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 zhawks on 12/27/2009
How would you know how many minutes a game a player is going to average, before the games are played? Another flaw. Move along
Is this a serious post? The rankings are past-tense not predictive.
12/27/2009 8:36 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/27/2009No 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
Only if the stamina is weighted improperly so as to do that.

A stud who can't play very much isn't much of a stud.
12/27/2009 8:36 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
Note I do, at least in general terms have a 'solution': A combination of the traditional strength of schedule components with properly weighted ratings components.

However, as I am not interested in creating a fully detailed system myself, I am hardly going to go much further than that.

Fair enough and understood. My affinity for rankings and doing things of that sort is above normal per se.
12/27/2009 8:37 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By furry_nipps on 12/27/2009Not 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.
Now that's a good point, but I think still a little irrelevant for the rankings' purpose.

My biggest criticism of the criticism, again, is that it seems like a lot people think colonels is trying to create a be-all, end-all ranking system, instead of just another metric to use. If that's the case, well yeah, there are a lot of flaws. But if he just wants another system, something that gives us more information, then I'm not really seeing the problem with it.
12/27/2009 8:39 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By furry_nipps on 12/27/2009You 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.
The minutes would be on a season total basis, not a game to game basis. I wouldn't do these week to week per se (only if WIS "bought" my formula and implemented it would you see that) you're only looking at an end of the season ranking based on EVERYTHING that happened.
12/27/2009 8:41 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 furry_nipps on 12/27/2009
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.
Now that's a good point, but I think still a little irrelevant for the rankings' purpose.

My biggest criticism of the criticism, again, is that it seems like a lot people think colonels is trying to create a be-all, end-all ranking system, instead of just another metric to use. If that's the case, well yeah, there are a lot of flaws. But if he just wants another system, something that gives us more information, then I'm not really seeing the problem with it.

I think this could viably stand as a be-all, end-all ranking system for HD....the likelyhood is that you'll never get close to seeing that happen...WIS prob wouldn't pay for the usage, I'm not likely to pitch it anyway, and currently there's a huge backlash towards what I'm doing, though I think some folks would be pleasantly surprised when they saw the results.

Currently I'm probably just going to roll out the overalls as is, because until (if?) WIS changes it, it would be too much work to manually adjust the overalls for each team/opponent...just being truthful here.
12/27/2009 8:46 PM
furry_nipps
Posts: 661 (0)
Hall of Famer
66
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/27/2009 8:48 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/27/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/27/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By furry_nipps on 12/27/2009
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.
Now that's a good point, but I think still a little irrelevant for the rankings' purpose.

My biggest criticism of the criticism, again, is that it seems like a lot people think colonels is trying to create a be-all, end-all ranking system, instead of just another metric to use. If that's the case, well yeah, there are a lot of flaws. But if he just wants another system, something that gives us more information, then I'm not really seeing the problem with it.

I think this could viably stand as a be-all, end-all ranking system for HD....the likelyhood is that you'll never get close to seeing that happen...WIS prob wouldn't pay for the usage, I'm not likely to pitch it anyway, and currently there's a huge backlash towards what I'm doing, though I think some folks would be pleasantly surprised when they saw the results.

Currently I'm probably just going to roll out the overalls as is, because until (if?) WIS changes it, it would be too much work to manually adjust the overalls for each team/opponent...just being truthful here.

Absolutely, I think that is quite clearly the biggest flaw once we got into the "weighting" talk.

I don't think this could be a stand-alone SoS for a lot of the reasons already mentioned. I understand what you want to do in terms of rankings - WiS allows for that because it has, well, rankings. But if we are measuring the difficulty of a schedule, opponents' success > opponents' talent, in my opinion, which is why rankings, by themselves, can't be the lone measure. As a supplement, I actually think it could be a fantastic idea, if done propely anyway.
12/27/2009 8:53 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
Then you are giving extra value. You are rewarding a team for beating a team who had a beast average 29 a game, but only played 13 min vrs them before fouling out. Beating the lakers without kobe is not the same as beating the lakers with kobe, or even beating the lakers with kobe but only playing 12 minutes before popping his knee out. A win vrs him should not be as good as a win with him out.
That gets filed under my "them's the breaks" category.
12/27/2009 8:54 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 8:58 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
Absolutely, I think that is quite clearly the biggest flaw once we got into the "weighting" talk.

I don't think this could be a stand-alone SoS for a lot of the reasons already mentioned. I understand what you want to do in terms of rankings - WiS allows for that because it has, well, rankings. But if we are measuring the difficulty of a schedule, opponents' success > opponents' talent, in my opinion, which is why rankings, by themselves, can't be the lone measure. As a supplement, I actually think it could be a fantastic idea, if done propely anyway.

I'll admit this...my RL rankings which I would also compute for HD (not sure I told anyone this, here's my website where I do my rankings www.bpisports.com ) would do much better at the eye test be "more accurate" than the OTR SOS rankings because its more solid, its what we're used to seeing, and we know how it operates. There's really no benchmark for the OTR SOS rankings, nothing to really compare it to so it will kind of be like a Kavorka-less Kramer. The OTR SOS rankings are a very hard sell, I understand that, but honestly, I believe the sky's the limit for these....just like anything I do...we shall see though.
12/27/2009 9:00 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Yeah, but you have Oregon rated higher than Boise. Boo that.

Cool website, although I'm angered by the above.
12/27/2009 9:02 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
Yeah, but you have Oregon rated higher than Boise. Boo that.

Cool website, although I'm angered by the above.

Thanks, don't want to lose focus on this thread, but thank you. Oregon is higher than Boise State mainly because of the large difference in their PERFORMANCE RATED SOS...Oregon's SOS was 4th I think while Boise State's was 110th....there was a huge chasm there. One game does not a season make.
12/27/2009 9:14 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/27/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/27/2009

Yeah, but you have Oregon rated higher than Boise. Boo that.

Cool website, although I'm angered by the above.

Thanks, don't want to lose focus on this thread, but thank you. Oregon is higher than Boise State mainly because of the large difference in their PERFORMANCE RATED SOS...Oregon's SOS was 4th I think while Boise State's was 110th....there was a huge chasm there. One game does not a season make.
I'm not sure how much more this thread has to give.

True, but I have a tough time with the facts that: (a) major conference teams refuse to schedule Boise; (b) Boise beat Oregon head-to-head; (c) Boise went undefeated; (d) Oregon has two losses; (e) Oregon played in a less-than-stellar conference; and (f) my guess is that Boise, ironically, probably helped Oregon's SoS more than Oregon helped Boise's, despite Oregon being ranked higher.

I'm not knocking your rankings specifically, I just see a lot problems with the Oregon > Boise argument from anyone who uses it. Hell, I'm not even a Boise fan, just a fan of the hook and ladder and statue of liberty plays.
12/27/2009 9:24 PM
emy1013
Posts: 2731 (0)
Hall of Famer
898
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/27/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/27/2009
http://www.wisjournal.com/hd/teamprofile/Ratings.aspx?tid=4781

Here's a team with only three post position players, one of those three being a walkon.

Ok....they have at least 1 guy at every position....zhawks is claiming guys had teams with 12 centers and you give me this....please, that's not even close to being relevant


There was a team many seasons ago in D3 that had 12 centers on it's roster.
12/28/2009 3:21 AM
◂ Prev 1...57|58|59|60|61...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.