okay, thats what i thought, dogg.

i was pretty sure that down deep in places you don like to talk about parties, you want that spiritual side of HD, you NEED that spiritual side of HD.

good it know it is on the menu

Quote: Originally Posted By mtngoats on 6/01/2010just once all 0's for 1 game OD

okay goatman!

T-minus-5minutes

oldavey has finally succumbed to the mtgoatian FB philosophy... at least for a day.

we are playing #1 Louisvlle in the tark bigeast quarterfinals.

they beatus by 10 or15 at our place way back in game one of the conf season.

and since hca has been worth 20-25 points in the bigeast this season, i figure i am good for a 35-40 point beatdown.

so, here goes nuthin'!

zeroes on parade!

stay tuned.....

so...

im thinking of making a post about overachievers as ive had two freshmen recently who blew my mind.

so,  before, making a post, like any good forum user,  i did a search for "overachievers"  and then just "achieve"... but got nothing.
then thought:  am I spelling that right?   so i typed in "acheive" and ended up here!    funny thing is... it IS of course  spelled "achieve".

if you are not grinning yet... look who started the thread and when.


 

cant recall what happened with my venture into zero-land.  

ok,  back to the point.

heres case #1:

earl "the pearl" barajas
http://www.whatifsports.com/hd/PlayerProfile/Ratings.aspx?tid=12761&pid=2665406

I guess the numbers arent jawdropping,  but they dont show that he started out as a low dist guy and i think he averaged more like 11 or 12 ppg during conf play.  and no matter his distro seemed to allways hit 50%+ of his shots and get to the line alot (and make the FTs)

granted, we did play a weak schedule (SOS 179).  but in the 5 or 6 games we played vs good teams, he carried his weight whereas several of his more experienced mates did not.  
The best rationale that i have heard for these type of players is that with fairly skilled and slightly more experienced players around him, the simengine somehow places a lower priority on him to simulate the fact that opposing defenses dont expect him to be a scorer.  in other words,  the defense is not playing with one eye on him at all times like they normally would with a really skilled scorer.  I guess that makes some sense and seems to fit the numbers.  that would suggest that his numbers may get worse through his career as older players graduate.



BOTTOM LINE... do you predict the Pearl will continue to be a very good offensive player?  or will he come back to earth as the schedule gets tougher?  
or will he do well again in his soph year as we only lost one senior and he'll still not be the focus of opponents scouting reports.... and then suffer big dropoff in his jr and sr years when he may be counted on to be the man?

Posted by oldave on 5/31/2010 12:23:00 AM (view original):
i have allways been intriged by underperormers and overacheivers in HD.

you know what i mean... the senior SG who is basically maxed out across the board and great IQs, yet he is shooting 31%.

or the occasional freshman that shoots 55% despite ratings worse than nearly all of his teammates and an IQ that is certainly not helping his cause.

In some cases it just seems that there MUST be some hidden variables, but admin has repeatedly and forcefully said "no".

hmm...

I know I've noticed my underperformers, maxed cores, guys who should dominate and end up not doing so. What I've noticed as well is sometimes these guys have spectacular seasons then they come back the next season and are mediocre at best - after supposedly improving in the offseason or gaining higher IQ.

What I neglect to look at sometimes is that maybe for example my high passing, bh pg may have graduated. Or in some manner I've rearranged my lineup to compensate for whatever and that lineup may suffer a bit. Meanwhile on my bench - my second rotation guys are looking better than my first team guys whether it's due to playing against similar backup players or just being in a more cohesive lineup.

My overachievers aren't always overacheiving as scorers only - some guys grab more boards - get more assists - or steals - etc. than they normally would and it really comes out of nowhere. Just this last season my biggest assist guy (not that he was all that high - 2.8 I think) had the lowest passer rating out of all my guards yet was the leading assist guy on my team. I know most guys say assists are window dressing - but when I see an increase in assists, I see that as an increase in shots made and if the engine is awarding one guy the majority of assists on my team from a backup position it raises my eyebrows a bit. I basically try to get that player more PT to see if the trend continues.

In this I do agree there are hidden variables - variables that change from one season to the next - which only increases my enjoyment of gameplanning and actually reading all my pbp's.

