is there a non-painful way to calculate plus/minus on the floor?  I would see the value of that data, but have not tried to work through each play by play by hand to see it.....

Posted by fd343ny on 1/28/2011 1:18:00 PM (view original):
is there a non-painful way to calculate plus/minus on the floor?  I would see the value of that data, but have not tried to work through each play by play by hand to see it.....

only way I know of is by hand, I've done it for lots of real life games, so I am pretty quick at it, I've probably done it for 50-100 HD games for various reasons, but it would be a really nice, fun, and useful addition.

I have asked CS a few times for it, not that it would be a remarkable upgrade, but I think near every coach would use it as one of their top analysis tools if they had it, would answer some ?'s like does a 10 def hi scorer help more than his 80 def 2 ppg backup?

Posted by oldresorter on 1/28/2011 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by fd343ny on 1/28/2011 1:18:00 PM (view original):
is there a non-painful way to calculate plus/minus on the floor?  I would see the value of that data, but have not tried to work through each play by play by hand to see it.....

only way I know of is by hand, I've done it for lots of real life games, so I am pretty quick at it, I've probably done it for 50-100 HD games for various reasons, but it would be a really nice, fun, and useful addition.

I have asked CS a few times for it, not that it would be a remarkable upgrade, but I think near every coach would use it as one of their top analysis tools if they had it, would answer some ?'s like does a 10 def hi scorer help more than his 80 def 2 ppg backup?

wow that's just something i cant see myself doing at any point (calculating +/- by hand). while i will find the time/effort to calculate player rating to team success correlations, this i cannot fathom.

Just saw this so thought I'd add my $ .02.

Personally, I like the idea a lot.  As others said, I do this anyway using a spreadsheet I created 3 years ago, but the copy/paste gets annoying.

This seems like a logical improvement that would make the game more enjoyable.  I don't really understand the opposition.



 

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.

+1 on the beta tester thing. i think with games, creators often worry, does letting beta testers play early give them an advantage? and will the info leak to the public? virtually every game out there that gets updated faces these same issues.

my claim is, you are beta testing either way. either you do it with a small set of people, or everyone. that pretty much concludes my argument. it may not be clear to everybody, but it should be clear to anybody in software development - that is all you need to know. its a no brainer at that point.

edit: i will concede that maybe, every small change doesn't need to be beta tested. depends on how critical what you are messing with is, if its something people run their business on, or a game people waste time playing, the bar is obviously much different. but its still the right way to do things, and there is 0 question in my mind at least that this game could have benefited at a number of points of time from opening things up to beta testing.

bump

Posted by dacj501 on 1/28/2011 11:42:00 AM (view original):
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...

How right this statement is proving to have been...

I like the idea because I don't have the time to set up a spreadsheet to do the same thing. I'm also in a conference that doesn't get a lot of tournament money, so i never have the extra cash to do FSS because I add guys to my watch list from all over the country. I basically have to do it in my head as I look at each of the players that meet a certain criteria depending on whether I'm looking for a Guard or a Post player, than add them to my watch list and than go back over the list a few more times as recruiting starts to get a gameplan in my head as to which guys I want to go after first.

I agree with Girt also on one of his points, there are a few other things that need some attention. So I would say for now let's try Seble's spreadsheet idea and see if it works and than while we're (beta testing live) the spreadsheet idea, he can start working on some of Girt's beefs.

Posted by seble on 1/26/2011 4:01:00 PM (view original):
This would only affect the Overall Rating.  The individual ratings would still be visible the same way they are today.  It's not necessarily meant to be the only thing you need to evaluate a player, just to be much more useful than the current Overall Rating, which is simply the total of the individual ratings.  A thorough coach would still look over all the individual ratings as well.

I think this has the potential to take some of the fun out of the game. What I mean by this is that the reason I play is to analyze the players as much as possible to gain whatever edge I can. It's rewarding to put in the effort and get the players I know are better by analyzing them more closely. If there is a tool to automatically do this for everyone, then there will be no edge for the guys that have already made their own spreadsheet and work harder than everybody else to get what they want.

