ODL - Team Rosters & Commentary Topic

I agree with all of this but is it shocking?

Isn't this just how life works? Picking up women is about this too. You can't KNOW (well not me anyway lol) that you will go home with someone but if you a) minimize negatives (don't smell, don't be annoying, don't insult her) and maximize positives (alcohol, be funny, more alcohol)....more often than not you will do well. Don't look at single night outcomes (sometimes you turn it over 35 times and she goes home with Gus Johnson) but over the long haul those who follow the right pattern will do the best.
12/6/2013 7:45 AM
Posted by scudmissle on 12/6/2013 3:55:00 AM (view original):
Posted by felonius on 12/6/2013 2:39:00 AM (view original):
yep, sorry - the successful owners are the ones who understand how to shift the odds into their favor and so 'on average' they tend to win
that's not what i'm referring to, monk... what "can't be right, not all the time" refers to the bleekness of which you paint. to me, wis is not really dark art. or sinister, or cold hard facts and sobering equations, or even shifting the odds and likelys to one's favor. to me, it's like the morning newspaper. it comes everyday. it's there when i want it. it's laughable and dramatic. it's my hobby.  
I think that's a healthy approach - to me WiS is like when you open your door in the morning and sometimes there's a cute little kitten on your porch and other times it's like a bum has taken a runny crap on your welcome mat and strangled said kitten
12/6/2013 12:55 PM (edited)
Name Pos Usage% 2pt%# 3pt%# eFG% OReb% DReb% Ast% Stl% Blk%
72-73 Artis Gilmore C 19.6 56.0 50.4 56.0 12.9 28.7 9.0 1.3 4.2
06-07 Shawn Marion SF 19.5 58.5 31.6 56.1 6.6 21.1 5.2 2.3 2.3
02-03 Tracy McGrady SF 35.4 48.3 38.6 50.5 4.3 13.7 18.7 1.9 1.2
12-13 Al Horford PF 21.9 54.2 49.8 54.5 7.9 21.6 11.2 1.3 1.6
77-78 Don Buse PG 11.8 50.7 34.8 51.2 2.2 7.3 16.3 2.7 0.3
95-96 Michael Smith PF 12.3 60.1 100.0 60.7 11.6 20.2 10.6 1.5 2.0
75-76 Mike Barr PG 12.9 52.7 37.8 52.9 2.6 7.2 17.7 2.4 0.3
12/6/2013 6:38 PM
Posted by smokey57 on 12/6/2013 4:29:00 PM (view original):

Team ScoMo
                                               use%   2pt%    3pt%    efg%  orb% drb%  ast% stl%  bk%     def     pos

Karl Malone 96-97               32.7    55.3       0.0      55.0     8.3    23.4    15.6   1.8    1.0       90       C

Bill Bridges 68-69               14.5     47.5     31.3     46.8   10.9    23.9    11.1   1.3    1.4       80      PF

George Gervin 77-78          29.5     53.4       0.0     53.6     4.3      9.8     11.0   1.8    1.9       79      SF

Micheal Williams 91-92     19.1     49.8     24.5     49.5     3.0      7.8     26.8    3.5    0.4      80      PG

Paul Pressey 85-86            18.6     50.0    19.0      49.2     5.0    10.6    25.3    2.5    1.5      93      SG

Charlie Edge 73-74            17.7    50.1        0.0      50.0   12.8   20.4      4.2    1.3    1.9       85      SF/SG

Chris Dudley 91-92            13.2    40.0        0.0      40.3   17.4   21.9      3.4    0.8     5.2      69      C/PF

18k min's @ $45m

7 drafted players

12/6/2013 6:59 PM
I'd say it's more poker than blackjack or dice, which are more random.  Anyone can have a run of good/bad luck, but the best owners are consistently successful and will win more over time.  But I do agree that minimizing the effect of swings is big - don't put too many eggs in one basket, or you're vulnerable to one bad shooting night or a quick foul out killing you (side note: my current team follows this advice HORRIBLY. I depend on TMac for scoring and will lose any game where Gilmore sits with foul trouble). Balance is good.

