The only other 2 times that this has happened over the 5+ years I've been here is the Oscar Robertson thing (which you arguing against was simply pathetic) and when I told you that Les Jepsen was wrong when you guys had him listed as an SG when he is a 7 footer...which brings up red flags in itself.

So twice in 5+ years tells me that the slippery slope isn't happening.

Again, there is a difference between correcting a listed position and changing effectiveness.

So I gave you one of each...still doesn't change the fact that its happened a whopping 2 times in 63 months.

Quote: Originally posted by seble on 8/25/2008Ultimately, it's much easier for us to devise a system that is as objective as possible given the limited data and stick to that system. Once we introduce manual changes, it becomes a slippery slope. I think it's more beneficial to the game to spend time working on improving engine accuracy and adding features than moderating an argument in the forums over whether Player X from 1975-76 should be 97% effective or 100% at SF.

Like the system that produced the outrageous offensive ranges? Yeah, that worked out really well for you, didn't it?

Spend time improving engine accuracy - that's cool.
What do you call having a player listed at and ineffective at the wrong position?

I call it inaccurate.
And you call it unimportant.

You have (arguably) the greatest player to ever play the game playing the wrong position in quite possibly his greatest statistical season ever.

That's not important? That's not worth taking the time to fix? How subjective is reading the words of the player and the coach themselves?

I've continued to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm starting to see why monkee and c19 are the way they are when it comes to you and the sim.

If you have evidence that he played the majority of the season there, I'll change his position to PG. What I saw from monkee indicated he played 24 games there.

ashamael,

The experiment only took place over the last portion of the '88-'89 season. It was initially successful as the Bulls won 11 of 14, but they lost 8 of their last 10 after Hodges got injured. (It could be argued that the team's initial success was due to Hodges being much more effective than Vincent or Paxson.)

The experiment received its death knoll when the Pistons adjusted their strategy to take advantage of Jordan playing point (in Game 4 of the conference finals). Jordan took only a handful of shots as the Pistons went on to reclaim home court advantage in the series. For Jordan, who already greatly disliked playing point, that was the last straw. When the Bulls went on to lose the series, his discontent was a major reason Collins got fired.

So yes, Jordan did play PG in that season, but for the season as a whole, he was primarily a SG. Do I sympathize with the argument that he should be able to play PG for that season? Somewhat. But I also can respect Seble's argument against making special adjustments to their basic rule of thumb for individual players. I do know that calling the system stupid isn't going to get anything changed.

If you want changes, you should approach it from the angle of a new guideline that can be applied to all players that would result in Jordan being PG eligible for that season. Frankly, I imagine that could end up creating more weirdness than it would solve however.

In the end, from a playability standpoint, there's no harm done here. Jordan is the same for anyone who wishes to play him.

the problem isnt that Jordan is an exception that needs to be addressed

the problem is that the system makes a player like Hodges a 100% PG while making a player like Jordan who actually played PG for significant minutes during the season and profiles like a PG not 100%

if part of the equation considers available minutes played by all players at that position on a specific team there is error #1 - Hodges was no PG - his assist % for that season is half Jordan's (who is also 10% higher than Paxson) - discount his minutes and the 88-89 Bulls only have 3400 minutes played at PG according to WiS and that includes Paxson who is also questionable as PG

so what is it about Hodges that marks him as PG in the current equation you ask? I would guess his height and nothing more - certainly there is nothing about his statistical profile that suggests he was anything other than a SG

as for Mike what is it about his statistical profile that makes him not eligible according to the equation: is it his scoring? there are other players like for instance AI (who was in fact a SG) or Tiny who are 100% while being the volume scorers on their teams - is it his rebounding? Not if Fat Lever or Darrell Walker are any examples

so what else is there?

if the system says he didnt play PG while in fact he did the system is flawed - if the system says that Hodges was a PG when in fact he played no minutes at the position and in no way conforms with the statistical profile then the system is flawed

it is not a question of an exception it is a question of necessary recalibration of the system - since assist% plays such a necessary role in the simulation give it more weight in the profile equation

dont forget that the weighting in the equation in question is product of certain somewhat subjective assumptions made by the programmers - it is not writ and obviously in this case it is not right - the question comes down to a difference between system output and reality - let's not find the fault with reality

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/25/2008
If you have evidence that he played the majority of the season there, I'll change his position to PG. What I saw from monkee indicated he played 24 games there.

You are being nothing but stubborn here Seble. You don't have to change his pos to PG, just make him 100% effective there! How hard is this??? You keep asking for proof when we've already stated that MJ and his own coach Collins explained how he was the PG. So what if he only started 24 games there, how many did Magic start at PF throughout his career and yet you have him 100% at PF for most of his seasons played. It's not about where he started it's about what he did for his team on the floor, and MJ played PG for that team! END OF ARGUMENT!!!!

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/25/2008
Again, there is a difference between correcting a listed position and changing effectiveness.

Than change MJ EFFECTIVENESS to 100% at PG for that 1 season and no others. How can you not agree with the fact that he belongs at 100% when you hvae already admitted that he started 24 games at the position???? How is that alone not enough to make him 100% effective there? Again answer me this question and let's see how foolish you are---How many games/mins did Magic play at PF for his career that you made him 100% EFFECTIVE for PF for most of the seasons he played?? PLEASE answer this question for me, because it's the same logic with MJ.

With Magic, it's not that he did, it's that he could.

With MJ, it's not that he did, it's that he couldn't (at least according to WIS).

The fact that WIS magic formula contradicts something, yet again, that is basketball fact, indicates serious problems in their approach.

Guys I explained how it works and when we're willing to make changes (i.e. when a listed position is incorrect). I appreciate your arguments, but trust me once we set a precedent of manually changing one guy it's going to open a can of worms that we just don't have time to manage.

The system is what it is. It's not perfect, but it's pretty darn good for being an objective system. And I think part of the whole thing is being misconstrued. He CAN play PG, but his performance will just suffer a bit. Personally I don't think playing less than a third of one season means that he was 100% effective at PG. Especially when he was really doing it just because they didn't have a good true PG.

Like I tried to explain, the system is not intended to reflect the positions they played in real life other than the listed position (which should be the primary position).

Scott, you still haven't answered the question how is Jordan's PG situation different from Johnson's PF situation?

The numbers indicate Magic could be 100% effective at PF. The numbers indicate Jordan would not be 100% effective at PG. They're not treated differently. Unless you're referring to Magic being listed at PF, but that's different because he actually played PF when he made that comeback.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/26/2008
The numbers indicate Magic could be 100% effective at PF. The numbers indicate Jordan would not be 100% effective at PG. They're not treated differently. Unless you're referring to Magic being listed at PF, but that's different because he actually played PF when he made that comeback.

Ridiculus, MJ could AND DID play PG that year it is documented!!! Magic BARELY played PF during his first run, yet you hvae him 100& because he "could", total contradiction. Just admit that you are stubborn and that is the reason you won't make this change! Monkee is correct, they should hire someone who knows basketball to help you out, because at this point you are clueless and stubborn. You could care less about making your customer base happy.