Don't take that the wrong way though, I think it's a cool idea. Just my .02

Posted by bdpoor on 7/21/2011 7:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 1/26/2011 4:01:00 PM (view original):
This would only affect the Overall Rating.  The individual ratings would still be visible the same way they are today.  It's not necessarily meant to be the only thing you need to evaluate a player, just to be much more useful than the current Overall Rating, which is simply the total of the individual ratings.  A thorough coach would still look over all the individual ratings as well.

I think this has the potential to take some of the fun out of the game. What I mean by this is that the reason I play is to analyze the players as much as possible to gain whatever edge I can. It's rewarding to put in the effort and get the players I know are better by analyzing them more closely. If there is a tool to automatically do this for everyone, then there will be no edge for the guys that have already made their own spreadsheet and work harder than everybody else to get what they want.

Don't take that the wrong way though, I think it's a cool idea. Just my .02

i like this kind of discussion - i think its a concern voiced by many. in particular, my concern pertains to formula sharing. if OR decided to share his formula, for example's sake, not that i think he would - but anyway, say OR decides he has a great formula and shares it with everybody. now, all the people who have worked hard on their own are essentially at a disadvantage if they don't throw it away - assuming OR has the best formula (and even if its just top 10%, then still a lot of people who worked hard would benefit by just adopting OR's). further, if everybody goes wow, he really nailed it - we will all be seeing recruits in the same sorted order. not really a great thing.

on the flip side, anybody who has tried to build this formula themselves knows its not an easy thing. you simple can't come up with one per position that will accurately rank players. the point, IMO, is to simply group the best players at the top, to reduce the number of manual inspections. never to eliminate manual inspections.

because of the cross-effect of ratings - for example, 90 per is not absolute, its worth more on a player with 90 spd than 30 spd - you can't come up with a perfect formula with a simple coefficient by rating equation. so, i think that is the way to go - it stops formulas from becoming arbitrarily complex, it caps how "perfect" a formula could be, and the combination of those 2 IMO makes it a much safer thing to implement. that way, even if OR shares his formula, it still can never be the be-all and end-all.

Posted by bdpoor on 7/21/2011 7:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 1/26/2011 4:01:00 PM (view original):
This would only affect the Overall Rating.  The individual ratings would still be visible the same way they are today.  It's not necessarily meant to be the only thing you need to evaluate a player, just to be much more useful than the current Overall Rating, which is simply the total of the individual ratings.  A thorough coach would still look over all the individual ratings as well.

I think this has the potential to take some of the fun out of the game. What I mean by this is that the reason I play is to analyze the players as much as possible to gain whatever edge I can. It's rewarding to put in the effort and get the players I know are better by analyzing them more closely. If there is a tool to automatically do this for everyone, then there will be no edge for the guys that have already made their own spreadsheet and work harder than everybody else to get what they want.

Don't take that the wrong way though, I think it's a cool idea. Just my .02

I agree and disagree with you- maybe it's the old school in me, but I miss the days you could just change the web address, and see all of the players, plug them into excel, use your formula, and then go from there.  I understand the arguments about letting those who spend the most time succeed, but my counter-argument is I also don't want this game to become one where only those who can spend 5 hours a day can win.

Posted by asher413 on 7/21/2011 2:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bdpoor on 7/21/2011 7:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 1/26/2011 4:01:00 PM (view original):
This would only affect the Overall Rating.  The individual ratings would still be visible the same way they are today.  It's not necessarily meant to be the only thing you need to evaluate a player, just to be much more useful than the current Overall Rating, which is simply the total of the individual ratings.  A thorough coach would still look over all the individual ratings as well.

I think this has the potential to take some of the fun out of the game. What I mean by this is that the reason I play is to analyze the players as much as possible to gain whatever edge I can. It's rewarding to put in the effort and get the players I know are better by analyzing them more closely. If there is a tool to automatically do this for everyone, then there will be no edge for the guys that have already made their own spreadsheet and work harder than everybody else to get what they want.

