I'm right with you.

I'm right with you.
by BabaGhanouj (2020-07-28 15:10:27)
Edited on 2020-07-28 15:12:58

In reply to: Bell-shaped curve and other thoughts posted by SixShutouts66

1. I've incorporated an "experience" factor based on minutes of playing time. In addition, the first 1000 minutes are worth more than the next 1000, and the next.

I have started using Martin Manley Efficiency rating for how the athletes perform in college. (PER is just not worth it.) So far, I've kept performance separate from rating, but who knows?

2 and 3. I think I got this idea from you. I produced a complicated formula using various logs to value the better rated athletes from the others. I take the top 150 from each class and apply this formula. The result is that the difference between No. 1 and No.2 is 2.2, (i.e. If your avg. rating is "1", you end up ".77". If your avg rating is 2, you end up 2.96) between 2 and 3 is 1.9 (a little less then between 1 and 2.) The difference between No. 149 and 150 is .85. A lot of fluctuation between ratings occurs in the first 5 or 6 players and by 20 or 30, there is less than 1 between the players. I toyed with assigning points, like you say, for the first 5, then the next 5 or 10 or so, but, as you say, it gets complicated.

4. That's an idea I haven't really dealt with. It sounds good though.

It does get complicated

especially how to group players.

The concept of #4 was based on a shortcoming the post-Wooden UCLA team had in that they seemed to recruited the same player (wing/shooting forward) and lacked a "good mix". I think we ended up with that sort of problem kast year, especially when Mik was hurt. It's the same concept that Georgia had with its QBs - great to have a top 3 recruit 3 years in a row, but only one can play at a time.