World Rankings- Updated Topic

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2012 10:19:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 4/13/2012 9:53:00 PM (view original):
Gonna be tough for Hamilton to cross over to "elite" status if the commish is part of the problem.
Well, yeah.   I've already said some turnover is good.  But you have to bring in quality when you replace someone.  That doesn't happen frequently enough in Hamilton  Thus some of the animosity.
The turnover in hamilton was actually 3 because I had a free team from a WS appearance, renewed to help roll quickly, then handed the team over to Tecwrg. I also think Hamilton has a bad vibe. The inmates run the asylum there. No Commish control ....
4/14/2012 12:40 AM
I'm in worlds #1,6,17 and I wanted to be in those worlds strictly for the commissioner. MikeT23 and Tecwrg are two of the best. Super fast rollovers, waitlist threads, tickets sent and followed up on any problems, Private world rules posted and enforced. In Hamilton we had to beg the commish every season to start a recruiting thread during the WS.
4/14/2012 12:47 AM (edited)
Posted by tecwrg on 4/13/2012 11:10:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2012 10:36:00 PM (view original):
Of course, using my simple little formula of bottom 8 in wins vs. league average in RA, Hamilton scored better than Mantle.   IOW, the bottom of Mantle appears to be worse than the bottom 25% in Hamilton.    YOU need to do better.
Interesting point.  I never thought of looking at this before.

Four new owners were brought into Mantle this season.  The cumulative records of those four teams last season was 311-337 (.480).  The cumulative records of those four teams, under new ownership at the halfway mark this season, is 178-146 (.549).
My team was pretty horrible for Mantle last season...this year we are on pace for 93 wins.  So, you know, you are welcome.
4/14/2012 1:28 AM
Posted by dmurphy104 on 4/13/2012 4:20:00 PM (view original):
thats why I am going to a sum of wins and a sum of losses on top 4 and bottom 4. That will fix that issue. I also penalized 110+ and 120+ seasons. In a couple of weeks I will have it updated.
I worry, murph, that even this will contain anomalies. Harold Reynolds is ranked way low, and that may be in part because my team won a ridiculous 10 games more than the expected winning pct based upon RA/RS. I think using RS and RA provides a better mechanism of evaluating how bad or how good a team or league might really be. While MikeT's methodology only measures the bottom of the league, I think it's sound.

Of course, a three year average would smooth out the anomalies, too. 
4/14/2012 10:49 AM
I only care about how the bottom of the world performs to league average.   Every world has good teams and owners.    It's the bottom 25% of the owners that are a concern.
4/14/2012 1:11 PM

If there's 2 or 3 teams winning 110+ games a season, that usually means that there was previous tanking/trade rape or both. Ignoring the top teams would not catch those worlds.

 

4/14/2012 1:20 PM
Those teams will skew the RA average for everyone. 
4/14/2012 1:58 PM
Posted by cbriese on 4/14/2012 10:49:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dmurphy104 on 4/13/2012 4:20:00 PM (view original):
thats why I am going to a sum of wins and a sum of losses on top 4 and bottom 4. That will fix that issue. I also penalized 110+ and 120+ seasons. In a couple of weeks I will have it updated.
I worry, murph, that even this will contain anomalies. Harold Reynolds is ranked way low, and that may be in part because my team won a ridiculous 10 games more than the expected winning pct based upon RA/RS. I think using RS and RA provides a better mechanism of evaluating how bad or how good a team or league might really be. While MikeT's methodology only measures the bottom of the league, I think it's sound.

Of course, a three year average would smooth out the anomalies, too. 
I think there's probably a place for a RS/RA calculation along with measuring the top w/l.

4/14/2012 2:19 PM
If you use RS/RA you really don't have to deal with W/L. It's like using pitchers' W/L records to award the Cy Young. Look at the stats that matter.
4/14/2012 3:38 PM
I use RA because it covers defense and pitching.   And I think, by including 25% of the world(the losers), it also covers park factors.    If you're using a heavy hitters park, and losing a lot of games, you're not doing something right.
4/14/2012 4:56 PM
The problem with using +/- or really any offensive, pitching or defensive raw stat to calculate these things is each world has a different composite of players.

For example, 2 of my worlds: Hamilton (world de jour) and Gleeman World 2 have very different types of players.  Amazingly different.  In GW2 - there are hitters up the butt.  You sneeze at guys who can  blast an 800 OPS, but there is a real glut shortage of players with 90 range who can hit even up to the lowest SS standards. In Hamilton, the exact opposite is the case - you can find defenders and pitchers fairly easily but hitters are much tougher to find.  

I like Hamilton as a world.  Some really strong owners, but I agree with Mike as to the problems with it.
4/14/2012 5:27 PM
I agree with mrauseo, world "types" vary greatly. I have done a few takeovers, such the one I have going right now, and every time I am in a new world, I look at the subtleties between player generations in each world. Some worlds have really good SSs except in the glove rating, some worlds seem to have better hitting vR than others (especially among RFs) and some worlds have great Control ratings.

These are just examples, but the point is that each world has it's own "feel" to it, whether it be the actual users or the player crop.
4/14/2012 6:00 PM
In mature worlds (90% of HBD is in this category) I doubt youll find a huge difference in the # of quality defensive players. Also, in many cases it could be that they are undervalued, unsigned and dont play. Ive picked up more than one very good defensive SS either from rule 5, the free agent scrap heap or waiver wire. If those guys are left unsigned and dont get playing time in a world there may be a shortage--but its as a result of the owners, not the world itself. I'll agree that the newest worlds have less talent overall. But there are new worlds that are ranked quite high.
4/14/2012 6:25 PM
While I somewhat agree that +/- might not be the "best" way to judge a world, everything dmurph said is true about fielding.   Coop doesn't have good fielding(and, as a result, good pitching) because of player generation.  Since Day 1, owners have valued the guys that can play the field.  So the players that rot on the inactive list in some worlds actually get some playing time and develop in Coop.   Far too many worlds have far too many owners who play a guy "up" a position(3B at SS, 1B in LF, DH at C, etc, etc) rather than down one because they want that extra bat in the line-up.
4/14/2012 6:32 PM
And, like most of the real world, we're copycats.    If I'm getting crushed 13-8 by the same team over and over again, I look for hitting at the expense of fielding.
4/14/2012 6:34 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8...14 Next ▸
World Rankings- Updated Topic

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.