Posted by tecwrg on 9/8/2013 8:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 9/1/2013 3:37:00 PM (view original):Don't think I ever saw a response to this. Has usfdumbass ever offered anything beyond (a) a count of 100+ W/L seasons, or (b) repeating "WE'RE COMPETITIVE" to back his argument?
Posted by tecwrg on 8/31/2013 12:16:00 PM (view original):I'm curious to see the proof of the competitiveness of "For Life" world, since the only thing you've provided so far is a count of 100+ W/L seasons. Which, as pointed out in my earlier post, can also be achieved by a room full of drooling morons.
Well, statistically speaking, you could put 32 drooling morons in a single HBD world, have them all win between 76-86 games out of mere random variation, and cry "PARITY, ************!!!".
IOW, statisitcs only tell part of the story.
I haven't kept up my World Rankings in over two years, so my comparable set of data is certainly out of date, but For Life's seasons 8 and 9 would have put them in the Top 10 (#7 to be exact) of my rankings.
The worlds ahead of them (again, the data for those worlds is from mid-2011, so 10 or so seasons old and I don't know where they would be now) were Moneyball, Branch Rickey, Moonlight, LEG, No Quitters, and MLB (Cooperstown was #9)
Note that I was measuring competitive balance by looking at the standard deviation of wins, runs allowed, and unearned runs (short form measure of defensive tanking). None of those measures say anything about how "good" or "bad" For Life is, but from a competitive balance standpoint (call it "parity" if you will), it seems solid to me.