Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 6:32:00 PM (view original):
remember that stalker word you like to use?

Stalker?  Nope.  Just someone who knows how to research the same way you do.  You gave an interview with WIS a few years back and gave away personal info, you moron.  Why would you do that?  Oh yes, because you actually believe that the safe, little world you've created for yourself is unassailable.  It's not stalking, it's researching.  Learn the difference.  And all this time I actually thought you were somewhat intelligent.....couldn't have been more wrong, I guess.  Oh and I can tell you with 100% certainty, the LAST thing I have about ANYTHING is an inferiority complex.  I'm just about the most cocky person you'll ever meet.

lol

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/13/2010 7:59:00 PM (view original):

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.

COlonels. .can you ever NOT talk about yourself?  Can you ever just post and NOT make it about yourself?  Perhaps if you made your posts about yourself less then other people would as well, just a thought.

Posted by colonels19 on 8/13/2010 8:10:00 PM (view original):

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

You wish you were me, big boy...I'm insulted that you would even claim to be me.  Pinkeye?  LTM...I would never pick a username that ridiculous.

Also, fwiw, emy/dcy is actually one of my few supporters/confidants, so saying that you're me is even more pathetic.  I'd like to think that him and I have a mutual respect, though I won't speak on his behalf.  He's a cool guy, nonetheless.

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/13/2010 8:12:00 PM (view original):
Excellent, my guess would have been right on the money!  We'll let everyone else see if they can figure it out for themselves.  By the way, that was specifically why I used the word "stalker" in this thread, because of that thread.  I was just about 100% sure who I was arguing with and I thought you'd find that choice of words a bit amusing.  Your use of the word "delusional" was what sealed the deal though.  Clever, and yes, I picked up on it.  :^)

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/13/2010 8:12:00 PM (view original):
Excellent, my guess would have been right on the money!  We'll let everyone else see if they can figure it out for themselves.  By the way, that was specifically why I used the word "stalker" in this thread, because of that thread.  I was just about 100% sure who I was arguing with and I thought you'd find that choice of words a bit amusing.  Your use of the word "delusional" was what sealed the deal though.  Clever, and yes, I picked up on it.  :^)

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/13/2010 8:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by colonels19 on 8/13/2010 8:10:00 PM (view original):

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

You wish you were me, big boy...I'm insulted that you would even claim to be me.  Pinkeye?  LTM...I would never pick a username that ridiculous.

Also, fwiw, emy/dcy is actually one of my few supporters/confidants, so saying that you're me is even more pathetic.  I'd like to think that him and I have a mutual respect, though I won't speak on his behalf.  He's a cool guy, nonetheless.

I have to admit, when Colonels first starting posting, I thought he was arguing just to argue.  The more I read of his thoughts and ideas though, the more I began to understand where he is/was coming from.  The guy has some very legitimate points to make, but as he said, most users won't look past WHO posted and not WHAT was posted and even bother to entertain his posts with a semi-open mind.  Do I agree with everything he says?  Of course not, but I at least try to give him the respect of seeing things from a different point of view by not having predetermined biases just because of who made the statement.  I'll say it, he's earned my respect and that's not a real easy thing to do.

The one thing that still makes me roll my eyes though is when we get the "I'm only as bad as you want me to be" line.  Still can't get past that one.  :^)

Lol, I say that line though because it's true.  If you want to be civil with me and have a civil discussion, we can do that.  If you want to slam with me and tell me I'm wrong just because you disagree with me, and oppose me just because I'm colonels19, we can do that too.  I give the people what they want, and that's really what they don't understand.  Their perceptions of me have been built through their interactions with me that they have PARTLY/MAJORITY caused posts/threads to go in a certain direction, and then they use that as justification to say that I'm an ***, this, that, and the other...that's fine with me...you give me whatever Monopoly piece you don't want, I'm still rolling the dice and we're still playing.

I truly am as bad as you want me to be, and if you want to *****, whine, and complain to every last post I make, that's fine...but again, understand the KIND OF POST(S) that you will get in return.  I love that there's a cordiality (made up word) expected on my end, but my haters don't hold themselves to the same standards.  Like a CoB song says "I don't give a f*** if you hate me".

Posted by antonsirius on 8/13/2010 8:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/13/2010 8:12:00 PM (view original):
Excellent, my guess would have been right on the money!  We'll let everyone else see if they can figure it out for themselves.  By the way, that was specifically why I used the word "stalker" in this thread, because of that thread.  I was just about 100% sure who I was arguing with and I thought you'd find that choice of words a bit amusing.  Your use of the word "delusional" was what sealed the deal though.  Clever, and yes, I picked up on it.  :^)

Wait, so you think pinkeye/colonels is me??!!!!??!!?!!1!!?11!1??

I should punch you in the ovaries.

Posted by pinkeye on 8/13/2010 8:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 8/13/2010 8:12:00 PM (view original):
Excellent, my guess would have been right on the money!  We'll let everyone else see if they can figure it out for themselves.  By the way, that was specifically why I used the word "stalker" in this thread, because of that thread.  I was just about 100% sure who I was arguing with and I thought you'd find that choice of words a bit amusing.  Your use of the word "delusional" was what sealed the deal though.  Clever, and yes, I picked up on it.  :^)

great detective work, droolcup.

i'm not sure if i should feel bad for sullying anton's good name or just assume he deserves it.

Posted by a_in_the_b on 8/13/2010 8:29:00 PM (view original):
And there you go again, proving my point. You can't help the "Meta Colonels argument"  You MAKE it all about your personality then complain that its about your personality.  Whatever, back to your regularly scheduled megalomania.  And COlonels?  I don't say that many of your arguments lack merit because of your personality but instead because they lack merit.  Your personality is merely an annoying accompaniment to that fact.