Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Laggo
Nobody who was not created the first season will ever crack the top 10 on the Overall HoF. I can barely crack top 20 as a rookie by doubling and in some cases tripling the sophmore stats near me because they are weighted so high. This will only get worse if a Rookie is trying to beat a veteran, or even higher.

Aren't they behind because they haven't played as many games? And what happens when the season 1 guys retire and the now rookies play another season. Logic tells me than can and probably will catch up.

It's just by season - it doesn't count past stats, it's not really a HoF it's more of an Allstar list (we've already discussed how this doesn't make any sense as well)

The point of this thread was equality for all positons. Or make other stats worth more in the eyes of HOF voters.

I took over this thread because your original point was b0ring

I don't think we will ever find a happy medium/solution to your problem. Sacks have to be more valuable than tackles because they happen less frequently, but the game is broken in regards to sacks so the standings get lopsided by blitzers. If you reduce the value of sacks then if the game ever gets fixed actual good DE's can't make an impact anymore, etc.

Maybe one season we will finally figure out how to break interceptions and you will see CB's topping the Defensive HoF with 50 interceptions in 15 games. How do you balance against that kind of exploitation before the fact?

Though, like I said in my first post before Cdog responded and gave me another chance to put him in his place, comparing all positions on offense and defense together doesn't really make any sense (the same goes for different tiers). Ideally, this would be a non-issue as it would never come up.

Originally posted by McGruffHawk
Because its the HoF and not the Pro Bowl. HoF rewards (actually demands) career longevity, not instant comparisons.

Was Adrian Peterson a HoF-er after one season? Two? Even three?
first, comparing glb to the nfl is pointless.

second, the hof is broken up into seasons /on purpose/ so that renders your whole point invalid.

Originally posted by Asheme

first, comparing glb to the nfl is pointless.

second, the hof is broken up into seasons /on purpose/ so that renders your whole point invalid.

So why the complaint? If its broken down, what difference does it make?

The difference is that a touchdown has a different value for (or when done VS, who knows) a rookie or a sophmore or a veteran...

I just don't understand the idea of ranking players of all tiers on the same list and then fiddling with their stats after the fact based on arbitrary definitions without purpose.

Is a sophmore VS sophmore game really 3x as difficult to make plays in as a rookie VS rookie game? Because that's essentially what the current HoF tells you

I feel like the way the list is ordered forgets that most of the time the teams are playing even-competition SP wise...

Originally posted by McGruffHawk
So why the complaint? If its broken down, what difference does it make?
well that's what we're trying to find out. despite vastly better numbers against the competition that's available (including playing and beating every top rookie ladder team before we ascended to playing sophomore playoff teams) than sophomore qbs, laggo's player is far, far behind them in the overall hof rankings.

db, when pressed, has only mentioned strength of schedule, but since zorp's schedule is plenty strong (relative to rookie), one wonders if that "strength of schedule" means something else, as in it only takes into account the opponent, and not the relative closeness of the teams that are playing.

in that scenario, sophs/vets/etc. would always have the advantage because the teams they're playing are objectively "tougher", by the measure of having more overall sp.

Originally posted by Laggo
The difference is that a touchdown has a different value for (or when done VS, who knows) a rookie or a sophmore or a veteran...

Except they don't.

Originally posted by Corndog
Except they don't.
i just don't see how that's the case. if rookies and sophs are on equal footing, then i'm curious about my backup lb on zorp.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/38996

69 sacks, 18 hurries, 21 tackles, 5 tfl, 13 ffum, 1 safety on 27 plays per game. he's 101st on the defensive hof list.

this lb: http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/player/6996

39 sacks, 50 hurries, 37 tackles, 9 tfl, 8 ffum on 44 players per game. he's 11th on the defensive hof list.

i see no demonstrative difference between their numbers for the season that would put one 90 spots behind the other. clearly the answer lies elsewhere.

but, if you look at the competition, my lb has performed /better/ against /better/ competition than brad's. 8.5 sacks/1ffum against a fully human sub-.500 team; 6.5 sacks/1ffum against the #2 team on the rookie ladder; 6 sacks/3ffum against the current #11 in the rookie ladder, in the top 10 almost all season; 5.5 sacks against an over-.500, division leading sophomore team; 5 sacks/1 sfty against a sub-.500 fully human team; 4 sacks/1 ffum against the current #8 rookie team (who had zero losses before playing zorp); etc., so on and so on.

