Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/27/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/27/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/27/2009

One thing I am openly considering is adding points to a team's overall rating for beating a human coach rather than a sim "coach"...thus I ask you all....

Without differentiating for coach quality or past success, how many points would you add to a team's overall rating for playing/beating a human coach as opposed to a sim coach?

I think that a human coach generally adds significantly to the strength of a team BUT it depends a lot on how the team is designed.

I'll give on example, some seasons back I a team for a promotion, but the roster was still good. I had a kid coming back for his senior season who was SG with REB of 50 or 60, very good PERI but weak for a SG BH and PASS. He had played at the 3 for me and was primed to start. He would have been a very strong player

SIM came along, recruited a freshman SF it gave the starts to at the 3, used the SR at the 2 where he was mediocre and drove the team into a horrifific season.

The team - if used the way it was designed to be used - would have been an NT team, with a chance of a deep run. As used, it sucked.

I cant express it in points because the difference between human and SIM depends on the nature of the team. A performance based ranking captures these differences - an a priori ratings based ranking cannot.

But I'm conceding the point that a human coached team is tougher to beat than a sim coached team, thus I want to add points to a human coached team, regardless of coach quality and regardless of team talent....just trying to get some feedback here...if you guys don't come up with a number, I will...its no biggie

Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/27/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/27/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/27/2009

One thing I am openly considering is adding points to a team's overall rating for beating a human coach rather than a sim "coach"...thus I ask you all....

Without differentiating for coach quality or past success, how many points would you add to a team's overall rating for playing/beating a human coach as opposed to a sim coach?

I think that a human coach generally adds significantly to the strength of a team BUT it depends a lot on how the team is designed.

I'll give on example, some seasons back I a team for a promotion, but the roster was still good. I had a kid coming back for his senior season who was SG with REB of 50 or 60, very good PERI but weak for a SG BH and PASS. He had played at the 3 for me and was primed to start. He would have been a very strong player

SIM came along, recruited a freshman SF it gave the starts to at the 3, used the SR at the 2 where he was mediocre and drove the team into a horrifific season.

The team - if used the way it was designed to be used - would have been an NT team, with a chance of a deep run. As used, it sucked.

I cant express it in points because the difference between human and SIM depends on the nature of the team. A performance based ranking captures these differences - an a priori ratings based ranking cannot.

But I'm conceding the point that a human coached team is tougher to beat than a sim coached team, thus I want to add points to a human coached team, regardless of coach quality and regardless of team talent....just trying to get some feedback here...if you guys don't come up with a number, I will...its no biggie.

really bad answer - the point being made was that coming up with A NUMBER is bad science - saying that you want a number or will create one is simply saying that you will insert a known flaw in the logic of the scheme. the point was that there is no number that is appropriate

if you select a number, it will overestimate in some cases and underestimate in others, probably by a wide margin

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By mamxet on 12/28/2009
how could one possibly calculate the probability of something that is determined by the decisions made by coaches? unless you have a model for brain function (which should be applied in more productive directions), I trust you understand that this is nonsense....maybe that was the intention

It was a bad choice of words, I'll admit that. I shouldn't have said probability because any person can sign 12 guys at the same position over the course of 4 seasons...but why would you and who would?

Someone who wants to win a title maybe? Since it has been done.

You're really going to keep trolling out these ridiculous example arguments? Let's say this has happened once or twice for argument's sake...there are still 368 out of 370 champions that had at least 1 player at 2 different roster positions....so let's see what should I go with....2 out of 370, or 368 out of 370.....lemme take the 2................

What you fail to realize is that whether it has happened twice or 50 times these teams would not be properly ranked in your system, again another flaw.

Wait a minute........you're really trying to spin this argument like this now? I ask why and who would sign 12 guys at the same position....you say guys who want to win titles...I return that probably an overwhelming majority (99+%) has won titles with at least 1 player at 2 different positions, and you start changing the subject and talking about how these teams will be considered in my rankings (not SOS)....classic zhawks....classic...

Quote: Originally posted by zhawks on 12/28/2009But colonels just there you yet again fail to realize what I am saying, regardless of if the team was good or bad your ranking would treat them all the same regardless of what position all 12 players are, while it can be done with sf's and titles won, what about pg's? or c's? Your ranking would treat them all the same and that is a major flaw, just because all 12 centers might be talented that doesn't make the team good. Is this that hard to grasp?

