Posted by benhoidal on 7/9/2021 7:57:00 PM (view original):
I still think capping the boost at 100% is the simplest solution and most likely to appeal to admin in the short term. Eventually they’ll be rewriting everything but that’s going to take a long time. It’s a simple fix in a step function, completely takes care of State Farm, and doesn’t really affect any other types of leagues. Simplest and possibly best short term solution.

That is a good simple solution, and one I'd be in favor of. Unfortunately changing Bill Russel's D to 100 is an even simpler fix and yet we're still waiting ...

Posted by Kona1 on 7/9/2021 8:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by benhoidal on 7/9/2021 7:57:00 PM (view original):
I still think capping the boost at 100% is the simplest solution and most likely to appeal to admin in the short term. Eventually they’ll be rewriting everything but that’s going to take a long time. It’s a simple fix in a step function, completely takes care of State Farm, and doesn’t really affect any other types of leagues. Simplest and possibly best short term solution.

That is a good simple solution, and one I'd be in favor of. Unfortunately changing Bill Russel's D to 100 is an even simpler fix and yet we're still waiting ...

Yeah, I'm down with Ben's short term solution for sure.

The thing with the Bill Russell D is that there are quite a few owners who aren't on board with it (they can speak for themselves). Personally, I think that they should give him 90 for every season and 100 for his MVP seasons and/or make up all-defense teams for years prior to that (in which he'd be on the first team every year).

I can't remember anyone in these forums arguing against Russell's D getting a bump - who are these poor benighted unfortunates?

seriously who? who are these 'quite a few' owners to whom we must kowtow? I have never seen anyone of them publicly state so but if any do exist they should pipe up

I still don't understand why WIS is willing to "create" things like 3's and blocks for old-time players, yet won't create All-Defensive teams to give appropriate bonuses. The older players are already at such a H - U - G - E disadvantage, you'd think they'd welcome a relatively easy way to level things a bit.

Posted by copernicus on 7/14/2021 9:57:00 AM (view original):
seriously who? who are these 'quite a few' owners to whom we must kowtow? I have never seen anyone of them publicly state so but if any do exist they should pipe up

Maybe quite a few wasn't right. Let me put it another way: A few people whose opinion I value. Again, if they want to speak up they can; I've already said what I think should happen.

I would be interested in the reasoning

but short of throwing out the whole concept that WiS is based on and saying 60s guys couldn't handle today's players or a similar stance (which then why are we even here?) I cannot see why the acknowledged best defender of that era shouldn't have that bump

especially in light of the two oft-cited facts a) the bump is based on a recognition/award that if it had existed he surely would have received (and did in fact receive in his final season) and b) most of the rest of his D juice is based on made-up stats and if his made-up stats clung more closely to contemporary accounts blocks/steals-wise he would probably already be rated in the 80s (assuming he had a Hakeem-like 2%/5% profile for instance)

we already have to be forced at gun-point (by theme rules) to use anyone not named Wilt from the era let's add at least one other useable guy

strawman 1: "but wouldn't that mean we had to field all D teams for every year not covered?"

{short answer: no} but ok, let's get some user/gm talks going to revive interest in the eras - let's do some scholarship and research - lets run some all 50s theme leagues and make the site a little money while raising user participation and interest FFS! (?)

remember the great messy NBA forum nonsense rants we use to have? people actually talked about basketball and there was a culture here and stuff

and pssst we have recently seen an influx of new (and it must be said refreshing) blood - so were I a business guy I might be curious about what I could make of it

There are innumerable players with absurd defense ratings… either way too high or way too low. Russell IMO not the most egregiously out of sorts (sure he isn’t a 90 but isn’t like he is a 30). I have never once understood the public obsession with the single player’s ratings as a matter of great importance over all the other issues with defense rating and other things needing adjustment in this game. It’s probably not in the first fifty things I would change.

Not to mention the “it’s just a database field change” arguments that become a tidal wave of additional player changes that have to be made once you open the flood gates. That’s not sustainable process.

1) He is a symbol of defense in the game and he is a symbol of admin's longstanding inaction

2) His is an easy fix, yes there are bigger problems but they involve much more complicated and time-consuming work (and I'm not holding my breath)

3) This does not need to lead to your flood gate scenario but if as many people clamor for an individual change as have clamored for this one and if it is an easy enough fix why not be more open to addressing individual cases? just imagine being able to create some kind of forum activity that might lead to more discussion and maybe even more leagues being played, god forbid. And in your scenario where are all these voices of chaos going to come from anyway? there are like 6 of us active right now

4) and finally, you're worried about a 'sustainable process'? I see no more proof of a process existing now than I saw before Scott left - I see promises, time passing and no action - same as it ever was

There are quite a lot of active users these days. As far as I can tell over the years, you and all3 are the only two who think this is important in comparison to everything else and worth the constant dialogue on the topic.

“I see no more proof of a process existing now than I saw before Scott left - I see promises, time passing and no action - same as it ever was”

Getting rid of rookies, upping the open league cap, making the UI mobile friendly and adding turnover% are the biggest changes in a decade, quick wins and way better than adjusting the defense of a single player. All done since Adam took over.

this took less than a minute:

To New Admin folk - Suggestions | WhatIfSports.com (I can find plenty more)

and no one is saying anything about 'more important' or 'instead of', it's the ease of addressing it that is the point - they can't even do this

The ease of editing one player: easy
The ease of editing every player with an arguably incorrect defensive rating with any sort of logic that is defensible: really hard
the rationale for having a single player deviate from their era specific logic with no precedent: none

No idea how there is any argument why Russell
should be prioritized or why his defense is even close to the most egregious.

You being big mad online is not a very compelling case.

Posted by robusk on 7/18/2021 2:39:00 PM (view original):
“I see no more proof of a process existing now than I saw before Scott left - I see promises, time passing and no action - same as it ever was”

Getting rid of rookies, upping the open league cap, making the UI mobile friendly and adding turnover% are the biggest changes in a decade, quick wins and way better than adjusting the defense of a single player. All done since Adam took over.

When did the "UI mobile friendly" change occur? I don't see a significant difference -other than having to use an ad blocker- between now and 5 years ago on my phone. Bottom line is that Bill Russell's defensive rating is an easy fix.