IT'S NEXT WEEK! Topic

smileycrawfo
Posts: 109 (0)
Hall of Famer
17 49 6 12 1
Prospect
What a scrub team I've had to put together due to the new ratings! LOL This should be sweet seeing things mixed up. I was so sick of seeing the same old garbage, and having to use the same old garbage to win. Talk about a breathe of fresh air for simbasketball! There is not one moses malone in my entire league!
10/7/2010 1:21 AM
eleibowitz
Posts: 3680 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 10 4 15
Prospect
Well Ash is now out of the SIM also, really strange.  Isn't he one of the people who helped with the new engine?  By the way, only real issue I have (aside from remaking the engine that Felonius is talking about) is we should of discounted the salaries more for players with lesser minutes.  
10/7/2010 10:25 AM (edited)
colonels19
Posts: 4398 (0)
Hall of Famer
54 90 3 1 168 2 1 11
Prospect
Posted by all3 on 10/6/2010 8:35:00 PM (view original):

10/06/2010

  • The 2010 Teams and Players are now available!
  • We have updated ballpark factors for all parks that have been introduced since Coors Field. We have added Target Field. We have also updated the number grade ratings for all parks to bring them back into good distribution. The underlying values have not changed.
Baseball gets players in 3 days - basketball in 5 months.
+1...was thinking the same thing
10/7/2010 9:23 AM
felonius
Posts: 3771 (0)
Hall of Famer
154 9 6
Rookie
Posted by badja on 10/6/2010 1:05:00 PM (view original):
Posted by felonius on 10/5/2010 8:19:00 AM (view original):
no they werent - they're still too heavily based on ts% and Elgin Baylor/Bob Pettit etc must protest  - aint right, aint right still aint right
No one is really going to use those guys anyway because they just can't shoot.  Price the sim anyway you want, there are too many guys that shoot better.  Barros and Rice went up quite a bit.

They also play a ton of minutes and rebound well which puts their salaries higher. 

the reason they're priced that high is their ts% which doesnt translate in the sim - if it did your shooting argument would be blunted
10/7/2010 9:44 AM
felonius
Posts: 3771 (0)
Hall of Famer
154 9 6
Rookie
btw Im a little surprised there's so much negativity but I would like a response from admin re the bench players - some of their values went up 300% (Matt Bullard) - I dont understand how the players at the top went up 20% but the ones at the bottom doubled or tripled - they didnt suddenly become that much more valuable

I think most of the current negativity revolves around this issue - i can still make a decent starting 5 with 38m it's just there's no way to get that last 3000-4000 minutes with the remaining 4m
10/7/2010 9:57 AM
eleibowitz
Posts: 3680 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 10 4 15
Prospect
Posted by felonius on 10/7/2010 9:57:00 AM (view original):
btw Im a little surprised there's so much negativity but I would like a response from admin re the bench players - some of their values went up 300% (Matt Bullard) - I dont understand how the players at the top went up 20% but the ones at the bottom doubled or tripled - they didnt suddenly become that much more valuable

I think most of the current negativity revolves around this issue - i can still make a decent starting 5 with 38m it's just there's no way to get that last 3000-4000 minutes with the remaining 4m
Agreed Felonius this is my issue, Seble is there anyway we can do a tweak on this maybe for all players under 1500 mins reduce salaries by 20%. 

10/7/2010 10:27 AM
smileycrawfo
Posts: 109 (0)
Hall of Famer
17 49 6 12 1
Prospect
I'd prefer to see the engine charge the right price, no matter what the minutes are. You just have to get a starting lineup that isn't so killer anymore, and you will be fine. It is just an adjustment period that everyone is going to have to go through.
10/7/2010 12:23 PM
felonius
Posts: 3771 (0)
Hall of Famer
154 9 6
Rookie
the right price on Matt Bullard is 300% higher than it was for less than a 3 of a season but the right price on Moses Malone only raised 20%? there's an imbalance there somewhere
10/7/2010 12:26 PM
badja
Posts: 1342 (0)
All Star
42 1
Prospect
Bullard was WAY underpriced before. 
10/7/2010 1:53 PM
eleibowitz
Posts: 3680 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 10 4 15
Prospect
Posted by badja on 10/7/2010 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Bullard was WAY underpriced before. 

agreed

10/7/2010 1:55 PM
badja
Posts: 1342 (0)
All Star
42 1
Prospect
Here's a team I put together that beats the bench problem, plus i still got armstrong!


