All Forums > SimLeague Basketball > SimLeague Basketball > Discussions in SIMology
11/16/2013 10:23 PM
it's not 'used' per se - it's just what comes with random number generation
11/17/2013 2:49 AM
Posted by smokey57 on 11/16/2013 10:20:00 PM (view original):
My gripe is this, normalization is being used to force fit the leagues, and the shape if the bell curve is way too flat (parity). admin need to adjust the fit to a less flat (disparity) curve. Then we can see which owners have better skill sets. Right now it's 3 parts skill and 7 parts luck.
It's obvious who the better owners are.  In a playoff series, a clearly superior team almost always wins.  The sim needs to be improved, but saying that it's 70% luck is wrong.
11/17/2013 3:49 AM
Posted by felonius on 11/16/2013 10:23:00 PM (view original):
it's not 'used' per se - it's just what comes with random number generation
qft
11/17/2013 3:49 AM
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 11/17/2013 2:49:00 AM (view original):
Posted by smokey57 on 11/16/2013 10:20:00 PM (view original):
My gripe is this, normalization is being used to force fit the leagues, and the shape if the bell curve is way too flat (parity). admin need to adjust the fit to a less flat (disparity) curve. Then we can see which owners have better skill sets. Right now it's 3 parts skill and 7 parts luck.
It's obvious who the better owners are.  In a playoff series, a clearly superior team almost always wins.  The sim needs to be improved, but saying that it's 70% luck is wrong.
also qft
11/17/2013 1:23 PM

I don't think there's a random number generater involved. If you don't monitor fga, to & pf's it may seem random, but those high pf's or to's that caused you to lose are a function of the correction not randomness. That low fga game you lost also was not random but a simple correction due to previous games. Remember the 105 fga game I spoke of ..it was followed by an 87fga game, which I lost. (crap) How many times have you blown-up a 140pts and not had it preceeded or followed by a low scoring game?

11/17/2013 1:28 PM
I don't agree that the best team always win's the chip, I agree that one of the better teams win's the chip. It's not so bad that a pooch team with a unskilled owner wins....yet.
11/17/2013 2:56 PM
Posted by smokey57 on 11/17/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):

I don't think there's a random number generater involved. If you don't monitor fga, to & pf's it may seem random, but those high pf's or to's that caused you to lose are a function of the correction not randomness. That low fga game you lost also was not random but a simple correction due to previous games. Remember the 105 fga game I spoke of ..it was followed by an 87fga game, which I lost. (crap) How many times have you blown-up a 140pts and not had it preceeded or followed by a low scoring game?

of course there is - every single possession hinges on a myriad of formulas that require it - turnover? roll the die add the factors - who shoots? roll in the die add in the factors - make or miss? roll the die, add all the offensive and defensive factors to the result and generate your outcome

under all the layers of complexity and modulation there are thousands of random number generations per game
11/17/2013 3:16 PM
Posted by smokey57 on 11/17/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):

I don't think there's a random number generater involved. If you don't monitor fga, to & pf's it may seem random, but those high pf's or to's that caused you to lose are a function of the correction not randomness. That low fga game you lost also was not random but a simple correction due to previous games. Remember the 105 fga game I spoke of ..it was followed by an 87fga game, which I lost. (crap) How many times have you blown-up a 140pts and not had it preceeded or followed by a low scoring game?

The results of previous games don't have an effect on future games.
11/17/2013 4:14 PM (edited)
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 11/17/2013 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by smokey57 on 11/17/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):

I don't think there's a random number generater involved. If you don't monitor fga, to & pf's it may seem random, but those high pf's or to's that caused you to lose are a function of the correction not randomness. That low fga game you lost also was not random but a simple correction due to previous games. Remember the 105 fga game I spoke of ..it was followed by an 87fga game, which I lost. (crap) How many times have you blown-up a 140pts and not had it preceeded or followed by a low scoring game?

