FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

VoodooMike

Joined: Nov 07, 2010

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 05:21

koadah wrote:

Well, the thread is titled Min/Max Detection. If the team is not deliberately trying to keep it's TV down then it is not min/maxing.

Don't be stupid. No system is going to read someone's mind, and if you're going to take into account whether they fired players without injuries and penalize them for it, you might as well just remove their ability to fire any player they want.

Understand, too, that adding additional "combo value" to skills will result in the same thing - inflating the value of teams where it is present, even if they're not trying to deliberately keep TV down... so ultimately, you're just saying "forget minmaxing, lets just talk about CLPoMB again". Thanks but no thanks.

koadah wrote:

How do Hell Grannies look to with your formula? They are still going to kick serious ass vs most teams even if they fire their one star.

Mean 8.58, Median 7.5.. they remain unadjusted. That isn't a minmaxed team, its just an amazon team, and amazon teams just perform really well at low TVs regardless, and you can't make a formula to deal with that fact, you just have to adjust the roster.

koadah wrote:

Min/Maxing is striving TV efficiency.

That's one way to look at it. Another is to point out that the vast majority of teams of that TV range will not have that well developed a player (or four) so they're created to be predators for less developed teams. It's one of the reasons people suggest the use of "number of games played" though on its own there are plenty of other problems that creates.

If the only teams a minmax team faced were other minmax teams, they'd stop trying to keep their TV down, as it would give them no advantage.

koadah wrote:

Yup, we're eyeballing and making stuff up. And hey why not? Hands up all those who think CPOMB is undervalued. What about block, sure hands, accurate? Are we gonna whine about that too?

2 + 2 =.... ok, class, how many think the answer should be 1? ok, how many think the answer should be 2? oh, looks like 2 has the majority, so 2 + 2 is now equal to 2!

Math by consensus is idiotic.

koadah wrote:

Whatever your numbers tell you we're still gonna have to suck it and see.

This is true, but if we start with numbers and we use numbers the whole way through, we at least know how we GOT to where we are, and we'll have a foundation to build upon if things don't work out the way we want them to... if you just make shit up and throw things at a problem until you think something is ok, you're not really making progress, you're just whacking at a piñata with a stick while blindfolded.

koadah wrote:

Do you even know how to get the data on which players had which skills in which match?

Not off the top of my head, no. I'm sure the data exists just as I'm sure you'd never bother to use it since you're going to follow your gut feeling to assign TV penalties to certain skill choices, etc etc.

Nelphine

Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 06:02

VoodooMike, I've been largely following this thread, but I'm not entirely sure I follow your thought process; you seem to have a definite goal in mind, but you haven't really defined it for the rest of us. However, now that I'm seeing more of your arguments, I think I'm getting more of an idea of what you are going for.

You don't (at the moment) care so much about the specific skills in use, because that falls under TS. You don't (at the moment) care so much about firing players (healthy or otherwise). You don't (at the moment) care about between game choices in generaly because you are specifically looking at efficiency IN a match. I think what you want is to specifically combat: legends+rookie linos teams?

I assume this is because the consensus is that 6 skills on one player is more useful than 6 skills spread out between 6 players. But given your determination to go by the numbers, I don't particularly see anything convincing in this; for instance, the lino amazon team clearly will have at least as much of an advantage if they 6 blodgers as a single legendary clawpomber. Conversely, 6 orcs with a smattering of guard, block and dirty player will probably be at least as advantageous as a legendary pro elf thrower.

So given these 2 examples, I don't think we can possibly assign any kind of TV modifier based on the ranking of particular players. More specifically, I would think that every possible example of a min-maxed team will include: larger than normal numbers of blodge for that TV, and larger than normal numbers of clawpomb/pombtackle for that TV. 1 example is a 2 skill set, 1 example is a 3/4 skill set.

I don't think there are any teams that anyone calls minmaxed that do not fall into one of those categories, regardless of whether or not you agree with that usage of minmax.

So if you want to look at minmaxing, I think it HAS to come down to EITHER: modifying the value of certain skills (which you have expressed you don't want to do), OR modifying the value of teams that do too well without basing that on the players in the team at all.

