Posted by hughesjr on 11/12/2010 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by furry_nipps on 11/12/2010 1:22:00 PM (view original):
Check, check and check. You also forgot about rebounding, and how crazy stamina is which is what killed off the press.

I would call this an upset:

St. Martin vs. Hawaii Pacific

I was supposed to win by 1 and I lost by 22 because my 2 best players had 5 fouls each and played 13 and 15 minutes because of the fouls.  What do you mean upsets never happen.  I have been involved in at least 5 upsets on my 3 teams in the last 2 seasons.

And hows that an upset? Both are fairly even record wise and he has 8 upperclassmen to your 4 and only 1 SR. Talent is fairly even, so other then the fact it was  a sim ai that isn't a big deal. I'm talking about the stuff we use to see. Teams with huge talent gaps, not this crap.

on the general topic of passing effects on FG%, I have always thought that it had an effect, but there are too many variables to demonstrate that it is a factor - without a ton of work

it may well be that it matters more lately, based on what I have seen of results - viewed at level of general feel

may also be that the engine is giving it the same effect as ever, but now that every guard on any good DI team is no longer 95 BH and 95 PASS we get to see more effects????

Posted by metsmax on 11/12/2010 3:11:00 PM (view original):
on the general topic of passing effects on FG%, I have always thought that it had an effect, but there are too many variables to demonstrate that it is a factor - without a ton of work

it may well be that it matters more lately, based on what I have seen of results - viewed at level of general feel

may also be that the engine is giving it the same effect as ever, but now that every guard on any good DI team is no longer 95 BH and 95 PASS we get to see more effects????

on the last point, that maybe it is giving it the same effect as ever, i did ask for a clarification on my ticket just to make sure that seble did in fact change this in the new engine, not that he had been mistaken previously (which would be fine, i just want to know for sure).

i can't quantify if the effect has changed much, to me it looks similar, but i had basically assumed previously the effect was there and never tried to put a weight on it. where as in the new engine i was looking for the effect because seble said he would change it, and i honestly think he changed it in the initial engine release. but how important it is, i am not able to accurately quantify yet.

Posted by furry_nipps on 11/12/2010 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/12/2010 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by furry_nipps on 11/12/2010 1:22:00 PM (view original):
Check, check and check. You also forgot about rebounding, and how crazy stamina is which is what killed off the press.

I would call this an upset:

St. Martin vs. Hawaii Pacific

I was supposed to win by 1 and I lost by 22 because my 2 best players had 5 fouls each and played 13 and 15 minutes because of the fouls.  What do you mean upsets never happen.  I have been involved in at least 5 upsets on my 3 teams in the last 2 seasons.

And hows that an upset? Both are fairly even record wise and he has 8 upperclassmen to your 4 and only 1 SR. Talent is fairly even, so other then the fact it was  a sim ai that isn't a big deal. I'm talking about the stuff we use to see. Teams with huge talent gaps, not this crap.

Seriously? You liked teams that had huge talent advantages would lose often? When was the last time we had a guy going off about his huge upset? It's been a while and it's nice. From a wis perspective, nobody is going to quit the game because they can't pull the unbelievalbe upset, but people are going to start hating the game if they are the victim of a terrible upset. Cutting down on the ridiculous games can only be a good thing.

Posted by tkimble on 11/12/2010 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by furry_nipps on 11/12/2010 3:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hughesjr on 11/12/2010 2:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by furry_nipps on 11/12/2010 1:22:00 PM (view original):
Check, check and check. You also forgot about rebounding, and how crazy stamina is which is what killed off the press.

I would call this an upset:

St. Martin vs. Hawaii Pacific

I was supposed to win by 1 and I lost by 22 because my 2 best players had 5 fouls each and played 13 and 15 minutes because of the fouls.  What do you mean upsets never happen.  I have been involved in at least 5 upsets on my 3 teams in the last 2 seasons.

And hows that an upset? Both are fairly even record wise and he has 8 upperclassmen to your 4 and only 1 SR. Talent is fairly even, so other then the fact it was  a sim ai that isn't a big deal. I'm talking about the stuff we use to see. Teams with huge talent gaps, not this crap.

Seriously? You liked teams that had huge talent advantages would lose often? When was the last time we had a guy going off about his huge upset? It's been a while and it's nice. From a wis perspective, nobody is going to quit the game because they can't pull the unbelievalbe upset, but people are going to start hating the game if they are the victim of a terrible upset. Cutting down on the ridiculous games can only be a good thing.

