Posted by girt25 on 1/27/2011 12:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by seble on 1/27/2011 11:03:00 AM (view original):
Seems to be some confusion, so to clarify: we wouldn't be doing the evaluation for you.  It would just be a tool to create a single number based on YOUR OWN weighting of each rating.  The default would be equal rating on all.  This doesn't help coaches recruit better players, just saves time.

SEBLE -- with all of the numerous issues big and small that people have been clamoring about, is this really what you feel good about spending your time and energy on? Putting the big stuff aside (which of course it the most important), there are so many small fixes that people have been clamoring for that actual address deficiences in the current game (allowing people to put in their initial recruiting moves in advance for the first cycle or having recruits show up on your roster when they sign are two of very many easy improvements that spring to mind).

Why is this the focus? It makes no sense.

In the context of WIS, of course it makes sense...this is what they always do...spin a miniscule feature into some "great update" while putting all the big stuff to the side...this is WIS 101 my friend.  Seeding and seeing ratings (not just generals) on the recruit summary page are far better "minor" updates than "make your own rating"...

Why is this needed over other issues with HD?

im not sure what all the fuss is about. it seems like a good time saver that is cheap to implement. personally, i like it. i do wonder about formula sharing, could it create a problem? i have wondered that in the past, but i don't really see a problem. if the masses agreed on base formulas, could it create more competition because a lot of people would be looking at the same list? sure, but i don't really see that happening, nor am i convinced there is anything wrong with that.

seble, thanks for soliciting feedback. my comment is that if you are going to add this, please have a field for high, med, low, and unknown potential - to add to each category for growth. some people would leave these at 0, to evaluate players at their current level. but many would fill these values in... the goal of your addition seems to be to make it easier to sort through players in recruiting, and really any formula that excludes potential isn't going to get you very far in that goal.

also, if you allow us to have 1 formula per position, please force us to select the formula in use and sort all players by this formula. i think this is necessary so for example people can search for a sg, by using the sg formula, regardless of the listed position - could be pg or sf. if you sorted everyone by the formula for their listed position, it wouldn't really make any sense - people look to fill one position at a time, it would be too jumbled if everyone displayed together wasn't computed by the same formlua. im honestly not sure which you were proposing...

also seble, it seems like a waste of time to me to actually create a new rating that displays with the rest. people don't need this as a game planning tool, and honestly it doesn't make much sense in that context - listed position is irrelevant, and roles are so important. so the formula for a defensive specialist or rebounding big man or scoring big man are all major variations off the balanced case. i think if you just added a column in recruiting, "weighted ranking", and let us sort by it, that would be totally awesome, and probably a lot easier than including an extra rating all over the place throughout the entire game (man, that makes my head hurt just thinking about it). so many stat pages etc etc etc

I'm in the camp that thinks it is a little weird this is somehow the most relevant update to the game, but (with that said) I'm not opposed to the idea since most coaches already do this with spreadsheets. The only real question I have about the matter concerns whether these new weighted totals would be viewable to other coaches in the team profiles? If I devised a winning player strategy, then I wouldn't want other coaches to be able to deduce my formulas. Also, as this would apply to determining suitable recruits, isn't that what the search feature in the recruiting tab is for (or am I missing something)? 

Also, HOO-HOO-HOO...HOOSIERS!!!  Bloomington (the drinking town with a basketball problem), as well as the whole state of Indiana, will sleep a little more peacefully tonight since they can once again remember what it feels like to beat a ranked team. The first of the Crean era.     

In case anyone missed seble's latest post on the developement blog concerning possible changes to the game, here it is.

seble, 1/27/2011, 11:50am:

"While the argument rages about my previous post, I'll let you know that I've been working on some minor engine fixes/improvements recently and will have a new version ready soon, probably early next week.  Before that release I want to finish my analysis of the numbers produced by the engine vs. what's desired.  I know there's been a lot of talk about shooting percentages, so that's the main focus."

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=421688&TopicsTimeframe=30

Posted by nachopuzzle on 1/28/2011 1:46:00 AM (view original):
In case anyone missed seble's latest post on the developement blog concerning possible changes to the game, here it is.

seble, 1/27/2011, 11:50am:

"While the argument rages about my previous post, I'll let you know that I've been working on some minor engine fixes/improvements recently and will have a new version ready soon, probably early next week.  Before that release I want to finish my analysis of the numbers produced by the engine vs. what's desired.  I know there's been a lot of talk about shooting percentages, so that's the main focus."

