Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 4:26:00 PM (view original):
don't keep us in suspense, who am i?

Posted by brianp87 on 8/13/2010 4:29:00 PM (view original):

Isnt this were you answer?

Posted by emy1013 on 8/13/2010 4:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 4:26:00 PM (view original):
don't keep us in suspense, who am i?

You're gonna have to do a little better than that.  I mean, I was born at night, just not last night..........

What cant pinky just answer?  is it diablo?

Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 4:42:00 PM (view original):
this is all part of my scheme to scare dcy off the forums before he takes my delusional poster of the year crown

Posted by vandydave on 8/13/2010 8:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 8/13/2010 1:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 8/13/2010 12:41:00 AM (view original):
Seble, I won't judge the changes until they're implemented and we see what happens.

That said, I'm not really of the opinion that the current problems have to do with too much game-to-game variance. I haven't really heard anyone make that argument.

It seems to me that there are simply a few inherent, wholesale problems in the engine (such as rebounding and fouls). The problem is not that a team or player will be great at (for example) rebounding one night and terrible the next; the problem is that there is an inherent issue with how the engine handles rebounding all of the time.

Seble, would really love to hear your thoughts on this.

Ahh, Daalter, your mind is slipping in your old age.  Coaches have been asking for, nay begging, for less variance/randomness all the way back to when TK was still running the show and Davis was posting statistical analyses for all of us to wrap our minds around.  It's been a semi-hot topic since I started, still is to a degree, and probably always will be.  It just might not be what everyone is shouting about right now, that's all.

Switching gears, one thing I would like to see in regards to rebounding is the +/- setting play a slightly larger role in a team's rebounding proficiency.  Not a whole lot, mind you, but enough to be able to tell a difference between teams that sag and teams that get out on the perimeter.

Also, since Seble seems to be more willing to work with us, and certainly has a more open mind than TK ever did, it might be interesting to see what the results would be if he ran the -5/0/+5 test with the new engine.  And, you know, actually provided some meaningful data to go along with the results.  Not like the very vague stuff we got with TK.  Maybe ratings of the teams involved, or at the very least some raw numbers to look at instead of a few generic percentages that told us basically nothing.  I don't know, just rambling at this point.........

hard to know exactly what to make of this. according to sources TK admitted once there was an "upset" factor if you will somehow built into the engine. while im not a stat guy, i understand that statistical outcomes on their own will turn out differently within a certain range, but never liked the idea that wis had somehow added its own variance factor just to make the game more interesting. if this change in any way limits artificially inflated variance im for it.

Posted by colonels19 on 8/13/2010 7:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by vandydave on 8/13/2010 8:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 8/13/2010 1:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by daalter on 8/13/2010 12:41:00 AM (view original):
Seble, I won't judge the changes until they're implemented and we see what happens.

That said, I'm not really of the opinion that the current problems have to do with too much game-to-game variance. I haven't really heard anyone make that argument.

It seems to me that there are simply a few inherent, wholesale problems in the engine (such as rebounding and fouls). The problem is not that a team or player will be great at (for example) rebounding one night and terrible the next; the problem is that there is an inherent issue with how the engine handles rebounding all of the time.

Seble, would really love to hear your thoughts on this.

Ahh, Daalter, your mind is slipping in your old age.  Coaches have been asking for, nay begging, for less variance/randomness all the way back to when TK was still running the show and Davis was posting statistical analyses for all of us to wrap our minds around.  It's been a semi-hot topic since I started, still is to a degree, and probably always will be.  It just might not be what everyone is shouting about right now, that's all.

Switching gears, one thing I would like to see in regards to rebounding is the +/- setting play a slightly larger role in a team's rebounding proficiency.  Not a whole lot, mind you, but enough to be able to tell a difference between teams that sag and teams that get out on the perimeter.

Also, since Seble seems to be more willing to work with us, and certainly has a more open mind than TK ever did, it might be interesting to see what the results would be if he ran the -5/0/+5 test with the new engine.  And, you know, actually provided some meaningful data to go along with the results.  Not like the very vague stuff we got with TK.  Maybe ratings of the teams involved, or at the very least some raw numbers to look at instead of a few generic percentages that told us basically nothing.  I don't know, just rambling at this point.........

hard to know exactly what to make of this. according to sources TK admitted once there was an "upset" factor if you will somehow built into the engine. while im not a stat guy, i understand that statistical outcomes on their own will turn out differently within a certain range, but never liked the idea that wis had somehow added its own variance factor just to make the game more interesting. if this change in any way limits artificially inflated variance im for it.

Agreed...well put.  This is essentially what I've been saying since before the Montevallo incident, but again, most folks here can't separate poster from post, so they saw it was me, and fought AGAINST it just because of that fact.

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/13/2010 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tmacfan12 on 8/13/2010 1:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by emy1013 on 8/13/2010 3:31:00 AM (view original):
Okay, let's start from scratch and get some basic info out of the way.  How would you determine who the top ten teams are (in your opinion)?  What criteria would you use to decide that Team A is top 10 material, but team B is only, say, top 25?  What factors would you take into consideration when you decided who you thought was a top 10 team that was deserving of a title?  Not trying to be a smartass here, I'm really curious as to what you would look at or take into account. 

Anyone else following this, how would you as an unbiased observer determine a top 10 if you had to do a coaches poll?  I think the answers could be very interesting here........

I just looked at every team in the NT last season and VT was not one of the top 10 teams rating wise. Im not sure where exactly they fell but i know it wasnt 11 or 12. 

Mike, you've been around long enough to know that ratings aren't the end-all-be-all of how good a team is.  They give a pretty accurate picture, but there are lots of other factors that come into play.  Don't let yourself fall into that trap, my friend.

Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 4:41:00 PM (view original):
fine, i'm colonels