Posted by point_piper on 9/4/2012 4:11:00 PM (view original):

there is a way to know which players would react that way, you just aren't smart enough to know how. deal with that one

You're making that one up or you'd be saying what it is to show you're right.


He's not making that one up, the language in the h.s. coach e-mails and scouting visits can tell you whether a kid will be likely to take a big work ethic hit if he doesn't play much.  That's likely, but not certain, and it shouldn't be certain.  A 17-year-old kid may tell you he'd be okay with not playing or not playing very much, but three years later he may have changed his mind.  You can't predict that with certainty.

You just have to know the implications of other information provided to you by the h.s. coach or your own assistant.  The messages are not the least bit subtle.

right on. and there used to be (3 months ago)full pysch evals and little pysch visits to get the same information, in a less confusing albeit more expensive fashion.

seble removed these from the game to stop rookies from wasting their money on meaningless ****. i guess he didn't forsee that people would actually ***** if they weren't allowed to waste their money on this meaningless ****!

Weren't the psych evals like $1500?  And they gave you no recruiting credit?

Sure, let's bring those back.

gillespie,

Maybe we have different standards, but I consider a 59 rpi to be pretty good. Any team that ends up playing in the postseason is, to say the least, better than average and perhaps a great deal better.

But I'm not here to argue what constitutes a good team, so let's not get sidetracked into another senseless debate.

rednation,

When two seniors graduate, they will make room for him in my ten my rotation. Right now, there isn't room.

 

You recruited:

A slow PG that can't shoot, can't dribble and can't pass.

A PF that isn't particularly good at anything.

A Jr PF that isn't terrible career role player.

I remember as a new player making the mistake of calling the shrink (though never the full eval since it cost so much).  He always ended his report with roughly "Having said that, I could be wrong, call my assistant if you want to make another appointment."  Umm, thanks Doc.

Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 3:41:00 PM (view original):

I've never seen a difference in how players react to playing time. It may exist, but I haven't seen it. If it exists, there isn't any way to know which players would react in what way.

Even if it exists, it doesn't address the problem of my specific situation.

I'm not being a hypocrite at all. I don't hold anyone to any standard I don't have for myself.

 

funny how you claim to never change what you say. yet earlier, you say:
That's funny, because at one point WIS had coding for "character" which seemed to be more complex than a simple determination of "is the kid lazy or not", which is all I'm asking for.

All you'd need to do is have a simple system whereby either another rating or another variable determined the level of laziness of the kid and have coaches be able to research it somehow during recruiting, then have the kid respond appropriately during his career with your team.

any now you say, "even if it exists, it doesn't address the problem of my specific situation"

everything else i've said aside, can you please explain how these two are consistent? it seems pretty clear, either youve changed your opinion, or you are lying about your opinion, or you are just hell-bent on being a "whiny little *****", like you said about the player who complains over 5 minutes of playing time (on a related note, if him complaining about 5 minutes of playing time ONCE makes him a whiny little *****, what does complaining about it for 22 pages make you? ponder that one)

Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 4:35:00 PM (view original):
gillespie,

Maybe we have different standards, but I consider a 59 rpi to be pretty good. Any team that ends up playing in the postseason is, to say the least, better than average and perhaps a great deal better.

But I'm not here to argue what constitutes a good team, so let's not get sidetracked into another senseless debate.

rednation,

When two seniors graduate, they will make room for him in my ten my rotation. Right now, there isn't room.

 

You recruited:

A slow PG that can't shoot, can't dribble and can't pass.

A PF that isn't particularly good at anything.

A Jr PF that isn't terrible career role player.

Good work.

Thanks for your insight that was never asked for. It was also useless.

Everyone at DIII is working with flawed players, so you're going to find guys who are slow, guys who can't shoot, and guys who aren't particularly great at anything. that's what you have to work with.

Or maybe you could have pulled down some DI talent because you're just that great. Sorry I'm not you with that awesome power.

a_in_the_b,

A 56 SOS indicates a fairly strong schedule relative to the rest of the division. Thats' why I don't have more wins. There is a guy in my conference who is undefeated (I gave him a tough match but lost) whose SOS is way higher, and this team probably could have won a lot more games with a weaker SOS.

If you have a great measure of team quality, then by all means, expound upon it. Tell us all about your evaluation methods.

gillespie,

I do think I have a great team, and I consider a 59 rpi to be great enough for me. If you disagree, I'm willing to hear you out. Tell me what makes a team great and what rpi you would think as satisfactory for a great team, and then explain why my team doesn't fit that mold. I'd like to hear yours since it seems you disagree with mine.

