Originally posted by randey
So... your list is completely based on stats and strength of schedule alone???
Yeah i thought i made it clear how mine was made up.... it's a little voodoo i like to call math... see you take your results and then you throw out all the easy tests and just do an average of the challenging tests... as was stated the process takes the teams 9 game schedule and then disregards the 3 zero win teams + the lowest ranked team remaining... so the statistics are based on each teams 5 toughest opponents and all players must have played in 5 games against one of the 13 teams in the conference with a win.
hopefully that is clear enough
Originally posted by randey
Ok...
So how do you take into account that the Kings have given their backups more playing time than their starters when going up against much weaker teams? YET the starters still put up numbers that EASILY compete with the rest of the conference?
I don't take it into account... because it hasn't happened... this is the 2nd or third time i have seen you post this sort of thing... like you guys are letting off the gas and not running up the score on people, as if you were doing something other teams aren't doing... everybody gets there backups in in blow outs, don't act like it is some sort of sainthood induction... see again tho you throw statements out there like they are facts. The whole idea of the formula is to base the rankings on the strongest competition available.
here are the play times for your starters and backups for the positions and games ranked...
http://hitmen.big-poppa.net/extras/scouting/cv/5game.pdf
Originally posted by randey
If you like we can play every game all out and blow the stats out of the water, how will that look on your formula?
3 of the 5 games your players were judged on were pretty tooth and nail, so i suggest you keep doing exactly what it is you are doing playing your starters as much as possible against any threat, and there are a few left on your schedule... but what i would like has no bearing on how you should or shouldn't play... it will all look the same in my formula because its just actual production that matters not excuses, not potential...
Originally posted by randey
Ohh wait, Martin Pinstrup with a 9 and 7 touchdown to interception ratio is better than Leonard Washington who has 5 more touchdowns and the same number of Ints and also shares much more playing time and has fewer attempts to put up big numbers?
seriously? are you even going to try and make this argument? Pinstrup out played Washington in every common foe game.. especially the biggest common foe the sand storm... compare that game and get back to me... a game that Washington played 77 of 79 plays... his numbers are better then your guys given the playing field... its really that simple... also you do realize that all these numbers are public right? none of this is top secret its all out there for you to look at before you go off posting wild inaccurate statements....
Originally posted by randey
Or what about "Bahama Breeze" a level 12 WR for the Pirates being better than: Michael "Tee Hee" Jackson, * Cliffjumper, or If You Aint First Your Last? Seriously? I'd trade you Bahama boy for any one of those three and it'd be a steal!
Jackson has had a good year for sure, actually after the top 2 WR's it is a pretty good toss up at WR SLOBBERKNOCKER could make a case to be in the 3 or 4 slot as could Jackson... and certainly breeze... this is a ranking of what a player has accomplished not what he may accomplish... I'm not trading for these players... but you act if it is just unthinkable that a level 12 could possibly be "better" then these other WR's... but earlier when you were explaining that imaginary formula you used to come up with this list you said:
Originally posted by randey
"A level 16 with a good build is often better than a level 19 with an average or bad one... "
so which is it? this level 12 has consistently put up good numbers against strong defenses are you saying those numbers are somehow less important because he is a level 12? are the yards he gets really only like 2 feet?
Originally posted by randey
Your system is hardly fallible and there is no need for you to flame a thread and call it biased because it doesn't meet your expectations.
i will assume you meant infallible, and this whole thing started off by me making a one line comment that you can't make an "all-star" team at mid-season, especially with 3 zero win teams and IF YOU DID you shouldn't be so obviously biased... that's not a flame its a 1 part statement, 1 part suggestion....
Originally posted by randey
This thread was meant in fun, and to give some excitement to the Lion conference who didn't have a "all pro" thread while the Elephant conference had TWO! I said it wasn't perfect, and I'm sure a few big players got left off or is questionable, but if some where left off, sorry. But the ones who made it all deserved it!
if this thread was meant in fun why did you respond to my one line post about it with a paragraph basically calling me out for having the audacity to question your putting 40% of your own team on a roster of "all pros"... saying that until i had the "facts" to back up what i said (which all i said was it was obviously biased at first glance) and about how much time and effort you put into putting this list together and this and that... seemed pretty serious at the time, i guess that was before you realized all these numbers in the game actually go together... lets review...
original statement that you can't do a mid-year all star team? check.
original list biased? check.
yeah i guess you are right this is a fun thread...
Originally posted by randey
This is a tough conference with good players. I already acknowledged that without seeing every player's stats it'd be hard to compare who is better than who, and even then there would be controversy,
I don't know what you mean... you can see every players stats, both on GLB and in the file i linked too...
Originally posted by randey
so this thread was meant as a fun "congratulations" for the ones that I personally felt were the best players around.
so did you lie earlier and actually didn't go through the conference and evaluate players? :
Originally posted by randey
...stats were weighed in, but strength of schedule, and playing three teams with zero wins can make the stats skewed. Levels of the players involved was a factor, but not the only one. A level 16 with a good build is often better than a level 19 with an average or bad one... so levels were used as a reference point, and then stats as a secondary factor, their influence on their team, and how much the team relied on them to make big plays was also a big factor. Another was negative stats against players, dropped passes? Missed Tackles? Those things took down a player's stock to me.
Originally posted by randey
As for being biased, would you like some out of conference player who doesn't know us to try to make a list?
i don't know what this means... could it have something to do with this:
Originally posted by randey
OFFENSE
OT’s:
George Godoshia n - Washington Wildcats
Originally posted by randey
After having played most of the players mentioned, and scouting the rest for upcoming games, I feel I have a pretty good handle on who is worthy of being here.
I'm glad you do because i don't think many people not wearing green and black have the same feeling.
Originally posted by randey
Wow...
my thoughts exactly...
