Quote: Originally Posted By jbasnight on 12/23/2009Hi I just got here. Can someone summarize the last 20 or so pages for me? TIA

Quote: Originally posted by coach_billyg on 12/23/2009how did what was a constructive thread turn into 20 pages of ****?

at the risk of repeating what was said, i think we all agree that in a single game, overall rating is a poor indicator of who will win. a 50 points overall rating difference can easily go the other way, or given equal overall ratings, one team can be in the ballpark of a 98% favorite.

but, in a long term sense, overall rating is a somewhat reasonable measure. on average, the 620 rated d2 team is better than the 600 rated d2 team. despite the countless counter examples, it is not a useless measure. consider the OR ratings for d1 teams. they are based purely off per-player overall rating and class, and have proven a fairly accurate indicator of the quality of a team.

using overall ratings in rankings before the season started is fairly reasonable to me. its the easy way out, the cop out, but if that component is going to 0 by season's end, its largely irrelevant. using overall ratings to me is step 1. step 2 is throw out the highly useless in-game ratings; dur, work ethic, lp/sb for guards, per (maybe) and bh for bigs. step 3 is to actually rank players in an intelligent manner. i used to use a recruiting program to rank players to save me time, and i came up with fairly complex formulas to rank each player, that ranked them within a small margin of how well i could rank them, in most cases. this is where i think WIS should be - step 3, actually assign the players a score based on their quality. but, if they are busy, i think step 2 would be acceptable. step 1 is just too ****** and its too easy to get to step 2.

to me, step 4 is ranking players more than 1 way. for example, how do you rank a shooting point guard vs a non shooting point guard? the best equations for one are less valid for the other. what about at the small forward position? its a tough problem. you have to guess who will play where, assume some level of coaching prowess to put the right guy in the right place, and rank accordingly. i think this is too hard for WIS to undertake. also, i don't think simply being the programmer of the game is enough to do it competently. this is not a knock on seble, but as a guy with internal code knowledge, if he couldn't come out and beat the likes of OR and lostmyth, he probably lacks the working knowledge to undertake step 4. so, step 4 is the last place i think WIS should be, on the rankings.

step 5 is incorporating synergy between players and the system at hand. this is to me essentially as complex as writing the sim engine. however, if you write a decent coach to set appropriate ratings for a team, and simulate them all against each other, you can approximate doing step 5 the real way. a clever programmer could do this way faster than step 4, so, to me that is the ultimate ranking system. writing a decent coach is easier than it sounds, it can be done optimally without understanding the sim engine in the slightest. you just have to cleverly pit pseduo random strategies against each other until some emerge as better, and then further randomize off of that and repeat.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/23/2009
1. No, that is my point. A team with better ratings very often does not beat the team with lesser ratings, for a variety of reasons that have been covered ad nauseum in this thread. You need to stop saying that. That has nothing to do with it. My point is, teams with better core ratings are still really the better teams, regardless of what happens in the games. Underperformance, coach quality, and offense/defense aren't issues here.

2. Coach quality is measured by the W/L and rpi. Success rather ratings. Right, so why does coach quality need to factor into the overall team rating that is made up of the 12 player ratings?

The problem is that you have a very integral part that doesn't fit neatly into your system, so you're attempting to simply chuck it out with the bathwater. No, coach quality is going to bear out the W-L like you said and will have a direct impact on overall team rating because they're DIRECTLY recruiting the players for their team, that make up the overall team rating.

3. I did not conveniently leave that part out, I actually addressed it in my response. (And regardless, that doesn't make the problem go away.) Yes you did...you picked and chose what you wanted to respond to and the rest of my paragraph explained to you why I was doing what I was doing, but you that out in attempt to help make me look bad...nice try.

4. You referred to aintheb's "not understanding" your premise because he showed the conference standings/ratings. Quite obviously, he does not think it should be perfectly aligned, nor does he think that's exactly what you're talking about. Either you didn't understand his point, or you were pretending to be dense so that you didn't have to address it appropriately. He needed further explanation, and I think he understands better what I want to do, because of my further explanation...ask him.

