Re: Create/Edit Player Options
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Skyline said:
You misunderstood me. I liked the basis of your model (developing ratings based upon league leaders, a la A-Rod) but I did not agree with assigning Trot Nixon 100 in any field.
You made really good points but I just did not agree with your final result. Hopefully, you understand what I mean and will see our final products will not be the same.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
And I didn't agree with assigning Nixon a 100 either, which I said in the post. It was designed as a fleshing out of ideas on the ratings, along with a later example, both of which I said I didn't agree with. Believe me, I've done this a LONG time with very accurate results. Trot Nixon will not be seeing 100, and I made that pretty clear. Which is why, when you say you disagree with my final result and use the Nixon reference, it's inaccurate because that is by no means the final result. There are many variables in my ratings that weren't even reflected in that example, and that was said as well. By calling that my final result, you're essentially given an incorrect impression that my ratings are flawed based on data I said was not going to be the final result. Others reading you saying that may think that WAS the final result of my ratings, which cuts down my work by making it out like my ratings system is flawed. With things like park effects, which I factor in to my ratings, absent from the game, everything would need to be adjusted anyway, which is why I have said several times I can't go getting into what my ratings are until I have the game.
GH
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />
Skyline said:
You misunderstood me. I liked the basis of your model (developing ratings based upon league leaders, a la A-Rod) but I did not agree with assigning Trot Nixon 100 in any field.
You made really good points but I just did not agree with your final result. Hopefully, you understand what I mean and will see our final products will not be the same.
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">
And I didn't agree with assigning Nixon a 100 either, which I said in the post. It was designed as a fleshing out of ideas on the ratings, along with a later example, both of which I said I didn't agree with. Believe me, I've done this a LONG time with very accurate results. Trot Nixon will not be seeing 100, and I made that pretty clear. Which is why, when you say you disagree with my final result and use the Nixon reference, it's inaccurate because that is by no means the final result. There are many variables in my ratings that weren't even reflected in that example, and that was said as well. By calling that my final result, you're essentially given an incorrect impression that my ratings are flawed based on data I said was not going to be the final result. Others reading you saying that may think that WAS the final result of my ratings, which cuts down my work by making it out like my ratings system is flawed. With things like park effects, which I factor in to my ratings, absent from the game, everything would need to be adjusted anyway, which is why I have said several times I can't go getting into what my ratings are until I have the game.
GH
Comment