Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By lostmyth2 on 12/23/2009
They are extremely pertinent. The fact that you are trying to come up with a ratings-based system when you so clearly do not understand how ratings actually contribute to the strength of a team is the crux of the issue.

Let me give a extremely clear example. You want to convert free throws into a 0-100 scale where F = 0 and A+ = 100, and then add this to other ratings. Seriously? F for free throws is a zero? Any half-decent coach could instantly tell in a second how inane this would be.

If you don't set the lowest grade (failing no less) at the lowest possible score for a given rating (1?), then what's the sense in using it at all? If the low number of FT Shooting is say, 50, then it skews the entire rating system. I'm trying to be logical and fair in this instance....what's your solution?

Quote: Originally Posted By cheeznsweet on 12/23/2009
Amazing that colonels is still in here destroying this thread. The world does not revolve around you or care about your jacked up rankings. Stop sh*tting all over this thread that's supposed to be about the devblog.

Can we just get another thread started with the actual devblog info in it and without the colonels marathon masturbation session?

Quote: Originally Posted By lostmyth2 on 12/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By lostmyth2 on 12/23/2009
They are extremely pertinent. The fact that you are trying to come up with a ratings-based system when you so clearly do not understand how ratings actually contribute to the strength of a team is the crux of the issue.

Let me give a extremely clear example. You want to convert free throws into a 0-100 scale where F = 0 and A+ = 100, and then add this to other ratings. Seriously? F for free throws is a zero? Any half-decent coach could instantly tell in a second how inane this would be.

If you don't set the lowest grade (failing no less) at the lowest possible score for a given rating (1?), then what's the sense in using it at all? If the low number of FT Shooting is say, 50, then it skews the entire rating system. I'm trying to be logical and fair in this instance....what's your solution?

Let's use your sliding scale of 1-100, minus WE, ST, and DU.

In your estimation, team A is stronger than team B:

Team A: 70 average in "cores," A+ free throws

Team B: 80 average in "cores," F free throws

Before you make the silly point that this is an extreme example (A+ vs. F), note that there exists an infinite continuum between these two points where any half-decent coach would say team B is much stronger. I think its fair to debate whether FT shooting belongs in the overall rating or not, because you do make a good point with this example here. Honestly, I think after seeing this I'd be more prone to either A. Not add FT Shooting in the overall rating or B. Maybe go 1-50 because it is a factor that affects maybe only 10 possessions (might be high) per team, per game.

If you fail to understand how B is stronger than A, it is indicative of how your lack of HD skills directly correlates with your inability to provide any meaningful ranking system. I think you make good sense here and you've made me think about the adjusted overall ranking more in depth, and I appreciate that.

Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/23/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By cheeznsweet on 12/23/2009

Amazing that colonels is still in here destroying this thread. The world does not revolve around you or care about your jacked up rankings. Stop sh*tting all over this thread that's supposed to be about the devblog.

Can we just get another thread started with the actual devblog info in it and without the colonels marathon masturbation session?

this thread is fer sure fully hijacked.....see, we are approaching Havana...

Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/23/2009
colonel - check out this site - which has a ratings/rankings methodology for the related GD game

it rates players and teams using a disclosed formula that weights different skills differently for different positions

it does NOT purport to then continue into the season as a ranking system that encompasses wins and losses

I'm not a very good GD player, but the rankings are I think pretty good in how they weight ratings for players of different positions. GD is, in my opinion, a simpler game than HD and I think some layers of additional complexity would be involved if one tried to apply such an approach to a rankings scheme in HD....as discussed above

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

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 12/23/2009how did what was a constructive thread turn into 20 pages of ****?

at the risk of repeating what was said, i think we all agree that in a single game, overall rating is a poor indicator of who will win. a 50 points overall rating difference can easily go the other way, or given equal overall ratings, one team can be in the ballpark of a 98% favorite.

but, in a long term sense, overall rating is a somewhat reasonable measure. on average, the 620 rated d2 team is better than the 600 rated d2 team. despite the countless counter examples, it is not a useless measure. consider the OR ratings for d1 teams. they are based purely off per-player overall rating and class, and have proven a fairly accurate indicator of the quality of a team.

Quote: Originally Posted By dalter on 12/24/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By coach_billyg on 12/23/2009
how did what was a constructive thread turn into 20 pages of ****?

at the risk of repeating what was said, i think we all agree that in a single game, overall rating is a poor indicator of who will win. a 50 points overall rating difference can easily go the other way, or given equal overall ratings, one team can be in the ballpark of a 98% favorite.

but, in a long term sense, overall rating is a somewhat reasonable measure. on average, the 620 rated d2 team is better than the 600 rated d2 team. despite the countless counter examples, it is not a useless measure. consider the OR ratings for d1 teams. they are based purely off per-player overall rating and class, and have proven a fairly accurate indicator of the quality of a team.

Jeff, if you had a 600-rated team and played against a team that was 2-3 pts better in each category (roughly 620) with a mediocre coach, you would not just be the favorite, you would be the prohibitive favorite.

And that, in a nutshell, is why using team rating as the measuring stick is flawed.

There are other reasons, of course, but that is the really major one that simply can't be neatly accounted for. And it's an absolutely huge factor.

Quote: Originally Posted By arssanguinus on 12/24/2009

THe problem is, the team that wins more often, no matter its 'ratings' is actually the better team, because what teams are designed to do its win, not 'have talent'.

Now, if you added a ratings 'component' to SOS which was much smaller than the actual results of games, I could probably live with that. . but not one where a team's 'potential' outweighs what it actually does.