When to Implement Ratings Changes

[JR Wiles]

Jul 20, 2014 23:44:50 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

Jul 20, 2014 23:31:22 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

It's a pretty cut and dry issue to me, too. It happens at the end of the season. You're acting like we should have players at certain ratings forever. No! Absolutely not! But if this season Steve Nash averages 20/9, then so fucking what? That sucks for everyone who doesn't have Steve Nash. But it's one season. He'll get his decrease at the end of the season.

This goes for both increases and decreases.

I don't understand this argument of how a player's real life performance should immediately impact his in game rating. It should be over an amount of time and then have the set time at which that rating will be impacted.

I made my trades because I was going for the ratings, because this is a video game and ratings decide outcome. I didn't have the luxury of being involved in D5 and knowing everything going on there. So this particular issue is personal for me, but I agree with it in principle overall. Rating changes occur at the end of the season.

It is a big deal if Steve Nash averagaes 20 and 9 because this is 2014. Steve Nash averaged 7/6/2 and those are rounding up. Steve Nash has never in his career averaged 20 points. And if he does so in here it would be a failure on us. This is about realism. 

A player's RL performances already don't immediately impact his game rating. Say a guy has a year deserving of a rating of an 80, but say its Dwight, mostly everyone will say he should be an 80, he gets the benefit of the doubt he will turn it around, and he will be lowered a tad, but not down to an 80. (Although I feel otherwise, but that's not the point).

You're the GM of the fucking Wizards in D5, you didn't look at the Stock Watch thread? It seems like this is more about you being upset about not doing your due diligence when acquiring a player than anything else. You learned your lesson. Because I highly doubt that the Secret Council of Elders will change their policy on this. Of anything, when looking at the rosters, you should have though, Paul Pierce being an 89 probably isn't right.

TRADE FOR THE PLAYER IN REAL LIFE, NOT IN THE GAME

Tom is the Wizards GM...didnt know that...ok that changes things...your not a newbie...you should know whats going on....and I thought you were a new GM...lol

[Walt Frazier]

Jul 20, 2014 23:46:30 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

Jul 20, 2014 23:21:07 GMT -5 Walt Frazier said:

I hear you, but look on the bright side.  We will be less than 10 games into the season for most teams by the time the huge rating problems are fixed.  Then we'll be fixing up the "smaller" ones (2-4 point problems).  Then we have even more in store for you guys!  We (the Rating Committee) are just here to make this league play more like real life (but we completely understand that the teams here are build differently than real-life teams, so a player may not perform the same in here as in real life).  But we are going to "fix" ratings over the next few months in a major way to get all the way caught up, and then, we'll see!

Maybe we'll be caught up enough and have a good enough process that we can put in most rating changes during either the offseason or all-star break (for smaller changes).  

You really need to understand that we are making changes that are 2-3 years overdue, or put another way, the result of 2-3 years worth of data.

Once that is finally finished, we'll be using months to one year of data instead, and maybe (I don't know, this is in the future) changes can be made in bulk at set points in the season?  We'll see, but the drastic changes coming (players changing 5 or more points) are probably mainly going to be happening very soon, and will be rare in the future.  We should be able to stay on top of things enough with our new system that players only change 2-3 points most of the time once this "catch-up" phase is done.

I guess I feel the overdue changes should have happened before this season started, if we're about to make changes in the middle of the season. I've invested too much personally, and I don't know if others have or not.

Whatever happens after the "caught up" period, I believe rating changes should still occur at the end of the season. It's just cleaner to me.

I do see what you're saying but I'm not sure you fully understand, that when things are finally "caught up" there won't be any big changes.  What's the huge deal if a player goes up 2 points sometime during the season?  Have you never seen a player improve in-season in real life?  Or a player get worse?  I certainly have.  And exactly like Chuck has said, we don't find out players are better OR worse during the offseason.  We find out DURING THE SEASON.  Hmm.  Things change during the season in real life?  We should probably make the players announce they are better or worse during the offseason instead, right?  

Or....we should adjust our ratings accordingly based on what happens IRL.  IF a player makes incredible strides in his game, we should put those changes in our game as well.  Since those changes become evident during the real-life season, they should occur in our game at a similar time in our game.  To be clear, if by February in Real Life it is clear to the league that a rating change is needed on Player X, then I would assume by March or April at the latest (in real life time) that change will be in our roster databases in these two leagues.  That's the goal.  

[Tom Izzo]

Jul 20, 2014 23:44:50 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

Jul 20, 2014 23:31:22 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

It's a pretty cut and dry issue to me, too. It happens at the end of the season. You're acting like we should have players at certain ratings forever. No! Absolutely not! But if this season Steve Nash averages 20/9, then so fucking what? That sucks for everyone who doesn't have Steve Nash. But it's one season. He'll get his decrease at the end of the season.

