Daily Ration of Nonsense Topic

Quote: Originally Posted By a_in_the_b on 1/27/2009

You don't get it. It involves random numbers, which means, yes, outliers DO happen. Statistical modeling does contain noise and variance.

well now, here we have two different things - you need to decide which you want to talk about

your initial comment had to do with odd behaviors occuring in reality - and that has absolutely zip to do with randomness

and that was my point - your comparison was not apt - leave reality out of this

however if you would like to talk about probability and statistical modelling we can do that

And complaining because a simulation models real life behaviour too well is a quite interesting perspective.

first of all the frequency in which outlier behaviors occur in the sim and their range of variance in fact may not model real life behavior

and second of all they should not - 'this happens in real life' is a bs excuse for poor programming - what is the probabilty that a team full of muggsy bogues would outrebound a team full of dennis rodmans for a whole game? for several games over the course of a season?

how about none - some of these interactions should not be subject to this level of randomness

It involves random numbers. That means that its going to vary. Probability doesn't work the way you seem to think it does, especially when you have two differing probabalistic systems interacting.

actually you'd probably benefit from going back through the archives in these forums - here's a few things you dont seem to know

1) it is possible to reduce the range of variation, elements of this approach are in use now and more used to be

2) decisions were formerly made to reduce these corrective measures several releases ago

3) league attendance/ownership has gone down ever since

Again, was the earlier game in which you had 35 free throws to my 11 and won by two 'nonsense' as well?

it really depends doesnt it? if your team is foul prone and mine tends to go to the line then maybe not, otherwise if all else is equal then maybe so - it is really a question of a matter of degree past which the result exceeds expectation

now, let's assume thatthis here sim is not just a statistical modelling engine but a game in which people compete - a game that people pay to play

and let's assume that the rules of this game focus on building a team/statistical composite under the auspices of a salary cap

and lets assume that the value for each player in terms of that salary cap is measured in certain statistics and how those statistics are supposed to impact the outcome of the game

that means that the goal of this game is to use your salary cap to acheive the most effective composition of stats

with the expectation that they will have a determining impact on the outcome of the game

(now I understand perfectly the need for randomness in this game what I am arguing is that there can be too much and that there are ways of reducing it)
1/27/2009 4:10 PM
Actually, I had a response, but I really don't think its worth it. You are wedded to your perception enough that nothing I say is going to change it, and I know I'm not going to agree with yours, so really, posting on this thread would not accomplish anything. No biggie. Enjoy your games.

1/27/2009 4:28 PM
monkee's right. You're too new to have achieved the level of frustration he has (hell I'm too new, but I'm getting there). When you put together a team that should dominate another team in 9/10 areas, and in turn get dominated in those same areas, that's bogus.

I didn't pay for outliers to determine the effect of my player. I paid for the 51% 2pt#, the 85% ft%, the less than 3 topg, the less than 3 fpg, and the high likelihood that his 15% drb combined with two guys over 30 will mean I get more of my opponents misses than he will

Just sayin'.
1/27/2009 8:16 PM
Dropping the discussion because I find having internet discussions where neither person is going to change their mind to be pointless. Just sayin'.
1/27/2009 8:33 PM
it isn't called: "the daily ration of nonsense" for nothing.

the way i see it... randomness... let me rephrase that, extreme randomness (a +6 statistical anomaly out of 10) equates as an obtrusive outlier.

and after playing 82 games x 20 teams (i've built since seble's last update to the engine)... and going through the boxscores of 1640 games (yeah, these chinese new year days off give me the time), i've determined that extreme randomness happens slightly more than half the time, at a clip of 58.666%

outliers live in the sim engine in single game performances, but get covered up (hidden) in the total regular season stats. seble's argument would be that the end of season stats look normal and no adjustment is needed.

however, this is a misconception and mistake. he is 5.8666% more wrong than right in his assumption. outliers affect standings (win/loss totals) enough to make this a problem. i would not be opposed if extreme randomness occurred at a 50% rate.

i know i didn't do a good enough job of making myself clear, but i hope you can understand what i'm getting at.

the engine is almost right... but enough wrong to cause disparity, at least in what we are paying for (stats).

1/27/2009 9:38 PM
Quote: Originally posted by a_in_the_b on 1/27/2009Dropping the discussion because I find having internet discussions where neither person is going to change their mind to be pointless. Just sayin'.

Then don't be so closeminded. If you are unwilling to change your mind, why should you expect anyone else to?
1/28/2009 12:53 AM
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.

I frankly wouldn't be interested in a game where you could just get out a calculator and say before any game began who the winner was going to be and never be wrong. Versimilitude is more important to me than consistency on a game to game level. And I still find the argument that the simulation should not model real life to be an odd one.

But again, I don't particularly CARE enough about it in general to continue arguing about it at much greater length, when what I come here for is a bit of relaxation/distraction. If its not a huge deal to me, and he is that passionate about it. it makes no sense to press. It would only make his field goal percentage go up and the turnovers wouldn't be valuable enough to compensate and the fouls along the way might give me stress instead of relaxation.

1/28/2009 5:12 AM
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.

In my opinion there should be considerable "unpredictability" built into the engine on a game-by-game basis. The episodes that drive me crazy are not when a low PF, high FTA team of mine ends up on the wrong end of a freakishly lopsided single-game FTA disparity, but (for example) when I can't keep Wilt to within 4 mpg of his real-life playing time over the course of a season. Or when a team that's won two-thirds of its games crashes and loses 15 of the last 20 games without any apparent explanation (such as injury).