I've defined the second option with that wording on purpose. 'Too well' is purposefully left vague, as that will come with whatever your intended definition of minmax is. I personally believe it should include both win ratio, and cas inflicted (regardless of source of cas) ratio. Not basing it on players at all is because if you base it on players, then it in some way comes back to skills - whether it's skill combinations, number of skills overall, or how many skills the player has compared to other players. If you disagree with lino amazon teams being a problem, then you have discarded number of skills overall and skill combinations. If you believe that the number of skills on a given player compared to other players is a problem than EITHER: You actually have a problem because the player is a killer, in which case you really have a problem with the skill combination OR you inadvertently are saying that throwers (who tend to survive a long time) are just as big an issue as killers.

Note there are various other options, but for various reasons you already disagreed with them, and I agree with your assessment of those options.

But for me, given everything that has been said, the only thing you want to do is take people who are doing exceptionally well, and shift them so they face harder opponent's because of it, regardless of why they are doing well. And if that's the case, then some combination of FF and BF seems to be a good solution, especially as it would specifically also work with teams such as lino amazons, or (apparently) certain lizardmen teams, or certain skaven teams, or anything else that anyone can come up with that work at extremely low TV. And if it works for both these teams, and for the teams that you seem to have defined in your own mind as minmaxed (whatever that may be), then why not use it? Heck it would even, to some extent, pit coaches against more equal coaches as well (whether coaches are skilled, or lucky, even if statistics say that no coach can be particularly lucky or unlucky).

But if you have another solution (and I disagree with your mean/median suggestion, or at least I disagree that it is intended to be used for any other reason other than to inflate Killer skill combinations, and in that case, why not just use some extremely limited TS based on killer combination? Although it's possible I simply haven't seen enough actual data with your suggestion - perhaps if you not only linked some teams, but did say, 10 teams that would be changed, and explained precisely why each would be changed) I would like to hear it.

VoodooMike

Joined: Nov 07, 2010

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 09:39

Nelphine wrote:

VoodooMike, I've been largely following this thread, but I'm not entirely sure I follow your thought process; you seem to have a definite goal in mind, but you haven't really defined it for the rest of us. However, now that I'm seeing more of your arguments, I think I'm getting more of an idea of what you are going for.

The majority of games played on FUMBBL and on Cyanide (and thus, on online venues, which I'm fairly certain represent more games than tabletop over any given period of time) are done via TV matching in open play. That's the base premise I typically work from.

From there, I look at the objections people make. Other than the non-stop bitching about CLPoMB, which is a ruleset-valid skill combination requiring a change in rules to have any serious effect on, the issue people bring up the most is "minmaxers".. that TV matching opens the doors to "minmaxing" and that this-that-or-the-other-thing will encourage more "minmaxing", so I figured hey, given the prevalence of this evil beast, people should have a clear definition of what minmaxing looks like!

So, my goal has been to clearly identify what minmaxing is, and to see if TV matching can't be given a simple adjustment to deal with it, such that the major complaint in TV matched environments might be in some way ameliorated without a years-long process of bickering over minutia.

Nelphine wrote:

You don't (at the moment) care so much about the specific skills in use, because that falls under TS. You don't (at the moment) care so much about firing players (healthy or otherwise). You don't (at the moment) care about between game choices in generaly because you are specifically looking at efficiency IN a match. I think what you want is to specifically combat: legends+rookie linos teams?

I think the legends+rookies setup is the only one people agree on as being a clear case of minmaxing, so it's the foundation for the numbers. I think gamer thought-crime is a retarded concept, so trying to come up with an automatic way to read their mind to see if they've been thinking impure gaming thoughts, is a ridiculous venture. The team facing what we'd agree is a highly TV optimized team (ie, legends+rookies) doesn't much care if the coach meant to get that team, or got it by accident, its still likely to trample them, so intent is not a consideration, in my mind.

The concept of TS is fine, but it's an outright replacement for TV, and creating such a measure will take time and endless "debate", and will result in a complex number that may or may not be any better than TV. It will likely be based on nothing but a bit of opinion from whomever is in a position to implement it, and not unlikely, will be abandoned in favour of TV again due to people bitching about the way it is calculated. It's a great concept on paper, but it's beyond the scope of any short-term or easy solution.

Nelphine wrote:

I assume this is because the consensus is that 6 skills on one player is more useful than 6 skills spread out between 6 players. But given your determination to go by the numbers, I don't particularly see anything convincing in this; for instance, the lino amazon team clearly will have at least as much of an advantage if they 6 blodgers as a single legendary clawpomber. Conversely, 6 orcs with a smattering of guard, block and dirty player will probably be at least as advantageous as a legendary pro elf thrower.

