|
Post by Dubber on Sept 2, 2008 16:26:13 GMT -5
Another "Oh" moment -- I'm pretty durn expensive in this bidding war...
Can I sell myself short? (of course I can) Can we short ourselves to get more points to buy other players?
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Sept 2, 2008 17:18:15 GMT -5
So, Fantasy hockey is silly due to it tracking penalty minutes, ice time, etc? I'm treating this tournament as a mini-league. The other stats are there to give more value to less desirable players like myself. If it was just win / loss, I would not choose myself at all. But fantasy hockey leagues don't give out top marks for picking who had the most ice time, or who crossed the blue line the most often - they give standing to goals (and assists) and maybe +/-. That's it. So you can track stats all you want, but the winner of the fantasy challenge is going to be who chose the players who win the most, period. As for "giving value" to weaker players - next time you join a fantasy hockey league, try that and see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Sept 2, 2008 17:24:23 GMT -5
So, Fantasy hockey is silly due to it tracking penalty minutes, ice time, etc? I'm treating this tournament as a mini-league. The other stats are there to give more value to less desirable players like myself. If it was just win / loss, I would not choose myself at all. But fantasy hockey leagues don't give out top marks for picking who had the most ice time, or who crossed the blue line the most often - they give standing to goals (and assists) and maybe +/-. That's it. So you can track stats all you want, but the winner of the fantasy challenge is going to be who chose the players who win the most, period. As for "giving value" to weaker players - next time you join a fantasy hockey league, try that and see what happens. Actually, yes they do. Penalty minutes is a key part of your team's standings. Without it, you cannot win a league. I've been doing fantasy hockey now for 5 years. This is as close to a fantasy setting I can think of for warlocks. Well, Could do other stats about game style, but other than that, this is very similar to my last round of fantasy hockey.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 2, 2008 18:11:27 GMT -5
Shouldn't there just be a weighting? I mean, the guy who wins the most gets a point, but then so does the guy who stabs the most... That doesn't seem quite right. Also, points for the guy who losses/draws the most? that seems like bad news to me!
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Sept 2, 2008 18:44:14 GMT -5
sometimes, you win a category only to lose elsewhere. To keep with the fantasy hockey analogy, it's like keeping Tom Peti (LOTS of penalty minutes, but a crappy goal scorer) instead of Bret Hull who is a much better scorer, but doesn't get very many penalty minutes.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 2, 2008 18:51:03 GMT -5
but losses? shouldn't you lose points for that one? Also, it's really rewarding quantity over quality here... Though I do like the idea of multiple ways to win... Perhaps have a Wins only award as well, then everyone will be happy.
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Sept 2, 2008 19:05:11 GMT -5
See bottom of post #1.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Sept 2, 2008 19:17:56 GMT -5
Yes. Keeping track of other stats is fun, but basing a fantasy league off of them is silly. So, Fantasy hockey is silly due to it tracking penalty minutes, ice time, etc? I'm treating this tournament as a mini-league. The other stats are there to give more value to less desirable players like myself. If it was just win / loss, I would not choose myself at all. Fantasy hockey also tracks goalie save percentage, but it doesn't track their inverse save percentage. What you're suggesting is that the 950 goals they stopped counts for them just as much as the 50 goals they didn't stop. That makes them just as good as someone who stops 500 goals and lets 500 through. I still have not heard any rationalization from you about how you can track these things. A team's health lost + health remaining will always be 15 x their total number of games, so what's the point of tracking both? You might as well just merge both categories into "games played", the same way you could merge wins + losses into "games played excluding draws". The existence of a "loss" stat makes the "win" stat meaningless, i.e. there is no reason for a restriction on Elo. Everyone is telling you this, but you aren't listening.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Sept 2, 2008 19:27:14 GMT -5
To further illustrate my point...the last fantasy league I was involved in was a fantasy basketball league from this year. We tracked the following stats:
Pts - Field goal % - 3pts - Free Throw % - Assists - Steals - Blocks, - Rebounds - Turnovers (Negative)
All very standard stats. Ok, now imagine we added some categories:
Inverse field goal % - Inverse free throw % - Assists (Negative) - Turnovers (Positive)
What happens now? I have an amazing free throw shooter on my team, he shoots 95%, which should be great, except it's not, because now you're holding the other 5% against him. In effect 4 entire categories have now been nullified, meaning the only REAL categories are:
Pts - 3pts - Steals - Blocks - Rebounds
You have completely nullified Wins/Health Remaining/Kills by tracking their opposites, and therefore there is no longer any incentive to have good players on your team. In fact, there is more incentive to take bad players, because you can have more of them which = more quantitative stats. Until you can justify this logic to me, I will continue to express my opinion that this whole idea is just a sham.
|
|
|
Post by Dubber on Sept 3, 2008 13:26:24 GMT -5
You have completely nullified Wins/Health Remaining/Kills by tracking their opposites, and therefore there is no longer any incentive to have good players on your team. In fact, there is more incentive to take bad players, because you can have more of them which = more quantitative stats. Until you can justify this logic to me, I will continue to express my opinion that this whole idea is just a sham. Heh, by that reckoning I'm a cheap buy at twice the price
|
|
|
Post by Slartucker on Sept 3, 2008 15:35:28 GMT -5
Seriously, nawglan, this is really bizarre. Having both "wins" and "losses" contribute to an overall winner, means they effectively cancel out. Several of the categories are worded in ways that are confusing at best and indecipherable at worst ("Min turns taken of winner" = ). Most of all, though, it makes NO sense that the "overall winner" contains such an eclectic assortment of statistics. Whether or not you happen to agree, everyone else posting in this thread seems to feel that the main prize goes to having the winningest team, however exactly that is measured; and that things like stabs and draws and turns taken belong in ancillary categories that do not contribute to the main prize.
|
|
Derfel
Ronin Warlock
Did I Do That?
Troublemaker
Posts: 283
|
Post by Derfel on Sept 3, 2008 17:20:48 GMT -5
The point I was trying to make above was:
Would you prefer a hockey team where every player scores 3 goals a game? Or a team that every player scores 1 goal every 3 games, but has (on average) 12 minutes of penalty time per game, and has 6 shots on net per game, and gets 14:30 of ice time per game, etc etc.
Goals (and assists) are the bread and butter, and therefore contribute the most to a player's/team's standing. Just like wins should here. Keeping track of stats alongside is great, but I'm getting the vibe that people want wins to determine a winner...?
|
|
|
Post by nawglan on Sept 3, 2008 21:19:19 GMT -5
ok. ok. So, how do we give more value to the lower ranked players? I asked for more / better categories, and all I got was flack for trying to be different. Just doing wins vs loss is very very boring, and it still only favors the better players. We still have time to make this better.
|
|
|
Post by xade on Sept 3, 2008 21:38:01 GMT -5
It's meant to favor them... that's why they cost more. It's in picking the value that can come up and snatch victories... But I love the idea of sub-trophies, so that there could be more than just the one goal to aim for.
|
|
|
Post by ExDeath on Sept 3, 2008 22:20:45 GMT -5
If you make every team 5 players regardless of Elo, then better players will be the best choice since they are more likely to make the postseason.
If you eliminate negative categories, worse players will still be the best choice since their quantity still overwhelms quality.
But at least either one would be better than what we have now, so pick one and go with it.
|
|