Name Pos Salary Per% Mid% Pnt% Def Rtg PG Eff% SG Eff% SF Eff% PF Eff% C Eff%
92-93 Patrick Ewing C $8,550,562 0 58 41 93 60 70 80 100 100
79-80 Larry Bird PF $7,807,115 10 56 34 84 80 83 96 100 100
02-03 Peja Stojakovic SF $5,715,862 39 37 24 44 80 99 100 100 93
94-95 Joe Dumars SG $4,969,207 35 39 26 50 100 100 94 80 70
09-10 Kirk Hinrich SG $4,683,260 37 39 23 70 100 100 93 80 70
02-03 Jon Barry SG $3,161,491 50 27 23 72 100 100 97 80 70
01-02 Hakeem Olajuwon C $2,764,738 0 46 54 91 60 72 88 100 100
98-99 Will Perdue C $1,274,737 0 19 81 62 60 70 84 100 100
97-98 Buck Williams PF $1,237,528 0 37 63 50 70 90 100 100 95
85-86 Rick Carlisle SG $917,471 5 57 38 37 97 100 100 88 73
98-99 B.j. Armstrong PG $390,357 19 56 25 32 100 100 87 70 60
92-93 Mike Gminski C $375,794 0 62 38 34 60 70 83 100 100


10/7/2010 2:09 PM
robusk
Posts: 15275 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 460 20 90 77
All Star
Posted by felonius on 10/7/2010 9:57:00 AM (view original):
btw Im a little surprised there's so much negativity but I would like a response from admin re the bench players - some of their values went up 300% (Matt Bullard) - I dont understand how the players at the top went up 20% but the ones at the bottom doubled or tripled - they didnt suddenly become that much more valuable

I think most of the current negativity revolves around this issue - i can still make a decent starting 5 with 38m it's just there's no way to get that last 3000-4000 minutes with the remaining 4m
Re: that last sentence, I think that is how it should be.  58% of your roster for less than 10% of your salary is insane...  even if you have the imbalance where your bench only plays 18% of your team minutes, it is ridiculous to have the costs be that imbalanced.
10/7/2010 2:16 PM
robusk
Posts: 15275 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 460 20 90 77
All Star
Hell, even the absurdly imbalanced new Miami Heat have 30% of their salary dedicated to their bench...  and they are abnormally low.
10/7/2010 2:20 PM
felonius
Posts: 3771 (0)
Hall of Famer
154 9 6
Rookie
Posted by robusk on 10/7/2010 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by felonius on 10/7/2010 9:57:00 AM (view original):
btw Im a little surprised there's so much negativity but I would like a response from admin re the bench players - some of their values went up 300% (Matt Bullard) - I dont understand how the players at the top went up 20% but the ones at the bottom doubled or tripled - they didnt suddenly become that much more valuable

I think most of the current negativity revolves around this issue - i can still make a decent starting 5 with 38m it's just there's no way to get that last 3000-4000 minutes with the remaining 4m
Re: that last sentence, I think that is how it should be.  58% of your roster for less than 10% of your salary is insane...  even if you have the imbalance where your bench only plays 18% of your team minutes, it is ridiculous to have the costs be that imbalanced.
your real world math is off - Vets min Theo Ratliff makes less than 1/20th of what Kobe will be making this season

meanwhile in the sim about ten minutes a game worth of Theo Ratliff (which is probably what the Lakers will get from him) = 1/13th of the maximum maximum salary ever in the player database -  in real life the pay scale variation from scrub to max is significantly deeper than it is in the sim database

10/8/2010 3:10 PM
robusk
Posts: 15275 (0)
Hall of Famer
26 460 20 90 77
All Star
You use extreme examples and not whole picture analysis.  That won't get you very far.  Also, your assumption then is that an effective bench should all be minimum salary guys or mostly minimum salary guys?  How many NBA teams would be able to pull that off?  How could it be expected to be effective?  All you guys do is ***** about the cookie cutters and how much sameness there is/lack of variety in team construction, and then you are all (with a few exceptions) appallingly quick to fly off at the mouth about how much BS it is that you have to strategize and show some diversity when building your team.
10/8/2010 4:05 PM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
IT'S NEXT WEEK! Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.