The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic

colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/27/2009
Yeah, then I wouldn't have such a huge problem with it.

I think you understand that ratings are only a part of the game. In real life, SoS isn't based on how many McDonald's AAs a team has. Talent only gets you so far. It's why they use W/L and opponents' W/L (which is a poor metric, also, in my opinion). Success is the barometer for a good team, not talent.

But I understand the want to rank things like that. It seems like you're being condescending to a lot of very successful coaches here, so I understand their animosity, but I'm not totally sure I understand their disdain for another way of ranking schedule difficulty.

That was a very novel post, thank you. I'll be the first to admit that I've been no saint here and I'm not proud/happy with the way things have gone on here. I would like to believe that I've responded to cordial posts with cordiality (sorry I like to make up words I guess) but I've also responded to belligerent/attacking posts for a belligerent/attacking standpoint. I don't feel like I started that negative tone, but I would have to check the beginning posts to tell you for certain. My frustration has gotten the best of me on occasion here and I'm not proud of that, but I too didn't anticipate the backlash for pitching an idea like this. In the end, its been what its been, and I've argued, debated, and responded the way I've seen fit, given my audience's tone. If people don't like or can't accept that, then fine...I can understand both viewpoints, but I hope those that have belligerently participated in this thread no that we all share equal blame for the tone of this thread.
12/27/2009 8:05 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/27/2009
But in a conference I am in RIGHT NOW, I have someone playing a shooting guard at power forward. And who has, in many games this season, had a center at small forward.

Rhode island.


Like it or not, my answer to something like this is, thems the breaks. You can't micro-manage every last situation out there....in a ranking system or anywhere...WIS doesn't even do that with their rankings. I don't know if the player sees that as being beneficial, or just thinks he's being cute, but I don't think its appropriate for a ranking system to guess at what one's intent is. I've never wanted to dabble in subjectivity.
12/27/2009 8:09 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/27/2009
But done correctly would have to include other factors. Perhaps a combination of record along with ratings, massaged properly. Once we move away from using pure ratings, I find room for serious discussion. As long as its only ratings in SOS, I don't.
But see, this is really a difference of OPINION that you're trying to show as a difference of FACT or RIGHT/WRONG.

I don't like being that guy that responds to criticism by saying "create your own"...I really like to own up to what my system(s) does/doesn't do however sometimes I would like to see people's solutions to the perceived problems. I don't understand how you can be mad at a "problem" but not have a solution...I just don't get that.
12/27/2009 8:12 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/27/2009I don't understand how you can be mad at a "problem" but not have a solution...I just don't get that
*cough* everyone's take on healthcare *cough*

Wow, excuse me.
12/27/2009 8:16 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By furry_nipps on 12/27/2009
Exactly. This is why he was viewed overall rating wise as a better team. I had higher ath/speed/reb/def. He had higher everywhere else and solid, but nowhere near my ath/speed/reb. Based on WIS talent I had the better team. Based on your system I did not. If you're willing to weight them, I'm willing to give it serious consideration...I'm trying to put the ball in your court really...it isn't impossible to do. That is where your system is flawed. It can't break down the individual rating player by player. It could, it would need a little more work, but I admittedly would need someone to come up with a weighting system, largely agreed upon by the great coaches of the game to include it...I would like some sort of consensus on the issue. It will factor in a 450 FR who plays 2 mpg the same way it will factor a 800 rated SR who plays 30. It was also factor in a 800 rated guy who plays 40 MPG the same it looks as a 800 rated guy who plays 20, but plays it fresh compared to his tired. I'd like to adjust team overalls based on minutes played as well...its just a little more data entry...it isn't impossible. Just give it up, it would be impossible to do. I strongly disagree.
12/27/2009 8:16 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/27/2009
Not sure I totally agree for the purposes of what is trying to be accomplished. It doesn't sound to me like colonels wants to displace the current system, only supplement it. It's not like the current system is faultless. You and I both know how easy it is to manipulate wins, especially in D2/D3 worls full of sim conferences. You could end up with a fantastic RPI/SoS and a lot wins without ever actually beating a good team. I don't think WIS would pay to use my format anyhow, so I'm basically looking to do this for fun currently...put it to use, see what turns out, etc. There is no system without fault and I think a ranking like mine could take a bit of getting used to, however I think it would be more of a travesty if I never put it to use.

