nategreat wrote:I have a system I use. I incorporate 6 different variations of every single possible statistic, and convert it to a decimal number that gives an overall value in terms of on field performance for all positions. Then I substitute this number into an equation that I formulated last year, an equation that also includes weight room/practice performance and locker room cohesiveness (each numbers of their own). Then I multiply this by the "Swag" constant, and invert the product until I am left with a numerical value greater than 0, but always less than 1. Last but not least, I subtract this number from the total number of white wide receivers on the team, and am left with the final ranking number. This is the BFT value.
JesterHawk wrote:nategreat wrote:I have a system I use. I incorporate 6 different variations of every single possible statistic, and convert it to a decimal number that gives an overall value in terms of on field performance for all positions. Then I substitute this number into an equation that I formulated last year, an equation that also includes weight room/practice performance and locker room cohesiveness (each numbers of their own). Then I multiply this by the "Swag" constant, and invert the product until I am left with a numerical value greater than 0, but always less than 1. Last but not least, I subtract this number from the total number of white wide receivers on the team, and am left with the final ranking number. This is the BFT value.
It doesn't even sound like you're using any calculus. How do you expect to get real answers? If you're not using calculus you're just getting rough approximations. The "Swag constant" is outdated, you need to be using the second derivative of the "Swag curve" over the last 3 years (weighted for current year obviously).
BirdsCommaAngry wrote:Whether its a power ranking, predicting win/loss records, determining who is good and who isn't, or what have you, how would you describe how you rank teams? What single way of determining who is better do you put the most weight into?
JSeahawks wrote:Eye test.
BirdsCommaAngry wrote:JSeahawks wrote:Eye test.
So you watch multiple games from every team every year you wish to rank teams?
BirdsCommaAngry wrote:But you wouldn't be able to predict future success from viewing past performances when there are significant personnel and coaching changes. What do you use then?
JesterHawk wrote:You asked, he told you. Can't it be left at that?
RolandDeschain wrote:50% win/loss record, 30% eye test, 20% factoring in how good I think their opponents are/were.
MontanaHawk05 wrote:1. Seattle
2. Everyone else
3. Gallstones
4. 49ers
It is currently Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:40 am