All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Should there be a min .500 record rqmt for PIT?
5/22/2013 1:33 PM
My bad - it's not weighted very strongly.  Poor reading comprehension.

I don't care way or the other about your rankings.  It's the principle.  I shouldn't have posted because of course you've defended this before and could not be persuaded by reason.

5/22/2013 2:15 PM
Posted by llamanunts on 5/22/2013 1:33:00 PM (view original):
My bad - it's not weighted very strongly.  Poor reading comprehension.

I don't care way or the other about your rankings.  It's the principle.  I shouldn't have posted because of course you've defended this before and could not be persuaded by reason.

I'm always interested in a good, intelligent argument.  I've seen nothing to date to sway my thoughts at all, but I'd like to hear why you think some losses should be rated ahead of some wins.

And yes I'm a tough sell...I've done it before and it didn't look right.  The misconception people have about my process is that it turns my rankings into nothing more than a "standings" page that just orders teams basically by win percentage, and that couldn't be further from the truth...my results quite clearly bear that out.

5/22/2013 3:35 PM
Well, okay.  Let's start here: my contention is not that losses are better than wins.  However, Team A winning by 3 against the #300 RPI, while Team B loses by 3 against the #6 RPI, is not evidence that Team A is better than Team B, or deserves more credit.

I mean, if you get bunch of your buddies together and lose by 3 to the Spurs, it's a good bet that you're a better team than me and my fat buddies who beat the local CYO squad by 3 in OT.  (This never happened, I swear. Totally.)
5/22/2013 4:08 PM
Posted by llamanunts on 5/22/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Well, okay.  Let's start here: my contention is not that losses are better than wins.  However, Team A winning by 3 against the #300 RPI, while Team B loses by 3 against the #6 RPI, is not evidence that Team A is better than Team B, or deserves more credit.

I mean, if you get bunch of your buddies together and lose by 3 to the Spurs, it's a good bet that you're a better team than me and my fat buddies who beat the local CYO squad by 3 in OT.  (This never happened, I swear. Totally.)
The purpose of a ranking system is to approximately rank teams in how good they are, and the team that loses to the Miami Heat by 3 is going to be a lot better than the team that beats a canadian junior high school by 3.

Just like climbing 90% of everest is more impressive than climbing 100% of a hill in your backyard (assuming non-Nepalese backyard). Sure, "getting it done" is worth something, but it's not a be-all, end-all rule. It's an oversimplification.
5/22/2013 4:14 PM
You can absolutely argue that any win is a greater "success" than any loss, but it's not reflective of the skill of the pursuer.

To draw more analogies, there's a reason someone with a 3.0 GPA from MIT gets hired over the kid with a 4.0 Summa Cum Laude from Oakland University. The 3.0 MIT kid is smarter.

If you were ranking "smartest kids", the MIT kid comes first.

If you were ranking "biggest academic accomplishments", you could ARGUE that the 4.0 from Oakland was the bigger accomplishment since he earned the Summa Cum Laude distinction and the MIT kid earned no distinctions.
5/22/2013 4:21 PM
Sure.  I can ARGUE that you can discern how good a pitcher is by looking at his W/L record.  Doesn't make it any less asinine.  I think we're agreeing.  Are we agreeing?
5/22/2013 5:09 PM
Yes, we agree, I meant to build on your point lol
5/22/2013 5:10 PM
Like you and hubdreds before us, i am trying to make a point to colonels
5/22/2013 7:19 PM
Posted by jetwildcat on 5/22/2013 4:09:00 PM (view original):
Posted by llamanunts on 5/22/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Well, okay.  Let's start here: my contention is not that losses are better than wins.  However, Team A winning by 3 against the #300 RPI, while Team B loses by 3 against the #6 RPI, is not evidence that Team A is better than Team B, or deserves more credit.

I mean, if you get bunch of your buddies together and lose by 3 to the Spurs, it's a good bet that you're a better team than me and my fat buddies who beat the local CYO squad by 3 in OT.  (This never happened, I swear. Totally.)
The purpose of a ranking system is to approximately rank teams in how good they are, and the team that loses to the Miami Heat by 3 is going to be a lot better than the team that beats a canadian junior high school by 3.

Just like climbing 90% of everest is more impressive than climbing 100% of a hill in your backyard (assuming non-Nepalese backyard). Sure, "getting it done" is worth something, but it's not a be-all, end-all rule. It's an oversimplification.
So that's how you would rank teams.  I'm not looking to create or do some sort of power ranking to determine the "strength" of a team, my goal through my ranking system is to order teams by best season given the results of games played, and not to determine a "who would beat who".  My system is not predictive and while I haven't said it in this thread until now, I've said it many times over previously.  The PR works more closely to how my ranking system does than to what you're suggesting.

The comparisons you're making are ridiculous and quite apples to oranges...it may sound good to you, but it doesn't fit.

5/22/2013 7:25 PM (edited)
Posted by llamanunts on 5/22/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Well, okay.  Let's start here: my contention is not that losses are better than wins.  However, Team A winning by 3 against the #300 RPI, while Team B loses by 3 against the #6 RPI, is not evidence that Team A is better than Team B, or deserves more credit.

I mean, if you get bunch of your buddies together and lose by 3 to the Spurs, it's a good bet that you're a better team than me and my fat buddies who beat the local CYO squad by 3 in OT.  (This never happened, I swear. Totally.)
Fine, again my rankings aren't meant to determine better/best teams, they're meant to determine best season.

We have differences in ranking philosophy here, my rankings aren't predictive, and really in HD, why the hell would you want a ranking system to determine "who the best team is" when you can see that in black and white through the player and team ratings at everyone's disposal?

Scheduling a weaker/lower ranked team is low risk, low reward...you'll probably win, you won't earn many "points" because of it.  Now if you lose, that loss is catastrophic and would hurt greatly.

Scheduling a stronger/higher ranked team is a higher risk, with a higher reward, but if you lose, the penalty isn't as great.

If you played the top 10 teams on the road and lost to them all on the road by 1 point...you're still 0-10...you may have played well, but you didn't win/succeed.  A few wins would quickly turn a campaign like that around, but when your record says you're 0-10, you're 0-10.  You'd be a lot more screwed if you were 0-10 against the 10 lowest ranked teams, and again that is factored in accordingly.

5/22/2013 7:36 PM
I guess we can rename this the BPI thread redux ad nauseum?
5/22/2013 7:42 PM
Posted by dacj501 on 5/22/2013 7:36:00 PM (view original):
I guess we can rename this the BPI thread redux ad nauseum?
Little wordy.
5/22/2013 7:45 PM
Lol, this thread boils down to the quality of the Projection Report, I do college basketball rankings so again I'm not going to sit quietly when some users are calling for the wrong solution.  I continually find it funny that jet still wants to fight with me, despite my system having his team in the PI without any kind of BS win requirement...that's humor...
5/22/2013 8:42 PM
Posted by colonels19 on 5/22/2013 7:45:00 PM (view original):
Lol, this thread boils down to the quality of the Projection Report, I do college basketball rankings so again I'm not going to sit quietly when some users are calling for the wrong solution.  I continually find it funny that jet still wants to fight with me, despite my system having his team in the PI without any kind of BS win requirement...that's humor...
believe it or not, i have more perspective than "i want my team in and i dont care about anything else"
5/22/2013 10:30 PM
Well it doesn't show.
of 7
All Forums > Hoops Dynasty Basketball > Hoops Dynasty > Should there be a min .500 record rqmt for PIT?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.