Daily Ration of Nonsense Topic

jweb1510
Posts: 460 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 215 13
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By ncmusician_7 on 1/28/2009
Would u care to post the starters of each team in that series?

All players from 00-01:

My team (Wizards): PG Terrell Brandon, SG Steve Francis, SF Glenn Robinson, PF Jermaine O'Neal, C Ben Wallace; bench players PG Eric Snow, C Adonal Foyle, SF Toni Kukoc, PF Tony Massenburg

Opponent (Clippers): PG Anthony Carter, SG Kobe Bryant, SF Tracy McGrady, PF Karl Malone, C Evan Eschmeyer; bench players SF Rodney Rogers, C Michael Olowokandi, PG Matt Maloney, C Mark Blount, PG Khalid El-Amin
1/29/2009 8:41 AM
ncmusician_7
Posts: 1734 (0)
Hall of Famer
65 133 12 18
All Star
Quote: Originally Posted By jweb1510 on 1/29/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By ncmusician_7 on 1/28/2009

Would u care to post the starters of each team in that series?


All players from 00-01:

My team (Wizards): PG Terrell Brandon, SG Steve Francis, SF Glenn Robinson, PF Jermaine O'Neal, C Ben Wallace; bench players PG Eric Snow, C Adonal Foyle, SF Toni Kukoc, PF Tony Massenburg

Opponent (Clippers): PG Anthony Carter, SG Kobe Bryant, SF Tracy McGrady, PF Karl Malone, C Evan Eschmeyer; bench players SF Rodney Rogers, C Michael Olowokandi, PG Matt Maloney, C Mark Blount, PG Khalid El-Amin

With a quick glance, it looks like ur team is a better rebounding team, while the offensive efficiency and defense is fairly close. I wonder if having 3 high usage% players helped his team since both teams ran uptempo and he used a press defense. With regards to ur win total in that league, having 2 teams combine for 15 wins in ur division may have given you "easy wins" that his team didn't get (his division was superior from top to bottom).
1/29/2009 9:01 PM
ncmusician_7
Posts: 1734 (0)
Hall of Famer
65 133 12 18
All Star
Maybe it's just how I build teams, but I rarely lose a 7 game series when I think I clearly have the superior team.
1/29/2009 9:04 PM
monkee
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 192 7 7
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By longtallbrad on 1/28/2009

monkee and ash, if what you're saying is that you expect (for your money) that your teams will perform the way you expect them to because you're highly numerate and believe you've done a better job crunching numbers and calculating probabilities than most everyone else, I don't have much sympathy.

If, however, you're aligned with scud's view above that the sim should be 5-6% less random, I'm totally down with that.

I didnt say 'no randomness' - randomness is a necessary lubricant - I said too much randomness

right now there's lube coming out all the joints and seams and getting all over everyone

and there are ways to program in-game correction - and they have been used in the past

1/30/2009 12:06 PM
monkee
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 192 7 7
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 1/28/2009I have a fundamentally different outlook. From what I can see, Monkee and perhaps you seem to be coming from a 'gamist' perspective where I am coming from a 'simulationist' perspective. When the frame you are using for your perceptions is completely different, your perceptions just aren't going to match.

that's fine but this is a game - we are not paying to simply see statistical simulation - if that's what you want the feature is available for free in simmatchup - here we are paying to compete
1/30/2009 12:10 PM
longtallbrad
Posts: 4559 (2)
Hall of Famer
407 42
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By ncmusician_7 on 1/29/2009With a quick glance, it looks like ur team is a better rebounding team, while the offensive efficiency and defense is fairly close. I wonder if having 3 high usage% players helped his team since both teams ran uptempo and he used a press defense. With regards to ur win total in that league, having 2 teams combine for 15 wins in ur division may have given you "easy wins" that his team didn't get (his division was superior from top to bottom).
This is what I've been thinking. Regular season win total is more of a squishy qualitative indicator of team strength than a reliable quantitative one given the potential variance in schedule strength.
1/30/2009 1:19 PM
longtallbrad
Posts: 4559 (2)
Hall of Famer
407 42
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By monkee on 1/30/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By longtallbrad on 1/28/2009

I didnt say 'no randomness' - randomness is a necessary lubricant - I said too much randomness

right now there's lube coming out all the joints and seams and getting all over everyone

and there are ways to program in-game correction - and they have been used in the past
Fair enough. I'm not a very argumentative cat and the degree of how much randomness is too much feels like very fair game for reasonable people to differ over, so I'll try to stop putting words in your mouth and hijacking your thread.
1/30/2009 1:21 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 570 3
Pro
Quote: Originally Posted By monkee on 1/30/2009
Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 1/28/2009
I have a fundamentally different outlook. From what I can see, Monkee and perhaps you seem to be coming from a 'gamist' perspective where I am coming from a 'simulationist' perspective. When the frame you are using for your perceptions is completely different, your perceptions just aren't going to match.

that's fine but this is a game - we are not paying to simply see statistical simulation - if that's what you want the feature is available for free in simmatchup - here we are paying to compete




I am paying to compete at a game taht with a reasonable degree of acccuracy simulates NBA basketball. ANd I find an amount of randomness that approaches the real deal acceptable.

1/30/2009 1:23 PM
monkee
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 192 7 7
Prospect
as scudmissile posted it doesnt approach the real deal
1/30/2009 1:35 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 570 3
Pro
As said earlier: We have different desires so I agree to disagree and no big deal. . .



Not saying you're 'wrong' - just I have a different viewpoint on it.



1/30/2009 2:31 PM
ashamael
Posts: 12384 (0)
Hall of Famer
507 19
All Star
Record: 258-338
Playoffs: 0
Finals: 0
Championships: 0
Owner Rating: 2572
Teams: 9


Record: 7691-5228
Playoffs: 116
Finals: 26
Championships: 15
Owner Rating: 3056
Teams: 151

no offense aintheb - just pointing out, again, your relative inexperience. Your view will change as you learn more and more about this sim, site and game, I promise you. You may not become as whole-heartedly disgruntled as our fine friend monkee here, but I'm willing to bet that your views will change.

Mine sure did.
1/30/2009 2:50 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 570 3
Pro
INexperience has nothign to do with my view whatsoever, given what the view is based on. . not, its not likely to change. Its base3d on statistics, not impressions, and unless those statistics and statistical measure change from what I've seen so far . . .

LTB's POV is about as far as I'd go, or am likely to ever go..

1/30/2009 3:15 PM
ashamael
Posts: 12384 (0)
Hall of Famer
507 19
All Star
we'll see...
1/30/2009 5:27 PM
a_in_the_b
Posts: 1653 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 18 570 3
Pro
Yes. You will.

1/30/2009 5:59 PM
chester_o
Posts: 0 (0)
Hall of Famer
94
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
1/31/2009 10:12 AM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5|6...30 Next ▸
Daily Ration of Nonsense Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.