Posted by savoybg on 4/17/2025 9:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/17/2025 9:00:00 PM (view original):
Re: Thad Young and “replacement player”

A) You saying that he’s ranked highly in your formula doesn’t prove anything because your formula is bad.

B) My point about “replacement player” is that a player is rewarded for being bad in your formula. Bradley Beal’s value went UP in your formula this year. But he was a negative value player this year. You’re not controlling for the mean. You’re rewarding a player for being on the court doing nothing. That’s what I meant when I said you’re not looking for if a player is BETTER than a replacement player.

C) Do you really think in your heart of hearts that Thaddeus Young is the SIXTIETH best PF of all time? This doesn’t show you that maybe your formula is flawed?

Any time you want to go through the win shares formula and point out the flaws, I'm here. If your only evidence is that YOU don't agree with what the metric concludes, then your just pulling things out of your ***.

Your "heart of hearts" thing shows that you have no clue as to what the win shares formula is. You are only basing your criticism of the metric on your emotional reaction to the results. You are NOT a scientist like me.

Bradley Beal. I haven't looked at any player's numbers for the 24-25 season yet. I can't determine a player's rating for the season until the season is over, including the playoffs if he plays then. But let's see where he is at right now. At this point his career rating would go up by .034. So if he was at 50.04 for his career he would move up to 50.07. Yes, that's quite a boost he'll get for this season.

If you were a scientist like me you would realize that a player can go slightly up for a season and still have that be a terrible season. Depending upon the system, you may not have to have a negative number to indicate a bad season or year. If a league average player this season will have his career rating go up by 1.50, then going up by only .03 hurts his career standing as compared to most other current players whose career rating went up by a lot more.

It's like the difference between WAR and WAA in baseball. You can have a bad year in baseball and be below league average, but have your career WAR go up a bit. But with WAA if you are even a kunt hair below league average your WAA will be a negative.

If I have made an average of $2M a year for the 20 years I have been a working adult, and my lifetime earnings are at $40M now it would be a terrible year for me if I only made $42K for a year, but my lifetime earnings would still go up, right?

It's not like an NBA Team is able to snap their fingers and provide a league average player to replace Beal with. They don't have the luxury of knowing ahead of time how good a player will be like we do here with the sim.

BTW, there are guys every season who have negative win shares for the season. Beale's team alone had 4 of them. Lee, Washington Jr., Bridges and Micic. There were only 8 other players on the Suns who played better than Beale did this year. He is 9th on the team in WS/48. And 2 of the guys who played better than him only played a few hundred minutes all season. Beale played twice as well as Ryan Dunn, who has played 1410 minutes already.

I actually am a scientist as well. My fields of expertise are knowing the difference between your and you’re, creating a metric that says that poop is the 17th best food of all time, and knowing that $42k is only a positive if I’m not turning down even more money to get it.

Posted by dBKC on 4/17/2025 9:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 4/17/2025 9:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/17/2025 9:04:00 PM (view original):
For everyone who said poop tastes bad, I have it ranked as the 17th best food of all time. Take that.

no!!!

My metric proved it. You guys said poop is bad, but my metric says it’s good, so it’s good.

Lots of animals and most insects do it, and even some delicacies that humans eat include feces from certain species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia

Posted by savoybg on 4/17/2025 9:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/17/2025 9:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by copernicus on 4/17/2025 9:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/17/2025 9:04:00 PM (view original):
For everyone who said poop tastes bad, I have it ranked as the 17th best food of all time. Take that.

no!!!

My metric proved it. You guys said poop is bad, but my metric says it’s good, so it’s good.

Lots of animals and most insects do it, and even some delicacies that humans eat include feces from certain species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophagia

What’s funny is: you actually defending eating poop is not the worst take that you’ve made in this thread. I’ll take it at this point.

Posted by dBKC on 4/17/2025 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/17/2025 9:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/17/2025 9:00:00 PM (view original):
Re: Thad Young and “replacement player”

A) You saying that he’s ranked highly in your formula doesn’t prove anything because your formula is bad.

B) My point about “replacement player” is that a player is rewarded for being bad in your formula. Bradley Beal’s value went UP in your formula this year. But he was a negative value player this year. You’re not controlling for the mean. You’re rewarding a player for being on the court doing nothing. That’s what I meant when I said you’re not looking for if a player is BETTER than a replacement player.

