see now I understand. There are two penalties - a team and individual. They offset each other. You can get around the team possession penalty by having a prime Malone, Jordan, Wilt, Kobe (etc), but if the supporting cast isn't good enough, somebody is going to be taking too many shots according to what they did IRL, and they will then suffer an individual penalty.

That actually makes a lot of sense to me.

Thank you for answering our questions.

Quote: Originally posted by seble on 7/28/2008The two penalties are based on slightly different ideas. The team penalty is basically asking "Does this lineup have the ability to execute an offense at a reasonable level of efficiency?". So this penalty could kick in at any point of any game depending on the lineup.

On the other hand, the individual penalty is asking "Is the team asking this player to do more than he did in real life?". This penalty is lessened early in the game to allow for natural randomness causing a player to overpossess at the beginning. It also acts as a safeguard in case we ever implement some way of letting coaches adjust individual possession rates.

Great explanation seble, and it makes alot of sense. Thanks!

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 7/28/2008
On the other hand, the individual penalty is asking "Is the team asking this player to do more than he did in real life?". This penalty is lessened early in the game to allow for natural randomness causing a player to overpossess at the beginning. It also acts as a safeguard in case we ever implement some way of letting coaches adjust individual possession rates

hey Q I know it's off topic but doesnt this sound a little like the ingame adjustment we were discussing in the other thread?

Monkee asked

'hey Q I know it's off topic but doesnt this sound a little like the ingame adjustment we were discussing in the other thread? '

Not really.

In this case without the penalty there would be a problem in aggregate results with large numbers of games played. So the purpose of the ingame adjustment is to correct an unreasonable result that would occur regularly with a bias in certain direction. This is different then a correction which has a goal to reduce variability in either direction.

I really don't think both types of position penalties are necessary though (I'm with NCmusician here). If the team penalty were applied as a continuous adjustment rather than in tiers it should do the trick fine by itself.

Quote: Originally Posted By qistat on 7/28/2008
Monkee asked

'hey Q I know it's off topic but doesnt this sound a little like the ingame adjustment we were discussing in the other thread? '

Not really.

In this case without the penalty there would be a problem in aggregate results with large numbers of games played. So the purpose of the ingame adjustment

I meant it sounded like an ingame adjustment - that's all I meant - point being they already have ingame adjustments, it's not totally beyond the pale

Yeah, it is an ingame adjustment I'll give you that.

It's not correcting for prior ingame success such as getting a lot of boards or making a hi % of fgs so it's less complicated but it is a simple ingame adjustment.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Hi again, guys. For what it's worth, here's a very quick and dirty bottom line update on my team's performance since the fix:

• Before the fix, the record was 38-3 with a +22 ppg average margin of victory.
• Since, we've gone 11-5 with an +8 ppg margin.

The only strategic switch so far, and it may be significant, is going from an up-tempo to a slow-down offense about two games into the fix. Otherwise I'd be getting absolutely killed on turnovers. Now turnovers are reasonable, but results in terms of team effectiveness is fairly pedestrian compared to before. I may work the waiver wire at some point but am following the experiment for the time being.

Thanks for the thread here, btw. I'd been experimenting with a team of Jordan's 38% usage season and a roster full of 100 D guys with minimal usage, and the results appeared (before the fix) to be even better than my squad in question here. Jordan was averaging about 60 ppg in exhibitions and the team was winning by about 30+ per. But plans to run with that squad are definitely squelched now, unless I get morbidly curious.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 7/28/2008Just to give more clarification. Usage% is the percentage of team offensive possessions while that player was on the floor that he took a shot, turned the ball over, or was fouled.

Guys, I understand the frustration. Right now the tiers are:
Usage% >= 32.5 = 8 points
Usage% 27.2 To 32.5 = 6 points
Usage% 22.1 To 27.2 = 4 points
Usage% 17.5 To 22.1 = 2 points
Usage% 13.7 To 20.4 = 1 point
Usage% < 13.7 = 0.5 points

As long as you have 10 points total, you're fine. Less than that incurs a penalty based on how far under you are. This penalty affects all offensive players equally.

It's entirely possible those numbers could change slightly at some point, which is why I'd prefer not to use them. But there they are.

bumped for reference

"Usage% 17.5 To 22.1 = 2 points
Usage% 13.7 To 20.4 = 1 point"

I wonder if seble meant 13.7-17.5 = 1pt

bump; reference

bUMP

Again

Yes, that was a typo. The 20.4 should be 17.5.