Near future plans Topic

colonels19
Posts: 4398 (0)
Hall of Famer
54 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/26/2008



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.

Stop using this as an excuse, because I already put that to bed. You made 2 changes in 63 months, and one of them was for a guy that's no longer in the sim (Les Jepsen)...there is no and nor will there be a slippery slope here.

By the way Hurley is 100% right about the Magic PF, MJ PG thing.

8/26/2008 12:24 PM
monkee
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 192 7 7
Prospect
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.

the numbers you weighted yourself based on certain assumptions you made (dont treat them as if they are some sacred text not subject to scrutiny)

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.

and Mike actually played PG in 88-89 he started 24 games at that position

Magic only started 9 games at PF in 95-96

(and played in 32 logging 958 minutes - about the same minutes that Mike averaging 40mpg x 24 gms logged as starting PG in 88-89 (and not counting any minutes he may have played in the course of other games at that position during the season)
8/26/2008 1:57 PM
naboimp
Posts: 2 (0)
Pro
11
Prospect
Be consistent. If you are going to assume Jordan played partially at PG during the prior 58 games, then you've got to likewise assume he didn't only play at PG in the final 24. (And this is especially true for the 13 games where Hodges was out.)

I'm sure you know the current basis for position effectiveness is 100% at the primary position played plus a calculated effectiveness percentage at the other positions based upon some set of comparisons to typical players for the position. Since there is no question that Jordan was primarily a SG, even in '88-'89, if you want Jordan to be 100% eligible at PG, you need to make a case for tweaking the comparison calculations such that he is. Perhaps there needs to be less emphasis on height and weight and more on assist percentage?

Still, any change here will impact more than just Jordan, which is as it should be. Seble has continually said he won't make an exception for a single player, and however stubborn that position is, there are valid reasons for it.

Seble is certainly applying the rules as they exist consistently. If the rules are wrong, that is where this discussion should be centered, in which case focus on just Jordan is getting you nowhere. Jordan certainly had decent stats in that 24 game PG stint, but there's no way to prove or disprove that he couldn't have been more effective as an SG over that period. Thus, that argument is going nowhere as well.
8/26/2008 2:37 PM
jakotay
Posts: 608 (0)
Hall of Famer
14 342 38 8 15 24 24 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By naboimp on 8/26/2008
Perhaps there needs to be less emphasis on height and weight and more on assist percentage?

This is my thought as well... for PGs. But I think the idea is to have a universal formula so lowering height and weight means alot more C's could become SF's. So I think the inputs used to determine position effectiveness are what needs to be looked at since changing one weigthed input could lead to other issues.
8/26/2008 2:47 PM
monkee
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 192 7 7
Prospect
naboimp not sure you read this (but it sounds like we are on the same page)

Quote: Originally Posted By monkee on 8/25/2008




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

as for Jordan being the exception - they already made an exception for Oscar when the position %s were first issued (and no floodgates opened) and I suspect that Mike's 88-89 season suffers from the same factors that originally impacted those Big O seasons (i.e. too big, too many boards, too much scoring)
8/26/2008 2:52 PM
ashamael
Posts: 12452 (9)
Hall of Famer
515 19
All Star
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
8/26/2008 8:12 PM
kfunk
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
29 294 12 2 30 5 1
Prospect
the formula isn't inconsistent; it may be faulty, in need of tweaking... but the formula that is used is consistently applied to all players. no double standards, either. that is, arguably, part of the problem - a statistical, mathematical system does not easily account for the extraordinary, so there is absolutely no double standard or inconsistency, when maybe there ought to be
8/26/2008 9:20 PM
hurley711
Posts: 0 (0)
All Star
23
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By ashamael on 8/26/2008
Quote: Originally posted by seble on 8/26/2008The 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.
What numbers make Jordan effective at point guard? The 32ppg? (Oscar, Jerry West, tiny archibald)
The 8.0rpg? (Oscar, Magic himself, jason kidd, darrell walker)
The 8.0apg? (oh wait, many many many MANY MANY 100% point guards that have no other 100% positions have much less than 8.0apg)
The turnovers?
I fail to see any number that indicates Jordan would not be as effective at point guard (for that season) than Magic at Power forward (for any season).

I do see one number, the almost 1000 minutes he played during the 24 games in which he played point guard, that seems to be overlooked. You look at is as less than a third of the season.

How much of the season did Oscar play shooting guard and small forward?
How much of the season did Magic play sg, sf and pf?
How many minutes did Glen Rice play shooting guard vs small forward?
Charles Barkley sf/pf in Phoenix (always said PF on my TV screen)?
Just how many minutes did Hakeem Olajuwon play Power Forward after Ralph Sampson the team?
How about David Robinson before Tim Duncan?
How many minutes did Bill Russell spend playing Power Forward?

Oh, but the numbers indicate that they could have played those positions?

...

I'm almost speechless.