C) Do you really think in your heart of hearts that Thaddeus Young is the SIXTIETH best PF of all time? This doesn’t show you that maybe your formula is flawed?

Any time you want to go through the win shares formula and point out the flaws, I'm here. If your only evidence is that YOU don't agree with what the metric concludes, then your just pulling things out of your ***.

Your "heart of hearts" thing shows that you have no clue as to what the win shares formula is. You are only basing your criticism of the metric on your emotional reaction to the results. You are NOT a scientist like me.

Bradley Beal. I haven't looked at any player's numbers for the 24-25 season yet. I can't determine a player's rating for the season until the season is over, including the playoffs if he plays then. But let's see where he is at right now. At this point his career rating would go up by .034. So if he was at 50.04 for his career he would move up to 50.07. Yes, that's quite a boost he'll get for this season.

If you were a scientist like me you would realize that a player can go slightly up for a season and still have that be a terrible season. Depending upon the system, you may not have to have a negative number to indicate a bad season or year. If a league average player this season will have his career rating go up by 1.50, then going up by only .03 hurts his career standing as compared to most other current players whose career rating went up by a lot more.

It's like the difference between WAR and WAA in baseball. You can have a bad year in baseball and be below league average, but have your career WAR go up a bit. But with WAA if you are even a kunt hair below league average your WAA will be a negative.

If I have made an average of $2M a year for the 20 years I have been a working adult, and my lifetime earnings are at $40M now it would be a terrible year for me if I only made $42K for a year, but my lifetime earnings would still go up, right?

It's not like an NBA Team is able to snap their fingers and provide a league average player to replace Beal with. They don't have the luxury of knowing ahead of time how good a player will be like we do here with the sim.

BTW, there are guys every season who have negative win shares for the season. Beale's team alone had 4 of them. Lee, Washington Jr., Bridges and Micic. There were only 8 other players on the Suns who played better than Beale did this year. He is 9th on the team in WS/48. And 2 of the guys who played better than him only played a few hundred minutes all season. Beale played twice as well as Ryan Dunn, who has played 1410 minutes already.

I actually am a scientist as well. My fields of expertise are knowing the difference between your and you’re, creating a metric that says that poop is the 17th best food of all time, and knowing that $42k is only a positive if I’m not turning down even more money to get it.

$42K is ALWAYS a positive, A real scientist would know that.

It may be less of a positive than other figures, but it is ALWAYS a positive.

Posted by dBKC on 4/17/2025 9:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/17/2025 9:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dBKC on 4/17/2025 9:00:00 PM (view original):
Re: Thad Young and “replacement player”

A) You saying that he’s ranked highly in your formula doesn’t prove anything because your formula is bad.

B) My point about “replacement player” is that a player is rewarded for being bad in your formula. Bradley Beal’s value went UP in your formula this year. But he was a negative value player this year. You’re not controlling for the mean. You’re rewarding a player for being on the court doing nothing. That’s what I meant when I said you’re not looking for if a player is BETTER than a replacement player.

C) Do you really think in your heart of hearts that Thaddeus Young is the SIXTIETH best PF of all time? This doesn’t show you that maybe your formula is flawed?

Any time you want to go through the win shares formula and point out the flaws, I'm here. If your only evidence is that YOU don't agree with what the metric concludes, then your just pulling things out of your ***.

Your "heart of hearts" thing shows that you have no clue as to what the win shares formula is. You are only basing your criticism of the metric on your emotional reaction to the results. You are NOT a scientist like me.

Bradley Beal. I haven't looked at any player's numbers for the 24-25 season yet. I can't determine a player's rating for the season until the season is over, including the playoffs if he plays then. But let's see where he is at right now. At this point his career rating would go up by .034. So if he was at 50.04 for his career he would move up to 50.07. Yes, that's quite a boost he'll get for this season.

If you were a scientist like me you would realize that a player can go slightly up for a season and still have that be a terrible season. Depending upon the system, you may not have to have a negative number to indicate a bad season or year. If a league average player this season will have his career rating go up by 1.50, then going up by only .03 hurts his career standing as compared to most other current players whose career rating went up by a lot more.