Amazons are simply a great team at low TV, because it's easy to have a team full of Dodge, and to take Block as your first skill. Chances are plenty of your players, regardless of which race you play, will be taking Block as their first skill... it's just the way the roster works. In that respect, it's just another CLPoMB-style gripe... people don't like the rules as written, and try to lump the shit they object to into anything being talked about.

Nelphine wrote:

So given these 2 examples...

It's only one example. Amazons are not a minmax team, they're just a team that can do great with almost no development - something few other teams can do. Dwarves do well for the same reason, and people hate them at low TVs... they'd hate amazons just as much but they're not a particularly popular team for some reason <shrug>.

Nelphine wrote:

So if you want to look at minmaxing, I think it HAS to come down to EITHER: modifying the value of certain skills (which you have expressed you don't want to do), OR modifying the value of teams that do too well without basing that on the players in the team at all

Only by the definition you're using, which basically defines the starting lineup of Amazons to be nearly automagically minmaxed. I don't consider amazons being a great low TV team without significant development to be a minmaxing issue... it's a roster issue.

Nelphine wrote:

But for me, given everything that has been said, the only thing you want to do is take people who are doing exceptionally well, and shift them so they face harder opponent's because of it, regardless of why they are doing well.

No, I want to create a system that prevents new, low-development teams from being paired with high development teams of a similar TV, most of which have been carefully crafted to do well in their chosen endeavor (be it winning, or just maiming) against those low development teams.... without using "games played" as a heavy metric for pairing, which would prevent longer lived teams who would normally be "busted down to the minors" in terms of TV when taking a big chunk of casualties, from being stuck playing teams of the same TV they were at when they got maimed.

A good chunk of the teams with a couple of legends and all rookies, aren't created to win, they're created to rip up low development teams. Yes you could invent some new stat that has to be tracked, which is supposed to be a measure of bashiness, but again, it requires getting people to agree on that measure first, before you then try to take it into account in matching. Then you're going to have to use that and maybe FF, and then alter the values they have, TV-wise, and hope for the best.

You say you don't agree with the mean/median system. Care to explain why you think it fails to do what it is trying to do?

JimmyFantastic

Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 09:47

I think the whole thing is a waste of time tbh, whiners gonna whine.
I mean VM, have you done any statistical analysis of C-Pomb Min-Maxers? Are their winning % anywhere close to "fair" TV optimised teams such as Hell Grannies and Jungle Jingles?
I think not.
It seems pointless to put in an anti min-max formula when they aren't the teams creating the most "unfair" games.
They are simply the teams that people whine about the most.

oooh just read this -

VoodooMike wrote:

No, I want to create a system that prevents new, low-development teams from being paired with high development teams of a similar TV, most of which have been carefully crafted to do well in their chosen endeavor (be it winning, or just maiming) against those low development teams....

If that is the case you really need to take a look at the Hell Grannies.
103 spps and no apo on a 1160 TV team. If that isn't a high development team crafted to win against low development teams I don't know what is.

_________________
Pull down the veil - actively bad for the hobby!

Igvy

Joined: Apr 29, 2007

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 10:05

Ok look i've had enough. I will now define a couple of the different types of munchkinnary.

min-maxing is defined (everywhere else but in this thread) as maximising one perticular ability at the expense of all else, with the hope that it covers for everything else.

When this works, life is going to suck. but they do have massive flaws, you just need to know how to play against them.

Next is the "one trick pony". which (in this case) relates as a team with only 2 or 3 skilled players and all the rest rookies. This is generally a more extreme case then min-maxing.

These appear in lots of different games and always will. It all falls under team optmisiation, usally exploiting a rule, which would give some advantage.

Keep in mind that CRP is not a perfrect ruleset, so teambuilding will give advantages.

The problem which people whine about is this:

People like to play this game in different ways.

Why is this a problem you ask?
Because there are some teams which force you to play differently. like dwarves.

These builds are examples of this. You can't just do what you always do and expect to have an even chance to win. Making them more effective against noobs.

So noobs complain, they are more powerful with some dice (they tend to have a cascading effect) and good skill can't fight good dice, so pros complain.

