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 a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009
Take out the specific example, if you want. The point is that what ratings are valuable, and how valuable, is highly dependent on the position being played. YOu take two teams with exactly the same aggregate ranking(Even minus DUrability and Work ethic) And one can be MUCH better than the other just becuase of which players have what ratings.

I have a hard time taking a post like this seriously when you say, throw out the very specific, most ridiculous, extreme example ever that zhawks has said...nice touch. Why adjust team overalls at all if a team with 12 players at the same position can and supposedly have won a title?
12/28/2009 10:13 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
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'm still arguing fact and principle here...just because you don't like how I'm defending myself doesn't mean that I've lost touch with the "debate" here. Also, this isn't a modification of my RL rankings, this is an entirely NEW concept made specifically for games where player ratings are measurable and concrete...just wanted to clear that up.

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. You're unlikely to see this, period...I don't think I'm even going to bother pitching this to WIS...the only thing I would ask them to do is to improve the overall rating.

12/28/2009 10:16 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009OR his main idea is using Teams Overall average as a big part of your SOS, which is so flawed since Overall means litterally nothing in HD
Every time you say this, I chuckle...you've said in the past that ratings matter, now you're saying they mean "literally nothing"....can I bronze this thread somewhere?
12/28/2009 10:18 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009
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.

Somebody clap for the intelligent man...
12/28/2009 10:18 AM
oldresorter
Posts: 646 (0)
Hall of Famer
1110 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009
Yeah, I agree with that, too. It just seemed to me that OR's post made colonels out to be the only problem here, and my guess is that isn't true.

I agree, though, you guys have been doing this a long time, and if it took him 40 pages to understand the flaws with overall rating being used as a ranking, then I understand your frustration.

A - absolutely, I agree. I was never on board with this replacing the current SoS. I like ranking things, too, so I see some "fun" value in having it. My only point was that WiS wants to keep RL SoS because it's easy and they don't have to do anything, but it is particularly applicable to WiS because of the sims, and they should look into adjusting it.

Isack, i simply said colonels has been set off - because that is the truth, he has posted here nearly every ten minutes for the last 4 or 5 days about the subject, which is rather alot - is it not - I called him no names, made no attempt to judge him or the quality of his idea - did I?

I called colonels very knowledgeable, and I have consistently agreed with his notion that ratings have a place in HD rankings, although I would include them in moderation and probably very differently than he may be proposing, which is a little hard to judge, because he is protecting the real life concept which is viewed as proprietary. I actually have my own system, which predicts conference HD outcomes fairly accurately based on player ratings, not team ratings, the world is not short of 'systems'



12/28/2009 10:20 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009
He hasn't given anybody that disagrees with him any respect. This keeps getting better and better...you're making my morning, please keep it up lol.And he has insluted everyones intelligence numerous times early on. uhhh how? I am not saying I have been perfect in my responses but I did not call anyone any names as he has on a number of occasions. If you're offended by being suggestively referred to as a boob, then go sulk in a pillow...like I said in the other thread, a boob is like a cheeky idiot. I called you a puss earlier but have apologized for that long ago. Isack, if you haven't read the entire thread then I don't think you should speak on this subject because colonels is not innocent here. You may not like the way that I've responded, but I've responded belligerently to guys like you because that's what you roll out...you want to come at and slam with me...fine...let's go...just know you're in for the fight of your life and I AM NOT LOSING PERIOD. You chose a battle that you cannot win.

12/28/2009 10:22 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009
Yeah, I agree with that, too. It just seemed to me that OR's post made colonels out to be the only problem here, and my guess is that isn't true.

I agree, though, you guys have been doing this a long time, and if it took him 40 pages to understand the flaws with overall rating being used as a ranking, then I understand your frustration.

A - absolutely, I agree. I was never on board with this replacing the current SoS. I like ranking things, too, so I see some "fun" value in having it. My only point was that WiS wants to keep RL SoS because it's easy and they don't have to do anything, but it is particularly applicable to WiS because of the sims, and they should look into adjusting it.

If rankings were not used to seed teams in the tournament then go for it, use player ratings. Since rankings are used player ratings have no place in anything, only a teams on court performance should count for NT selection, not how highly their players are rated.
12/28/2009 10:22 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009

Take out the specific example, if you want. The point is that what ratings are valuable, and how valuable, is highly dependent on the position being played. YOu take two teams with exactly the same aggregate ranking(Even minus DUrability and Work ethic) And one can be MUCH better than the other just becuase of which players have what ratings.

I have a hard time taking a post like this seriously when you say, throw out the very specific, most ridiculous, extreme example ever that zhawks has said...nice touch. Why adjust team overalls at all if a team with 12 players at the same position can and supposedly have won a title


Because the specific example seems to be smokescreening you from the basic point to the degree where you don't even try to address it. As you are not here. You are using his specific example and trying to ridicule it as a dodge to avoid serious discussion.