If shaving a bit of randomness out of the algorithms can temper the wildness, I'm all for it. But I wouldn't want the game to become noticeably more predictable.
1/28/2009 6:48 AM
THere you go. As above, verbatim.
1/28/2009 6:51 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By ashamael on 1/27/2009
monkee's right. You're too new to have achieved the level of frustration he has (hell I'm too new, but I'm getting there). When you put together a team that should dominate another team in 9/10 areas, and in turn get dominated in those same areas, that's bogus.

Yep. When my UPL team gets beat 4-1 in the championship by a team that during the season averaged 6 PPG fewer, 3 ORPG fewer, 5 RPG fewer, shot 2.2% worse, shot 3s 11% worse, averaged 2 APG fewer, 3 BPG fewer, 1.5 PFPG more, and washed in TO and STL, there's something wrong there. My team was in the top 3 in the league in 8 out of 11 offensive categories (#1 in 6) and in top 5 in 8 out of 11 defensive categories (#1 in 5). Yet, we lose in 5 games to a team who won 16 fewer games than us.

This may be some pent-up frustration on my part, but there's no way in Hades we should've lost that series, particularly after winning the 2 regular season games by an average of 19 PPG.

aintheb, some day you too will see the reasons for our cynicism.
1/28/2009 9:11 AM
. . . Not really. Because the goals are different. But, to each their own.

Again, BEtween what I said and LTB said, I've got all I need to get on the topic out there.

1/28/2009 11:00 AM
Quote: Originally Posted By jweb1510 on 1/28/2009Yep. When my UPL team gets beat 4-1 in the championship by a team that during the season averaged 6 PPG fewer, 3 ORPG fewer, 5 RPG fewer, shot 2.2% worse, shot 3s 11% worse, averaged 2 APG fewer, 3 BPG fewer, 1.5 PFPG more, and washed in TO and STL, there's something wrong there. My team was in the top 3 in the league in 8 out of 11 offensive categories (#1 in 6) and in top 5 in 8 out of 11 defensive categories (#1 in 5). Yet, we lose in 5 games to a team who won 16 fewer games than us
This may be some pent-up frustration on my part, but there's no way in Hades we should've lost that series, particularly after winning the 2 regular season games by an average of 19 PPG.

aintheb, some day you too will see the reasons for our cynicism.

Would u care to post the starters of each team in that series?
1/28/2009 4:33 PM
I will say that a two game sample is hardly anything you can rely on to make a conclusion about how a five game series will go.

Thye Sample size is abysmal.
1/28/2009 4:52 PM
Quote: Originally posted by a_in_the_b on 1/28/2009I will say that a two game sample is hardly anything you can rely on to make a conclusion about how a five game series will go.

Thye Sample size is abysmal.

Then how about the 82-game sample size I provided? Is that sufficient, stats guru?

And yes, I'll post the starters for that series some time tomorrow.
1/28/2009 9:06 PM
Quote: Originally posted by longtallbrad on 1/28/2009If, however, you're aligned with scud's view above that the sim should be 5-6% less random, I'm totally down with that. In my opinion there should be considerable "unpredictability" built into the engine on a game-by-game basis. The episodes that drive me crazy are not when a low PF, high FTA team of mine ends up on the wrong end of a freakishly lopsided single-game FTA disparity, but (for example) when I can't keep Wilt to within 4 mpg of his real-life playing time over the course of a season. Or when a team that's won two-thirds of its games crashes and loses 15 of the last 20 games without any apparent explanation (such as injury). If shaving a bit of randomness out of the algorithms can temper the wildness, I'm all for it. But I wouldn't want the game to become noticeably more predictable.

I have no problems with randomness. I have extreme problems with extreme amounts of randomness. Say I build a team with top rebounding Wilt at C, Russell at PF and Rodman at SF.

I don't expect to out rebound my opponent every single game, but I do expect to out rebound my opponent 75-85% of the time, because most teams aren't going to have a higher cumulative rebound % on the floor with their entire starting five than those three, who'll be in the game for almost the entire game (Wilt almost 48 minutes, Russell 44.5ish, Rodman 42ish).

But when you get out rebounded 40-50% of the time (keep in mind the extreme example I provided), there's too much randomness.

When you draft a team with 1000 total turnovers in 19.6k minutes, you should not commit 1400 turnovers unless every single team you face is full of buse-arobertson pressing... But since everybody's turnovers are jacked, I'm more okay with that.

The pf/fta are the big one, though. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for it.

Mostly, though, it's just disappointing to win 60+ games and get *crushed* by a team in the playoffs that did much poorer than you, and when you line up the numbers (on-floor-percentages of key players) and compare them, you're obviously better than them in almost every single statistical category.

If you are well ahead of someone in fg%, 3pt%, both rbd%, ast%, less tos, less pfs, more fta and close to the same in steals and blocks, you should win a 7-game series with them more than 44.6% of the time (assuming consistent coaching changes).

Now, I can deal with getting beat when I should. For example, my Ashadelphia Mustangs were a great team... I felt they should have won more than 62 games in the regular season, but whatever. In the playoffs, I go into back-to-back 7 game series with 60 game winner teams. Both of them played me +3, and since I launched almost 30 threes a game with well over 40% accuracy, and my main paint scorer had an 18.8% usage, I deserved to lose that second series. I can dig that. I can't dig the previously mentioned scenario where you're superior in virtually every category and get beat in 5 games.

(I don't have a recent team to compare numbers, or I'd post)
1/28/2009 9:36 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...30 Next ▸
Daily Ration of Nonsense Topic