Playing for Stalemate

I reviewed my classical rated games today and found some interesting stuff.

I have played 2807 rated classical games, of which 61 have ended in stalemate (roughly 2.17% of all of my games). After reviewing the positions, it appears that 54 of those were when I played on after resignable positions (i.e. I swung a loss into a draw by stalemate).

The overall value of all my stalemates was a net of 84 lichess ratings points.

Assuming an average loss of 10 points per loss (my average opponent is about 1650, and over my playing life I assume 10 points is a decent guess), is it safe to assume that my "real" lichess rating relative to players that almost always resign in lost positions is not 1733 but 1107? It amazes me that I maintain my rating in large part because I play on when others would resign.

As a side note-I encourage fellow patzers to play on and make use of every resource on the board. I have stalemated many 1800 players (lichess rating) and a 1900 and 2000 player.

I agree with any of you who suggest that playing on for an unlikely draw seems grinding and pathetic, but I hate losing and based on my stats, I can count on turning about 1 out of every 50 losses into a draw by stalemate alone (I might go through to find perpetuals and three-folds that were in "lost" positions).

Interested to hear from those of you who think I am crazy and those of you who play on.

Pathetic to play on? That's ridiculous, of course you should always play on.
But the above is not how rating works, if you have a higher rating you lose more points for a loss, and win less with a win. So your rating is only slightly above what it would be if you resigned those games.

I resign not early but when it is time. Its not nice in my opinion unless its blitz or bullet to play on in a lost position. I would like to show some respect to my opponent and not play on in a dead lost position. But if I have hope by means of realistic tricks then Ill play on. I am not going to make my opponent prove he can mate me a queen up or convert the advantage of two rooks and a knight.

How is it disrespectful? If it's really won he should just enjoy that he's about to win. If he finds it stressful to play on he must be afraid to still not win.
Of course on the losing side on does not always feel like playing on, but if I am in the mood to play till mate I will. There's nothing wrong with that, chess is supposed to end with mate. (which is why I find it strange when people resign one move before mate; why not let the game end in it's natural end state)

#2- I don't know a lot about the ratings. Are you saying that when I win I would have collected more points against higher rated players, and would have recouped much of the difference (assuming my rating was lower because I had resigned, instead of getting the draw)?

Surely my rating has been positively impacted by more draws, I am curious to know by how much?

I am not sure I understand your question.
Reaching those draws slightly improves your performance. E.g. Imagine a 100 games match, then 1 point more means you have slightly better performance, right? So it's like you play slightly better than alternate you, so you have a slightly higher rating.
But if you know stopped gaining those draws your rating would quickly converge towards the rating you would have if you never reached any of those draws at all.

I don't know the specifics about Glicko rating but if you just look up how Elo rating works (e.g. on wikipedia) you get a pretty good idea how that roughly works. (and Elo is really easy to understand)

Did the 300 Spartans give up just cause they were hopelessly outnumbered at Thermopylae?
Fight on soldier, nothing wrong with playing in the hope of stalemate!

Yeah, if you keep playing, you can hope for a blunder from your opponent!