The Mad Scientist Top 25 Ranking Debate Topic

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 12/22/2009
. . . .

Ok. SO the rating is relevant for the team you are playing, but not for you? I do it both ways. You don't take into account your own W-L and SOS when judging the quality of your opponent do you? My system doesn't either. Lostmyth, you should be reading this too, because you laughed at something and failed to read that I said I do it both ways.

O. . .k. . . Yep, you aren't grasping the concept

12/22/2009 6:58 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 12/22/2009YOu are right about one thing, I don't get how you do it, and I suspect I wouldn't even if you gave a step by step, because right on the face of it, not a single one of your defenses of it so far has made an iota of sense.
I've ranked college basketball IRL for one season and in that season I had the best ranking violation percentage of any system out there. I admittedly have tweaked the system and now its even better. I think that gives me some ranking credibility, does it not?

You not agreeing with my principles and my defenses not making sense are 2 completely different cans of worms...really...which is it?
12/22/2009 7:01 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
And that has precisely bupkis to do with you trying to rate WIS basketball teams by a measure that just about EVERY SINGLE SUCCESSFUL COACH IN THE ENTIRE FORUM is telling you is flawed.

12/22/2009 7:04 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 12/22/2009And that has precisely bupkis to do with you trying to rate WIS basketball teams by a measure that just about EVERY SINGLE SUCCESSFUL COACH IN THE ENTIRE FORUM is telling you is flawed.

Considering that one of the 3 formulas I intend to use is the IRL formula...I wouldn't exactly call it "bupkis".

And I really don't care that 7 or 8 guys told me that they didn't like my overall team rating SOS...I'd wager that more than half don't understand the concept, you didn't at first. I GUARANTEE all of you, if and when you see this in practice, it will look a lot better than you think it will. Every person on earth could be against me in this argument...I wouldn't care and I wouldn't stop doing it or carrying on with it...I'm ready to take on the world.
12/22/2009 7:08 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Enjoy your windmills, Don Quixote. . .

12/22/2009 7:09 PM
cedarking
Posts: 1 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 28 2 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/22/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/22/2009
YOu are right about one thing, I don't get how you do it, and I suspect I wouldn't even if you gave a step by step, because right on the face of it, not a single one of your defenses of it so far has made an iota of sense.
I've ranked college basketball IRL for one season and in that season I had the best ranking violation percentage of any system out there. I admittedly have tweaked the system and now its even better. I think that gives me some ranking credibility, does it not?

You not agreeing with my principles and my defenses not making sense are 2 completely different cans of worms...really...which is it?



No credibility at all because this is not RL, it is SIM.

12/22/2009 7:10 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/22/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/22/2009
And that has precisely bupkis to do with you trying to rate WIS basketball teams by a measure that just about EVERY SINGLE SUCCESSFUL COACH IN THE ENTIRE FORUM is telling you is flawed.

Considering that one of the 3 formulas I intend to use is the IRL formula...I wouldn't exactly call it "bupkis".

And I really don't care that 7 or 8 guys told me that they didn't like my overall team rating SOS...I'd wager that more than half don't understand the concept, you didn't at first. I GUARANTEE all of you, if and when you see this in practice, it will look a lot better than you think it will. Every person on earth could be against me in this argument...I wouldn't care and I wouldn't stop doing it or carrying on with it...I'm ready to take on the world.

12/22/2009 7:10 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 12/22/2009Enjoy your windmills, Don Quixote. . .

Firmly tilting no less
12/22/2009 7:11 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/22/2009 7:11 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
Again, enjoy your windmills, Don Quixote.
12/22/2009 7:12 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/22/2009 7:13 PM
Rails
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
21 193 13
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/21/2009

LOL I love it dalt!

That said colonels you should know that judging anything based on overall is very misleading at best.

I think you are overanalyzing. He's saying ratings and settings are 100% responsible for an outcome and that all things equal higher rated team is tougher to beat. Take that to mean overall or core ratings, it doesn't matter, but what he's saying is that it's tougher, all other things equal, to beat a team with guards who have 99 speed rather than 85 speed, irrespective of what their RPI numbers are. He's saying the outcome is math.

That said, since there are so many rating systems out there (Sagarin, Pomeroy, RPI and others) why not plug the formula's in for several and let us see them all--kind of like how CBB has various polls (RPI, Pomeroy, Sagarin, coaches poll, AP and USA Today).

And most definately, more than in real life, margin of victory should be taken into account because there are no subjective factors that come into play in HD. IRL there are factors like "letting up" when a team has a big lead---or if a team has already clinched and isn't playing for anything. In HD, it's a bunch of numbers and 2+2 always adds up to 4 when there is no human factors at work.
12/22/2009 7:13 PM
tropicana
Posts: 980 (0)
Hall of Famer
184 13 588 202 293
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
12/22/2009 7:19 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
The rational folks get it, thank you Rails for at least understanding my argument, regardless if you agree with it or not
12/22/2009 7:19 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 666 3
Pro
YOu make the mistake of imagining that the ratings themselves are not context dependent for their meaning. That they somehow exist in islands as pure ideal incorruptible forms. THey do measure something concrete, absolutely. . but context, coaching settings, bench depth, rating placement. . all of that. . .makes at least as much difference as the difference between the ratings of teams. The ratings themselves might be a concrete number, but the meaning of that number is subjective.

Also, you perform the confusing mental gymnastics of trying to pretend a won loss record is somehow 'subjective' in a way that using overall rating. .isn't.

And if you are saying it needs 'fine tuning' then are you saying that, perhaps, the various components might need to be. . .ranked? And that some are more important than others? The same view you keep ridiculing? Because either you are wrong on that, and they are of unequal importance. .or there really wouldn't be any way for you to fine tune your rating ranking system.


12/22/2009 7:19 PM
◂ Prev 1...31|32|33|34|35...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.