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 12/28/2009
the gist of this thread is a newer HD coach (colonels) who is very knowledgeable on ranking systems has proposed a way to modify his real life working system to HD, several vets, zhawks most notable, have pointed out flaws in the proposal due to colonel's lack of HD knowledge, which has set colonels off, making this thread more about emotion than anything.

I for one, feel when I get a sim aided team with a great record but bad ratings in the tourny my odds of winning go up, and if I get an elite conf team with a bad record but great ratings my odds of winning go down, the challenge is how to translate that 'feeling' into computer code, in such a manner that more problems are not created than already exist.

I think such ratings could be made a small factor in the rankings without harm to anyone, but like everything in HD, overcorrection is usually worse than no change at all, so it would have to be done correctly.

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 12/28/2009
the gist of this thread is a newer HD coach (colonels) who is very knowledgeable on ranking systems has proposed a way to modify his real life working system to HD, several vets, zhawks most notable, have pointed out flaws in the proposal due to colonel's lack of HD knowledge, which has set colonels off, making this thread more about emotion than anything.

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 12/28/2009

the gist of this thread is a newer HD coach (colonels) who is very knowledgeable on ranking systems has proposed a way to modify his real life working system to HD, several vets, zhawks most notable, have pointed out flaws in the proposal due to colonel's lack of HD knowledge, which has set colonels off, making this thread more about emotion than anything.

Can we at least acknowledge that when zhawks "points things out" in general, he does it like a dick.

I agree, OR, that's kind of been a reason why I've been supporting this proposal as a supplemental ranking system. It's simply too easy to manipulate SOS and, consequently, RPI.

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 12/28/2009

the gist of this thread is a newer HD coach (colonels) who is very knowledgeable on ranking systems has proposed a way to modify his real life working system to HD, several vets, zhawks most notable, have pointed out flaws in the proposal due to colonel's lack of HD knowledge, which has set colonels off, making this thread more about emotion than anything.

Can we at least acknowledge that when zhawks "points things out" in general, he does it like a dick.

I agree, OR, that's kind of been a reason why I've been supporting this proposal as a supplemental ranking system. It's simply too easy to manipulate SOS and, consequently, RPI.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 12/28/2009

the gist of this thread is a newer HD coach (colonels) who is very knowledgeable on ranking systems has proposed a way to modify his real life working system to HD, several vets, zhawks most notable, have pointed out flaws in the proposal due to colonel's lack of HD knowledge, which has set colonels off, making this thread more about emotion than anything.

Can we at least acknowledge that when zhawks "points things out" in general, he does it like a dick.

I agree, OR, that's kind of been a reason why I've been supporting this proposal as a supplemental ranking system. It's simply too easy to manipulate SOS and, consequently, RPI.

I think it would be best to aknowledge, in that case, that Colonels hasn't exactly been innocent of responding like this himself. So his ability to criticize others for it reasonably is, shall we say, rather limited.

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By oldresorter on 12/28/2009

the gist of this thread is a newer HD coach (colonels) who is very knowledgeable on ranking systems has proposed a way to modify his real life working system to HD, several vets, zhawks most notable, have pointed out flaws in the proposal due to colonel's lack of HD knowledge, which has set colonels off, making this thread more about emotion than anything.

Can we at least acknowledge that when zhawks "points things out" in general, he does it like a dick.

I agree, OR, that's kind of been a reason why I've been supporting this proposal as a supplemental ranking system. It's simply too easy to manipulate SOS and, consequently, RPI.

Frankly, I can see ways to manipulate this too.

Say hello to point guards with high block ratings and Low post, for example. It will boost the overall average. And you couldn't fix it by removing the LP of guards. . .because a number of people use Guards at small forward, where LP DOES matter.

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009But colonels just there you yet again fail to realize what I am saying, regardless of if the team was good or bad your ranking would treat them all the same regardless of what position all 12 players are, while it can be done with sf's and titles won, what about pg's? or c's? Your ranking would treat them all the same and that is a major flaw, just because all 12 centers might be talented that doesn't make the team good. Is this that hard to grasp

Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/28/2009
really bad answer - the point being made was that coming up with A NUMBER is bad science - saying that you want a number or will create one is simply saying that you will insert a known flaw in the logic of the scheme. the point was that there is no number that is appropriate Its inherently harder to beat another human than a sim, is it not?

if you select a number, it will overestimate in some cases and underestimate in others, probably by a wide margin If that number is the same for all humans, I don't see how this is a problem, especially if its a low number, which I intend it to be. It would only be a slight boost to the team's overall rating, it wouldn't be some life changing gap that you'd crap yourself over. It makes what I'm doing better.