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?TopicID=421688&TopicsTimeframe=30

That's great ... he solicited feedback over a silly change that no one was clamoring for, how about soliciting it over the other stuff?

I'm neither a computer programmer or a statistician, but does this line make anyone else nervous?
"Before that release I want to finish my analysis of the numbers produced by the engine vs. what's desired"  - so does this mean that he'll just force some other kind of artificial limiter on things to bend the numbers to what they are "supposed" to be?

ETA: I've got a guy shooting better than 55%, coz he takes his shots in close and is real athletic. Are his % numbers going to be lowered now just because they are "too high?"

Girt, I'm not making excuses for anyone, but maybe seble thought it was obvious and/or given that the other issue were being addressed. That's the only reason I can think as to why this idea was shopped around without making any reference the fixes that would seemingly have a higher priority. Despite what people say, I would bet that seble knows what's up, which is why I think something got lost in translation. Making the direct feedback on this issue seem curiously random. IMHO, of course.      

Posted by dacj501 on 1/28/2011 8:53:00 AM (view original):
I'm neither a computer programmer or a statistician, but does this line make anyone else nervous?
"Before that release I want to finish my analysis of the numbers produced by the engine vs. what's desired"  - so does this mean that he'll just force some other kind of artificial limiter on things to bend the numbers to what they are "supposed" to be?

ETA: I've got a guy shooting better than 55%, coz he takes his shots in close and is real athletic. Are his % numbers going to be lowered now just because they are "too high?"

hopefully it will be controlled in a proper fashion

Posted by dacj501 on 1/28/2011 8:53:00 AM (view original):
I'm neither a computer programmer or a statistician, but does this line make anyone else nervous?
"Before that release I want to finish my analysis of the numbers produced by the engine vs. what's desired"  - so does this mean that he'll just force some other kind of artificial limiter on things to bend the numbers to what they are "supposed" to be?

ETA: I've got a guy shooting better than 55%, coz he takes his shots in close and is real athletic. Are his % numbers going to be lowered now just because they are "too high?"

Hopefully not. If you have a dominant post player, I think it's reasonable for him to be shooting 55%. But I do think that overall, shooting percentages are too high right now.

Of course, the proper way to do this would be involving Beta testers.

Posted by girt25 on 1/28/2011 9:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by dacj501 on 1/28/2011 8:53:00 AM (view original):
I'm neither a computer programmer or a statistician, but does this line make anyone else nervous?
"Before that release I want to finish my analysis of the numbers produced by the engine vs. what's desired"  - so does this mean that he'll just force some other kind of artificial limiter on things to bend the numbers to what they are "supposed" to be?

ETA: I've got a guy shooting better than 55%, coz he takes his shots in close and is real athletic. Are his % numbers going to be lowered now just because they are "too high?"

Hopefully not. If you have a dominant post player, I think it's reasonable for him to be shooting 55%. But I do think that overall, shooting percentages are too high right now.

Of course, the proper way to do this would be involving Beta testers.

he's a SF playing SG. He has taken no 3 pointers this year. He is a dribble drive slasher, and my team's leading scorer. I fully expect this to affect my team's production unless he manages to graduate before the change is implemented (fingers crossed!)

dac, between you and me, I know exactly which player you're talking about, and I do think he's overperformed the last two seasons. He's a very strong DII player, but should not be as dominant as he's been.

so I guess i should stop grooming my other new players to be like him for when they change things? Coz I have (understandably) been trying to find others like him and set my teams up in this manner, since it seems to be working...

Came into this late, I see nothing wrong with the idea to add some tools to calculate recruits, I would used them all the time, I sometimes do something like this, but if I had it as part of the game, I would use it, and enjoy it - I would put this in the category with calculating plus minus on the floor, which I think would even the playing field for all coaches which 'might' hurt me individually (assuming I have a better idea than most on who is plus and who is minus), but would be fun to see and use.

I don't see the harm, and each and every change is not going to be either yours or my number one priority, I sort of get this one, not saying it would have been my first choice, but there is nothing wrong with it,

my advice, go for it seble - but I would also leave the other rating system in place, when you change things, you want to add things that the 25% of the crowd that are change embracers will like, without making the other 75% angry by taking something away - by the way, that is not HD advice, actually is political strategy - but I think it fits HD very well - LOL