Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 5:13:00 PM (view original):
I consider my team to be great based upon my own standards, which are all that matter to me.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider great a in the b?

Well, most of mine haven't been under a_in_the_b - which is my experimenting ID. I tend to settle for the goodish range there - but using Drury as an example - last years team was pretty close. On theother hand FGC ive stayed in one place a long time and worked on building it up. That team, under arssanguinus has been there several times. But it would,likely start with "possible to make the nt without a ct run" at the absolute minimum ...

Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 5:05:00 PM (view original):
The two statements are consistent because one is going by a scenario in which there is no way to tell if a kid "is lazy or not". The other works under the hypothetical that such a system does exist, but it doesn't apply to my situation anyway. They exist under separate circumstances.

Thank you for telling me how you rank human coaches. Could you please  tell me how you rank teams, especially when it comes to rpi and what is considered good by you? How do you rate teams talent wise?

what i consider good and great for myself largely should not matter to you. i don't consider one of my teams great unless they are right there in competition for #1 in the country, and many times, i haven't considered teams of mine great, and they won the championship. but there are only 2 coaches in the history of HD who have won more times than me, and when i really cut back on the game about 2 years ago, there was no coach ahead of me in terms of titles/season... which is misleading, but still, that is worth something. so what i consider great for me should not matter much to you, or any person new to the game.

i would generally tell someone, "great job this season, you really have a great team" when they are in the top 10ish range. i cannot see how, in anything, you can consider a performance great if you aren't in the top 10% or so. there are plenty of times in my life i have been sad with where i landed, and it was in the top 1%, or top .1%. i feel like if 50% is average, and things follow the traditional bell curve, then you have to consider roughly 25% to 75% "average". so i feel like top 10% is really like the minimum cutoff for greatness, and i would not disagree with anyone who said no, you have to be in the top 5% to call something great, or whatever. id honestly be all for using words like good and great to refer to 1 standard and 2 standard deviations above average. which if memory serves, puts great more like 5% or better.

and again, comparing to human teams is all that matters. sims are horrible. if there are 50% sims, you need to be in the top 5% total, top 10% of humans. if there are 90% sims, and you end up in the top 10% overall, what does that say? you beat no humans, but you beat terrible sims, who are worse coaches than 95% of the humans playing the game? do you want a pat on the back for that? seriously, sims are horrible, you don't want to use them as a reference point!

i would probably say a team is good if they fall in the top 25% of humans. so in d3 knight, id say you have a good season if you make the second round, or by rpi, have an rpi of 32 or thereabouts.

rednation,

When two seniors graduate, they will make room for him in my ten my rotation. Right now, there isn't room.

bistiza: I understand what you are attempting to do with this player, but the point is if he hasn't been good enough to crack your ten man rotation as a JR, how could he possibly help you next season as a Sr? You could recruit a freshman that would be better than him next recruiting cycle (with a B- prestige especially) and either cut him or let him continue to drop in WE. This player has terrible ATH, he has the RB of a SF at C, he can't play a lick of D, he looks like he may have some scoring potential left but with his other ratings he's still a liability on the court. After looking at this player, why would you even want him on your team? He obviously has no potential left in ATH, DEF, and RB (maybe a few pts left here), all the stats big men need to thrive in a game...

You are trying to save a spot for a garbage player. If he complains, who cares? I would pray this guy transfers so I can get the money in my budget. 

Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):
My record against the sims is terrible according to you, and yet there isn't much I could have done differently to change the outcomes of the games I lost. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. I can accept that.

Like I said though i don't see how the team could do much (if any) better by my changing a few settings. I dont' think I'm a "bad coach" just because some of those games were losses. It happens. I don't let it get me down.

it amazes me that even after reading this whole thread, i am still amazed you could make such a foolish and closed minded statement. i would think i would know better by now!

you do realize you have a LOT to learn still, right? if you think you have the 9th most talented team, you should be better than 80 on the projection report. how the heck can you be so arrogant to think, with your limited experience, that you know enough to say that there isn't much you could have done to change the outcomes of the games you lost. of course there is! theres a **** ton you could have done. you should spend your time trying to figure out what that is, instead of carrying on this silly argument. really, forget about 5 minutes, and try to learn about the game instead. its INFINITELY more fulfilling :)

Top ten percent of humans in knight would be roughly top ten or so, once you eliminate ghost ships and first year rebuilds.

