Myers' teams Topic

Trentonjoe
Posts: 10986 (8)
Hall of Famer
391 591 54 1
Hall of Famer
100 REB guy
5/19/2016 10:45 AM
Trentonjoe
Posts: 10986 (8)
Hall of Famer
391 591 54 1
Hall of Famer
Individual rebounding is tough to effective measure. I have had guys average 11-12 rebounds a game that, IMO, weren't very special because every one else on my team sucked at rebounding. I am pretty sure the SIM decided WHICH team gets the rebound and then assignes the reboung to a player based on a proportion based system.

5/19/2016 11:00 AM
MonsterTurtl
Posts: 986 (0)
Hall of Famer
203 1
Rookie
If it's such a hack why doesn't everyone do it?
5/19/2016 11:07 AM
Baums_away
Posts: 216 (0)
Hall of Famer
244 15
Rookie
Posted by Benis on 5/19/2016 10:50:00 AM (view original):
These guys aren't 0 ath but pretty close. They're good rebounders.

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Stats.aspx?tid=7731&pid=3239772

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3279058

https://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=0&pid=3278965

5/19/2016 12:25 PM
jaydubz1515
Posts: 209 (0)
Hall of Famer
29 12 6 11 21 4 10
Prospect
Time for engine update.
5/19/2016 2:06 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
You know, I do think athleticism remains a bit overpowered in the offensive equation, but his team isn't scoring all that efficiently. They score almost 100 PPG because of their pace of play and resultant shot volume. But they're averaging under 1 point per possession. For comparison, my Methodist team, which is virtually the opposite with a lot of subpar defenders but great guard skills everywhere on the floor, is scoring over 1.1 PPP, over .105 better. And that absolutely SHOULD be an elite defensive team. I don't have a big problem with it.
5/19/2016 2:26 PM
Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
Dahs - what formula are you using to calculate ppp?

According to mine, he's at 115 points per 100 possessions.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HKcL_MqlYoR5DZ7ytd-fngu1B1Diav5km1ll8hHnkDI/edit?usp=sharing

5/19/2016 2:54 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
Points/(FGA + TO + .44*FTA) - pretty standard I think...
5/19/2016 3:18 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
I treat what happens after offensive rebounds as a new possession. That may be the difference, some formulas don't...
5/19/2016 3:19 PM
dahsdebater
Posts: 10036 (0)
Hall of Famer
284 271 18
Pro
That gives them 117.7 for me. But Methodist bumps to 126.9. Even their solid offensive rebounding can't close the gap much against an offensively-oriented team.
5/19/2016 3:23 PM
Benis
Posts: 7256 (0)
Hall of Famer
266
Prospect
The defense is ridiculous tho. 70 points per 100 possesions. Crazy good.
5/19/2016 3:50 PM
possumfiend
Posts: 511 (0)
Hall of Famer
130 5
Pro
Posted by dahsdebater on 5/19/2016 3:18:00 PM (view original):
Points/(FGA + TO + .44*FTA) - pretty standard I think...
Agreed it is pretty standard but I think the .44 is for the pro game. For college I think .475 is considered the norm. It's all relative though as long as you use the same formula for all the teams you are comparing. The difference in the coefficient isn't going to produce appreciably different values. I do agree with you on the OR though, possessions are "supposed" to exclude them but I prefer not to consider an offensive rebound a continuation of the possession but a new possession on it's own. By not subtracting the OR I can calculate the efficiency for my players using the same formula.
5/19/2016 3:56 PM
mrg1037
Posts: 171 (0)
Hall of Famer
81
Prospect
Posted by Trentonjoe on 5/19/2016 8:52:00 AM (view original):
I don't think it's as bad as emy does.

This is myers KNIGHT team
Name Yr. Pos. A SPD REB DE BLK LP PE BH P WE ST DU FT OVR
Ralph Thompson Sr. PG 79 68 1 82 3 24 54 57 57 37 89 58 C 609
John Coldwell Sr. PG 85 54 32 92 3 13 11 46 28 70 87 39 B 560
Neil Lawrence Sr. PG 80 54 4 91 11 3 36 42 19 25 65 55 B- 485
Matthew Langford Fr. SG 68 50 8 56 2 1 50 36 35 39 78 71 C 494


Thompson is a fine PG and the other guys aren't AWFUL. I am kinda agree with jsajsa but want to also feel when he has a real PG (like thompson) his teams are much harder to beat. He doesn't always.
So that team has one player above 35 in PAS... that's not awful? (Awful guard skills I mean, obviously those guys play great defense)

From what I recall in my Naismith D3 days, Dickinson was always solid but usually lost S16 or E8-ish to a more balanced team. That's about what I'd expect from that style of team in a good D3 world, occasionally breaking through to go farther when the big classes line up right. I'm not surprised about the 14 titles considering he has a team in every world and has played like 8000 games at D3.

Basically I think what he does is a viable strategy, and props to him for figuring out a unique way to win. But it's far from a cheat code or a reason to change the engine. I'd bet his seasons played per championship pales in comparison to the top echelon of D3 coaches, who build teams in a more traditional manner.

(just to clarify, most of this post was about the thread in general, not specifically to you TJ)
5/19/2016 5:08 PM
jsajsa
Posts: 631 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 28 1 133 3
Rookie
On mrg's point, If you want to compare what a good world looks like, Myers and I actually entered Naismith the same time and have finished 24 seasons there. Myers has made it past the S16 3 times in those 24 seasons. I've done it 15. While showing some flaws in the engine, most specifically regarding lack of TOs per possession with that level of BH/PASS, it's hardly a cheat code and good coaches will beat him.
5/19/2016 5:27 PM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
Myers' teams Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.