Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/22/2009TO clarify. .you pointed him to a yahoo search, and he responded with a clip from Wikipedia. Exactly how was your game superior?

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

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/21/2009

LOL I love it dalt!

That said colonels you should know that judging anything based on overall is very misleading at best.

I think you are overanalyzing. He's saying ratings and settings are 100% responsible for an outcome and that all things equal higher rated team is tougher to beat.

Quote: Originally posted by emy1013 on 12/23/2009Skipped the last few pages, so apologies in advance if these questions were already brought up.Colonels, it sounds like you're extremely passionate about your ideas, and that is commendable.  Personally, I would like to see how your ranking system worked and how different it would look from the current HD model.  Gotta give the guy a chance fellas, he may have the best ranking system in the history of mankind, we just don't know until we see something.  Let me ask a question or two though, please?I noticed that you are using a 750 versus 700 OVR team average as an example, and are suggesting that the 750 team should win more often than not, correct?  How would you factor in walk-ons?  For example, if the 700 team has two walk-ons that never play, their OVR average could very easily be higher than the 750 when you subtract the walk-ons from the equation.What about the effects of IQ?  If the 750 team has IQ's in the C/C+ range and the 700 team has IQ's in the A/A+ range, I would certainly think that would even up the teams considerably.  In fact, I would suggest that in this case, the 700 team should actually be expected to win more often than not.  Now, if I've been reading right, you suggested that the numerical ratings were the only things that mattered (and I apologize if I am misrepresenting your position), but no credible HD coach would agree with you that IQ's don't matter AT ALL.  Yet, since they are a letter grade instead of a number, how would you quantify them in your system?  They HAVE to be in there somewhere, or your whole premise about team strength is skewed.Another thing that DOES play a factor, whether it can be quantified or not, IS the coaches of the teams in question.  Like it or not, able to quantify it or not, some coaches are just BETTER at this game than others.  I consider myself to be a pretty decent coach, but I could name about 50 coaches who I think would beat me even if I had the 750 team and they the 700.And to those posters earlier that were suggesting that PER has no effect on a Center's play and that REB has no effect on a Guard's play, I just say that I would humbly beg to differ.Sorry for such a long post, just curious and wanted to see if we could make any headway here.Incidentally, are a_in_the_b and arssanguinus the same person?  Very similar typing styles and arguments.  Just got me wondering, that's all...........

Quote: Originally Posted By emy1013 on 12/23/2009
Skipped the last few pages, so apologies in advance if these questions were already brought up.

Colonels, it sounds like you're extremely passionate about your ideas, and that is commendable. Personally, I would like to see how your ranking system worked and how different it would look from the current HD model. Gotta give the guy a chance fellas, he may have the best ranking system in the history of mankind, we just don't know until we see something. Let me ask a question or two though, please?

I noticed that you are using a 750 versus 700 OVR team average as an example, and are suggesting that the 750 team should win more often than not, correct? How would you factor in walk-ons? For example, if the 700 team has two walk-ons that never play, their OVR average could very easily be higher than the 750 when you subtract the walk-ons from the equation.

What about the effects of IQ? If the 750 team has IQ's in the C/C+ range and the 700 team has IQ's in the A/A+ range, I would certainly think that would even up the teams considerably. In fact, I would suggest that in this case, the 700 team should actually be expected to win more often than not. Now, if I've been reading right, you suggested that the numerical ratings were the only things that mattered (and I apologize if I am misrepresenting your position), but no credible HD coach would agree with you that IQ's don't matter AT ALL. Yet, since they are a letter grade instead of a number, how would you quantify them in your system? They HAVE to be in there somewhere, or your whole premise about team strength is skewed.

Another thing that DOES play a factor, whether it can be quantified or not, IS the coaches of the teams in question. Like it or not, able to quantify it or not, some coaches are just BETTER at this game than others. I consider myself to be a pretty decent coach, but I could name about 50 coaches who I think would beat me even if I had the 750 team and they the 700.

And to those posters earlier that were suggesting that PER has no effect on a Center's play and that REB has no effect on a Guard's play, I just say that I would humbly beg to differ.

Sorry for such a long post, just curious and wanted to see if we could make any headway here.

Incidentally, are a_in_the_b and arssanguinus the same person? Very similar typing styles and arguments. Just got me wondering, that's all...........

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/22/2009

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

there are in the forums a host of threads that have discussed the relative significance of different ratings

there is a very good discussion of the different ratings in the new coaches handbook

it is clear to anyone who has played this game much that total ratings are a weak indicator of current team strength

1. total ratings includes WE, STA and DUR which have no gameplay effects (so long as you have enough depth)

2. total ratings ncludes ratings like LP and PE which affect game play only for certain players

3. other ratings are clearly NOT of equal effect on game play - saying that they all matter and therefore they are equal is simply false logic

4. Hoops IQ is a vital aspect of team strength and of course is not part of the players' numerical ratings

5. different ratings matter to different degrees in different schemes - for example DEF matters more in MTM and ATH matters more in certain other defenses

6. if one had no other data should one guess that a 750 avg team is probably better than a 650 avg team - sure, if one wants to guess

7. might one rely on total ratings as key focus in recruiting - sure, if one wants to lose a lot

8. might one rely on total ratings as basis for team strength in some rankings methodology - sure if one wants to be wrong

Part of my fight here is to campaign for change. I acknowledge that the overall ratings need improvement, but the problem for everyone else here is that no one but me is thinking outside the box. Everyone is thinking inside of the confines of the stupid, worthless, inaccurate overall team ratings and I'm stepping outside and saying let's make this better and let's make the rankings better in the process. My understanding of the game is not on trial here, and I think I know a lot more and play better than a lot of you think I do. I know zhawks likes to bring up my 39% win percentage....I've never coached an HD team in back to back seasons...bet you didn't know that huh? I'm better at the game now, I recruit better, I scrutinize different rankings better, etc. Am I as good as the top dogs here? Absolutely not...many of you are studs in the game, I'll give you that all day every day. Am I the worst player in the game? Nope...I'd say I'm slightly above average...I really want to enjoy the game this time around and really stay at a school that I like (Armstrong Atlantic State) in a conference that I like (Peach Belt) in the world that I prefer (Tarkanian), so as far as the in game stuff goes right now, its great...I'm 6-4 heading into conference competition and I'm having fun with it. This thread has done nothing to ruin my HD fun, I can honestly say that


It is discouraging when folks treat the forum as a contest and an exercise in personalities rather than responding to the substance of what is said.

