Quote: Originally Posted By gillispie1 on 4/26/2010
because, only ratings and settings go into the outcome of a game. so, they are all that matter when discussing the outcomes.

what happens in the extremely small sample size you are using is massively effected by the RNG. i once had a team go 4-7, then 24-0 to end the season. in game 12, if you used the fact i was 4-7 to justify the outcome, you would be on completely false footing. those games were meaningless in the outcome of game 12, or any other game for that matter. You're disregarding so many vital facts here its sick. No idea what your OTR was here, what your opponents OTR was, I know you usually play tough non-cons with SIUE and you're much better than your conference makeup, and on top of that, you're a human with a great team...a far cry from a sim with a **** team. I love how you pull the "small sample size" bit when its more likely the tale of 2 seasons...your pimp non-con then your cake walk con schedule....not to mention all of those games weren't played in a vacuum...your players were obviously getting better, etc...and again, your team is no slouch. Humans are always tougher than sims.

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 4/25/2010
Can someone attempt to explain this?

http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/GameResults/BoxScore.aspx?gid=5667674

My team is CLEARLY superior to the SIM AI coached opponent with 5! walkons...we double them up on the boards and lose by 3...needless to say, I'm extremely ******

Quote: Originally Posted By gillispie1 on 4/26/2010

ooh, now this is fun.

to justify why you should dominate an opponent, you can't use the actual game results. only the ratings and settings. when explaining why you won or lost, you can use the actual game results. but you can't justify why you should have dominated them. so there goes about 80% of that.

adjusted OTR is just an indicator. 40 points is not that significant. continuing to bring this up just works against you, because everybody knows its not a big deal. i often expect to win those games. while talent is the leading factor, you are totally wrong if you think nothing else is important. Didn't say nothing else is important, I said nothing is more important than team talent a great team setup suggesting Montevallo had a great team setup lol...because they won they had a great team setup? Isn't that moot if I got screwed? vs one by a rookie coach, but not brand new coach, can easily exceed 10 points per game. You guys act like I played zone at -5...I played my normal O and D at regular pace and +/-...you act like I catastrophically misplayed Montevallo, again given the fact that a sim AI housed them by 27 and I was coming off of a 46 point win v. a SIM AI...for comparison purposes YES THIS MATTERS!

5 walkons... well, if they played, then that would matter. the sim leans heavily on their starters. their best walkon played 18 minutes, the other 4 combined for 0. so this is by no means a huge detriment. playing zone, you don't need to go more than 8 deep, so you are completely wrong that they should have been tired no matter what you did. Their walkon played too well if you ask me. Their starters were up their in minutes.

you have better per and lp, that is true. Ridiculously better but lets break it down. starting centers - both have horrible iq and are bad offensive players for d2. A 72 LP is bad...f*** off. Not only that, my backup Glenn Miller was the one that played more and has an 80 LP no question they would have 0 distro on the average d2 team by talent I'm sorry we don't all have SIUE rosters....you've obviously forgotten what its like to build a D2 team from nothing and that's what I'm doing., if coaches right. so thats basically a wash. Are you kidding? Their C isn't even close to being as good as my Mason/Miller combo, go stifle yourself...I'll look up ratings later starting pf - his is horrible. yours is decent. advantage you, but with poor iq, it wouldn't be surprising if your guy played just as bad as his. He has a 90 LP and actually played fairly well, aside from the 0-5 FT with a C- FT rating starting sf - same deal, except his guy isn't so bad. again, your guy is not a star, and with that iq, it wouldnt be surprising to see the same result from both sfs. Again, my SF is clearly better...its ridiculous that his 40 PER SF shot better from 3 than my 67 PER SF...unrealadvantage you. starting sg - same as sf. starting pg - advantage sim. summary of starters - advantage you, not huge, with that iq, playing at their place, pretty reasonable chance offense of starters is roughly equal. So I'm better at 4 of 5 positions and not really that far off at PG, but all things considered, we're basically equal.....LMAO really, how am I supposed to address this?

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 4/26/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By gillispie1 on 4/26/2010
colonels, your response to daalter just proves how you have completely thrown away logic and reason and only care about being right. C- hca is absolutely not a wash. and do the math on the chance of you crappy FT shooting team shooting 42% or less. seriously. do it. it is supremely unimpressive. you are just trying to defend your point because you feel is right, you are not trying to give logical responses to logical points.

Worse teams than mine killed them, thus I should have done the same, if not better...tell me why i should think otherwise

Quote: Originally Posted By gillispie1 on 4/26/2010it does explain it away. and yes, thats the one. you were talking about the results of the game, that you are claiming you should have dominated. if you should have dominated them, you should have dominated them before the game was played. so you can't use the fact that you killed them on the boards to say you should have dominated them. you can use the fact that your rebounding is better

Quote: Originally Posted By doomey on 4/26/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 4/26/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By gillispie1 on 4/26/2010
colonels, your response to daalter just proves how you have completely thrown away logic and reason and only care about being right. C- hca is absolutely not a wash. and do the math on the chance of you crappy FT shooting team shooting 42% or less. seriously. do it. it is supremely unimpressive. you are just trying to defend your point because you feel is right, you are not trying to give logical responses to logical points.

Worse teams than mine killed them, thus I should have done the same, if not better...tell me why i should think otherwise.

Because you can't use other teams to justify your own results. They are a differant team, have differant settings, ratings and IQ's? Just a thought. Yeah and here's a thought, my team is considerably better than the team that beat the **** out of Montevallo...and since Team Talent is the most important thing in this game, there should have been no way that I lost that game.

You keep harping on the fact that it was a sim. Say it was a human who ran those exact same settings. What would be the differance? You already said you were ok with losing to humans who were rated lower. Its always more justifiable losing to a human than a sim The point being, once the game starts, it doesn't matter who is coaching, it matters how they set the team up beforehand. You didn't, neither did the sim (who could be any novice coach out there). Ok, let's say that's the case, my team is considerably better, advantage me...I WIN...or not.......