Without completely balancing out the rules (which won't happen without complicated fixing in some way like TS), this will always happen.

Any quick fix, will just point to the next best thing to exploit.

I've said my piece and will stop reading this thread.

Hitonagashi

Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 10:18

VoodooMike wrote:

You say you don't agree with the mean/median system. Care to explain why you think it fails to do what it is trying to do?

It just shifts the gateposts.

So, I need to use the 1 pass and sack if mvp system? That still doesn't change what I have to do...these players are taking hundreds of hours to develop these teams, most of the clawbomb legends have taken 50-70 games each to get to where they are.

If in each of those games, I made a single pass, that's easily most of my team on 1 spp, and I bet I could get your median down to 1 (2 legends, 3 people with one pass? I'd say that's pretty darn easy).

At the same time, those who are skilling their team evenly actually get targeted by this, as if we take a team with 5 players with skills, a few 2 skills and a few 3 skills, and the rest rookies (say, a 5 game old team), the median will be 2 or 3 TV. Compare this to our one pass clawbomb team of previously equal TV, and suddenly, they get paired against even lower teams!

You are building a system that only works given the assumption that people will not try and game it. The existence of the problem itself is proof this is wrong.

Nelphine

Joined: Apr 01, 2011

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 10:19

JimmyFantastic has said what my point is:

You seem to want to stop 'legend+lino' teams, at low TV, because they are too successful - but you don't care why they get there.

But why should that matter IF they are no more successful than the amazon team? (My first example)

On the other side of things: Imagine a pro elf team with a legend thrower and (due to a few bad games) a team full of rookies. Your system will penalize that team MORE than it will penalize an orc team with several block skills a few guard skills and perhaps a dirty player. (my second example) Yet (in my opinion) that thrower will NOT provide any particularly greater advantage than the 6 skills on the orc team. So your system mistakenly gives the elf team a 'handicap', even though the orc team (without your system) is probably better off.

These two examples (one of a classic minmax team, and one of a team that only gets called minmax due to the current assumption of legend+rookies) show why I think your system is flawed.

When I look at a 'minmax team', I don't care about the specifics of any individual player on the team - what I care about is whether the team as a whole is going to have a significantly higher chance of winning it's next game than most teams at it's TV band.

This is why I DO believe amazons are a minmax team. (Dorfs are too, but to a lesser extent; at low TV, dodge is superior to block, due to the lack of tackle and block on most low TV teams) Because they win more games.

Whether or not that is a roster issue (which I agree it is), as I said in my very first post in this thread, if an amazon team hits it's blodge stride 200TV before most people will have significant tacklers, specifically because it takes no positionals, (when it would cost almost exactly 200k more if it had simply purchased it's positionals, putting it precisely into the TV band where people start getting significant tacklers), then I do believe it is minmaxing.

I'll conclude by finishing:
People are going to whine. They wine about: Blodging (see JimmyFantastics sig) and ClawPomb. Any team that has been called minmaxed that I have ever directly seen has been amazon or chaos/chaos pact/nurgle/chaos dwarf. I've heard of an apparent lizardman team, but never seen one; and I think skaven can have one, but never heard of anyone else thinking so.

Therefore, when it comes to minmax, it seems you have two choices: Label teams that win (and possibly cause casualties) far more than other teams in their TV band minmax.
OR
label some other set of teams minmax.

If I was labelling teams minmax and trying to find a mathematical formula to account for it, I would personally want to have it based on WIN results, (possibly draw results if it seems the teams would probably have won if they had tried harder), and nothing else. Legend + Rookie seems simply too arbitrary to me, due to teams that would never be called minmaxers possibly qualifying, and due to teams that will have significant win rates never qualfiying.

dode74

Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 11:22

Matching adjusted by Trueskill?

Hitonagashi

Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 11:40

dode74 wrote:

Matching adjusted by Trueskill?

Not knowing much about TrueSkill, there probably aren't enough players to make that feasible? Usually, there's only 1-2 people that could play you in a given TV range for each matchup, so I'm not sure it would have a great effect.

dode74

Joined: Aug 14, 2009

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 12:00

http://www.moserware.com/2010/03/computing-your-skill.html <- pretty good explanation if you have 20 mins or so to read it. It would be fairly easy to implement in a 2-player game.