The results of previous games don't have an effect on future games.
Exactly- it's like rolling a die. You might get 6,6,5,6,4,5,6 for your first seven rolls, but eventually, you are going to start rolling 1's and 2's. By the time you reach 50 (or 82) the numbers will be a bit more even. It's just probability- which is why we all love using the advanced stats.
11/17/2013 4:21 PM
Generally speaking, it is likely the results of a previous play do not have an effect on the current play.   The SIM does not have the concept of a streaky shooter.   In the probability world, this is called "mutual independence".   This concept disappoints many champions of "lucky numbers", which don't have any impact unless the dice or lotto machine happen to be defective 

There are a few exceptions to this in the SIM, from what I can see over the year of so I've been playing (veteran owners may be aware of more, of course):

- End of Game 
- Foul Substitution
- Fatigue
- Usage Penatly

"End of Game" adjustments allow a change in offensive/defensive strategy, based on score differential, and therefore influence the outcome.

Foul Substitution strategy can lead to a new lineup, which will definitely affect subsequent plays with whatever rotation the SIM has chosen after a foul has occurred.

Fatigue definitely impacts the performance of players on a game to game basis.   In theory, it could impact performance within the course of a game, but I don't have  enough quantitative data to support this, as I rarely have teams/players with severe fatigue issues.

Another possible exception is the "usage penalty", where the effectiveness of a player is influenced (negatively) if they are in the view of the SIM, overutilized.
In theory, I would think this would be cumulative usage over the course of the game.   I.e., the player would perform normally until a usage threshold was reached and then be adversely affected.   In reviewing game logs (my own teams and others), I'm not sure that this is necessarily the case, as the penalty seems to kick in quite early at least from an offense perspective (nothing like seeing a player with an  EFG of 55%+ go 1 for 24 in a game).    
11/17/2013 4:40 PM
Posted by felonius on 11/17/2013 2:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by smokey57 on 11/17/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):

I don't think there's a random number generater involved. If you don't monitor fga, to & pf's it may seem random, but those high pf's or to's that caused you to lose are a function of the correction not randomness. That low fga game you lost also was not random but a simple correction due to previous games. Remember the 105 fga game I spoke of ..it was followed by an 87fga game, which I lost. (crap) How many times have you blown-up a 140pts and not had it preceeded or followed by a low scoring game?

of course there is - every single possession hinges on a myriad of formulas that require it - turnover? roll the die add the factors - who shoots? roll in the die add in the factors - make or miss? roll the die, add all the offensive and defensive factors to the result and generate your outcome

under all the layers of complexity and modulation there are thousands of random number generations per game
This.
11/17/2013 4:40 PM
Posted by ncmusician_7 on 11/17/2013 3:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by smokey57 on 11/17/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):

I don't think there's a random number generater involved. If you don't monitor fga, to & pf's it may seem random, but those high pf's or to's that caused you to lose are a function of the correction not randomness. That low fga game you lost also was not random but a simple correction due to previous games. Remember the 105 fga game I spoke of ..it was followed by an 87fga game, which I lost. (crap) How many times have you blown-up a 140pts and not had it preceeded or followed by a low scoring game?

The results of previous games don't have an effect on future games.
And this.
11/18/2013 11:06 AM (edited)
there is of course in game adjustment/correction of a kind - we see this with the usage penalties for team and individual over usage when FG% is mitigated downward and turnover rate upward as players and/or teams exceed their usage rate(s) 

to me this application in regards to other aspects of the sim has always tantalized - could such an approach rein in some of the more excessive aberrations before they got so quite so aberrant?
11/18/2013 4:10 PM
Just program less freakin' variable.  Very quick and easy solution, but again, WIS doesn't give a d@mn about it's NBA SIM anymore.  Hasn't for years.  Unfortunately,  that ain't changing anytime soon..
11/18/2013 7:27 PM
These are for the most part the particular aspects of the sim that are used to force fit the curve and in themsellves not the problem. The sim actually seems to work well, it's the way the sim is used by admin that's the problem. They simple do not understand the basic concept of competition. This is kiddie pool soccer mom crap. It appears we'll never get a clean shot at one another and frankly I've lost most of my interest in this site.
of 4
All Forums > SimLeague Basketball > SimLeague Basketball > Discussions in SIMology

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.