It's like the difference between WAR and WAA in baseball. You can have a bad year in baseball and be below league average, but have your career WAR go up a bit. But with WAA if you are even a kunt hair below league average your WAA will be a negative.

If I have made an average of $2M a year for the 20 years I have been a working adult, and my lifetime earnings are at $40M now it would be a terrible year for me if I only made $42K for a year, but my lifetime earnings would still go up, right?

It's not like an NBA Team is able to snap their fingers and provide a league average player to replace Beal with. They don't have the luxury of knowing ahead of time how good a player will be like we do here with the sim.

BTW, there are guys every season who have negative win shares for the season. Beale's team alone had 4 of them. Lee, Washington Jr., Bridges and Micic. There were only 8 other players on the Suns who played better than Beale did this year. He is 9th on the team in WS/48. And 2 of the guys who played better than him only played a few hundred minutes all season. Beale played twice as well as Ryan Dunn, who has played 1410 minutes already.

I actually am a scientist as well. My fields of expertise are knowing the difference between your and you’re, creating a metric that says that poop is the 17th best food of all time, and knowing that $42k is only a positive if I’m not turning down even more money to get it.

What are you using to decide the best foods of all time, because that is a very subjective thing. There is taste, there is nutrition, and several other attributes than food can have. Going solely by nutrition, and depending upon the species, certain types of feces can contain considerable nutrition. I doubt it tastes very good, but you would know. I am sure you have sampled many kinds of feces in order to perfect your metric.

Posted by savoybg on 4/17/2025 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 4/17/2025 9:27:00 PM (view original):
A big issue I have with it is that you treat win shares from 1972 in the ABA the same way you treat win shares from 2022 in the NBA.

No I don't. I've mentioned at least 3 times already in this thread that I reduce the ABA numbers some in the formula. Every player gets their ABA seasons reduced by between 8% and 15% depending upon their playing time and their win shares total for that season. So a guy with 10.0 win shares might only get credit for 9.0 win shares when I calculate his rating.

By the way, this sim gives ABA seasons the same value as NBA seasons.

We stopped talking about the sim 10 pages ago, follow along. We are talking about your stupid math. Honestly, you should discount all players in the ABA era. For data purity, you should reduce the ABA 2.4% over the NBA in the same era and then discount them both.

BUT

Why reduce between 8-15% the ABA alone based on playing time and win shares? If playing time is this much of a factor, why do you not assign a +/-to all players outside of 2500-2800 minutes? Do you see where your logic has failed you? You can't say playing time should be adjusted here, but not adjust it for the rest of the dataset.

What am I saying? Of course, you can adjust it. You are a scientist with an 148 IQ, but I adjusted your IQ for posting time and losing at life shares to 14.8.

Now...go eat poop. It is #17 on the list.

I like Soylent Green, it's tasty and nutritious

Posted by PBandJ on 4/17/2025 10:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by savoybg on 4/17/2025 9:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 4/17/2025 9:27:00 PM (view original):
A big issue I have with it is that you treat win shares from 1972 in the ABA the same way you treat win shares from 2022 in the NBA.

No I don't. I've mentioned at least 3 times already in this thread that I reduce the ABA numbers some in the formula. Every player gets their ABA seasons reduced by between 8% and 15% depending upon their playing time and their win shares total for that season. So a guy with 10.0 win shares might only get credit for 9.0 win shares when I calculate his rating.

By the way, this sim gives ABA seasons the same value as NBA seasons.

We stopped talking about the sim 10 pages ago, follow along. We are talking about your stupid math. Honestly, you should discount all players in the ABA era. For data purity, you should reduce the ABA 2.4% over the NBA in the same era and then discount them both.

BUT

Why reduce between 8-15% the ABA alone based on playing time and win shares? If playing time is this much of a factor, why do you not assign a +/-to all players outside of 2500-2800 minutes? Do you see where your logic has failed you? You can't say playing time should be adjusted here, but not adjust it for the rest of the dataset.

What am I saying? Of course, you can adjust it. You are a scientist with an 148 IQ, but I adjusted your IQ for posting time and losing at life shares to 14.8.

Now...go eat poop. It is #17 on the list.

And now we brought up the sim again. It's my thread, by the way. I started the thread so I alone get to say what belongs in the thread.

