him as a 4th outfielder, he needs to rake before I bring him up to the next level. I think that getting feedback from the guys who see a player every day is realistic, without providing the exact data that ratings might provide.

Myself, I'm not some stats-only "guru" like that guy Wolf was painted as. I play some variation of stats only half the time, and the rest of the time I use 50 team leagues or make some weird indie league structure, or do promotion/relegation.

For me it's all about having a challenging game... while leaving the AI trade settings on 'Average'. I hate setting the AI trade settings to hard because IMO it doesn't make the AI smarter, just more stubborn and ridiculous. So I get that challenge from stats-only or having so many AI teams that at least a few of them are going to be really, really good.

With the earlier 'debates' I don't see how a discussion over how someone chooses to play the game can really get heated, even in this place. Someone on one side or the other must have been a real ass.