The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic

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
Because it doesn't and shouldn't. Fact is, you still don't know this. How well your team plays matters not how many 99 rebounders or ball handlers I have on my team. and my ranking system uses performance (W-L) way more than Talent (SOS) something you still haven't gripped.


Please stop calling all of us stupid, we know what talent is.
12/28/2009 12:01 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/28/2009




Well, no. The reason I can't get past it isn't because it's not used in real life. It's because I can see that it doesn't work here, because there are a lot of examples like the one OR so easily offered up. Its because you can't differentiate between TALENT and PERFORMANCE, and that's not my problem...this is how you're closed-minded...you can't even grasp the TALENT concept, devoid of PERFORMANCE...why not?

Any system that would look at those two teams and say that the win over the 6-20, 188 rpi team is better than the win over the 24-2, 2 rpi team is simply a flawed system in my honest opinion. In your honest opinion is right. If you can't see how from a TALENT STANDPOINT that these wins are close to equal, then you're being closed minded. Its fascinating to me that you guys can't grasp the whole TALENT concept.


colonels, I've made an effort today to keep my responses to you constructive and devoid of any personal attacks or nastiness. Shame that you can't do the same, it would make the thread 100x better.

And yes, I understand the concept of talent vs. performance. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. I just know that 1. Overall rating is not a great indicator of talent and 2. Desire to rate SOS purely overall rating vs. results is a mathematical construct that simply does not translate well/properly to HD.

Who really cares if the talent level between the two teams is kinda/sorta close, if one team is actually fantastic and the other team stinks?
12/28/2009 12:03 PM
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 colonels19 on 12/28/2009

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




Well, no. The reason I can't get past it isn't because it's not used in real life. It's because I can see that it doesn't work here, because there are a lot of examples like the one OR so easily offered up. Its because you can't differentiate between TALENT and PERFORMANCE, and that's not my problem...this is how you're closed-minded...you can't even grasp the TALENT concept, devoid of PERFORMANCE...why not?

right because talent doesn't matter if you can't win with it. You shouldn't get bonus points towards nt seeding because you have 4 99 rebounders! Or your pg is 100 bh/pa!

Any system that would look at those two teams and say that the win over the 6-20, 188 rpi team is better than the win over the 24-2, 2 rpi team is simply a flawed system in my honest opinion. In your honest opinion is right. If you can't see how from a TALENT STANDPOINT that these wins are close to equal, then you're being closed minded. Its fascinating to me that you guys can't grasp the whole TALENT concept.


And yet again here is you telling us we don't understand what you are talking about. I thought you said you weren't calling us stupid
I called you stupid? Oh really? I said you...well dalter...is continually failing to grasp my concept because he's never seen anything like it before thus he won't entertain the entire premise.

And right, talent doesn't matter if you can't win with it, but WINS and LOSSES, NOT SOS, will bear that out. Performance doesn't replace talent. And lastly, I never said you should get bonus points for being a high rated team when being considered for NT selection. The 31 or so conference champions make it and the other top 33 teams in the BPI rankings make it as well, based on their PERFORMANCE against their OTR SOS looked at at an individual game basis.
12/28/2009 12:06 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
. .but if those ratings are inadequate to differentiate two teams from eachother, how are they adequate to differentiate two schedules from eachother?
12/28/2009 12:08 PM
metsmax
Posts: 1598 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 836 2
Pro
lets talk about how to reflect IQ in a "talent rating" scheme

cant use IQ in all offenses and defenses - given that a team wont use most of them. IF one did use ALL offenses and defenses it would bias the results toward (a) teams that over invested in IQ by learning two offenses or (b) teams that run combo defense, etc

I suppose one would need to include as a factor IQs in the actual offense/defenses used in the game. Probably need to apply the same minute weighting approach that one selects to weight attribute ratings for players. A bench guy with A+ IQ for 8 minutes doesnt have the same effect as a 27 minute starter - same as with skills.

What if a team is in the process of switching from one system to another, starts the season running the old offense but puts all the practice into the new offense - should the ranking pay any attention to that change and rank the team's CURRENT ability or look to its typical ability over the course of the season? (An example of this problem is a team that starts with say four guys with A rankings in man defense and eight guys with F's....meanwhile the team works on its press and by game 20 has 12 guys at B- and then starts running the press. Any special adjustment? or just look at each game as a separate data point?

Weight recent games more heavily?
12/28/2009 12:09 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 12/28/2009
No. We grasp poerfectly the difference between talent and perfpormance, and thing that what teams actually do is more of a determinant of how strong your opponents were than what they are 'capable' of doing.

A TALENT SOS is concrete, a PERFORMANCE SOS is subjective because its based on W-L and schedules made up across 300+ teams with varying strengths and what have you. To call a TALENT SOS flawed but suggested a PERFORMANCE SOS isn't flawed is hilariously closed-minded.

12/28/2009 12:09 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
By continuing to tell us we can not grasp what you are talking about and that is why we don't agree is calling us stupid.
12/28/2009 12:09 PM
dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
Z is right, there have been more times than I can remember in this thread that you've suggested everyone else is too slow to understand what you're talking about. But the reality is that your proposal does not contain any high-level thinking that would be difficult for anyone to understand, the concept is incredibly basic.

So please stop insulting everyone every chance you get it. We get it. It's not advanced or difficult to understand. The thread will be much better (and you'll have a better chance of getting your message across) if you stop insulting everyone.
12/28/2009 12:10 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 12/28/2009Right. For a long time I have been tryign to draw you away from that one specific example to the broader point and you refuse to even renmotely attempt to address it. . why is that? Why do you refuse to actually address the question that IS asked rather than what you WANT the question to be? You work for East ANglia?

