Minimum win rules Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/14/2010 3:56:00 PM (view original):

My "in jeopardy" number gets an owner booted from a world  I commish.     Your "in jeopardy" number is for your own amusement.    Surely you see the difference.

Nonetheless, if your extensive study is going to involve one of the worlds I commish, it will only be accurate if you use the number that will get an owner removed from said world.    If you want to use an abitrary number of your choosing, I suggest not wasting your time because whatever you find will be invalid.

Right here.  That's the difference.   Did you forget to read this?
10/14/2010 7:31 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/14/2010 4:04:00 PM (view original):

"In jeopardy" numbers for MG S17:

eblake - 60
cretins - 60
njohnson78 - 56
fletchkd - 81
danmam - 62
mike1184 - 59

Now, if you want to check trades involving those owners, you might "prove" something.   Otherwise, you're just making noise.

Another one you may have missed.
10/14/2010 7:33 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/14/2010 7:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/14/2010 3:56:00 PM (view original):

My "in jeopardy" number gets an owner booted from a world  I commish.     Your "in jeopardy" number is for your own amusement.    Surely you see the difference.

Nonetheless, if your extensive study is going to involve one of the worlds I commish, it will only be accurate if you use the number that will get an owner removed from said world.    If you want to use an abitrary number of your choosing, I suggest not wasting your time because whatever you find will be invalid.

Right here.  That's the difference.   Did you forget to read this?
Owners are booted from the world for being In Jeopardy? Or they booted from the world for not meeting the minimum amount of wins?

My study has nothing to do with owners who is booted from a world, it has to do with owners the season before they are booted.


10/14/2010 7:41 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Using smaller words, one is not "in jeopardy" unless they are "in jeopardy" of something.      You can just pick a number and say "They're in jeopardy!!!" and I'll ask "Of what?"      The name of the thread is "Minimum win rules".    That would lead a logical man to think one would have to be in jeopardy of failing to meet a minimum win rule in order to be in jeopardy of something.   

Sadly, you fail to understand this.  
10/14/2010 7:42 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
You have 6 owners on your list. Are the other 26 owners exempt from being booted if they go 0-162 this upcoming season? If they are exempt then your numbers is not arbitrary, but if they are not exempt then what statistical basis do you have that you did not assign some arbitrary numbers to back that these owners are in jeopardy and the other 26 owners are not in jeopardy?
10/14/2010 7:43 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/14/2010 7:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/14/2010 4:04:00 PM (view original):

"In jeopardy" numbers for MG S17:

eblake - 60
cretins - 60
njohnson78 - 56
fletchkd - 81
danmam - 62
mike1184 - 59

Now, if you want to check trades involving those owners, you might "prove" something.   Otherwise, you're just making noise.

Another one you may have missed.
Again, I'll ask you to read this post.   This is the list of owners who were "in jeopardy" of something at the conclusion of S16.   S17 has 3 games left in the season.   If you want to see how they reacted to "study" something, these are the owners to study.     Not the other guys.  They are not "in jeopardy" of anything at this point.
10/14/2010 7:44 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/14/2010 7:42:00 PM (view original):
Using smaller words, one is not "in jeopardy" unless they are "in jeopardy" of something.      You can just pick a number and say "They're in jeopardy!!!" and I'll ask "Of what?"      The name of the thread is "Minimum win rules".    That would lead a logical man to think one would have to be in jeopardy of failing to meet a minimum win rule in order to be in jeopardy of something.   

Sadly, you fail to understand this.  
I 100 percent understand it......What you fail to explain is why is 1 owner in jeopardy over another owner. What formula did you derive to come to the conclusion that those 6 owners are in jeopardy and the other 26 owners are not in jeopardy.....Do you have a formula backed by facts? Or a formula that you assigned arbitrary numbers.....That is what you fail to explain.
10/14/2010 7:45 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
No, you don't understand anything about this.    I'll move on.   I've got better things to do.   If you insist on continuing this nonsense after this post, I'll drop a brownline on it.  
10/14/2010 7:46 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/14/2010 7:44:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/14/2010 7:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/14/2010 4:04:00 PM (view original):

"In jeopardy" numbers for MG S17:

eblake - 60
cretins - 60
njohnson78 - 56
fletchkd - 81
danmam - 62
mike1184 - 59

Now, if you want to check trades involving those owners, you might "prove" something.   Otherwise, you're just making noise.

Another one you may have missed.
Again, I'll ask you to read this post.   This is the list of owners who were "in jeopardy" of something at the conclusion of S16.   S17 has 3 games left in the season.   If you want to see how they reacted to "study" something, these are the owners to study.     Not the other guys.  They are not "in jeopardy" of anything at this point.
Ok I think I better understand what you are trying to say.....However you can't have your standards based on how they performed after the fact.

. If someone went into the season needing 65 wins and with 3 games left in the season already has those 65 wins he will not be in jeopardy, but another owner who needed 60 wins going into the season has 59 wins would be in jeopardy. The problem is that when a coach is making trades he has yet to accumilate those wins, so more likely the latter coach who is now not in jeopardy would more likely have traded veterans for prospects than the first coach.
10/14/2010 7:48 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

No more.  Please see previous post.

10/14/2010 7:49 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
The reason is because if you judge after the fact, owners who traded prospects for veterans will tend to fare better. So your distorting or changing what I proclaimed.

I will be leaving for work soon and you wont have to worry.
10/14/2010 7:51 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I don't mind arguing with someone when we have a difference of opinion.   I don't believe you understand the words being used.    Please stop.
10/14/2010 7:56 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
I was on topic, no reason to report the post. It was accurate and true.
10/14/2010 7:56 PM
plague
Posts: 2330 (0)
Hall of Famer
18 1 201 602 203
Prospect
If you can't handle it then we have nothing to discuss about anything.
10/14/2010 7:58 PM
yoijames
Posts: 347 (0)
Hall of Famer
48 11 16
Prospect
hey guys, we need one more person in mike squires league, please some1 join before the weekend
10/14/2010 8:02 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8|9 Next ▸
Minimum win rules Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.