So I was digging around for some preference stuff when I came across some screenshots I took of overall team ratings from right before we rolled over to 3.0. I realize that overall rating CAN be misleading but I think this is still pretty telling. Both these screenshots are taken at the end of the season when players stop growing so it's a good apples to apples comparison. Unfortunately I only have D3.

Pre 3.0

vs

Post 3.0

No 3.0 is not having lowing division recruit better players... I mean just more Durability...

In all seriousness, I'm happy you did this Benis! Thanks, it's pretty interesting.

I like when the data support the perception.

What's it about, on average, 5 points per core category?

For a bit of added perspective the DIII Elmhurst team would also have been the top overall rated DII team until 18 games into the season. Though I will also add too that only two of those players on the team were D1 pulldowns, the rest were DII pulls with good potential cores. It's a major difference from 2.0 when I remember having a team of 570range being good, and only a handful of teams topping 600 in a season.

I mean, the results seen here are a pretty logical result that was predicted since day 1.

I don't think anyone's ever disputed that D3 teams have access to players with higher starting OVRs. The conclusions people draw from that fact are where you get dispute.

Are you beating sims by more points than you used to? If so, what harm or benefit does that have?

Are you beating new players by more points than you used to? Are we doing enough to help those new players understand that they have access to roughly the same caliber player as the top D3 teams are getting, and helping them to know how and where to look for them? Or is this something better left for players to figure out for themselves?

Those are the questions we should be discussing.

"I don't think anyone's ever disputed that D3 teams have access to players with higher starting OVRs."

People have disputed this fact.

Posted by Benis on 6/21/2017 9:47:00 AM (view original):
"I don't think anyone's ever disputed that D3 teams have access to players with higher starting OVRs."

People have disputed this fact.

Doesnt sound very controversial to me, but ok. Wouldn't you agree that the implications are a more important topic?

Sure, I agree. It's tough to have a conversation about implications if we're still arguing whether it's true or not.

Can't talk about how global warming is harming the planet when there are still deniers!

Posted by Benis on 6/21/2017 10:09:00 AM (view original):
Sure, I agree. It's tough to have a conversation about implications if we're still arguing whether it's true or not.

Can't talk about how global warming is harming the planet when there are still deniers!

To go with that analogy, almost everyone agrees the planet is warming (though there is some debate as to what extent is due to anthropogenic forces, and what is natural/cyclical). The data is what it is, and is not very controversial. The people who deny the data can be safely ignored (at least until they gain public office, but I don't want to go off the rails here). The real decision points are centered on what can and should be done about it. Is there a net harm, and what can be done to mitigate it?

I'm gonna mark the day on my calendar that benis doesn't mention 2.0. Dude has a morbid fascination with a dead game.

I'm gonna mark the day on my calendar that Mike doesn't hop in a thread to start something. Dude has a morbid fascination with creating something.

I would be willing to bet that there is a significant correlation (p-value <.05) between climate change deniers and intelligence.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/21/2017 12:46:00 PM (view original):
I'm gonna mark the day on my calendar that benis doesn't mention 2.0. Dude has a morbid fascination with a dead game.

You can block me and then you won't be forced to read all about my fascinations.