How about the Bulls 2nd three-peat? You seem to have failed to answer that one. The starting line-up was mj, Harper, pippen, rodman and a tall, white boy (lonley, perdue, wennington) in the pivot. Yet other than one season, neither mj, harper nor pippen have 100% at point guard. You've got bench guys with 100% at point guard, but their starting five is sg-sg-sf-pf-c. Who played point? Who?? I always thought it was Harper during that particular set of years, though Pippen acted much more like the point than he ever did.

You talk about inconsistencies and trying to avoid them.

Your whole sim is full of inconsistencies and double standards.



A -fcking -Men
8/26/2008 9:40 PM
ashamael
Posts: 12452 (9)
Hall of Famer
515 19
All Star
Quote: Originally posted by kfunk on 8/26/2008the formula isn't inconsistent; it may be faulty, in need of tweaking... but the formula that is used is consistently applied to all players.  no double standards, either.  that is, arguably, part of the problem - a statistical, mathematical system does not easily account for the extraordinary, so there is absolutely no double standard or inconsistency, when maybe there ought to be

Sure there are.

re-read the list of players I just posted off the top of my head who are listed for multiple positions during almost (and in some cases, every) year they played that never played those positions, or did so for a very insignificant amount - but were well suited to play those positions.

Then take that single year of Jordan where he played (for at least, I still think it was more no matter what nbaimp says) a third of the season at point guard and put up PG numbers comparable to some of the all-time greats.

That's a flat-out double standard. I'm of the opinion that the sim-gods think having that Jordan at 100% pg would be unfair or something. I'm not sure how it would be, but that's how I see them seeing it.
8/26/2008 10:23 PM
kfunk
Posts: 2 (0)
Hall of Famer
29 294 12 2 30 5 1
Prospect
a double standard implies that there is a built-in bias against a particular player (or set of players); are you actually suggesting that the programmers are anti-MJ? that is pretty-far reaching, doncha think? doesn't it make a lot more sense to argue that the formula is faulty and/or flawed, and that MJ is a shining example that SOMETHING is amiss? If anything, the issue that monkee and others are alluding to (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the formula is too un-biased, too numbers/formulaic when it appears that adjustments need to be made

so... which is it? the programmers are out to get MJ, or is it that the formula is wrong and MJ is a prime example of it needing tweaked (the latter is where I'm at, obviously)
8/26/2008 10:44 PM
hurley711
Posts: 0 (0)
All Star
23
Prospect
The point is that there is a simple fix that management will not correct. This should have been done months ago when first requested. So much for keeping the customer base happy.
8/26/2008 10:54 PM
ncih
Posts: 3084 (0)
Hall of Famer
296 425 61 8 1 1 1
Prospect
I think WIS failed to address that guards got taller in the 80's and beyond.

Reggie Theus (6'7") and Micheal Ray Richardson (6'5") are other examples.

Here are Theus positions, PG% for his SG seasons, and A/G

78-79 PG 5.2
79-80 SG 92 6.3
80-81 SG 92 5.2
81-82 SG 92 5.8
82-83 PG 5.9
83-84 PG 5.8
84-85 SG 92 8.0
85-86 SG 92 9.6
86-87 PG 8.8
87-88 SG 91 6.3
88-89 SG 92 4.7
89-90 SG 91 5.4
90-91 SG 92 4.7

The Kings are short on 100% PG minutes in 84-85, 85-86, and 87-88. They have Vinny Del Negro 100% at PG in 88-89.

Micheal Ray Richardson is 96% at PG in 79-80, a season where he averaged 13.1 assists/48.
8/26/2008 10:55 PM
ncmusician_7
Posts: 1735 (1)
Hall of Famer
65 138 12 18
All Star
Do a sort by APG (or Ast%) descending with the following criteria: Position SG, PG Eff 0 through 99, Min 2000 through 4000. There are several examples of player-seasons which probably should be 100% effective at PG. I think that the formula for determining position effectiveness should be looked at again.
8/26/2008 11:09 PM
ncih
Posts: 3084 (0)
Hall of Famer
296 425 61 8 1 1 1
Prospect
Another player who baffles me in regards to their formula is Dwyane Wade.

He's 6'4" and is always listed at SG. Here are his PG%.

03-04 100
04-05 98
05-06 96
06-07 100
07-08 100 (also 100 at SF)

What changed in 04-05 and 05-06?
8/26/2008 11:21 PM
hurley711
Posts: 0 (0)
All Star
23
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By ncih on 8/26/2008
Another player who baffles me in regards to their formula is Dwyane Wade.

He's 6'4" and is always listed at SG. Here are his PG%.

03-04 100
04-05 98
05-06 96
06-07 100
07-08 100 (also 100 at SF)

What changed in 04-05 and 05-06?

was there a drastic diff in ast in those years?
8/26/2008 11:30 PM
◂ Prev 1...13|14|15|16|17|18 Next ▸
Near future plans Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.