What’s your source? Prove it! Topic

furry_nipps
Posts: 661 (0)
Hall of Famer
66
Prospect
We really have threads like this now? I don't know what his record has to do with anything. A year and a half ago many coaches tried to post my 100something record and like 60some loses. I've won more championships then almost all of them.



The problem I have with him is he knows he isn't good, but wants rankings based on talent even though he doesn't understand the talent. He thinks rankings are a tell all thing, but they are not. He won't accept that position/how coach uses him, a 40 Per rating differs between the PG slot and the PF slot. He needs to learn and understand he can't make anything based on talent without understanding HD talent. Play around for a few seasons and learn the game before trying to make extreme suggestions.





My suggestion to you would be to site OR, Pork, HalfAstros, Al etc with questions and then find 1 successful coach in your world/division who has built a power school over the last 10+ and watch how he builds it, recruits, schds and such. Ask questions, get answers and come back to the forums when you have a different grasp on the game. It seems you have a problem when multiple people tell you your wrong. If its one-on-one chat back in fourth I think you will understand things better, and feel less attacked.
12/29/2009 11:52 AM
jpmills3
Posts: 337 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 174 1 1
Prospect
Furry - that was entirely too coherent and logical. Please keep things consistent from here on out. :)
12/29/2009 11:56 AM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By furry_nipps on 12/29/2009
We really have threads like this now? I don't know what his record has to do with anything. A year and a half ago many coaches tried to post my 100something record and like 60some loses. I've won more championships then almost all of them. Thank you



The problem I have with him is he knows he isn't good, but wants rankings based on talent even though he doesn't understand the talent. He thinks rankings are a tell all thing, but they are not. He won't accept that position/how coach uses him, a 40 Per rating differs between the PG slot and the PF slot. He needs to learn and understand he can't make anything based on talent without understanding HD talent. Play around for a few seasons and learn the game before trying to make extreme suggestions. Ok, I'll blatantly ask for help here. Without taking into account a team's results of any kind (W-L, RPI, SOS, or otherwise because I ALREADY HAVE A RANKING THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THIS) what is the best way to judge team talent? Please be as specific is possible, because according to you, I don't get it. How player talent doesn't equate to team talent is beyond me, but I am asking for help here, so please answer my question.





My suggestion to you would be to site OR, Pork, HalfAstros, Al etc with questions and then find 1 successful coach in your world/division who has built a power school over the last 10+ and watch how he builds it, recruits, schds and such. Ask questions, get answers and come back to the forums when you have a different grasp on the game. I will succeed or fail on my own merit. I have no need or urge to seek the advice of successful coaches, I want to play and succeed/fail, my way....that's not a knock on anyone, I'm not thumbing my nose to anyone, this is just the way that I am. I've always heavily erred on the side of self teaching. It seems you have a problem when multiple people tell you your wrong. My wrong what? If its one-on-one chat back in fourth I think you will understand things better, and feel less attacked.
12/29/2009 12:04 PM
furry_nipps
Posts: 661 (0)
Hall of Famer
66
Prospect
You are looking at the ratings as a whole. You view a 700 rated team better then a 650 rated team, rather then looking at where the ratings are coming from. A 650 team can easily be more talented then a 700 rated team if the 700 rated team has ratings that don't carry much weight (sb for guards, bh/pass/per for bigs, lp for guards etc)



You need to break them down by position, how they are used by the coach etc, but admit you can't do that. The topic should have died at that point.




Edit - because you edited as well. The last part about asking for help was to understand the game. Once you understand the game you would have a chance of making the rankings. You could break down the ratings better. You would know ath or speed of 90 is better then bh/passing of 90. You could take that into account when judging talent. Until then, you can't just say "oh, he is 30 points better so he is the better team." thats all everyone was trying to point out.
12/29/2009 12:10 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By furry_nipps on 12/29/2009
You are looking at the ratings as a whole. You view a 700 rated team better then a 650 rated team, rather then looking at where the ratings are coming from. A 650 team can easily be more talented then a 700 rated team if the 700 rated team has ratings that don't carry much weight (sb for guards, bh/pass/per for bigs, lp for guards etc)



You need to break them down by position, how they are used by the coach etc You don't realize how improbable it is for anyone to include this kind of anal analysis into a ranking system. You're really going to do this for close to 1000 coaches in each world, sim and human? Funny how you spout this., but admit you can't do that. The topic should have died at that point.