Can't you just admit that you were wrong when you said that I count ABA numbers the same as NBA numbers?

Us scientists will never let you in the club. A scientist must be able to admit it when one of his theories is proven wrong.

Meanwhile, who are the 4 guys who have not entered their team into the league yet?

We've all known who our players are for many days now. It takes like 3 minutes to get your roster done, although everyone should have had their roster done days ago rather than having to put it together now.

LET'S GO!!!

Most people judge players based on their peak rather than on their entire career. According to win shares, here are the best non-consecutive 7 season peaks of all time.

ALL POSITIONS
1. Wilt - 151.5
2. Kareem - 137.6
3. Jordan - 136.7
4. LeBron - 121.1
5. Oscar - 117.5
6. Admiral - 115.6
7. Mailman - 110.4
8. Mikan - 108.7
9. Gilmore - 107.3
10. Nowitzki - 106.6
11. CP3 - 105.4
12. Durant - 104.9
13. Dr. J - 104.7
14. Russell - 102.9
15. Garnett - 102.4
16. Barkley - 102.2
17. Magic - 102.0
17. West - 102.0
19. Bird - 101.8
19. Shaq - 101.8
21. Harden - 101.2
22. Duncan - 99.4
23. Stockton - 99.0
24. Olajuwon - 96.9
25. Pettit - 95.8
26. Kobe - 93.7

POINT GUARD
1. Oscar - 117.5
2. CP3 - 105.4
3. Magic - 102.0
3. West - 102.0
5. Stockton - 99.0

SHOOTING GUARD
1. Jordan - 136.7
2. Harden - 101.2
3. Kobe - 93.7

SMALL FORWARD
1. LeBron - 121.1
2. Durant - 104.9
3. Dr. J - 104.7
4. Bird - 101.8

POWER FORWARD
1. Mailman - 110.4
2. Nowitzki - 106.6
3. Garnett - 102.4
4. Barkley - 102.2
5. Pettit - 95.8

CENTER
1. Wilt - 151.5
2. Kareem - 137.6
3. Admiral - 115.6
4. Mikan - 108.7
5. Gilmore - 107.3
6. Russell - 102.9
7. Shaq - 101.8
8. Duncan - 99.4
9. Olajuwon - 96.9

First round of the ODL draft.

1st Round Tuesday 4-15
1. dBKC - LeBron James
2. copernicus - Stephen Curry
3. jhsukow - Giannis Antetokounmpo
4. uptowngbv - Nikola Jokic
5. Thomasmh1 - Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
6. PBandJ - Anthony Davis
7. cem6989 - Wilt Chamberlain
8. oddson - Dwight Howard
9. berkelon - Michael Jordan
10. jcred5 - Kevin Durant
11. cjok1051 (via Midge) - Shaquille O'Neal
12. reeldeal01 - Rudy Gobert
13. gerryred - David Robinson
14. benhoidal - Kawhi Leonard
15. riftonapple - Chris Paul
16. chewy3344 (2) - Luka Doncic
17. cjok1051 - Kevin Garnett
18. HDS1 - DeAndre Jordan
19. benhoidal (2) - Hassan Whiteside
20. M6speed - Clint Capela
21. 24kpyrite - Joel Embiid
22. raggedclaws - Karl Malone
23. chewy3344 - Nic Claxton
24. robusk - Tim Duncan

CP3 was the second PG taken, before Oscar, Magic and Stockton.
Karl Malone taken before Duncan.
David Robinson taken before Olajuwon.
Durant taken before Bird.
David Robinson taken 11 slots before Duncan.
Will anybody even take Bill Russell?

To be perfectly fair, Curry did go before Dan Issel.

Also, the ODL is very bargain based because of the $47M cap. The $55M Bowis draft later this year will be a better reflection of true WIS rankings.

Posted by Midge on 4/19/2025 6:19:00 PM (view original):
To be perfectly fair, Curry did go before Dan Issel.

has anyone ever drafted Issell in either of the legacy draft leagues?

Posted by copernicus on 4/19/2025 8:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Midge on 4/19/2025 6:19:00 PM (view original):
To be perfectly fair, Curry did go before Dan Issel.

has anyone ever drafted Issell in either of the legacy draft leagues?

I don’t ever remember anyone using Issel.