I'm thinking that assessing a team's "equivalent TV" based on where they appear on the normal distribution of win%s at their TV band might be another way to detect (and adjust the TV of) minmaxers. Factoring in coach skill (i.e. you'd expect good coaches to do well) would prevent punishment of coaches simply for being good. An otherwise average coach with a very successful team would stand out, but a very good coach with a very successful team would not.

Like I say, this is perhaps one tool we could use to detect and adjust for minmaxers and, in combination with other methods, it might be possible to come up with a definition.

Regarding adjustment, looking at the team's win% and adjusting according to equivalent TV-difference win% as calculated from the data we have on TV differences and win%s. Mike previously came up with the following as a simple linear regression:
(UD win ratio) = 0.458 - 0.003 x (rating difference)
Adjusting that, we could make the "rating difference" the TV matching adjustment, such that:
(TV matching adjustment) = (Win% - 0.458)/0.003

Clearly, this is matching by record rather than directly by TV, but that does appear to be what is wanted for minmaxers (among those who want to do something about it).

Mahvo

Joined: Feb 06, 2007

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 12:32

Hitonagashi wrote:

VoodooMike wrote:

You say you don't agree with the mean/median system. Care to explain why you think it fails to do what it is trying to do?

these players are taking hundreds of hours to develop these teams, most of the clawbomb legends have taken 50-70 games each to get to where they are.

And that's the whole point! The game is not balanced for open league where you can just "grind your way to victory".

It doesn't matter if it is a Strong Arm, Accurate, Safe Throw, +AG thrower or ClawPOMBer or Wardancer with +ST, +AG, Strip Ball, Side Step, Tackle... They are all far superior to the "baseline" players.

Having those legends facing rookie teams with less than 10 matches under their belt is just unfair.

Everybody who is defending the present system opposing to VoodooMike's Mean / Median solution is a hopeless munchkin who likes to crunch newbies with OP grinded teams. Trolololo to you and your TV 1200 full ClawPOMB Chaos Pacts!

Hitonagashi

Joined: Apr 09, 2006

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 12:39

Mahvo wrote:

Hitonagashi wrote:

VoodooMike wrote:

You say you don't agree with the mean/median system. Care to explain why you think it fails to do what it is trying to do?

these players are taking hundreds of hours to develop these teams, most of the clawbomb legends have taken 50-70 games each to get to where they are.

And that's the whole point! The game is not balanced for open league where you can just "grind your way to victory".

It doesn't matter if it is a Strong Arm, Accurate, Safe Throw, +AG thrower or ClawPOMBer or Wardancer with +ST, +AG, Strip Ball, Side Step, Tackle... They are all far superior to the "baseline" players.

Having those legends facing rookie teams with less than 10 matches under their belt is just unfair.

Everybody who is defending the present system opposing to VoodooMike's Mean / Median solution is a hopeless munchkin who likes to crunch newbies with OP grinded teams. Trolololo to you and your TV 1200 full ClawPOMB Chaos Pacts!

Mahvo, try reading Wink

We aren't complaining about that. The logic is, if you are already willing to spend 100 games developing your team, spending 3 more to put some 1 spp passes on is hardly the end of the world *and* your team is better at minmaxing at the end of it.

It would be nice to have a solution to minmax. VM's sadly, is not it.

uuni

Joined: Mar 12, 2010

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 13:03

My tangential thought on this 1000k minmaxing is that perhaps the 1000k starts are many times suboptimal. I think that per its TV, a 700-800k starting amazon team is much more tv efficient than a 1000k starting one. I think it is because of the pairing systems that we generally have to start from 1000k, which makes the minmaxing n00bbashing possible.

If people were able to start from a more tv efficient point of TV, such as 700-900k, the minmaxing would be much harder, as the 1000k teams would get much better.

This fix can be done even without changing the system, if there just rises enough players that make this sort of 700-900k starting teams and offer them for the gamefinder and box rounds. I have done so myself.

Make a 800k starting team for yourself now and be part of the solution! Very Happy

SillySod

Joined: Oct 10, 2006

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 14:35

VoodooMike wrote:

The majority of games played on FUMBBL and on Cyanide (and thus, on online venues, which I'm fairly certain represent more games than tabletop over any given period of time) are done via TV matching in open play. That's the base premise I typically work from.