Also to weigh in to the earlier discussion - I'm a feel/numbers hybrid.  I don't ever use spreadsheets to play this game, and I don't take a pure analytical approach, and I try to mix up who I pick for fun, but I am looking a lot at the underlying advanced #s and building my team with certain numbers goals in mind.

I doubt I have much useful to say besides what's been said already, but probably something that's helped me a lot (and continues to guide my team-building) is this: focus on the team as a whole, not individuals.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen people say "you need x assists from your point guard" or "you need x rebounds from the 4 and the 5." Poppycock. It doesn't matter where it comes from, just that it's there. That's why the goal in the first two rounds always should be to get as many positives and as few negatives together in 2 guys as you can, so you can fill in later with guys who have big positives in few categories (of which there are many.

Basically you are looking for this in players:

low fouls
low turnovers

If you can check most of those boxes in your 1st/2nd round picks, you can better afford the guys who give you 2 or 3 of those things later.  This is why guys like Jerry Lucas will always be high on my draft board.

12/6/2013 7:26 PM
It's kinda like poker, but there's more short term luck/randomness in poker.
12/6/2013 7:56 PM
sadly, you know what it's not like? basketball
12/6/2013 8:19 PM
Eh, but what do you expect? It's a computer. I'd definitely like some more flexibility in terms of coaching options (for example, ability to pick complete lineups, not just each position individually) and would like to see some players' abilities reflected more accurately (Bill Russell), but it's better than any other simulated game option I've come across. If there were anything better we'd be playing it.

And not to mention, basketball itself has become a lot more "formulaic" and analytical in recent years (or at least, teams have started applying the numbers more). Math is in, baby.

12/6/2013 8:22 PM
It's like basketball if basketball were like the modern NFL. Anyone betting ATS weekly knows the perils of variance in the nfl
12/6/2013 8:33 PM
I call it "seven card hold'em..in a basketball jersey". There is a fair chunk of randomness, but also a fair chunk of skill is required to play well. I also think it is a good representation of basketball if you let it be. I pay attention to my advance# while I build with no paticular formula but a 65 league feel for what I'll get. Then I think BASKETBALL...and "what if". That's how you end up pairing Malone with Gervin, or Vince Carter...lol. GL
12/6/2013 9:04 PM (edited)
or , billy b!
12/7/2013 1:03 AM
scud, let me get a shovel, I'll help you dig that hole a lil' deeper... 
12/7/2013 6:15 PM


This is from the totals in the current 90's DDL. These 2 guy's have been swapping that #1 pts spot all season..2 games to go!!! Karl is clearing a spot in his trophy room as I post this..not even close Mikeeee!! As I looked at this I thought the 3pt differential was interesting..hmmm. Basicly two ways to arrive at the same place. Malone had 2248pts IRL, it appears he'll go +300pts. I never pushed karl this season, he was set for 36 mpg most the time. The extra pts may be the result of team design.

                                                                               min     pts     fgm    fga      3pm   3pta   ftm    fta        MVP
95-96 Michael Jordan Armageddon    3087  2511    989   2081    142    340   391  477     43 (#2)

96-97 Karl Malone Twelve Monkey's   2968  2510  1039   1781         1      16   431  578     46 (#1)

I don't think Karl will get the MVP in the ODL, but.....

12/7/2013 7:42 PM (edited)
Ya, I shot my mouth off in the draft and said I'd make Karl MVP...nah-nah!!!  
12/7/2013 7:13 PM
Man oh man, that $47 mill cap is a beotch!  Love my starters but my bench absolutely BLOWS, due to lack of cash left.  

Anyone else face this issue or did I just draft like a moron?
12/7/2013 7:41 PM
◂ Prev 1...9|10|11|12|13 Next ▸
ODL - Team Rosters & Commentary Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.