Player Review Phase 2 - Salaries Topic

badja
Posts: 1342 (0)
All Star
42 1
Prospect
Fouls and to's might be even more important as far as normalizing goes.  Even a lot of 80's players are unusable because of this.  Will we be using to% and foul% instead of per 48?
8/24/2010 3:56 PM
seble
Posts: 878 (0)
Hall of Famer
24 44 35 306 121 175
Prospect
I'm using individual turnover%, i.e. percent of that player's possessions that end in a turnover.  I'm not currently incorporating fouls.
8/24/2010 4:09 PM
qistat
Posts: 31 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 203
Prospect
Just based on the variables used to calculate the new salaries alone there is an obvious glitch.

Anyone who fails to take advatage of this glitch will not be successfull and all championship teams will by default have to employ it.

What is the glitch?

The formula uses offensive production (ppg) and a few  offensive efficiency variables (eff fg%, tru shoot% ). The formula does not however incorporate any interaction between those two types of stats.

Therefore no hi efficiency/low production player (71 wilt, late Gilmore) should ever be used. You will want to draft players with both hi eff/hi prod and players who have low eff/low prod while exeling in other areas. Without following this formula succes will be impossible against an owner who uses it. 
8/24/2010 5:47 PM
felonius
Posts: 3771 (0)
Hall of Famer
154 9 6
Rookie
so Shaq and Ben Wallace and Lebron and Jason Kidd?
8/24/2010 6:52 PM
qistat
Posts: 31 (0)
Hall of Famer
7 203
Prospect
Well there could be other important variables regard to sim value and sim price as well so it is not thorough by any means. But without looking at the data I'm guessing that ,yes, guys like Kidd & Rodman will be even more valuable now while Wilt from 67-68 and 64-65 will gain value. Shaq should gain value also. Any hi output low efficiency players should become unusable (even moreso than in the past).
8/24/2010 7:11 PM
ashamael
Posts: 12647 (1)
Hall of Famer
532 19
All Star
Posted by seble on 8/24/2010 2:53:00 PM (view original):
We already use normalized shooting percentages and have for a while.  The # values are essentially what the engine uses.  Although I may need to double check that those are being used in this new salary formula.  I'll get a new spreadsheet out tomorrow hopefully.
a)  What are they normalized to?  The fg# are very low compared to what they should be.
b)  Whatever you're using, it isn't working.
8/24/2010 9:41 PM
ashamael
Posts: 12647 (1)
Hall of Famer
532 19
All Star
Posted by qistat on 8/24/2010 5:48:00 PM (view original):
Just based on the variables used to calculate the new salaries alone there is an obvious glitch.

Anyone who fails to take advatage of this glitch will not be successfull and all championship teams will by default have to employ it.

What is the glitch?

The formula uses offensive production (ppg) and a few  offensive efficiency variables (eff fg%, tru shoot% ). The formula does not however incorporate any interaction between those two types of stats.

Therefore no hi efficiency/low production player (71 wilt, late Gilmore) should ever be used. You will want to draft players with both hi eff/hi prod and players who have low eff/low prod while exeling in other areas. Without following this formula succes will be impossible against an owner who uses it. 
It's already like this, though.  You don't waste salary on a high efg%, high fta guy who has low usage.  The only way you spend money on that guy is if he gives you a ton of boards (for example, 08-09 Joel Przybilla).  Teams using high usage, low fta guys and lower usage guys with high ftas gimp themselves terribly and then don't understand why their 2800+ ftas aren't getting them to the line more.


8/24/2010 9:43 PM
ethandrake
Posts: 10 (0)
Hall of Famer
109 2 2 1
Prospect

I agree with the past posts about there has to be more of a salary emphasis on rebounding, eFG, and 3s, but more so Orebs. They are the most under valued stat in the thing in my opinion. Why the Rodman's and Moses are so effective its because of their high OReb% and lots people use them because of this.

8/24/2010 11:45 PM
ashamael
Posts: 12647 (1)
Hall of Famer
532 19
All Star
no... lots of people use them because they have high creb (combined rebound percentage).  Rodman's 91-92 seasons is over 48%... and if you look hard enough, you'll find several guys that are that high and/or over 50%.  Enough to put together a monster rotation at one position.  But yeah, rebounding is too cheap.
8/25/2010 5:03 AM
eleibowitz
Posts: 3680 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 10 4 15
Prospect


I guess the main thing is to be able to use somone like Elgin Baylor but as you can see he only has one usable season.  So how is the 2pt% normalizing the shooting precentages?  Also just for my information what is FG%+ ?