I'm afraid to say that thats a bit of a doomed premise. TV is just an incorrect way to value a team so you are going to find yourself running into all kinds of difficulty.

[quote="koadah"]Hands up all those who think CPOMB is undervalued. What about block, sure hands, accurate? Are we gonna whine about that too?/quote]

We definately should. Moving people from claws onto amazons is not a win.

_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.

"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced."

koadah

Joined: Mar 30, 2005

Posted: Apr 02, 2012 - 16:25

VoodooMike wrote:

koadah wrote:

Well, the thread is titled Min/Max Detection. If the team is not deliberately trying to keep it's TV down then it is not min/maxing.

Don't be stupid. No system is going to read someone's mind, and if you're going to take into account whether they fired players without injuries and penalize them for it, you might as well just remove their ability to fire any player they want.

VoodooMike wrote:

Before anyone gets defensive... no, I don't really expect Christer to implement this in Box, it is more of a thought experiment.

Ah silly me. I didn't realise we were talking about a real system. I thought it was just a load of hypothetical b*ll*x. Mr. Green

But as we cannot even agree on what constitutes min/maxing I suppose it is all a load of April fools nonsense.. Wink

VoodooMike wrote:

Understand, too, that adding additional "combo value" to skills will result in the same thing - inflating the value of teams where it is present, even if they're not trying to deliberately keep TV down... so ultimately, you're just saying "forget minmaxing, lets just talk about CLPoMB again". Thanks but no thanks.

Actually yes. Because that is where you get the most value for the most cost. Though of course you may want to look at blodge, leap/strip ball, etc.

If we're looking at it then we may as well look at the huge number of CPOMB access teams especially at high TV and the high win% of the elves up there.

VoodooMike wrote:

koadah wrote:

How do Hell Grannies look to with your formula? They are still going to kick serious ass vs most teams even if they fire their one star.

Mean 8.58, Median 7.5.. they remain unadjusted. That isn't a minmaxed team, its just an amazon team, and amazon teams just perform really well at low TVs regardless, and you can't make a formula to deal with that fact, you just have to adjust the roster.

Says you.

IMO they are min/maxing as they are keeping their TV down to a range where few teams will be able to deal with them. As their TV rises more opponennts will have tackle and they will be less effective.

VoodooMike wrote:

koadah wrote:

Min/Maxing is striving TV efficiency.

That's one way to look at it. Another is to point out that the vast majority of teams of that TV range will not have that well developed a player (or four) so they're created to be predators for less developed teams. It's one of the reasons people suggest the use of "number of games played" though on its own there are plenty of other problems that creates.

If the only teams a minmax team faced were other minmax teams, they'd stop trying to keep their TV down, as it would give them no advantage.

Eh? So do you want to match by min/max quotient?
Was it still April 1st when you wrote that? Shocked

VoodooMike wrote:

koadah wrote:

Yup, we're eyeballing and making stuff up. And hey why not? Hands up all those who think CPOMB is undervalued. What about block, sure hands, accurate? Are we gonna whine about that too?

2 + 2 =.... ok, class, how many think the answer should be 1? ok, how many think the answer should be 2? oh, looks like 2 has the majority, so 2 + 2 is now equal to 2!

Math by consensus is idiotic.

We're not talking about maths. We're talking about a game. The maths doesn't really matter. What matters is "do people like it". The numbers you need to be looking at is how many people like it. How many don't. How many can live with it. How many can't.

VoodooMike wrote:

koadah wrote:

Whatever your numbers tell you we're still gonna have to suck it and see.

This is true, but if we start with numbers and we use numbers the whole way through, we at least know how we GOT to where we are, and we'll have a foundation to build upon if things don't work out the way we want them to... if you just make shit up and throw things at a problem until you think something is ok, you're not really making progress, you're just whacking at a piñata with a stick while blindfolded.

koadah wrote:

Do you even know how to get the data on which players had which skills in which match?

Not off the top of my head, no. I'm sure the data exists just as I'm sure you'd never bother to use it since you're going to follow your gut feeling to assign TV penalties to certain skill choices, etc etc.

Why are you sure that I wouldn't use it? You may have noticed that I quite like pulling data. (if it's not too much hassle). Wink

More data and more knowledge is good. That doesn't mean that it tells the whole story. It may also be misleading if you don't know how to look at it.

_________________

New teams. Secret League or Official. Always recruiting!