brad's lb has 8.5 sacks/3 ffum against a fully human sub-.500 team; 4.5 sacks/1 ffum against the current #11 soph ladder team; 4 sacks/2ffum against a sub-.500 fully human team with an inactive owner (#157 in soph tier); 3 sacks against the #78 soph tier team; 2 sacks against the #32 ranked soph team; 1.5 sacks against both the 14th, 5th and 85th ranked soph teams; 1 sack/1 ffum against the #1 soph team.

unless the strength of schedule is determined by global rank instead of tier rank (to assure relativity for different experience brackets), or unless 16 tackles + 32 hurries are 90 spots better than +30 sacks, i can't see the logic. my player put up better numbers, in fewer snaps, against tougher competition, yet he's 90 spots behind.

help me understand?

Originally posted by Asheme
unless the strength of schedule is determined by global rank instead of tier rank

Well that should be a ldo

Why wouldn't it use global rank for global rankings?

Laggo, just compare half of your games to what Sunday Funday has had to go against and you'll realize that your QB doesn't even belong in the same discussion as their QB.

Probably over half your yards have come against teams that aren't even in the top 100 in rookie. In this situation SoS is playing a good roll in keeping QBs that deserve to be at the top, at the top.

Originally posted by Laggo
The difference is that a touchdown has a different value for (or when done VS, who knows) a rookie or a sophmore or a veteran...

I just don't understand the idea of ranking players of all tiers on the same list and then fiddling with their stats after the fact based on arbitrary definitions without purpose.

Is a sophmore VS sophmore game really 3x as difficult to make plays in as a rookie VS rookie game? Because that's essentially what the current HoF tells you

I feel like the way the list is ordered forgets that most of the time the teams are playing even-competition SP wise...

In my mind, there is no way a rookie should be ranked just as high a soph based only on the stats. Reminds me of GLB1 and the blowout games. Is it fair if a rookie dominates a bunch of scrubs and gets ranked just as high as a top 10 soph? Not to me.

Originally posted by bdnannac
In my mind, there is no way a rookie should be ranked just as high a soph based only on the stats. Reminds me of GLB1 and the blowout games. Is it fair if a rookie dominates a bunch of scrubs and gets ranked just as high as a top 10 soph? Not to me.

That rookie just threw 6 TDs vs a sophomore division leader, and last week threw 4 TDs vs another sophomore division leader. We can probably stop pretending these stats are vs garbage rookie teams.

It's using opposing team rating to adjust the stats, of course, which is intrinsically biased against the lower tiers because all the rookie teams started as worse than where all the sophomore teams were at the beginning of the season (which is probably correct - or at least not that far off. Maybe you could assume the average rookie team is as good as the bottom 10% sophomore teams but whatever, it's not too bad. The magnitude of the rating gap could perhaps be discussed, but it's not public knowledge so doesn't matter).

In the end, this is probably an okay system. Rookies will have a hard time, but sophomores competing against 3rd year players will be a different story, if their team is solid enough. I mean, when's the last time the Heisman was given to a team in I-AA ball? Steve McNair got 3rd in '93 and that's about as close as it gets.

Originally posted by bdnannac
In my mind, there is no way a rookie should be ranked just as high a soph based only on the stats. Reminds me of GLB1 and the blowout games. Is it fair if a rookie dominates a bunch of scrubs and gets ranked just as high as a top 10 soph? Not to me.
what if the rookie dominates great competition relative to their tier?

Originally posted by Corndog
Well that should be a ldo

Why wouldn't it use global rank for global rankings?
because it's inherently favoring sophomores, which i can understand, but not the way the system currently works.

as of now, the default hof mixes everyone in, and is broken up on a season by season basis. this is, ostensibly, to give players across all the various tiers a place to shine, based on their relative accomplishments, except it uses global rank instead of tier rank, so the teams that started sooner will, for a long time, be playing higher rated teams, even if the relative end result is the same (good stats accumulated against the best available competition). if that's not the case, then why not make it cumulative and/or break the hof up into tiers?