Also, saying athletes SHOULD never lose work ethic doesn't mean it won't happen. That's why the word SHOULD  is in there. They SHOULD never lose work ethic, but IF they do (yes, I used that word too) then I'd probably want to kick them off the team. 

You keep saying this is a change and it never was. Never is still never, but apparently you missed the context. And when you miss something, then you'll just blame me for it and say I changed.  Nice try.

how many human coaches are there in your d3 world? considering d3 worlds are generally the lowest quality of coaches (compared to d2 and d1 worlds), and definitely with the highest population of coaches who are rookies trying to grasp the basics, i would say you have to be substantially better than at the 50% mark for humans. beating sims is worth NOTHING. if you cant regularly beat sims, you are literally among the worst coaches who have ever played the game. i would say anywhere in the 25-75% mark (meaning, your ranking among human coaches) is AVERAGE, and by definition, AVERAGE is not great. i don't know how many humans are in your d3 world, but the smart money says you are safely in that 25-75% mark.

oh jesus. you are playing in d3 knight. yeah, making the post season in d3 knight is not great, now we REALLY know you are living on another planet :) d3 knight is really weak, and you consider making the post season a great deal better than average? for that to be true, a great deal less than half of humans have to make the post season. i'll eat my words if half the humans dont make the post season, i'd guess (without even knowing how many humans there are there) that over 75% of humans make the post season. you inhereted a b- prestige team in decent shape. simply put, if you don't make the post season, you have to be one of the worst coaches in the game, easily bottom 10%

i take back what i said about you possibly being able to call your team moderately good, or decent. they are plain bad. case in point:

if you consider beating 200+ rpi sims to be worth anything, you are literally 1) a complete and total idiot, 2) completely and totally delusional, or 3) completely and totally mentally handicapped. ill let you choose which of the 3 that would make you, it matters little to me.

lets look at your record against sims in the top 200 rpi. it should be pretty good, or else, you are damn bad. if you disagree, you are one of 3 things... see above :)

anyway, you have played EIGHT sims in the top 200 rpi. their rpis were a very UNIMPRESSIVE 45, 46, 104, 153, 153, 166, 168, 177, thats an average of 127

your record? 3-5. YES, THREE AND FIVE. that is TERRIBLE.

great would be something like, being in the top 10% of humans, and thats probably very generous for d3 knight. your performance, given the quality of your team, is probably in the BOTTOM 10% of humans. you call that great? wow. just wow. when you are able to go better than 3-5 against a group of 8 sims with an average rpi of 127, then you might be able to claim not to be horrible. but not now.

if i was playing for you, starting or not, and i was a real player, i'd be ******. you want realism? your whole fricken team should be at -30 work ethic.

you've made me feel bad now, i feel like this is the first mean post ive made in a good while. the rest of my posts here can hardly be classified as mean, you are being a stubborn mule, some humor is in order. i feel bad now, i didn't realize you were such a bad coach, and i don't like to tell people how bad they are at this game. i thought u were a half way decent coach who just got his head stuck up his *** in one thread. sigh. well, you've taken the fight out of me. i can argue with you no longer. now i just feel bad for you.

really, best of luck turning this team around. that junior, hes not going to help you do it. but your incoming players are not god awful, i think they are more than capable of going .500 against a pool of 127 rpi average sims. my advice is to stop worrying about him, and stop wasting your time arguing about nothing, and try to figure out how to get more out of your team. your team is a lot better than they are playing right now, that should be your focus. you still have time to turn things around, your conference is pretty weak, you could still pull a CT title and make the NT. or hell, you might even make it without winning the CT. but if you want to make use of the talent your team does have, you really need to get them playing better for the post season. good luck!

Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 4:35:00 PM (view original):
gillespie,

Maybe we have different standards, but I consider a 59 rpi to be pretty good. Any team that ends up playing in the postseason is, to say the least, better than average and perhaps a great deal better.

But I'm not here to argue what constitutes a good team, so let's not get sidetracked into another senseless debate.

rednation,

When two seniors graduate, they will make room for him in my ten my rotation. Right now, there isn't room.

 

You recruited:

A slow PG that can't shoot, can't dribble and can't pass.

A PF that isn't particularly good at anything.

A Jr PF that isn't terrible career role player.

Good work.

Thanks for your insight that was never asked for. It was also useless.

Everyone at DIII is working with flawed players, so you're going to find guys who are slow, guys who can't shoot, and guys who aren't particularly great at anything. that's what you have to work with.

Or maybe you could have pulled down some DI talent because you're just that great. Sorry I'm not you with that awesome power.

a_in_the_b,

A 56 SOS indicates a fairly strong schedule relative to the rest of the division. Thats' why I don't have more wins. There is a guy in my conference who is undefeated (I gave him a tough match but lost) whose SOS is way higher, and this team probably could have won a lot more games with a weaker SOS.