This goes for both increases and decreases.

I don't understand this argument of how a player's real life performance should immediately impact his in game rating. It should be over an amount of time and then have the set time at which that rating will be impacted.

I made my trades because I was going for the ratings, because this is a video game and ratings decide outcome. I didn't have the luxury of being involved in D5 and knowing everything going on there. So this particular issue is personal for me, but I agree with it in principle overall. Rating changes occur at the end of the season.

It is a big deal if Steve Nash averagaes 20 and 9 because this is 2014. Steve Nash averaged 7/6/2 and those are rounding up. Steve Nash has never in his career averaged 20 points. And if he does so in here it would be a failure on us. This is about realism. 

A player's RL performances already don't immediately impact his game rating. Say a guy has a year deserving of a rating of an 80, but say its Dwight, mostly everyone will say he should be an 80, he gets the benefit of the doubt he will turn it around, and he will be lowered a tad, but not down to an 80. (Although I feel otherwise, but that's not the point).

You're the GM of the fucking Wizards in D5, you didn't look at the Stock Watch thread? It seems like this is more about you being upset about not doing your due diligence when acquiring a player than anything else. You learned your lesson. Because I highly doubt that the Secret Council of Elders will change their policy on this. Of anything, when looking at the rosters, you should have though, Paul Pierce being an 89 probably isn't right.

TRADE FOR THE PLAYER IN REAL LIFE, NOT IN THE GAME

Dude I fucking joined D5 barely a month ago. You think I had any clue what was going on over there with rating changes? 

I didn't do my due diligence? You want to know my thought process when acquiring Paul Pierce? "Oh, he's an 89. That's pretty high for him...but he'll help me out this year before he gets his rating decrease, whatever it is, and it's only a 1 year contract so I'm not paying him tens of millions when he gets his decrease at the end of the season." I assumed that's when rating decreases happened because it made logical sense to me. 

It's an issue I've taken up to discuss because I've made all of my moves based on current ratings - not just because Pierce is due to go to an 82. He'd be a fucking 82. That's still pretty good. It's not about that for love of god. I must have said that a few times by now. 

It's about having a standardized time for rating changes because that just makes sense to me

[Walt Frazier]

Here's your standardized time - W/in a month of a rating change vote coming to a close, that change will be implemented in the game.

I don't really like giving a firm time, because every once in awhile I get incredibly swamped with my job and work 12-hour days non-stop, but I still think once we are caught up, a month will be plenty of time even if I am swamped. Usually it will probably be within days or a week.

[Walt Frazier]

I should add to that, that's the time that it would take for me. Although Josh and Ian should just have to literally copy/paste into their database, I don't want to speak for them as far as their schedules go. But I still think a month(ish?) should be plenty of time once we are caught up and things are clicking.

[Tom Izzo]

Jul 20, 2014 23:51:33 GMT -5 Walt Frazier said:

Jul 20, 2014 23:46:30 GMT -5 Tom Izzo said:

I guess I feel the overdue changes should have happened before this season started, if we're about to make changes in the middle of the season. I've invested too much personally, and I don't know if others have or not.

Whatever happens after the "caught up" period, I believe rating changes should still occur at the end of the season. It's just cleaner to me.

I do see what you're saying but I'm not sure you fully understand, that when things are finally "caught up" there won't be any big changes.  What's the huge deal if a player goes up 2 points sometime during the season?  Have you never seen a player improve in-season in real life?  Or a player get worse?  I certainly have.  And exactly like Chuck has said, we don't find out players are better OR worse during the offseason.  We find out DURING THE SEASON.  Hmm.  Things change during the season in real life?  We should probably make the players announce they are better or worse during the offseason instead, right?  

Or....we should adjust our ratings accordingly based on what happens IRL.  IF a player makes incredible strides in his game, we should put those changes in our game as well.  Since those changes become evident during the real-life season, they should occur in our game at a similar time in our game.  To be clear, if by February in Real Life it is clear to the league that a rating change is needed on Player X, then I would assume by March or April at the latest (in real life time) that change will be in our roster databases in these two leagues.  That's the goal.  

It's just a sound difference in philosophy about when to implement changes. I'd probably be on board for an All-Star break change and an off-season change. I just don't like the idea of rolling changes. It just makes so much more sense to have a set time period when the changes are going to be uploaded and for everyone to expect these changes. 

[Walt Frazier]

Again, soon you will be able to expect the change shortly after the rating change is decided upon. I've long thought the one weakness in D5 was the rating change procedure. It can take months upon months sometimes for them to get updated, just the nature of the beast. Usually Ian would do his best on any HUGE upgrades that needed done, like when Harden broke out or Paul George was getting tons of hype, those stick out to me, and he truly did his best, but he just lacked the time to give it as much attention as it ended up needing.

