The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic

dalter
Posts: 71 (0)
All Star
25
Prospect
OK, in a system where team rating is the sole determinant of SOS, how does that not equate to talent outweighing performance?
12/28/2009 12:36 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 12/28/2009
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
And again, you just continually do the same thing....tell me I didn't address it, but you don't even attempt to re-ask or re-phrase the question lol.

And by that last sentence, you STILL fail to understand and realize the changes I would make to better the OTRs that I've harped on numerous times. I can't debate someone that isn't currently up with the issues. An overall rating based on player usage, including IQ while eliminating WE-DU-ST is LIGHT YEARS BETTER than the current setup and that's what I want to do, and you're still talking about stuff in the context of how the OTRs currently are....I can't argue with this nonsense that has already been addressed.
12/28/2009 12:36 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009Calling us all closed minded doesn't help either
I can't help if the truth hurts...your closed-mindedness is on display for all to see.

And shockingly enough, when YOU stop debating the topics at hand, you've lost...so when are you leaving since you have nothing and have proven nothing...ridiculous examples included?
12/28/2009 12:38 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
What changes are you going to do to make OTRs better? You keep harping about them, lets hear them.
12/28/2009 12:38 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

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.

And again, you just continually do the same thing....tell me I didn't address it, but you don't even attempt to re-ask or re-phrase the question lol.

And by that last sentence, you STILL fail to understand and realize the changes I would make to better the OTRs that I've harped on numerous times. I can't debate someone that isn't currently up with the issues. An overall rating based on player usage, including IQ while eliminating WE-DU-ST is LIGHT YEARS BETTER than the current setup and that's what I want to do, and you're still talking about stuff in the context of how the OTRs currently are....I can't argue with this nonsense that has already been addressed.

Overall team ratings are measure of what a team COULD do in absolutely ideal circumstances that leaves out major components of what differentiates one team from another.n Additionally, the example WAS reasking and rephrasing. .yet you immediately went back to the 'centers' team/.

12/28/2009 12:38 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
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009
. .but if those ratings are inadequate to differentiate two teams from eachother Simple answer here...they aren't inadequate, how are they adequate to differentiate two schedules from eachother?

Then you DIDN'T say that using the overall rating to rank teams woudl be inadequate? YOU YOURSELF said this.
To rank teams based upon OTRs where games played wouldn't affect the ratings at all is stupid and NOBODY WOULD EVER DO THIS...here you go again trotting out another ridiculous example. A ranking devoid of actual games played is POINTLESS.
12/28/2009 12:39 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
And yet again, I'll ask the question you just ignored: Do you think ratings alone would be an adequate team rating system? This is a multi part series of questions. There are follow ups.

12/28/2009 12:40 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

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

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009
. .but if those ratings are inadequate to differentiate two teams from eachother Simple answer here...they aren't inadequate, how are they adequate to differentiate two schedules from eachother?

Then you DIDN'T say that using the overall rating to rank teams woudl be inadequate? YOU YOURSELF said this.
To rank teams based upon OTRs where games played wouldn't affect the ratings at all is stupid and NOBODY WOULD EVER DO THIS...here you go again trotting out another ridiculous example. A ranking devoid of actual games played is POINTLESS.
Ok then> So your answer is such a ranking would be ridiculous: yet you are inessence imbedding EXACTLY THAT RANKING within your overall ranking as the SOS component.

12/28/2009 12:41 PM
metsmax
Posts: 1598 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 2 836 2
Pro
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 would just use the O and D IQ of what the team runs most often.

whatcha gonne do with combo defense teams? press/man - average of the two?

12/28/2009 12:47 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
You all realize that player ratings make up team ratings and are the main determinant of winners and losers in this game, right?

