- Posts: 1108
- Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 12:40 am
J-Pav wrote:That’s interesting and you’re giving me a lot of food for thought...
This started with mcsoupy trying to see if high performing teams could give a repeat performance. He was quite surprised to discover that no, by and large they DO NOT.
If I remember correctly, he could get only two teams to repeat: mine listed here, and another one he did. The one listed here (mine), is on its way to three consecutive playoffs now. Lucky three consecutive times?
Joe, you yourself said that with the variability you would expect, there’s nothing to see here. Except for the fact that there IS something to see: the same team outperforming not 10, not 20, but 30+ other teams! Science? Luck? The fact that there really appears to be nothing particularly special to point to leads me to conclude there must be some sleight of hand here...
It must be magic!
So I’m not clear about what you’re referencing to compile a 2300, 2700, 3000, etc rating. Joe’s rating system?
Like you say, it’s a small sample size, but for arguments sake, let’s say it continues to be a “magic” team. That would tell me whatever elements are built into the rating system need to be tweaked. The bigger the sample size gets, the less you can place the success with luck of the dice.
Always great to read your takes and experiments JPav! Wish I had more successful teams with this set to try to replicate myself!