]
12/28/2009 10:23 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009Exactly, there isn't a way to fix it. And colonels has yet to answer how he could / would do this by avoiding the question by saying nobody ever has 12 player from one position or that this just doesn't matter
You know what my answer is...IT DOESN'T MATTER. If teams can win championships with 12 guys at the same position, why should I make any adjustment? You guys want to trot out ridiculous statements like guards with high block ratings, etc...who cares...that's what the coach recruited...just because he doesn't know any better doesn't mean that an adjustment needs to be made. I've challenged y'all to weight the individual ratings and nobody has done so to date.

Funny how zhawks is commenting with someone elses argument to attack me...I just love this gang mentality he has.
12/28/2009 10:26 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009

He hasn't given anybody that disagrees with him any respect. This keeps getting better and better...you're making my morning, please keep it up lol.And he has insluted everyones intelligence numerous times early on. uhhh how? I am not saying I have been perfect in my responses but I did not call anyone any names as he has on a number of occasions. If you're offended by being suggestively referred to as a boob, then go sulk in a pillow...like I said in the other thread, a boob is like a cheeky idiot. I called you a puss earlier but have apologized for that long ago. Isack, if you haven't read the entire thread then I don't think you should speak on this subject because colonels is not innocent here. You may not like the way that I've responded, but I've responded belligerently to guys like you because that's what you roll out...you want to come at and slam with me...fine...let's go...just know you're in for the fight of your life and I AM NOT LOSING PERIOD. You chose a battle that you cannot win.





Don't even try that, Colonels. You were doing it right f4rom the get go.



12/21/2009 at 5:16 pm
"If you think otherwise, quite frankly, you're insane."



A pretty basic lack of respect to anyone disagreeing with you, rather early on.

12/28/2009 10:26 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009
And right on cue, Colonels chimes in and calls someone 'Pathetic', proving the point.



At least his grammar (you're) was proper.
12/28/2009 10:26 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009

Take out the specific example, if you want. The point is that what ratings are valuable, and how valuable, is highly dependent on the position being played. YOu take two teams with exactly the same aggregate ranking(Even minus DUrability and Work ethic) And one can be MUCH better than the other just becuase of which players have what ratings.

I have a hard time taking a post like this seriously when you say, throw out the very specific, most ridiculous, extreme example ever that zhawks has said...nice touch. Why adjust team overalls at all if a team with 12 players at the same position can and supposedly have won a title
All Small Forwards did, that isn't saying that they will or all can be good but it is possible. Again you just throw this out as "Doesn't matter" and never directly answer it. Classic Colonels.
12/28/2009 10:27 AM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009
Exactly, there isn't a way to fix it. And colonels has yet to answer how he could / would do this by avoiding the question by saying nobody ever has 12 player from one position or that this just doesn't matter.
You know what my answer is...IT DOESN'T MATTER. If teams can win championships with 12 guys at the same position, why should I make any adjustment? You guys want to trot out ridiculous statements like guards with high block ratings, etc...who cares...that's what the coach recruited...just because he doesn't know any better doesn't mean that an adjustment needs to be made. I've challenged y'all to weight the individual ratings and nobody has done so to date.

Funny how zhawks is commenting with someone elses argument to attack me...I just love this gang mentality he has.

So why exactly are people not allowed to build on other people's arguments if someone else has alltready made a point they wanted to make? Is this some sort of "Marquis of Queensbury' rules where everyone has to independently make every single argument by themselves?


YOu have several times latched onto posts by other people that you thought supported you, yet you seem to think noone else should have that privlidge.

12/28/2009 10:28 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009

Yeah, I agree with that, too. It just seemed to me that OR's post made colonels out to be the only problem here, and my guess is that isn't true.

I agree, though, you guys have been doing this a long time, and if it took him 40 pages to understand the flaws with overall rating being used as a ranking, then I understand your frustration.

A - absolutely, I agree. I was never on board with this replacing the current SoS. I like ranking things, too, so I see some "fun" value in having it. My only point was that WiS wants to keep RL SoS because it's easy and they don't have to do anything, but it is particularly applicable to WiS because of the sims, and they should look into adjusting it.

If rankings were not used to seed teams in the tournament then go for it, use player ratings. Since rankings are used player ratings have no place in anything, only a teams on court performance should count for NT selection, not how highly their players are rated
And what you still fail to realize is that in my ENTIRE RANKING SYSTEM that will include the OTR SOS, PERFORMANCE in the form of WINS and LOSSES will trump the OTR SOS....SOS is a secondary concept in my rankings...player ratings will have essentially nothing to do with who gets selected to the NT or not. This proves that you STILL do not understand my concept, ranking system, etc.
12/28/2009 10:30 AM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009
OR his main idea is using Teams Overall average as a big part of your SOS, which is so flawed since Overall means litterally nothing in HD.
Every time you say this, I chuckle...you've said in the past that ratings matter, now you're saying they mean "literally nothing"....can I bronze this thread somewhere


No, I said a teams overall rating doesn't matter, I never said anything about a specific players ratings. Please do stop putting words in my mouth.
12/28/2009 10:30 AM
◂ Prev 1...60|61|62|63|64...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.