Yeah, I did like that upsets would happen. I look at RL and I see it happening there, so why not here? Under this new engine app st would never beat mich. Miss st would have never lost to jackson st or whoever. VA tech would have never lost there games. There is even way more in BB. I enjoyed that anything could happen in any game. Players could play above there ratings or below them for a game and if a couple average players played great and a couple great players played average then you could see the upset. Seble made it so that won't happen anymore. Great players can only play so bad, and bad players can only play so good. True upsets have been completely removed. If teams are slightly better/worse, then an upset in that game can still happen like the link above shown. But, now its just flat out boring. No need to even check my caldwell team because the upset bug isn't going to bite anymore. We'll just cruise through it knowing my top players won't shoot under 35% in any game.

If my team is significantly better than your team and I significantly out coach you, I should win.   There should be no ridiculous upsets just to have ridiculous upsets.  I have no problem with the 1 in 50 upsets, I have problems with the 1 in 500 upsets, which as far as I can tell, happen much less frequently.

This all goes back to that infamous Armstrong Atlantic State v. Montevallo game in Tark...

This goes back to last season when New Jersey Tech was a #2 seed and got knocked off by the #15 seed. I guess its just me. lol 

Posted by furry_nipps on 11/12/2010 1:11:00 PM (view original):
I'm not sure he knows what hes doing anymore, or if he ever did. He made the re-write to make changes quickly and it seems like he doesn't know how to do it. Hes had bugs that he can't figure out why they are happening, and the only changes hes made has been bad for the game. Rebounding doesn't matter anymore, which use to be one of the most important areas in the game. Upsets don't happen, even though he thinks they do. Good players won't have bad games, and bad players won't have good games anymore. They are now limited to how good/bad they can be, which isn't good at all. He killed the press, but now FB is on the rise because more possessions = you will get more out of your players. You may have a guy that will range between 38 and 44% shooting, so the more shots he takes, the better game he will likely have. Until he proves he has any idea what hes doing, he can tell me the sun is going to rise tomorrow and I won't believe it. I can keep wishing I guess.

-To say rebounding doesn't matter is not correct. It does not matter as much as it did before (although I would certainly argue that it mattered too much before, and perhaps way too much), and I agree that the methodology for determining which players get rebounds seems off.

-Upsets absolutely happen. I understand you may be trying to make a point ... but come on.

-Good players definitely have bad games. I have good players have bad games, and forced other teams' good players into bad games as well.

-The press is very, very far from dead. You can still absolutely be successful with it and win NT's with it. The press used ot be laughably strong, so much so that if a press team played a non-press team, it was like the court was tilted and the non-press team was playing uphill. It was pretty ridiculous.

I think initially he overcorrected the press, but now it seems very much in line and as competitive as the other defenses. I think he could still tweak a couple things, but it is certainly far from dead.

Good players have bad games? Who? I looked at Galaviz. He had 1 bad game... A 1-5 game. That was just because he didn't shoot. After that, a 6 for 17. Doesn't look like hes having bad games. Vaz? Worst game looks to be 3 for 10, and then after that it'd be a 5 for 13 game. Not him either. McLilly had a 1-6 game and then his next worst is 4-10, which isn't bad. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. The only way a 'good' player is having a 'bad' night is if he just doesn't take enough shots. 

Posted by furry_nipps on 11/12/2010 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Good players have bad games? Who? I looked at Galaviz. He had 1 bad game... A 1-5 game. That was just because he didn't shoot. After that, a 6 for 17. Doesn't look like hes having bad games. Vaz? Worst game looks to be 3 for 10, and then after that it'd be a 5 for 13 game. Not him either. McLilly had a 1-6 game and then his next worst is 4-10, which isn't bad. I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. The only way a 'good' player is having a 'bad' night is if he just doesn't take enough shots. 

There is something to what furry says here.  It don't think it should be summarily dismissed.

seble confirmed that he did make this change in his initial new engine release back in may. just from a high level it seems to me this effect is pretty significant, as in looking at teams with low passing, it seems to pretty clearly be dropping their fg% from what i would expect based on individual offensive talents and their strength of schedule. but it seems to be a deeper issue than that. to me, the obvious questions are -

- what is the magnitude of this change? it seems to me to be at least a 5% potential difference, which is significant enough to make me want to be able to nail it down further than that. but if its 5% from terrible to great passing, or 5% from decent to very good, that is a huge difference.

- how is this effect graded across positions? for example, does the passing of your pg increase the scoring ability of team mates twice as much as the passing of your center? 5 times as much? equal amounts?

- to keep the balance of importance across attributes, were the other impacts of passing diminished? a player's own turnover rate and his team mates' turnover rate were key points of passing in the old engine, i wonder if this has been changed to some degree?

- if passing's impacts were rebalanced, what are the effects on other ratings? for example, if passing now has a lesser effect on turnover rates of other team mates, does bh have a greater effect?