Colonels, if this assertion is correct It is, if you have no player ratings, you have no game....its your players A and SPD that enable them to get up and down the court...their REB rating that factors rebounds...their LP/PE ratings that factor shooting...their BLK rating...etc...the assertion is clearly correct, you just and have never wanted to say, hey colonels, you're right...that's like devil worship to you...I've seen it from the word go...I've given you blatant questions where you would agree with me, and you still weaseled out to answer them in opposition to me....classic., then how do you explain OR's example. UNC w. the slightly better overall rating, yet they are a terrible team and Rutgers is a national title contender. Easily, the best/most talented teams don't always win and/or outperform teams of lesser talent....82 Chaminade over Virginia, 85 Villanova over Georgetown...97 or 98 Temple over Virginia Tech in CFB. If ratings really drove the process that much, this wouldn't be possible (and it's downright common to beat teams that are 30/40/50 points better than you). I think you have overemphasized how much ratings determine success vs. other factors. Ratings aren't meant to determine success, they're meant to determine team talent and player talent, and that's what they correctly and effectively do....I don't see how you can't understand that....and your post says that you don't, so don't trot out the "he's picking on us" line.

Just because a team underperforms doesn't mean that they aren't talented and aren't good.

Yes, if a team like UNC goes 6-20 w. a 188 rpi, it does mean they aren't very good, and that beating them is not very impressive. It means they've severely underperformed...it doesn't mean they're not talented.

The only thing that's concrete here are the player ratings, so why not use them...they're the deciding factors of performance.

Concrete? Yes. A good indication of how strong the team is? Absolutely not. This gets more hilarious every time I read it. Quit treating me like a simpleton, trotting out the same ridiculous nonsense over and over and over again. So that's why I wouldn't want to use them. I don't think you can look at the two teams in OR's example and still say that ratings are the deciding factors of performance. Without players and their talents, there is NO PERFORMANCE, there is NO GAME...you don't get it obviously...your post says so.

12/28/2009 12:47 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
Athleticism62
Speed93
Rebounding55
Defense75
Shot Blocking25
Low-post75
Perimeter15
Ball Handling60
Passing65
Work Ethic61
Stamina77
Durability29
FT ShootingB


Said player is a pg, but plays sf. He is a very different player when he is at pg then sf. Your system would not account for this.

Flawed.

So what? Nobody is putting a gun to this guy's head telling him to play him at SF than PG. This doesn't even matter, I don't even know why you brought it up.
12/28/2009 12:49 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
COlonels: I'll be very basic here - only one question at a time.

First question: Do you think team ratings alone would make a good measure for ranking how good teams are? Yes, or no? No, because that inherently means that results of games played would mean NOTHING...be sure you read the entire response...I know you like to pick and choose.



12/28/2009 12:50 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

Athleticism62
Speed93
Rebounding55
Defense75
Shot Blocking25
Low-post75
Perimeter15
Ball Handling60
Passing65
Work Ethic61
Stamina77
Durability29
FT ShootingB


Said player is a pg, but plays sf. He is a very different player when he is at pg then sf. Your system would not account for this.

Flawed.

So what? Nobody is putting a gun to this guy's head telling him to play him at SF than PG. This doesn't even matter, I don't even know why you brought it up
Because he is a much better small forward then pg, your system would not recognise this.
12/28/2009 12:50 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009I am trying to explain to you one of the major reasons you aren't getting anywhere with anyone
By suggesting I'm saying something that I've never said? Classy...
12/28/2009 12:50 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 zhawks on 12/28/2009

Athleticism62
Speed93
Rebounding55
Defense75
Shot Blocking25
Low-post75
Perimeter15
Ball Handling60
Passing65
Work Ethic61
Stamina77
Durability29
FT ShootingB


Said player is a pg, but plays sf. He is a very different player when he is at pg then sf. Your system would not account for this.

Flawed.

So what? Nobody is putting a gun to this guy's head telling him to play him at SF than PG. This doesn't even matter, I don't even know why you brought it up
Because the team playing this team si NOT playing the full capability fo that team, they are playing the team that actually takes the court and what it is actually doing, stupidity and all.

12/28/2009 12:51 PM
◂ Prev 1...69|70|71|72|73...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.