Posted by oldave on 6/11/2010 1:58:00 PM (view original):

Quote: Originally Posted By mtngoats on 6/01/2010just once all 0's for 1 game OD

okay goatman!

T-minus-5minutes

oldavey has finally succumbed to the mtgoatian FB philosophy... at least for a day.

we are playing #1 Louisvlle in the tark bigeast quarterfinals.

they beatus by 10 or15 at our place way back in game one of the conf season.

and since hca has been worth 20-25 points in the bigeast this season, i figure i am good for a 35-40 point beatdown.

so, here goes nuthin'!

zeroes on parade!

well,  if my figgerin is correct... we DID beat heavily favored Lville in that big east qfinal CT game!

 I assume i honored my promise and went all zeroes.

i think it was season 0046 because that seems close to right, and because the only other time that Lville was highly ranked was season 0036 and im pretty sure that occured way before june 2010.

i see cuse finished that year 19-11 (8-8 in big E) rpi27 and lost in first round of NT.   but we were 2-2 at neutral sites.  thats gotta mean we were 0-1 in the big dance and 2-1 in the CT and that means we won our qfinal game  (and we were likely the 4seed in the east division)

Lville finsihed that year  24-6 (13-3 in big E) rpi 4  and made it to the sweet16.  they were 2-2 at neutral sites.  thats gotta mean they were 2-1 in the NT and 0-1 in the CT and lost in the qfinals.  they were verylikely the 1seed in the westdivision and would have likley played the east4seed in the qfinals

the big question is did i stick with the zeroes?   i see we lost our next two games (CT semifinals and round1 NT).   my best guess is those games would have been more or less pickem,  maybe slight underdog in CT and maybe slight favorite in NT.

red,   i think i am correct in saying that admins have consistently said there are no hidden variables  (that is a rating that is unseen that causes players to under or over perform as compared to what we would expect out of the skill ratings that we do see.

i guess the term "hidden" could be used a bit differently though... that the combination of factors that leads to success is not perfectly and completely known by even the greatest of coaches.  so, perhaps, some overachievers are explained by the fact that most of use dont fully understand all the variables that lead to individual player success.

I finally figured it out od - the kids's name was Otto, so naturally he played well for Syracuse....

Posted by oldave on 5/31/2010 9:17:00 AM (view original):

Quote: Originally Posted By kelby_03 on 5/31/2010maybe you're just a terrible coach

bite me

+1

Posted by dacj501 on 2/28/2014 11:14:00 AM (view original):
I finally figured it out od - the kids's name was Otto, so naturally he played well for Syracuse....

that went over my head at first dac... then i looked back to start of thread and saw that was the name of the overachiever in question and then i realized that is also the name of the cuse mascot.

problem solved... recruit players with whose names are similar to the mascot!   ;-)

Donald Matherly, the starting SF for my Colorado St. team, is actually mostly over-acheiving, but is somehow shooting %37 from FT range (9 of 24) so far this season - he has a B- in FT shooting!

Posted by oldave on 2/28/2014 11:08:00 AM (view original):
red,   i think i am correct in saying that admins have consistently said there are no hidden variables  (that is a rating that is unseen that causes players to under or over perform as compared to what we would expect out of the skill ratings that we do see.

i guess the term "hidden" could be used a bit differently though... that the combination of factors that leads to success is not perfectly and completely known by even the greatest of coaches.  so, perhaps, some overachievers are explained by the fact that most of use dont fully understand all the variables that lead to individual player success.

Are you saying that you agree with admin then? I don't think there is a specific rating with a numerical value - but I do believe there's some factor in overall team chemistry that allows this over/underachiever anomaly -

You could be right as well about the lack of understanding, there are just times it seems when the overachievers (bench guys) seem to be acting as extentions of the underachievers (starters). Like with your case - Your better big - and better by a large margin - is taking all the lumps but when his little bro comes in he gets to benefit from what big bro has done - whether it's playing against another back up or a tiring starter. Or even just a better chemistry in the second lineup - It'll be fun to figure out which is which

how bout when your "team FT defense" is awful.

my JCS team is bad in a million different ways...  is it really necessary for our oppoenents to shoot nearly 80% from the FT line when they otherwise average about 69%?