I do think the ratings should be weighted. Who cares if a C has great BH/P but is unathletic and can't rebound? There needs to be a positional weight for certain ratings, although that might be too complicated/time consuming. You're an intelligent man.

12/27/2009 8:20 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/27/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/27/2009
I don't understand how you can be mad at a "problem" but not have a solution...I just don't get that.
*cough* everyone's take on healthcare *cough*

Wow, excuse me.

LOLROFLMAOLOFL!
12/27/2009 8:20 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/27/2009 8:23 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/27/2009 8:30 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
(That is, a solution, as you might call it, in the very post where you complain about someone criticizing without a solution)|
12/27/2009 8:31 PM
furry_nipps
Posts: 661 (0)
Hall of Famer
66
Prospect
You can't go based off mintues anyways, other wise team A beats Duke and so does team B, but team A gets the more quality win because there starters (best players) averaged 32 MPG whereas when team B beat them they were in foul trouble and only averaged 20. Talent wise all of a sudden its not the same. A win vrs Duke should be worth the same amount of value for each team with the exception of road/home games.
12/27/2009 8:32 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/27/2009 8:32 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
No you couldn't isack because if a player had 90 stamina but wasn't good anywhere else it would then weight that same player on the same level as a 90 stamina player that is a stud.
12/27/2009 8:33 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
At my interview at ESPN, a variety of people told me about what became ESPN's Soccer Power Index (SPI) and how it was a formula created by Matthew Silver to provide a more accurate World Ranking than what FIFA currently output(s). Both are power rankings so its really apples to apples.

Anyhow, they told me how he was going to factor in injuries and whether or not a nation trotted out their "A" Team or their "B" Team...sat/rested starters, etc.

I think its a novel concept, I'm all for improving something that you think you can do better, however I think this is overkill. I didn't tell them this obviously (or not so obviously, the only thing I asked was if they were going to use it for club soccer as well and they werent....shucks), but I think any time IN REAL LIFE, where you start trying to differentiate between coaches' intent and other things like that, I think you're dabbling in things that are way too subjective and are up for much debate. I mean, what if England's Team B matches up better to Egypt's Team A than their own Team A, and that's why the coach played that lineup.....the system doesn't/can't possibly account for that. The sad part is, let's say Egypt wins shockingly 4-0 but they don't get the full credit for beating England per se because they didn't play their "A" Team in the context of that term, even though England's coach put out what he presumed to be his best lineup v. Egypt's #1s.

I just don't dabble in that...there are a lot of freak things that happen in sports, injuries, suspensions, lineup adjustments, fan altercations that affect the game, but you can't logically micro-manage every last situation and presume WHAT IF England played their As, etc....thus my answer is, reward the winners and penalize the losers as if they played each other at full strength/peak efficiency. You may look at this and think I'm crazy, but it isn't the opponents fault if USC came out, played flat and lost because their hearts weren't in it, that shouldn't take away from a team's victory. If you play the Colts and Peyton Manning happens to get hurt for the first time in his career, then thems the breaks, you got lucky in the fact that Manning got injured, but you still get FULL credit for beating that 14-1 team. I honestly wouldn't do rankings any other way, and I largely don't like ESPN's SPI because its too complex for its own good...it overweighs things that I chalk up as everyday sports happenings.

I hope this piece shed some light on the situation...gave you a bit more insight as to where I'm coming from...whether you agree with me and my premises or not.
12/27/2009 8:34 PM
furry_nipps
Posts: 661 (0)
Hall of Famer
66
Prospect
Not to mention the 90 stamina player would not play the same in a fb/press set vrs a fb/press set as he would vrs say motion/zone vrs triangle/m2m.
12/27/2009 8:35 PM
◂ Prev 1...56|57|58|59|60...75 Next ▸
The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 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.