  Name Team P Min MPG PPG FG% 3PT% FT% ORPG RPG APG TOPG SPG BPG FPG Def 2pt%# Salary
  Baylor, Elgin 69-70 Lakers SF 2213 41.0 24.7 48.6 34.0 77.3 2.9 10.4 5.4 3.1 1.6 0.8 2.4 57 50.4 $4,673,136
  Baylor, Elgin 62-63 Lakers SF 3455 42.1 34.9 45.3 34.9 83.7 3.9 14.3 4.8 3.9 1.8 1.0 2.8 84 46.8 $9,492,316
  Baylor, Elgin 68-69 Lakers SF 3064 40.3 25.3 44.7 33.1 74.3 3.1 10.6 5.4 3.4 1.7 1.0 2.7 60 46.3 $6,544,983
  Baylor, Elgin 67-68 Lakers SF 3029 39.3 26.7 44.3 33.5 78.6 3.5 12.2 4.6 3.4 1.7 0.8 3.0 77 46.1 $7,254,357
  Baylor, Elgin 71-72 Lakers SF 239 26.6 12.8 43.3 36.0 81.5 1.9 6.3 2.0 1.6 0.8 0.0 2.2 40 45.9 $239,000
  Baylor, Elgin 60-61 Lakers SF 3252 42.8 35.5 43.0 34.3 78.3 5.7 19.8 5.1 4.5 2.1 1.6 3.8 94 44.9 $9,705,247
  Baylor, Elgin 61-62 Lakers SF 2183 43.7 38.3 42.8 32.4 75.4 5.5 18.6 4.6 4.8 2.1 1.5 3.2 92 44.4 $6,372,173
  Baylor, Elgin 59-60 Lakers SF 3142 40.8 29.9 42.4 30.8 73.3 5.0 16.4 3.5 4.0 1.7 1.4 3.3 78 44.3 $7,565,483
  Baylor, Elgin 66-67 Lakers SF 2740 38.6 27.3 42.9 35.0 81.4 3.6 12.8 3.1 3.2 1.5 1.0 3.0 89 44.1 $6,720,883
  Baylor, Elgin 63-64 Lakers SF 3244 40.5 26.1 42.5 34.3 80.4 3.3 12.0 4.5 3.3 1.7 0.9 3.0 67 44.0 $7,100,611
  Baylor, Elgin 58-59 Lakers SF 3252 40.6 25.5 40.9 34.2 77.6 4.4 15.0 4.1 3.7 1.7 1.2 3.9 70 43.1 $7,059,645
  Baylor, Elgin 65-66 Lakers SF 2025 30.2 17.0 40.2 32.6 74.0 2.7 9.6 3.4 2.5 1.3 0.8 2.4 72 41.5 $4,048,330
  Baylor, Elgin 64-65 Lakers SF 3133 41.2 27.8 40.1 34.4 79.2 3.6 12.8 3.8 3.5 1.7 1.0 3.2 81 41.5 $7,239,827

8/25/2010 7:57 AM (edited)
seble
Posts: 878 (0)
Hall of Famer
24 44 35 306 121 175
Prospect
The # percentages are normalized, which means they're adjusted based on the league average for that season.  That helps some of the old guys, but it's not going to suddenly make a 40% shooter a 55% shooter.  For example, 51-52 Al McGuire gets a boost from 47.3% actual 2 point percentage to 49.7% normalized 2 point percentage.  The league average that season was 37.3%.
8/25/2010 8:53 AM
seble
Posts: 878 (0)
Hall of Famer
24 44 35 306 121 175
Prospect
Posted by qistat on 8/24/2010 5:48:00 PM (view original):
Just based on the variables used to calculate the new salaries alone there is an obvious glitch.

Anyone who fails to take advatage of this glitch will not be successfull and all championship teams will by default have to employ it.

What is the glitch?

The formula uses offensive production (ppg) and a few  offensive efficiency variables (eff fg%, tru shoot% ). The formula does not however incorporate any interaction between those two types of stats.

Therefore no hi efficiency/low production player (71 wilt, late Gilmore) should ever be used. You will want to draft players with both hi eff/hi prod and players who have low eff/low prod while exeling in other areas. Without following this formula succes will be impossible against an owner who uses it. 
I'm actually only using true shooting% and usage% currently.  They are factored separately, but both have significant weight.  I will probably do some tinkering with that component though.
8/25/2010 8:58 AM
eleibowitz
Posts: 3680 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 289 10 4 15
Prospect
Posted by seble on 8/25/2010 8:54:00 AM (view original):
The # percentages are normalized, which means they're adjusted based on the league average for that season.  That helps some of the old guys, but it's not going to suddenly make a 40% shooter a 55% shooter.  For example, 51-52 Al McGuire gets a boost from 47.3% actual 2 point percentage to 49.7% normalized 2 point percentage.  The league average that season was 37.3%.
Ok, also what is FG%+ ?
8/25/2010 9:08 AM
seble
Posts: 878 (0)
Hall of Famer
24 44 35 306 121 175
Prospect
FG%+ is a comparison of the player's FG% to the league average for the season.  100 is average.
8/25/2010 11:37 AM
vancem
Posts: 3596 (0)
Hall of Famer
182
Rookie
A crazy thought: How about normalizing all of the FG%s to FG+ for old time players and FG- for the modern players?
8/25/2010 2:12 PM
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
Player Review Phase 2 - Salaries 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.