But his point -- and it was a very valid one -- is that there was a complete disconnect between team ratings and how well teams had performed during the course of the season. And with that being the case, it just further showed that team ratings are not an effective tool for deciding which teams are good and which aren't. I have rankings that only take into account opponent team ratings and one that takes into account both your team rating and your opponents ratings. In my ranking systems, you're only as good as the schedule you play, so if you play a cupcake schedule, go undefeated, you're likely not to be ranked #1. You're only as good as the results you accrue against the quality of opponents that you play, that's what my rankings bear out, and I think/feel that that is a very sound reasoning.

Quote: Originally Posted By metsmax on 12/23/2009

1. no you didnt answer Answer what? It looked like you were trying to differentiate between the core ratings and make summations about each individual rating...that doesn't really matter to me. What do you want me to answer?

2. if you did, you didnt understand Understand what?

3. it does not advance discussion to call others lazy or boobs I'm not suggesting that it does, but you not informing yourself of what's been said over the last 20 pages in this thread is LAZY and many times when I've used the word BOOB, its a general term, not necessarily directed at any one person. Saying average boob is like saying average person. I like to say things differently than a lot of people do...it adds flair...if you want to get defensive about it, go right ahead. Belligerence begets belligerence....can't expect everyone else to be sinners and me to act like a saint.

4. all caps insistence that you will not stop does not advance the cause of truth or understanding Another worthless, nitpicky bullet point. Accentuating the key points obviously.

5. would you stop if they offered to pay you to stop? WIS? I don't think so...I believe in this concept and it at least deserves to be put in practice for at least a season, paid or not.

manners and respect for others matter - I do not appreciate being attacked ad hominem by someone who has demonstrated that his arguments are inferior. your approach colonel inhibits progress, personalizes all discussion and subverts attempts to find agreement I give what I've gotten. I called you lazy because you obviously haven't read the last 20 pages where I addressed all the things you pointed out in your last post....its wrong because I call a spade a spade? And I don't know about you, I'm more prone to let loose online than I am in person, there aren't any inhibitions here really. Everyone is calling me out...I'm defending myself against 7 or 8 guys...how should I respond oh wise one? People are trying to shut me up by telling me I'm wrong because they don't like my concept, and that's just not going to happen. If you don't feel like you're being respected...don't post here, avoid me...I don't care. You just seem to be a guy that's looking to be offended...great way to live no doubt. I am the only one in this thread that will admit and apologize when I'm wrong, but no one cares or realizes it because they're blinded by their "colonels19 hate" banners. People tell me I'm wrong and its proven so, I own it...vice versa....people shut up and never address what was said ever again...who's the real man here?

enjoy your rants, understand that extremism in the cause of stubborn ignorance is not a virtue and continue to launch unprovoked personal attacks Extremism is zhawks calling 370 seasons a SMALL SAMPLE SIZE and suggesting that a 780 could win 0 games and a 690 could lose 0, though its never happened in those 370 seasons...that's extremism that will NEVER BE TRUE. I'm ignorant to you all because you don't agree with me...that's hilarious to me. The only remote personal attack was when I called zhawks a puss when he was skirting my challenge for him to back his claims...so again, if you want to see me as the (only) bad guy, then see what you want...but you aren't seeing the big picture, understand that.

and have a very merry christmas That's presumptuous, but thank you....you as well...Happy Holidays.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By jbasnight on 12/23/2009
Hi I just got here. Can someone summarize the last 20 or so pages for me? TIA.

coloniel wants to use overall team ratings average to rank teams, nobody agrees with him. He thinks we all don't understand what he is trying to say. He calls us boobs

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/23/2009
I have understood what you are saying the whole time. And I've disagreed with it the whole time too. I haven't changed my mind in face of you constantly re - making the same wrong points.

And as long as you equate a one to one relationship with schedule difficulty and team ratings, you will have a fatally flawed system. How can you say this without even seeing it in practice? Does everyone now see why I keep saying that guys are CLOSED-MINDED here? People thought selling bottled water was a dumb idea too...