screwing power teams! Topic

I doubt that. I suspect there are more.
1/5/2010 7:22 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/05/2010I doubt that. I suspect there are more
Well, then maybe the tardness level isn't quite what it used to be. Or maybe the leagues I'm in (except for one) have just gotten better.
1/5/2010 8:01 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 1/05/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By shobob on 1/05/2010
I'm thinking that all of the data from all of the worlds is a large enough sample size to trust the results.
Sorry. You might have something to report after 30 seasons, considering all the confounding variables you would have to control for. You might be able to form preliminary conclusions after 20 seasons.

Actually, I don't think even that is possible in any reliable way. Of course, I realize what fun it is to add 2 and 2, think you've got something significant and wail about how that have screwed the game. Have your fun, by all means.

That's good. I am sure more than 30 seasons worth of games have been played across all worlds. As I suspected, we have plenty of games played to go by to at least question the results. God knows they didn't look at 30 seasons of data when making the decision to make the changes they made.
1/5/2010 8:03 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By hartjh14 on 1/05/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 1/05/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By shobob on 1/05/2010
I'm thinking that all of the data from all of the worlds is a large enough sample size to trust the results.
Sorry. You might have something to report after 30 seasons, considering all the confounding variables you would have to control for. You might be able to form preliminary conclusions after 20 seasons.

Actually, I don't think even that is possible in any reliable way. Of course, I realize what fun it is to add 2 and 2, think you've got something significant and wail about how that have screwed the game. Have your fun, by all means.

That's good. I am sure more than 30 seasons worth of games have been played across all worlds. As I suspected, we have plenty of games played to go by to at least question the results. God knows they didn't look at 30 seasons of data when making the decision to make the changes they made.
hart, if you know any fifth graders ask them about fractions. It could open up a whole new world for you. Until then, have your jollies imagining HBD boogiemen ... or whatever.
1/5/2010 8:24 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By kahrtmen on 1/05/2010
Um, we started our current season on 11/6, and it finished several days ago.
Wahoo, ONE season plus innumerable fractions. Only twenty-nine seasons to go per world.
1/5/2010 8:25 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 1/05/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By hartjh14 on 1/05/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 1/05/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By shobob on 1/05/2010
I'm thinking that all of the data from all of the worlds is a large enough sample size to trust the results.
Sorry. You might have something to report after 30 seasons, considering all the confounding variables you would have to control for. You might be able to form preliminary conclusions after 20 seasons.

Actually, I don't think even that is possible in any reliable way. Of course, I realize what fun it is to add 2 and 2, think you've got something significant and wail about how that have screwed the game. Have your fun, by all means.

That's good. I am sure more than 30 seasons worth of games have been played across all worlds. As I suspected, we have plenty of games played to go by to at least question the results. God knows they didn't look at 30 seasons of data when making the decision to make the changes they made.
Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 1/05/2010
There has not been a single season completed in any world since this change. Even a fifth grader understands that something less than a whole is a fraction.
hart, if you know any fifth graders ask them about fractions. It could open up a whole new world for you. Until then, have your jollies imagining HBD boogiemen ... or whatever
Add 1/2 to 1/2 and tell me what you get. If the answer is something other than 1, try again. If you add enough 1s together, you can get to 30. See? Fractions are easy, you just didn't know it. You'll find out if you ever make it to 5th grade. You can thank me for the lesson later.
1/5/2010 8:28 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By hartjh14 on 1/05/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By snake_p on 1/05/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By shobob on 1/05/2010
I'm thinking that all of the data from all of the worlds is a large enough sample size to trust the results.
Sorry. You might have something to report after 30 seasons, considering all the confounding variables you would have to control for. You might be able to form preliminary conclusions after 20 seasons.

Actually, I don't think even that is possible in any reliable way. Of course, I realize what fun it is to add 2 and 2, think you've got something significant and wail about how that have screwed the game. Have your fun, by all means.

That's good. I am sure more than 30 seasons worth of games have been played across all worlds. As I suspected, we have plenty of games played to go by to at least question the results. God knows they didn't look at 30 seasons of data when making the decision to make the changes they made.
Bolded for the fraction impaired snake's reading pleasure. Just in case he thinks you need 30 seasons of data before making any changes...
1/5/2010 8:30 PM
You don't need full seasons to spot trends. We are not looking at statistical samples, we are looking at snapshots (an appropriate title to the link earlier). Snapshots are not random as a true statistical sample would be.

