Posted by tecwrg on 9/8/2013 8:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 9/1/2013 3:37:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 8/31/2013 12:16:00 PM (view original):
Well, statistically speaking, you could put 32 drooling morons in a single HBD world, have them all win between 76-86 games out of mere random variation, and cry "PARITY, ************!!!".

IOW, statisitcs only tell part of the story.
I'm curious to see the proof of the competitiveness of "For Life" world, since the only thing you've provided so far is a count of 100+ W/L seasons.  Which, as pointed out in my earlier post, can also be achieved by a room full of drooling morons.
Don't think I ever saw a response to this.  Has usfdumbass ever offered anything beyond (a) a count of 100+ W/L seasons, or (b) repeating "WE'RE COMPETITIVE" to back his argument?
I haven't kept up my World Rankings in over two years, so my comparable set of data is certainly out of date, but For Life's seasons 8 and 9 would have put them in the Top 10 (#7 to be exact) of my rankings.

The worlds ahead of them (again, the data for those worlds is from mid-2011, so 10 or so seasons old and I don't know where they would be now) were Moneyball, Branch Rickey, Moonlight, LEG, No Quitters, and MLB (Cooperstown was #9)

Note that I was measuring competitive balance by looking at the standard deviation of wins, runs allowed, and unearned runs (short form measure of defensive tanking). None of those measures say anything about how "good" or "bad" For Life is, but from a competitive balance standpoint (call it "parity" if you will), it seems solid to me.
9/9/2013 12:54 PM
I miss USFB's meltdown.

FWIW, if the data is 10 or so seasons old, I'm not sure how For Life is even in the rankings.   They're waiting to fill S10.   Somebody has bad math. 
9/11/2013 8:17 AM
If they've had long waits during rollover (hardly a sign of a top-notch world), then that could explain how they were included in green's rankings from that long ago.

Of course, it probably also indicates that FL was only in S1 or S2 at the time of the rankings, which is hardly a large enough body of work to take the results with anything other than a large grain of salt.

BTW . . . usfmeltdown sent me a sitemail the other day which was literally a "cut and paste" of green's post above.  So HE still has not provided any meaningful "evidence" to back his argument.
9/11/2013 9:12 AM
They weren't included in those rankings - he said that if he took their season 8 and 9, and stuck it into the rankings he did back then, they would have been 7th.
9/11/2013 9:14 AM
Posted by AlCheez on 9/11/2013 9:14:00 AM (view original):
They weren't included in those rankings - he said that if he took their season 8 and 9, and stuck it into the rankings he did back then, they would have been 7th.
Correct. I took my data from that timeframe, and added For Life's most recent seasons to that data set.

9/11/2013 10:56 AM
O I C.

We generally ignore 'motown's posts in the MG world chat so I sort of half-assed his post here. 
9/11/2013 10:56 AM
◂ Prev 1...7|8|9

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of, 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.