Don't take that the wrong way though, I think it's a cool idea. Just my .02

I agree and disagree with you- maybe it's the old school in me, but I miss the days you could just change the web address, and see all of the players, plug them into excel, use your formula, and then go from there.  I understand the arguments about letting those who spend the most time succeed, but my counter-argument is I also don't want this game to become one where only those who can spend 5 hours a day can win.

I understand your point, and I wouldn't want people to have to "live the game" in order to win. Like I said I like the idea, I just think that the developer would have to be very careful how it is done because it could make things too easy.

Posted by bdpoor on 7/21/2011 7:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 1/26/2011 4:01:00 PM (view original):
This would only affect the Overall Rating.  The individual ratings would still be visible the same way they are today.  It's not necessarily meant to be the only thing you need to evaluate a player, just to be much more useful than the current Overall Rating, which is simply the total of the individual ratings.  A thorough coach would still look over all the individual ratings as well.

I think this has the potential to take some of the fun out of the game. What I mean by this is that the reason I play is to analyze the players as much as possible to gain whatever edge I can. It's rewarding to put in the effort and get the players I know are better by analyzing them more closely. If there is a tool to automatically do this for everyone, then there will be no edge for the guys that have already made their own spreadsheet and work harder than everybody else to get what they want.

Don't take that the wrong way though, I think it's a cool idea. Just my .02

No offense, but I find complaints about using computers for their intended purpose lame.  I don't think rewarding those that spend the most time on the game doing grunt work a computer is better suited for is a good idea.

Posted by _hannibal_ on 7/21/2011 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bdpoor on 7/21/2011 7:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 1/26/2011 4:01:00 PM (view original):
This would only affect the Overall Rating.  The individual ratings would still be visible the same way they are today.  It's not necessarily meant to be the only thing you need to evaluate a player, just to be much more useful than the current Overall Rating, which is simply the total of the individual ratings.  A thorough coach would still look over all the individual ratings as well.

I think this has the potential to take some of the fun out of the game. What I mean by this is that the reason I play is to analyze the players as much as possible to gain whatever edge I can. It's rewarding to put in the effort and get the players I know are better by analyzing them more closely. If there is a tool to automatically do this for everyone, then there will be no edge for the guys that have already made their own spreadsheet and work harder than everybody else to get what they want.

Don't take that the wrong way though, I think it's a cool idea. Just my .02

No offense, but I find complaints about using computers for their intended purpose lame.  I don't think rewarding those that spend the most time on the game doing grunt work a computer is better suited for is a good idea.

I wouldn't call what the experienced guys do on this game grunt work, I would say that they have it more down to a science

Posted by bdpoor on 7/21/2011 10:07:00 PM (view original):

Posted by _hannibal_ on 7/21/2011 7:41:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bdpoor on 7/21/2011 7:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by seble on 1/26/2011 4:01:00 PM (view original):
This would only affect the Overall Rating.  The individual ratings would still be visible the same way they are today.  It's not necessarily meant to be the only thing you need to evaluate a player, just to be much more useful than the current Overall Rating, which is simply the total of the individual ratings.  A thorough coach would still look over all the individual ratings as well.

I think this has the potential to take some of the fun out of the game. What I mean by this is that the reason I play is to analyze the players as much as possible to gain whatever edge I can. It's rewarding to put in the effort and get the players I know are better by analyzing them more closely. If there is a tool to automatically do this for everyone, then there will be no edge for the guys that have already made their own spreadsheet and work harder than everybody else to get what they want.

Don't take that the wrong way though, I think it's a cool idea. Just my .02

No offense, but I find complaints about using computers for their intended purpose lame.  I don't think rewarding those that spend the most time on the game doing grunt work a computer is better suited for is a good idea.

I wouldn't call what the experienced guys do on this game grunt work, I would say that they have it more down to a science

This change really has no impact for people that do the whole spreadsheet analysis and stuff. No one recruits on the initial rating or a value weighted system based on initial rating (which is what this update does). People should recruit based on projected rating in terms of potential, which is not covered in this update. If you want to pull up some macros and import recruiting data into excel and do projection, you still have a huge edge.