60 Midway-Normalization Kicks In? YES!

[ADRIANGABRIEL]

What I really hear you saying, Dean, is that there's only a slight chance normalization is real!

But there's still a chance! Let the debate continue!

[bernieh]

[quote:402d9bfe69="Petrosian"]Seems like a cop out. And a very lame one at that. It sure looks like a passive-aggressive attempt by Bernie to cast Nev in a bad light and blame him for Bernie shirking his responsibility to do what he says he'll do, i.e. get the new cards and teasers out in a timely manner. :roll:

Since Bernie is so concerned about responding to our needs, perhaps he'll listen to the results of the poll I created.[/quote:402d9bfe69]
Wow!

Listen, I was serious. These questions do warrant some time to research, because they pop up frequently, and I haven't provided enough definitive answers to them yet apparently. They currently seem to be on the mind of not just Nev, but others as well. Seems to be as good a time as any.

The next batch of new cards will be released as promised. The only thing I mentioned was the [i:402d9bfe69]possibility[/i:402d9bfe69] of foregoing the posting of daily teasers, which is a lot of busy work, not functionally integral to the product, and never explicitly promised. No matter what I work on, I [i:402d9bfe69]still[/i:402d9bfe69] may not be able to get to them for priority reasons.

But ok, especially since Nev said he isn't expecting me to spend the time on the research, I won't go down that path at this time. I don't need to be bullied.

Besides, since when does Nev need help being cast in a bad light?

[size=9:402d9bfe69]p.s. haha Nev, so when are we going to lunch[/size:402d9bfe69]

[nevdully's]

Dean>

I understand it's more likely a lack of understanding random, regression the the mean, probabilities etc. on my part.

But

Having walked down this road before being told something didn't exist when in fact it did (8-9 years ago) something from 3 years ago (Bernie finds craziness in the pitching logic) and something as recent as the other day, Petrosian telling Bernie about a problem with the RGN for the live draft app. that Bernie had to fix one other time....Now I could be wrong on this example but it's what I gleaned from Petro's post (maybe he or Bernie could clarify)...I'm gonna have my doubts about stuff.

It could all be for the best...or not...that doesn't even matter when compared to not knowing what I'm paying for while trying to compete and have some fun too.

But you ask why would they? I can't speak for how hard or how easy this could be but why?

Why is obvious

Their religion, their whole foundation for this game and what they've sold it on for 50 years is to be as realistic as possible.


Look at the extremes we know about, and are so far from needed, yet still in the game, I mean out re-distribution, and forcing an sp from a completing game. Crazy real, crazy not needed....yet it's in there...

Sure they know once out of their hands we're gonna turn the game every which way. That's probably why things like the Ironman C and not allowing (unless tricked) players to play positions not listed on their cards is in play here... And all the more reason to perhaps put as much realism...momemtum, leveling something to keep results in line....

Thousands and thousands of league....Sharks playing newbies.....teams bought and never attended to...Cheaters and colluders....yet relatively few huge team win seasons...Why not?

Why should they be vested in something like Wins and losses? Well if winning 110+ and losing 110+ was common many on either end of that stick wouldn't spend their money long....

You ask why? 2 reasons.....Because it's all about what they've been all about from the beginning, realism...and business... it's more likely me...but above is also 2 pretty compelling reasons as to why it might be them.

[Treyomo]

Here's a case where Bonds continued at the same incredible pace:

Bonds was hitting .295 with 50 HRs at the halfway point.
Now hitting .279 with 100 HRs with 6 games to do.

http://fantasygames.sportingnews.com/stratomatic/team/team_other.html?user_id=348618

[Valen]

It would appear normalization is not on for Treyomo. Why?

Answer is obvious. Bernie likes Treyomo so he set normalization off for his teams allowing bonds to reach triple digits but left it on for those he does not like so they would have more trouble winning. And then he hates some of us so he sets some other switch so when we use Bonds we cannot even get 50 in a full season.

Crazy you say? Hey, if you are going to make up a conspiracy theory to explain why people you have no respect for beat you might as well make up something spectacular. :lol:

[DonFESQ]

I've read all these normalization threads eagerly as I do most of the threads on here because its always good stuff or at least interesting (or even simply entertaining when we're talking about trade offers etc.).

I gotta say I don't believe there's any normalization that happens. Now I don't have any evidence to support that other than my belief and gut feeling. I think sometimes you get good luck aka RNG and sometimes you get bad RNG. I think the good or bad RNG can affect your team and/or an individual players for stretches at a time that cause us to make false assumptions about our team's and hence our own abilities to put together that team.

For example, your team starts out 50-20, everything is going right and you think wow, I'm great I put together a .700+ team. I should be able to do this all the time, right? Then the team goes 40-52 the rest of the way and you win 90 barely squeaking in as the wild card team. It's difficult to look at it objectively and say yeah that was really about a 90 win team.

Other times you can put that same team together and it may start 30-40 close well and still end up at 90 wins. Or you may really hit the hot dice or play in a division with someone who really doesn't know what the hell they are doing and/or makes a bunch of moves in season and ends up with a 78M roster in your 100M league and you pull 100 wins. Or you can hit the cold dice and win 80 with that team. All of these things happen and it's still the same team.

Look, it's human nature to want to take credit when things are going well and not take blame when they are not. Hey I got this team together to start 50-20 playing .700 ball. When something is going wrong with the team or players, it's human nature to look for something else to blame. In this case, its easy to say it must be some sort of normalization. Honestly, I would be surprised if the game engine was sophisticated enough to have this in it. I just believe sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don't. And dare I say it, the sample sizes we get all excited about are pretty small in the big scheme of things.

I further believe that the margin between success and failure is very thin in this game and its only getting thinner as more players are added. The difference between winning and losing in a live draft really can come down to one mistake made in the draft I believe. You also need to have a good deal of luck on your side to win in this game.

[nevdully's]

I'm with DonFESQ

[rburgh]

Yes, the difference between a 70 win team and a 92 win team is not as big as one would like to believe. I have run numerous season replays of stock leagues and of draft leagues, and most teams will have a 15-20 win range over the course of 10 seasons or so.

Run differential is much more consistent, but run differential when translated into actual vs. Pythagorean wins has considerable variation, as you all know. This is a gambling game. If any of you are heavy into gambling, you know that the dice or cards can kill you or smile on you, and turn in an instant. The same thing can happen here.

One thing that I think many of you are not considering from a team performance perspective is injuries. I had a team a while back that had seven major injuries in the first 18 games - only my C was a 15-game risk, but I had a lot of 3-gamers. So that team started off badly. It recovered and eventually sneaked into the playoffs. The reverse situation could easily generate a lot of complaints on these boards.

Honestly, guys, this is supposed to be for enjoyment. If you're not enjoying it, maybe you should find something else in life to pass the time. All that public whining and complaining can accomplish is to drive members off the site. If that happens, leagues get harder to fill, league prices can't come down, and you end up playing against the same guys all the time.

Personally, I wish all you complainers would grow up and shut up. But that's just my $.02.

:)

[WeatherNut]

I concur with rburgh about the 15-20 win range for a team. I run lots of leagues using the CDROM version 16.0, plus I have about 35 other season rosters to choose from. A typical team might win 78 83 90 82 84 74 81 89 78 or some such in successive seasons. All are perfectly reasonable season outcomes. Depending on which one of those YOU get, you might think you're a genius or the world is out to get you.

WN

[rburgh]

Yes, and I suspect the variance is more extreme here where the talent is distributed pretty evenly due to either the salary cap or the live draft. I wonder how often live draft teams win 100 games - I'll bet not often.