If we are trying to spot trends, it's perfectly legitimate to look at the equivalent of 30 seasons worth of data in a snapshot form because we are not necessarily trying to isolate seasonal totals; we are trying to determine what the current rates are (we can always extrapolate seasonal totals if the data set is large enough). I would say that there is enough data out there to suggest that the effect of the change has been significant. The home run rate is down everywhere I've seen. I haven't had the time to explore the numbers like some of you, but I can see a reduction in slugging for both of my franchises, including the minor leagues (although those are obviously less reliable indicators).

On the few occasions I've spoken up in this thread, I've mentioned that it still goes back to finding good players, not necessarily specialty players. And if you do have specialty players, you better have different types. I think the change is generally okay.
1/5/2010 8:57 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By silentpadna on 1/05/2010
You don't need full seasons to spot trends. We are not looking at statistical samples, we are looking at snapshots (an appropriate title to the link earlier). Snapshots are not random as a true statistical sample would be.

If we are trying to spot trends, it's perfectly legitimate to look at the equivalent of 30 seasons worth of data in a snapshot form because we are not necessarily trying to isolate seasonal totals; we are trying to determine what the current rates are (we can always extrapolate seasonal totals if the data set is large enough). I would say that there is enough data out there to suggest that the effect of the change has been significant. The home run rate is down everywhere I've seen. I haven't had the time to explore the numbers like some of you, but I can see a reduction in slugging for both of my franchises, including the minor leagues (although those are obviously less reliable indicators).

On the few occasions I've spoken up in this thread, I've mentioned that it still goes back to finding good players, not necessarily specialty players. And if you do have specialty players, you better have different types. I think the change is generally okay.

Well put. hart should have made such sense. No doubt there is sufficient info out there for a snapshot and/or for anecdotal observation. But that's not what these guys were claiming. They were claiming some sort of statistical study, although I don't think they have that phrase (nor "confounding variable") in their vocabulary. Now maybe this thread and the others like it can die the death they deserve.

And yes, the change is generally okay.
1/5/2010 11:38 PM
Trolls are funny. Once they are shot down, they start grasping for straws. I've had my fun with the troll. Who's going to step up next?
1/6/2010 7:45 AM
Yeah, that exchange was certainly not snake's finest hour.

hart: "There's plenty of data to see what's going on!"
snake: "No there isn't. There's only mere fractions of seasons."
hart: "Yeah, but there are lots of fractions of seasons, which adds up to plenty of data."
panda: "You don't need full seasons worth of data to get a snapshot of what's happening."
snake: "Oh... umm... not for snapshots, no. Good job setting hart straight, panda."
hart: "WTF, mate?"
1/6/2010 8:51 AM
If you look at snake's posts, you'll notice that he practically never has anything of value to add to any thread he participates in. It's mostly his commentary on other people's posts. Never an original thought or hard data of his own to support or refute other people's claims or findings.
1/6/2010 8:57 AM
If you look at snake's post, you're a moron. Acknowledging alias trolls is really all they want/need.
1/6/2010 8:59 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By hartjh14 on 1/05/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By toddcommish on 1/05/2010
Have they accounted for 'tard leagues?
I actually think there are less tard leagues as you call them than there used to be.
You're missing my point. If they are fewer 'tard leagues, there will be fewer home runs because there won't be tankers, tards, and newbies putting pitchers out there with 40/40 splits just because they have a 75 OVR rating. And putting lousy fielders in the field (a 'tard defining move) leads to more ABs which leads to more fatigued pitchers which leads to a greater rate of HRs.

Fewer 'tards = fewer HRs
1/6/2010 12:11 PM
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 1/06/2010If you look at snake's post, you're a moron. Acknowledging alias trolls is really all they want/need.
Bingo. The troll "wins" every time you acknowledge his posts. Especially if you are someone who gets worked up over him. Ignore it, in time it will get bored and go away. The fact you folks keep making it so easy for him astounds me.
1/6/2010 12:58 PM
◂ Prev 1...40|41|42|43|44 Next ▸
screwing power teams! Topic

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.