At any rate if you have to count in a lucky run in the CT to even get into the tourney, that to me doesn't qualify ...

Wow. I guess a lot of you have higher standards for greatness than I do. I guess I'm just not that good of a coach compared to many of you.

I've looked at some of the settings and tried to game plan against the sims, doing what I thought was best based on what I've read on WIS and on the forums and on my own experiences with the game, both past and present.

I'm still looking to improve, but I can't see any big holes in my coaching or mistakes I've made where it would have won more games. That's not arrogance, I'm just saying I don't see them.

I think I'm just terrible at this game. I've got more than a winning record overall, but I guess my teams suck and I suck worse. I try to have fun and win what i can.

I didn't say the team sucked. I said it wasn't "great". Playing the martyr is not necessary.

i detect sarcasm in the above statement but I could be wrong. I don't think it's as much a coaching issue as it is a player issue. You have one elite LP guy with 20 ATh... not good.. you have no real PER (one 73 player that's the highest), all you have ratings wise is RB honestly... no elite speed no elite ATH, your team rating is so high because your team is stacked in DUR, WE, and ST which always lead newer coaches to think their team is better than what it is. Your 9th overall rating is built on WE, ST and DUR which really means nothing on the court... stamina somewhat does... but overall the ratings that are important you are lacking. 

And ... It's number eighty on the projection report any way you slice it. And that is not, I am sorry to say, greatness ...

I have low standards for greatness, it seems.

Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 6:51:00 PM (view original):
I have low standards for greatness, it seems.

+1.

Unfortunately I think you have a lower standard of greatness than almost all of the PLAYERS on your team and therein lieth thine problem ...

Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 3:38:00 PM (view original):
llama,

This thing called the internet allows you to do research fairly easily. Check out logical fallacies. You may want to check out specifically "straw man" and "bandwagon", but there are a whole host of logical fallacies at work here, and this grand old internet can teach you all about them.

?you have a mediocre team with mediocre prestige and mediocre players...

My team is the ninth most talented in DIII by ratings. That's not mediocre by any standard.

In fact, the teams talent and ability is the chief "problem" which has resulted in the player in question playing less minutes than he'd like.

milkamania,

I said he exists  not because he probably exists, but because PROBABILITY indicates he would exist. Go look up the definition of statistical probability and then come back and respond once you've done that and you'll make more sense.

I'll play along cause this is fun.  Let's see what the dictionary says.

prob·a·bil·i·ty (prb-bl-t) KEY

NOUN:
pl. prob·a·bil·i·ties

1. The quality or condition of being probable; likelihood

so, i'll expect my apology in the next reply as you have already stated you acknowldge when you are wrong

Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 5:13:00 PM (view original):
I consider my team to be great based upon my own standards, which are all that matter to me.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider great a in the b?

Then, you sir, have VERY low standards.

Five (?) losses to SIM TEAMS and you consider your team great?  That really, REALLY says a lot.

Posted by bistiza on 9/4/2012 5:09:00 PM (view original):
My record against the sims is terrible according to you, and yet there isn't much I could have done differently to change the outcomes of the games I lost. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. I can accept that.

Like I said though i don't see how the team could do much (if any) better by my changing a few settings. I dont' think I'm a "bad coach" just because some of those games were losses. It happens. I don't let it get me down.

And with this comment, you are apparently saying that there is no need to change your settings because they are at the very best they could possible be.  So, you lost.  Had to be the RNG's fault.  Couldn't POSSIBLY be that YOUR settings weren't right, could it?  Could you really be any more arrogant?