IF the proposition has evolved into - "it may be possible to do a better job of ranking teams if one took skill ratings, IQ, suitability of those ratings for the scheme run, depth, FT ratings, etc into account to develop a measure of team strength" then no one should disagree. Of course, I think thats a big jump from a (summary paraphrase here) just look at total ratings points approach. I also think that it would be very difficult to pursue the italicized concept and that there is no chance WIS will do so.

Quote: Originally Posted By emy1013 on 12/23/2009
Skipped the last few pages, so apologies in advance if these questions were already brought up.

Colonels, it sounds like you're extremely passionate about your ideas, and that is commendable. Personally, I would like to see how your ranking system worked and how different it would look from the current HD model. Gotta give the guy a chance fellas, he may have the best ranking system in the history of mankind, we just don't know until we see something. Let me ask a question or two though, please? Of course.

I noticed that you are using a 750 versus 700 OVR team average as an example, and are suggesting that the 750 team should win more often than not, correct? Yes How would you factor in walk-ons? For example, if the 700 team has two walk-ons that never play, their OVR average could very easily be higher than the 750 when you subtract the walk-ons from the equation. I don't really want to show my hand too much, but I got an idea last night to adjust the overall rating depending on the ratings of the players that play, and how much time they're actually on the court. At any level, you're basically not going to play walk-ons unless you're just an absolute *** recruiter. Honestly, player minutes divided by total team minutes played for 900+ teams is probably too much work for me, however I think its something that seble could plug in fairly easily, not that my methods will ever be sought. What I could and probably will do is compile an adjusted overall rating for my team at season's end just to show what I'm getting at, and maybe show it in a few different ways. I do agree with the majority here that the overall rating could use some improvement/solidification.

What about the effects of IQ? I'm considering this as well now. You could actually make that a numerical rating in itself...there are 13 possible letter grades...divy that up amongst 100 points and an A+ would be a 100 IQ rating and an F a 0 IQ rating. In that instance I would just use the IQ ratings of the team's main offense and defense, but that too can get a bit hairy. I would need some legwork on WIS' end. If the 750 team has IQ's in the C/C+ range and the 700 team has IQ's in the A/A+ range, I would certainly think that would even up the teams considerably. In fact, I would suggest that in this case, the 700 team should actually be expected to win more often than not. Now, if I've been reading right, you suggested that the numerical ratings were the only things that mattered (and I apologize if I am misrepresenting your position), but no credible HD coach would agree with you that IQ's don't matter AT ALL. Yet, since they are a letter grade instead of a number, how would you quantify them in your system? They HAVE to be in there somewhere, or your whole premise about team strength is skewed.

Another thing that DOES play a factor, whether it can be quantified or not, IS the coaches of the teams in question. Like it or not, able to quantify it or not, some coaches are just BETTER at this game than others. I agree that this is true. I consider myself to be a pretty decent coach, but I could name about 50 coaches who I think would beat me even if I had the 750 team and they the 700. I believe I am in this boat too, but to a greater degree. I know a lot of people have a problem with this premise, but I say if you can't quantify it then it doesn't belong. I think usually the good coaches are going to have the better rosters and win more games per se anyhow, thus I think inherently you're going to get rewarded more in a system like this because the good coaches will have more talented rosters GENERALLY than the average boob.

And to those posters earlier that were suggesting that PER has no effect on a Center's play and that REB has no effect on a Guard's play, I just say that I would humbly beg to differ. I think differentiating between core ratings makes this project nearly impossible, especially if each category carries an entirely different weight from another...but that's extremely subjective and if you asked 100 different coaches you'd probably get 100 different responses, I don't want to dabble in that. Idealism isn't always attainable.

Sorry for such a long post, just curious and wanted to see if we could make any headway here. No prob man, thank you, I appreciate it...I'll answer and address any and all questions....not sure I've ever typed 6 'A' words in a row before, so consider that another feat lol. Take care.

Incidentally, are a_in_the_b and arssanguinus the same person? Very similar typing styles and arguments. Just got me wondering, that's all...........

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/23/2009
And colonels, one last thing for the night: You need to stop insisting that nobody understands what you're saying. Your idea is not difficult to comprehend in the slightest, nor is it incredibly revolutionary. The people here most certainly get it, they just think it's flawed. I don't have any precise examples right now without going back in this thread and looking, but from time to time, people have said stuff in this thread that have led me to believe that they don't really get what I want to do...I mean AintheB thought that my goal was to get overall ratings to order as such in the conference standings, and that couldn't be further from the truth. There are other instances and I'm not trying to insult anyone...I guess part of it is that I realize when people deal with my questions/statements civilly and when they don't. You want to post civilly, I'll return the favor....you want to slamdance, I'll do that too...your collective behaviors get the responses you each have individually gotten to date, like it or not.

Now, perhaps in the end game, it will somehow be revealed that it's not flawed. But ability to understand your simple concept is not the issue here.