If you have a great measure of team quality, then by all means, expound upon it. Tell us all about your evaluation methods.

gillespie,

I do think I have a great team, and I consider a 59 rpi to be great enough for me. If you disagree, I'm willing to hear you out. Tell me what makes a team great and what rpi you would think as satisfactory for a great team, and then explain why my team doesn't fit that mold. I'd like to hear yours since it seems you disagree with mine.

Also, saying athletes SHOULD never lose work ethic doesn't mean it won't happen. That's why the word SHOULD  is in there. They SHOULD never lose work ethic, but IF they do (yes, I used that word too) then I'd probably want to kick them off the team. 

You keep saying this is a change and it never was. Never is still never, but apparently you missed the context. And when you miss something, then you'll just blame me for it and say I changed.  Nice try.

I would think it safe to say that number eighty on the projection report, the last and lowest of bubble teams, does not fit any reasonable definition of "great"

how many humans coach in d3 knight a_in_the_b? if you just sort by rpi, check how many teams fit on a page, and then sort by coach and count the number of pages, that rough number is more than close enough for me! 

The two statements are consistent because one is going by a scenario in which there is no way to tell if a kid "is lazy or not". The other works under the hypothetical that such a system does exist, but it doesn't apply to my situation anyway. They exist under separate circumstances.

Thank you for telling me how you rank human coaches. Could you please  tell me how you rank teams, especially when it comes to rpi and what is considered good by you? How do you rate teams talent wise?

109, 110' something like that.

My record against the sims is terrible according to you, and yet there isn't much I could have done differently to change the outcomes of the games I lost. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. I can accept that.

Like I said though i don't see how the team could do much (if any) better by my changing a few settings. I dont' think I'm a "bad coach" just because some of those games were losses. It happens. I don't let it get me down.

Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):
The two statements are consistent because one is going by a scenario in which there is no way to tell if a kid "is lazy or not". The other works under the hypothetical that such a system does exist, but it doesn't apply to my situation anyway. They exist under separate circumstances.

Thank you for telling me how you rank human coaches. Could you please  tell me how you rank teams, especially when it comes to rpi and what is considered good by you? How do you rate teams talent wise?

I would think it safe to say that number eighty on the projection report, the last and lowest of bubble teams, does not fit any reasonable definition of "great"

I consider my team to be great based upon my own standards, which are all that matter to me.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider great a in the b?

Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):
My record against the sims is terrible according to you, and yet there isn't much I could have done differently to change the outcomes of the games I lost. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. I can accept that.

Like I said though i don't see how the team could do much (if any) better by my changing a few settings. I dont' think I'm a "bad coach" just because some of those games were losses. It happens. I don't let it get me down.

you have PLENTY you could do. you should have went 8-0 against those sims, and at least 7-1. 80% of the coaches posting in this thread would have went 8-0 or 7-1 the vast majority of the time, and im being generous with that 80% figure, its probably higher.

you seemed to ask half way decent questions in some of your other threads... im pretty sure i obliged with some decent advice in those. thats why i am so surprised to see your team performing so badly. i guess from this thread, i shouldnt be, but thats not the point. anyway, point is, id be happy to offer you some sound advice in other threads, if you'd resume the reasonable disposition on display in those threads. keep an open mind, and none of this "i am god of logic" stuff.

you really did yourself a disservice here in this thread. a lot of coaches lost a lot of respect for you. these forums are a fantastic place to get advice and guidance, and i thought you were getting some pretty decent advice and guidance prior to this thread. i'm aware of who most of the coaches in this thread are, and i can guarantee you that every single one of them (every single one of the ones i recognize their name) has a lot you could learn from them. and who knows how many poor souls chanced to read this thread without posting. i tried to tell you earlier, cut your losses and drop the argument. i sincerely mean that. you just hurt your chances of getting good responses in future threads. like i said, id be happy to offer you some advice in other threads, but i also tend to be more forgiving than some.

given the performance of this team, you really do need a good deal of help. don't burn the bridges over such a silly argument. its easy for someone to get in to deep in a situation like this, a bunch of coaches have done it, myself included - but they have bounced back and restored their forum reputation. you may not care, but if you care about being a good coach, you should. in all seriousness, please think about that. i like to see coaches succeed, i like to see the forums be the helpful place they can be, and there is no reason that cannot be the case for you. but you rapidly hurt the chances of that being the case. already, its almost guaranteed you get some snarky remarks in future threads when you say something innocent that gets taken the wrong way. don't make it any worse than that, its just not worth it. you gain nothing by convincing anyone in this thread of your position, and its pretty clear that will never happen.