Great analysis Ant

This new format for the website is a joke.

I have just looked at adding a new player into my team and wanted to see the schedule for the rest of the week and it has the same player playing every day of the round against the same team.

ESPN sort your shit out or revert back to the old format.

Looks like all the budget cut backs at ESPN have affected their IT staff.

This new scoring system is taking a while to get used to. I am used to seeing high scores for the players.

My opponent has Klay and I was thinking the same thing.

-8 pts is not a true indication of his impact on the game.

Hey mate, I’m not sure it’s fair to say it wasn’t broken. The majority of people voted to change it.

Klay shot 5/20 including 1/8 from 3, and besides his 4 boards, didn’t have any other counting stats. I didn’t watch the game, but that seems like a pretty poor game from him. His team did win though, and the 2 fpts for that will bump him up to -6.

It might take a bit of getting used to, but I reckon it’s much better that a player scores so low for such an inefficient game as that.

I had Fultz score -3 today and I think that’s fair given his line too.

No one likes to see negative scores for someone who has played a full game. It does take the fun out of the game.

For the record, all my over evaluations were actually everyone else's under evaluations

Personally, it doesn’t take any fun out of it for me. I still had a lot of fun keeping a track of scores, even though one of my players shot poorly and scored negatives.

It’s just different, that’s all. The players that played well didn’t score hugely either, so it’s just a mindset thing that last year we were used to players scoring over 50 and a low score was in the teens (or single figures); now they’re doing really well to top 50 and some are gonna score negatives for a poor game.

I actually think it adds a lot of fun to the game that players can end up in negatives after a poor game. I remember @Ruddy advocating for that a few years ago, that it’s really important because it allows fluctuations in games. If players just keep scoring more and more and more, it’s difficult for the losing team to catch up. It just becomes a bit like AFL DreamTeam in that stats just keep accumulating f points rather than valuing efficiency and impact etc

Some interesting reading...

Yay points
http://www.warriorsworld.net/2010/05/12/stumbling-on-wins-the-right-stats/


https://crookedscoreboard.com/why-statistical-analysis-makes-sports-fans-unhappy-by-david-berri/


http://wagesofwins.com/how-to-calculate-wins-produced/

Ha! I didn’t realise you had 3 reaches! I did too

In seriousness though, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
I reckon definitely some of the players in the list of “steals” will turn out to be appropriately drafted by the one league that let them slide. We’ll wait and see.

7/48 is not a majority.

We rarely get everyone voting in polls, however I think it was enough on this occasion.

Actually, 11 voted to change it.
A further 3 voted to say they didn’t mind if it changed or not.
And 7 voted to keep it the same as last season.

Total of 21 votes.

You could say 14/21 we’re happy to change and 10/21 were happy to stay the same.

At that stage I think we’d only had ~30 people committed to play this season. 21 out of 30 seemed a decent sample size. Especially because it didn’t come from nowhere, people had been asking me to change the scoring system for years.


After the poll closed, I took on all feedback and adjusted the original proposal accordingly. I even changed some of the metrics (FTs, flagrants, O-boards) back to the same value we had them last season, partly due to the number of people voting to keep it the same, but for other reasons too.