I love when you perpetuate this "poor me" argument...instead of grandstanding that I missed your point (which I didn't, I addressed that incredibly ridiculous example thoroughly), just ask the question then...ask it.
12/28/2009 12:10 PM
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


Please stop calling all of us stupid, Please we know what talent is. Not entirely sure of that, considering you've told me over the last umpteen pages how little OTRs matter...
12/28/2009 12:12 PM
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
Right. For a long time I have been tryign to draw you away from that one specific example to the broader point and you refuse to even renmotely attempt to address it. . why is that? Why do you refuse to actually address the question that IS asked rather than what you WANT the question to be? You work for East ANglia?

I love when you perpetuate this "poor me" argument...instead of grandstanding that I missed your point (which I didn't, I addressed that incredibly ridiculous example thoroughly), just ask the question then...ask it
YOu didn't address it at all. You just 'addressed" the center roster and went on without applying even an ounce of analytical skill to the example in question. THe point is that the team ratings are, in essence, an average, and an average is not a great measure to describe a complex aggregate.

12/28/2009 12:12 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/28/2009
Z is right, there have been more times than I can remember in this thread that you've suggested everyone else is too slow to understand what you're talking about. But the reality is that your proposal does not contain any high-level thinking that would be difficult for anyone to understand, the concept is incredibly basic.

So please stop insulting everyone every chance you get it. We get it. It's not advanced or difficult to understand. The thread will be much better (and you'll have a better chance of getting your message across) if you stop insulting everyone.





Whereupon he immediately proceeds to his secret weapon, insulting someone.

12/28/2009 12:13 PM
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



Please stop calling all of us stupid, Please we know what talent is. Not entirely sure of that, considering you've told me over the last umpteen pages how little OTRs matter...
Ok Mr. 39!
12/28/2009 12:17 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009

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




Well, no. The reason I can't get past it isn't because it's not used in real life. It's because I can see that it doesn't work here, because there are a lot of examples like the one OR so easily offered up. Its because you can't differentiate between TALENT and PERFORMANCE, and that's not my problem...this is how you're closed-minded...you can't even grasp the TALENT concept, devoid of PERFORMANCE...why not?

Any system that would look at those two teams and say that the win over the 6-20, 188 rpi team is better than the win over the 24-2, 2 rpi team is simply a flawed system in my honest opinion. In your honest opinion is right. If you can't see how from a TALENT STANDPOINT that these wins are close to equal, then you're being closed minded. Its fascinating to me that you guys can't grasp the whole TALENT concept.


colonels, I've made an effort today to keep my responses to you constructive and devoid of any personal attacks or nastiness. Shame that you can't do the same I have done the same...I can't help the fact that you can't/don't/won't grasp my concepts because you're closed-minded....I can't....if the truth hurts then so be it. I'm stating truth...my delivery is secondary to its content., it would make the thread 100x better.

And yes, I understand the concept of talent vs. performance. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. I just know that 1. Overall rating is not a great indicator of talent This is a hilarious comment that a lot of you make. Even after all the adjustments I purported? You all realize that player ratings make up team ratings and are the main determinant of winners and losers in this game, right? and 2. Desire to rate SOS purely overall rating vs. results is a mathematical construct that simply does not translate well/properly to HD. Why would you want to incorporate results TWICE when there are other solid/viable options? Also, that's quite a bold statement, considering you've never seen the system in practice either. Talent has nothing to do with performance while performance has everything to do with talent. Just because a team underperforms doesn't mean that they aren't talented and aren't good.

Who really cares if the talent level between the two teams is kinda/sorta close, if one team is actually fantastic and the other team stinks? Because at the base of what matters, the player ratings that make up the team ratings, they're relatively equal. They played vastly different schedules thus incorporating those can be vastly subjective. The only thing that's concrete here are the player ratings, so why not use them...they're the deciding factors of performance.

12/28/2009 12:20 PM
isack24
Posts: 1566 (0)
Hall of Famer
81 19
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/28/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By isack24 on 12/28/2009

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

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

I think you are parsing his statement wrong. He said using .1% of ratings in the NT selection process is too much...how exactly did I parse it wrong....I quoted verbatum what he said, lol. This is your argument, really?

It is easily assumed and the most parsimonious and likely interpretation that he believes or is saying that they don't have any (rightful) place in seeding.

Interpreting it the other way just so you can try to mock it is just being bull headed for the sake of it.




Fancy that, you missed what he was saying. Again.

I clearly stated that ratings have 0 (zero) place in NT seeding. They aren't currently there nor do they belong.
Why not?

And uber-talented team who starts poorly but finishes strong will get a ton of backing in RL, right? Isn't the purpose of seeding to have the best 64 teams in the tourney?

No, isack, I think the purpose is to have the 64 teams that performed best during the season and thus earned their NT bids.

But that's not really how they do it.

That's why a 25-5 mid-major often won't get in over an 18-12 major. They look at those teams and say, if this team played that team, which team would win? The answer, for the selection committee, is often the worse performing team, but the better-on-paper team.

No, it's because they look at a lot more than just W/L record. If that 25-5 team had just as strong an SOS, RPI and quality wins, they'd get in over the 18-12 team every time.

But very often, that 25-5 team has beaten up on pretty subpar competition, while the 18-win team has played a very tough schedule, beaten some really legit NT teams, etc.

Then why are things like last ten and runs in the CT so important in RL?

They often take the hottest teams at the time of the tournament because those are the best teams at the moment.

And although I agree with what you said, that's such a subjective determination that it's impossible to replicate. Performance is performance and talent is talent. In RL, they, at times, take teams based on talent and potential to make a run. Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.

All I'm saying is that using ratings in some small capacity to determine the best teams - the teams most capable of winning games - isn't that crazy.
12/28/2009 12:20 PM
◂ Prev 1...67|68|69|70|71...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.