Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009
LP doesn't even factor into the engine for a guard, it does for a sf. Again you are showing how your lack of HD knowledge doesn't allow you to create an accurate ranking system. You need to stop using such concrete terms for things that you don't entirely know and can't prove. LP has a factor of 0 for a guard? I highly doubt that.

This is my last post in my thread, I hope that you treat anyone else who decides to continue this pointless debate with you better then you did me. You got what was coming to you...ask the mamxets, oldresorters, weenas, isacks, furrynips, etc how they were treated by me here...

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By zhawks on 12/28/2009
Because he is a much better small forward then pg, your system would not recognise this.

It doesn't matter, his ratings don't adjust at all, so for how my system equates SOS, this doesn't matter...I don't care where specific coaches want to play specific players...that's that every day sports miniutae that I was talking about...the "thems the breaks" scenarios. You can't logically factor in every last little thing that happened. PG playing SF sneezed at 2:07 PM ET.

SO a decision that vastly effects the performance of the team. . doesn't matter?

I'm with Z. Sheez. Bubye.

Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/28/2009
gigo examples:

whatcha gonne do with combo defense teams? press/man - average of the two?
And you've stumped the Schwab lol. I would hope that if and when WIS adjusted the OTR formula that they could factor these scenarios in, but currently, I don't have an answer for you...this is an admitted, unforeseen roadblock to me adding in IQ. Thanks.

***

Because he is a much better small forward then pg, your system would not recognise this.


It doesn't matter, his ratings don't adjust at all

*****

So Rebound is going to be equaly weighted for pgs and pfs? LP will be weighted equaly for sgs and cs? Speed the same for pgs and pfs?

Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/28/2009

gigo is a common expression in quantitative analysis of problems

one would face garbage in, equals garbage out if a ratings based system is not able to handle, for example,

a. IQ for combo defenses I can overcome this; averaging the 2 looks viable, its just not something I considered or looked into very much. I play one offense and one defense and I think this is common in HD. Also like I said this is a change WIS will have to make to its OTR calculation because I couldn't do this on a large scale with adjusted OTRs if WIS doesn't change it.

b. the use of a guard at the SF slot, where different ratings matter His ratings are still what they are. It isn't like the EA NCAA series when you recruit someone as an ATH and put him at OL and he drops to a 40 or that his overall points vary from position to position. If the PG was a 600 at PG, he'll be a 600 at SF...the fact that he's using different ratings/attributes more or less is game important, but not ranking important. Like I said, you can't micro-manage every last thing each coach does, and you guessing how/why they did X, Y, and Z and judging if its beneficial or not is extremely subjective. To adjust a team's overall rating because one player is playing "out of position" yet he works better as an SF than a PG is silly and subjective. I mean if 12 SFs can win an NC...why should I dumb down their OTR because they have 4 guys playing out of position all the time on the floor? I still never got an answer to that, shocking of course. Somethings are just everyday sports happenings...this qualifies.

c. the fact that LP doesnt matter for a player used in one of the guard spots and the fact that the impact of REB is much less for a guard than a PF or C and that speed matters more for some spots than others Then weight the categories...I've issued this challenge close to 5 times now and I've heard and seen nothing but *crickets*. I'm willing to look into something like this, but I am not qualified to do such a task, nor would I differentiate between different indy ratings period. Assuming what means what where, is conjecture.

although these are all numbers and hence measureable, they will not measure - in the sense that I think relevant - and that I think most users think it relevant - team strength if they cant handle these sorts of issues....they become garbage in and hence garbage out I think the results you would see from said changes would be minute at best. Micro-managing every last little thing is going to get you in more trouble than its worth and like I said, in a ranking system, stuff matters you can't measure every last little thing and think its rankable, so essentially some of these suggestions for ranking purposes are garbage in and garbage out. How many of you have ranked anything?

Quote: Originally Posted By colonels19 on 12/28/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By fd343ny on 12/28/2009

gigo is a common expression in quantitative analysis of problems

one would face garbage in, equals garbage out if a ratings based system is not able to handle, for example,

a. IQ for combo defenses I can overcome this; averaging the 2 looks viable, its just not something I considered or looked into very much. I play one offense and one defense and I think this is common in HD. Also like I said this is a change WIS will have to make to its OTR calculation because I couldn't do this on a large scale with adjusted OTRs if WIS doesn't change it.

fd notes - one could go with an average, but as you note that will be complicated - AND averaging the ratings obscures the benefits of the combos - I dont think there is a simple, easy and reasonably accurate answer here

b. the use of a guard at the SF slot, where different ratings matter His ratings are still what they are. It isn't like the EA NCAA series when you recruit someone as an ATH and put him at OL and he drops to a 40 or that his overall points vary from position to position. If the PG was a 600 at PG, he'll be a 600 at SF...the fact that he's using different ratings/attributes more or less is game important, but not ranking important. Like I said, you can't micro-manage every last thing each coach does, and you guessing how/why they did X, Y, and Z and judging if its beneficial or not is extremely subjective. To adjust a team's overall rating because one player is playing "out of position" yet he works better as an SF than a PG is silly and subjective. I mean if 12 SFs can win an NC...why should I dumb down their OTR because they have 4 guys playing out of position all the time on the floor? I still never got an answer to that, shocking of course. Somethings are just everyday sports happenings...this qualifies.

fd notes - "his ratings are what they are" misses the point - ratings matter in different ways at different positions and in different systems - as others have explained repeatedly in this thread - I understand that you think ratings are what you are trying to measure because you think ratings="strength" - this is one very clear example of where that theory fails...the glib answer "his ratings are what they are" simply assumes the conclusion desired to be analyzed - which may be fine if what you mean by ratings based rankings is a ranking of team ratings

c. the fact that LP doesnt matter for a player used in one of the guard spots and the fact that the impact of REB is much less for a guard than a PF or C and that speed matters more for some spots than others Then weight the categories...I've issued this challenge close to 5 times now and I've heard and seen nothing but *crickets*. I'm willing to look into something like this, but I am not qualified to do such a task, nor would I differentiate between different indy ratings period. Assuming what means what where, is conjecture.

fd notes - weighting the categories is an interesting possiblity - there are TONS of other threads - including Z's excellent guide for new coaches - that qualitatively offer guidance on this - but any weighting effort will be of only partial effectiveness given the further differential effects of usage and system....the glib answer "weight the categories" is like waving a magic wand to change dross into gold - wont work

although these are all numbers and hence measureable, they will not measure - in the sense that I think relevant - and that I think most users think it relevant - team strength if they cant handle these sorts of issues....they become garbage in and hence garbage out I think the results you would see from said changes would be minute at best. Micro-managing every last little thing is going to get you in more trouble than its worth and like I said, in a ranking system, stuff matters you can't measure every last little thing and think its rankable, so essentially some of these suggestions for ranking purposes are garbage in and garbage out. How many of you have ranked anything?

fd notes - the large number of micro questions arises from the desire to rank based on inputs to the game engine, rather than using the outputs from the game engines - wins, losses, margins of victory and the similar outputs for a teams opponents and their opponents. Sagarin doesnt analyze the strength of the backup point guard at Florida Atlantic, yet his methodology produces a useful ranking