So... your list is completely based on stats and strength of schedule alone???
Yeah i thought i made it clear how mine was made up.... it's a little voodoo i like to call math... see you take your results and then you throw out all the easy tests and just do an average of the challenging tests... as was stated the process takes the teams 9 game schedule and then disregards the 3 zero win teams + the lowest ranked team remaining... so the statistics are based on each teams 5 toughest opponents and all players must have played in 5 games against one of the 13 teams in the conference with a win.
hopefully that is clear enough
Originally posted by randey
Ok...
So how do you take into account that the Kings have given their backups more playing time than their starters when going up against much weaker teams? YET the starters still put up numbers that EASILY compete with the rest of the conference?
I don't take it into account... because it hasn't happened... this is the 2nd or third time i have seen you post this sort of thing... like you guys are letting off the gas and not running up the score on people, as if you were doing something other teams aren't doing... everybody gets there backups in in blow outs, don't act like it is some sort of sainthood induction... see again tho you throw statements out there like they are facts. The whole idea of the formula is to base the rankings on the strongest competition available.
here are the play times for your starters and backups for the positions and games ranked...
http://hitmen.big-poppa.net/extras/scouting/cv/5game.pdf
Originally posted by randey
If you like we can play every game all out and blow the stats out of the water, how will that look on your formula?
3 of the 5 games your players were judged on were pretty tooth and nail, so i suggest you keep doing exactly what it is you are doing playing your starters as much as possible against any threat, and there are a few left on your schedule... but what i would like has no bearing on how you should or shouldn't play... it will all look the same in my formula because its just actual production that matters not excuses, not potential...
Originally posted by randey
Ohh wait, Martin Pinstrup with a 9 and 7 touchdown to interception ratio is better than Leonard Washington who has 5 more touchdowns and the same number of Ints and also shares much more playing time and has fewer attempts to put up big numbers?
seriously? are you even going to try and make this argument? Pinstrup out played Washington in every common foe game.. especially the biggest common foe the sand storm... compare that game and get back to me... a game that Washington played 77 of 79 plays... his numbers are better then your guys given the playing field... its really that simple... also you do realize that all these numbers are public right? none of this is top secret its all out there for you to look at before you go off posting wild inaccurate statements....
Originally posted by randey
Or what about "Bahama Breeze" a level 12 WR for the Pirates being better than: Michael "Tee Hee" Jackson, * Cliffjumper, or If You Aint First Your Last? Seriously? I'd trade you Bahama boy for any one of those three and it'd be a steal!
Jackson has had a good year for sure, actually after the top 2 WR's it is a pretty good toss up at WR SLOBBERKNOCKER could make a case to be in the 3 or 4 slot as could Jackson... and certainly breeze... this is a ranking of what a player has accomplished not what he may accomplish... I'm not trading for these players... but you act if it is just unthinkable that a level 12 could possibly be "better" then these other WR's... but earlier when you were explaining that imaginary formula you used to come up with this list you said:
Originally posted by randey
"A level 16 with a good build is often better than a level 19 with an average or bad one... "
so which is it? this level 12 has consistently put up good numbers against strong defenses are you saying those numbers are somehow less important because he is a level 12? are the yards he gets really only like 2 feet?
Originally posted by randey
Your system is hardly fallible and there is no need for you to flame a thread and call it biased because it doesn't meet your expectations.
i will assume you meant infallible, and this whole thing started off by me making a one line comment that you can't make an "all-star" team at mid-season, especially with 3 zero win teams and IF YOU DID you shouldn't be so obviously biased... that's not a flame its a 1 part statement, 1 part suggestion....
Originally posted by randey
This thread was meant in fun, and to give some excitement to the Lion conference who didn't have a "all pro" thread while the Elephant conference had TWO! I said it wasn't perfect, and I'm sure a few big players got left off or is questionable, but if some where left off, sorry. But the ones who made it all deserved it!
if this thread was meant in fun why did you respond to my one line post about it with a paragraph basically calling me out for having the audacity to question your putting 40% of your own team on a roster of "all pros"... saying that until i had the "facts" to back up what i said (which all i said was it was obviously biased at first glance) and about how much time and effort you put into putting this list together and this and that... seemed pretty serious at the time, i guess that was before you realized all these numbers in the game actually go together... lets review...
original statement that you can't do a mid-year all star team? check.
original list biased? check.
yeah i guess you are right this is a fun thread...
Originally posted by randey
This is a tough conference with good players. I already acknowledged that without seeing every player's stats it'd be hard to compare who is better than who, and even then there would be controversy,
I don't know what you mean... you can see every players stats, both on GLB and in the file i linked too...
Originally posted by randey
so this thread was meant as a fun "congratulations" for the ones that I personally felt were the best players around.
so did you lie earlier and actually didn't go through the conference and evaluate players? :
Originally posted by randey
...stats were weighed in, but strength of schedule, and playing three teams with zero wins can make the stats skewed. Levels of the players involved was a factor, but not the only one. A level 16 with a good build is often better than a level 19 with an average or bad one... so levels were used as a reference point, and then stats as a secondary factor, their influence on their team, and how much the team relied on them to make big plays was also a big factor. Another was negative stats against players, dropped passes? Missed Tackles? Those things took down a player's stock to me.
Originally posted by randey
As for being biased, would you like some out of conference player who doesn't know us to try to make a list?
i don't know what this means... could it have something to do with this:
Originally posted by randey
OFFENSE
OT’s:
George Godoshia n - Washington Wildcats
Originally posted by randey
After having played most of the players mentioned, and scouting the rest for upcoming games, I feel I have a pretty good handle on who is worthy of being here.
I'm glad you do because i don't think many people not wearing green and black have the same feeling.
Originally posted by randey
Wow...
my thoughts exactly...