So let me get this straight...I want to make this thing better, I want to improve it, I ask for help and you tell me that you won't help me.....wow.......classy, classy..........I asked you to be as specific is possible and you couldn't have been more vague...I love the way you cats grandstand like you're champions of the people, then crap this kind of turd out...fantastic.
12/29/2009 12:12 PM
colonels19
Posts: 4399 (0)
Hall of Famer
78 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Without taking into account a team's results of any kind (W-L, RPI, SOS, or otherwise because I ALREADY HAVE A RANKING THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THIS) what is the best way to judge team talent? Please be as specific is possible, because according to you, I don't get it........

so....

what was the answer to this question again?

12/29/2009 12:15 PM
jetsons
Posts: 2459 (0)
Hall of Famer
77 147
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 12/29/2009Good point, I'm the blind one.  That makes sense.You know what zhawks, I totally agree with you.  I agree with you assessment of that particular situation.  I think you are 100% right in your opinion that he shouldn't go after the guy. But your opinion, stated at the beginning of the thread (which is stated as fact), that "it isn't going to significantly increase your chances of getting him regardless of what you spend" isn't necessarily true.  The real answer is that you don't have any idea.  It may help, it may not.So the point is that you stated an opinion as fact.  You also gave some very good advice.  But to get defensive (even now with me) because your "fact" isn't totally accurate, is annoying to some of us.


Couldn't have said it better.
12/29/2009 12:24 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By jetsons on 12/29/2009

Quote: Originally posted by isack24 on 12/29/2009

Good point, I'm the blind one. That makes sense.

You know what zhawks, I totally agree with you. I agree with you assessment of that particular situation. I think you are 100% right in your opinion that he shouldn't go after the guy.

But your opinion, stated at the beginning of the thread (which is stated as fact), that "it isn't going to significantly increase your chances of getting him regardless of what you spend" isn't necessarily true. The real answer is that you don't have any idea. It may help, it may not.

So the point is that you stated an opinion as fact. You also gave some very good advice. But to get defensive (even now with me) because your "fact" isn't totally accurate, is annoying to some of us.


Couldn't have said it better.
I said exactly what CS said, I don't see how I am wrong? I said it won't be a significant help, they said it might help, aren't those one and the same.

That said, seriously guys we are getting way way way off topic here in this thread.
12/29/2009 12:27 PM
fd343ny
Posts: 2254 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 634 36
Veteran
here's the GD chart

Ratings System as of 10/10/2009 Highlighted stats are considered "core stats" (sorry gang, highlights dont show - see the link)
ATHSPDDURW/ESTA*STRBLKTKLHG/IELUTECH
QB.04.04.10.10.21.04.33.04.30
RB.08.20.06.15.241.04.08.04.32.04
WR.08.24.06.10.04.24.04.22.18
TE2.04.12.06.10.20.20.20.04.12.12
OL.04.06.15.30.34.04.04.18
DL.08.04.06.10.27.29.04.04.18
LB3.08.20.06.10.14.20.04.20.04.14
DB.08.24.06.10.04.124.26.04.26
K5.05.26.15.34
P5.05.34.15.26

To get the player's rating, multiply each of their attibutes by the modifier listed, and then add all the results up. VOILA! You're now a ratings genius like me. This is not necessarily a GOOD thing, mind you.