So, if the RC had not been formed I would be more worried about these rolling changes, because they were super sporadic and we truly never had any real idea when they would get done.

Now, they will be done shortly after they are voted upon. So, if your player gets a Rating Change thread, you better argue your point one way or the other (same with all the other players, we want everyone to voice an opinion on all players!), and be ready for that final verdict to go into effect before long.

[Charles Barkley]

Like, this is a perfect example.

Deron Williams, currently an 87, had a 14 and 6 season (I think?) he's an 87. Jrue Holiday went 15 and 8 and is an 83.

Me, personally, I feel that since D-Will played like an 82, he should be an 82. And say when we get about 40 games in to the 2014-2015 season IRL, D-Will has turned it around, we bump him back up in a months time or less.

Because we now have a Stock Watch Committee, these changes will happen more smoothly and quicker. The SWC enables us to resemble real life to a better degree. It isn't perfect. Our ratings aren't perfect. And picking a time to implement them isn't ideal, because no time is going to be perfect. The best time is as soon as possible.

Tom may be screwed with Pierce, but look around the ratings summary thread in there. Lots of teams will be screwed. Lots of players will be getting better, lots will be getting worse. And it is going to keep happening so long as this league is alive. It's just the name of the game. It's why Kawhi Leonard is one of the most valuable players in this league, it isn't because he's a 78 or because he's getting bumped to an 82 or something. Its because of how he plays in real life. Same goes with every other player.

Its the name of the game. It isn't perfect. We all wish it was. But that's how it is. And, I mean, with Durant, Westbrook, Lopez, and Pierce, your team is still a tittle contender. It isn't now a lottery team.

[Ian Noble]

The entire crux of whether you're a good GM or not depends on your player evaluation skills. Player rating changes reflect the player evaluations of all the league's GMs. Those changes wouldn't be agreed upon if they weren't needed. I feel like it's more realistic to have the rating changes made sooner rather than later.

A a simmer it's more practical to continually change ratings throughout the season, but also I think it's more realistic and beneficial for the league, so that decides it for me really.

[Tom Izzo]

Jul 21, 2014 9:30:20 GMT -5 Charles Barkley said:

Like, this is a perfect example.

Deron Williams, currently an 87, had a 14 and 6 season (I think?) he's an 87. Jrue Holiday went 15 and 8 and is an 83.

Me, personally, I feel that since D-Will played like an 82, he should be an 82. And say when we get about 40 games in to the 2014-2015 season IRL, D-Will has turned it around, we bump him back up in a months time or less.

Because we now have a Stock Watch Committee, these changes will happen more smoothly and quicker. The SWC enables us to resemble real life to a better degree. It isn't perfect. Our ratings aren't perfect. And picking a time to implement them isn't ideal, because no time is going to be perfect. The best time is as soon as possible.

Tom may be screwed with Pierce, but look around the ratings summary thread in there. Lots of teams will be screwed. Lots of players will be getting better, lots will be getting worse. And it is going to keep happening so long as this league is alive. It's just the name of the game. It's why Kawhi Leonard is one of the most valuable players in this league, it isn't because he's a 78 or because he's getting bumped to an 82 or something. Its because of how he plays in real life. Same goes with every other player.

Its the name of the game. It isn't perfect. We all wish it was. But that's how it is. And, I mean, with Durant, Westbrook, Lopez, and Pierce, your team is still a tittle contender. It isn't now a lottery team.

I understand the appeal of rolling changes. In fact, it sounds good on paper. I just fear that it might not be fair when the RC committee doesn't implement changes at a standardized rate and someone might get upset because their player wasn't boosted fast enough. ("Andre Drummond was boosted to an 82 in 2 days! But my player didn't get his boost until I already lost in the playoffs - to Andre Drummond!") Things come up, and if something prevents a player getting a boost at a time when other players have normally had that happen, it could just cause tension. My argument is that that is avoidable with set times to implement changes. The RC committee would work on the changes throughout the season and then post a schedule with who will get updated and when. For example:

All-Star Break:
Steve Nash - 81
Paul Pierce - 82
Andre Drummond - 82
Kobe Bryant-  85
Dwyane Wade - 84

And so on, with another one, probably larger, over the off-season, so people can *expect* these changes at this date. It gives the RC time to get things in order and a grace period to account for things that might prevent changes happening ASAP. To me, it just makes more sense to implement rating changes at expected and standardized dates. 

I understand everyone is disagreeing with me. I just don't like the "whenever they get to it" model currently employed. And Walt says it will be different, and it probably will, but this model would make it easier on the RC committee and the teams themselves, in my opinion.

[Jeremiah Hill]

Perry Jones and Lamb suck anyways. I almost like this trade if it happened in real life. Also its not like Pierce is now a scrub. He's an 82 thats still a great player in this league. Its not like where we had to take Jason Terry down to a 70 from an 85.