Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/22/2009YOu make the mistake of imagining that the ratings themselves are not context dependent for their meaning. That they somehow exist in islands as pure ideal incorruptible forms. THey do measure something concrete, absolutely. . but context, coaching settings, bench depth, rating placement. All irrelevant in a ranking that deals in concrete, measurable factors...its obvious that you disagree with my premise here, but that doesn't automatically make me wrong, though I know it does in your mind . all of that. . .makes at least as much difference as the difference between the ratings of teams. The ratings themselves might be a concrete number, but the meaning of that number is subjective. Right, the meanings of the ratings are subjective, that's why in a ranking system the way I do it, each rating less WE-ST-DU are all viewed EQUALLY, because differentiating between rating importance is incredibly subjective. Those 8 ratings or so all matter considerably, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone here that says that they don't.

Also, you perform the confusing mental gymnastics of trying to pretend a won loss record is somehow 'subjective' in a way that using overall rating. .isn't. I'm not trying to confuse anyone. W-L and SOS matters in one of the 3 rankings I intend to use here and its the same one that I use in real life...all I'm saying is that in a game where you have such incredibly concrete ratings like this one, or Madden, or NCAAF10, or virtually any other video game, those ratings are the best way to determine overall quality of opponent...if you think about it, it actually makes a ranking more accurate instead of looking at W-L and SOS which varies widely amongst teams, especially with 300+ teams in each division (yes I know D2 has 276 or what have you).

And if you are saying it needs 'fine tuning' then are you saying that, perhaps, the various components might need to be. . .ranked? And that some are more important than others? I think the masses can jointly conclude that the core ratings are those less WE-ST-DU....zhawks was the one that even suggested it and I think its a great idea, and I'm basically running with it. The same view you keep ridiculing? Because either you are wrong on that, and they are of unequal importance. .or there really wouldn't be any way for you to fine tune your rating ranking system. The numbers are only as muddy as you want to make them. I want to take them largely at face value and rank teams based off of said numbers. My rankings play in the sand....if you guys want to play in the mud and/or quicksand, then go for it.

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 12/22/2009The rational folks get it, thank you Rails for at least understanding my argument, regardless if you agree with it or not

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/22/2009

Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 12/22/2009 The rational folks get it, thank you Rails for at least understanding my argument, regardless if you agree with it or not

You still don't think we understand what you are saying? That is very insulting. We all get what it is you are pushing we just all completely disagree with it

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/22/2009
Maybe (likely) you are the one that needs to understand what is being said. The factors are in no way the same every season that that can even be measured. but go figure after all of this crap in this thread i guess I really shouldn't start to hope that you'd get logical

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/22/2009If the method or system is flawed and based on a false premise, then all the 'logical conclusions' built upon that false premise are also flawed.