* STA is scored differently than other stats. The multiplier is applied to (STA - 40), so that low Stamina numbers actually penalize a player's rating.
1 STR technically isn't a Core stat for RB's, but almost (if not all) successful coaches treat it as one.
2 TE's are difficult to rate effectively because you want to focus on different stats depending on whether they are primarily a blocking TE (use STR/BLK/TECH) or a pass-catching TE (use H/SPD/ELU). Since I'm too lazy to break them down, I am using a slightly generic formula that hopefully doesn't emphasize one aspect over the other.
3 LB's have much the same issues as TE's. The attributes of a run-stopping LB are very different from those of a pass-defending LB. This is another "compromise" formula that tries not to emphasize one over the other. Also TKL isn't officially a core stat for LB but again, coaches whose opinions I respect highly treat it as one.
4 H isn't a core stat for DB's, but I wanted to given it a higher rating to reflect the ability to make interceptions.
5 Kickers and Punters only get 80% on their score because they aren't as important as other positions. However, in order to not hurt a team's overall score, they only count as 80% of a player.
12/29/2009 12:29 PM
fd343ny
Posts: 2254 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 634 36
Veteran
Others may have answers to this, I think it is very hard - too hard for me - and therefore I favor rankings based on outputs (results) from the game engine rather than inputs (ratings) to the engine.

I think one would need to adjust total rankings to give weights to the ratings that matter. An illustration of this for GD can be found at

http://www.gdreports.com/GUESS/Weights.htm

If you read the footnotes to the chart there, the guy who does that chart notes that he really should have separate weights for pass catching TE and run blocking TEs and likewise for LBs.

In the context of HD, I think one should apply the weights based on the position at which the guy is used and not his official position. I think one would get most of the way to what would be needed if one used the actual positions of guys who start games and ignore the difference for subs.

AND THEN, one needs to think about different offenses and defenses. For example, DEF would deserve a significant weight for a team that runs Man, but much less weight for Press or Zone....not zero, but much less. So, I think one would need a series of charts - each a matrix of weights - applied depending on the scheme that that team runs.

Some folks do their recruiting and team management using spreadsheets and may actually have weights. I just have a fuzzy sense of what matters and how much - but I know it when I see it - like obscenity......

A starting point would be one chart applied without regard to positions of use and without regard to offense or defense.....

PLUS, one would need to associate numbers with player IQ and player FT ability

12/29/2009 12:29 PM
zhawks
Posts: 881 (0)
Hall of Famer
208 66 38
Pro
This thread is way off topic, sorry Weena... It was about not having to show proof and we are back to discussing about ranking teams. Nice.
12/29/2009 12:33 PM
fd343ny
Posts: 2254 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 634 36
Veteran
I apologize for contrubting to the detour - but this was a convenient place to put thoughts about the absence of An Answer
12/29/2009 12:35 PM
johnfoppe
Posts: 110 (0)
Hall of Famer
462 1
Prospect
I just gotta ask Z, why the compulsion to keep the threads 'on topic'? That is a real issue for a smart-*** like me who likes to throw in nonsensical BS every now and then.
12/29/2009 12:38 PM
breum
Posts: 146 (0)
Hall of Famer
31 3 7 2 161 82 9
Prospect
Colonels, IBob had 12 SF's on his DI team. Another guy, who I don't recall, had 12 PF's on a DIII team that at least made the final four, if they didn't win the title. Its been done many times.
12/29/2009 12:45 PM
schroedess26
Posts: 54 (0)
All Star
29 1 1
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by colonels19 on 12/29/2009Without taking into account a team's results of any kind (W-L, RPI, SOS, or otherwise because I ALREADY HAVE A RANKING THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THIS) what is the best way to judge team talent?  Please be as specific is possible, because according to you, I don't get it........so....what was the answer to this question again? 

There is no positive way to say it. It is so complicated that you could never recreate it on paper. You can't even try as coaches change, pace, distro, 3 point frequency, depth charts, and everything else every game.

You could say Ath and Spd is the end all be all in the M2M and against the M2M defense, but when going up against the press then BH and PA becomes more important. You forget then though about the Zone which they might have 2 really weak defenders.

So what happens when you enter this in for each defense? Well what about the teams they are playing? Their whole conference might play Press or Zone or M2M and they non-con might be all different.

No way to create a ranking system without going through the WIS code to see how everything is rated in their system. So if you can get the code we could have a chance at doing ratings.
12/29/2009 12:56 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5|6...8 Next ▸
What’s your source? Prove it! 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.