for the last time, /THREAD
Forum > Goal Line Blitz > Fun with the MVP Formula
Larry Roadgrader
online
online
Originally posted by tdm13
Winning may not be a component of the MVP formula...
That little nugget contradicted the entirety of your point.
Winning may not be a component of the MVP formula...
That little nugget contradicted the entirety of your point.
tdm13
offline
offline
Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader
That little nugget contradicted the entirety of your point.
It's only been speculated that winning isn't part of the formula. My reasoning and GLB's calculation of that MVP race proves that winning IS a part. But because I've not seen a definitive "yes, winning is a component" from an Admin/Dev/etc., I won't speak as though I 100% know. So I'm not contradicting, I'm merely not 100% sure and would not like to speak in definitives.
That little nugget contradicted the entirety of your point.
It's only been speculated that winning isn't part of the formula. My reasoning and GLB's calculation of that MVP race proves that winning IS a part. But because I've not seen a definitive "yes, winning is a component" from an Admin/Dev/etc., I won't speak as though I 100% know. So I'm not contradicting, I'm merely not 100% sure and would not like to speak in definitives.
Originally posted by tdm13
The dot in 1st place is on a team that has won 6 games. Your dot is on a team that has won 2. While your dot has scored the majority of your team's points, the dot in 1st place is on a team that's in playoff contention. Your argument is like saying Matthew Stafford was a better MVP candidate than Russell Wilson last year. Stafford had some gaudy stats, but his team was garbage. Russell helped his team to a playoff berth.
Winning may not be a component of the MVP formula, but logically an MVP shouldn't come from a team that has no chance of making the playoffs. You think they're going to give the heisman to a guy on a 3-9 team but posted incredible stats? NO
You're telling me if a QB threw for 7000 yards and 60 TDs with a 90% completion rate and 0 INTs that he wouldn't get the Heisman because his defense gave up more points than he could score? That's bullshit. Winning might make a player more likely to win an award, but at some point the stats are so ridiculous that it doesn't matter what record the team has.
The dot in 1st place is on a team that has won 6 games. Your dot is on a team that has won 2. While your dot has scored the majority of your team's points, the dot in 1st place is on a team that's in playoff contention. Your argument is like saying Matthew Stafford was a better MVP candidate than Russell Wilson last year. Stafford had some gaudy stats, but his team was garbage. Russell helped his team to a playoff berth.
Winning may not be a component of the MVP formula, but logically an MVP shouldn't come from a team that has no chance of making the playoffs. You think they're going to give the heisman to a guy on a 3-9 team but posted incredible stats? NO
You're telling me if a QB threw for 7000 yards and 60 TDs with a 90% completion rate and 0 INTs that he wouldn't get the Heisman because his defense gave up more points than he could score? That's bullshit. Winning might make a player more likely to win an award, but at some point the stats are so ridiculous that it doesn't matter what record the team has.
Originally posted by tdm13
It's only been speculated that winning isn't part of the formula. My reasoning and GLB's calculation of that MVP race proves that winning IS a part. But because I've not seen a definitive "yes, winning is a component" from an Admin/Dev/etc., I won't speak as though I 100% know. So I'm not contradicting, I'm merely not 100% sure and would not like to speak in definitives.
Your argument collapses in on itself when you look at lolGLB's awards page and see that he has won the MVP every season despite having a smaller stat differential and the same relative success. If your argument were correct, he would have never won the MVP regardless of his stats.
It's only been speculated that winning isn't part of the formula. My reasoning and GLB's calculation of that MVP race proves that winning IS a part. But because I've not seen a definitive "yes, winning is a component" from an Admin/Dev/etc., I won't speak as though I 100% know. So I'm not contradicting, I'm merely not 100% sure and would not like to speak in definitives.
Your argument collapses in on itself when you look at lolGLB's awards page and see that he has won the MVP every season despite having a smaller stat differential and the same relative success. If your argument were correct, he would have never won the MVP regardless of his stats.
Time Trial
offline
offline
Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
You're telling me if a QB threw for 7000 yards and 60 TDs with a 90% completion rate and 0 INTs that he wouldn't get the Heisman because his defense gave up more points than he could score? That's bullshit. Winning might make a player more likely to win an award, but at some point the stats are so ridiculous that it doesn't matter what record the team has.
Heisman probably wouldn't go to someone in Division III either, no matter what their stats were, but I get what you are saying.
I also reject it. lol
You're telling me if a QB threw for 7000 yards and 60 TDs with a 90% completion rate and 0 INTs that he wouldn't get the Heisman because his defense gave up more points than he could score? That's bullshit. Winning might make a player more likely to win an award, but at some point the stats are so ridiculous that it doesn't matter what record the team has.
Heisman probably wouldn't go to someone in Division III either, no matter what their stats were, but I get what you are saying.
I also reject it. lol
Originally posted by Time Trial
Heisman probably wouldn't go to someone in Division III either, no matter what their stats were, but I get what you are saying.
I also reject it. lol
We aren't dealing with different leagues here. MVP is done in the vacuum of that specific league. If we were talking global rankings here, you might have a point. We aren't.
With my question, it has to be assumed that the player who puts up those stats is in the league where the Heisman is award. So here's a hypothetical: Baylor is known for great O and terrible D. Let's say next season their QB puts up those numbers and their O averages upwards of 60 points per game, but their D is so terrible that they give up more points and the result is a 3-9 record. Should their QB not get the Heisman just because the D was so bad?
Heisman probably wouldn't go to someone in Division III either, no matter what their stats were, but I get what you are saying.
I also reject it. lol
We aren't dealing with different leagues here. MVP is done in the vacuum of that specific league. If we were talking global rankings here, you might have a point. We aren't.
With my question, it has to be assumed that the player who puts up those stats is in the league where the Heisman is award. So here's a hypothetical: Baylor is known for great O and terrible D. Let's say next season their QB puts up those numbers and their O averages upwards of 60 points per game, but their D is so terrible that they give up more points and the result is a 3-9 record. Should their QB not get the Heisman just because the D was so bad?
Just make your own football sim lhf. You can be the MVP of every league every season
tdm13
offline
offline
Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
You're telling me if a QB threw for 7000 yards and 60 TDs with a 90% completion rate and 0 INTs that he wouldn't get the Heisman because his defense gave up more points than he could score? That's bullshit. Winning might make a player more likely to win an award, but at some point the stats are so ridiculous that it doesn't matter what record the team has.
The only way a QB is doing that is if he's Aaron Rodgers and he's playing middle school kids. If Robert Griffin III played for UMASS (recent Division I transition team) and played 13 yuppie teams with horrible defenses, racking up obscene numbers but his team goes 2-11, he does not deserve the heisman or an MVP. He deserves a shot to go to a team that has an opportunity to make the playoffs - if he does contributes to their postseason run with similar stats, he deserves the trophy.
Your dot, similarly, is playing on an awful CPU team to try and boost stats for a trophy. Your team has no shot to make the playoffs. Another league dot is performing well on ST and is on a team in the playoff hunt. Therefore, he's more valuable than your stat whoring dot because he's contributing to the team's successful season. Your dot is whoring stats for the sole purpose of a trophy, and you're mad that it isn't working.
You're telling me if a QB threw for 7000 yards and 60 TDs with a 90% completion rate and 0 INTs that he wouldn't get the Heisman because his defense gave up more points than he could score? That's bullshit. Winning might make a player more likely to win an award, but at some point the stats are so ridiculous that it doesn't matter what record the team has.
The only way a QB is doing that is if he's Aaron Rodgers and he's playing middle school kids. If Robert Griffin III played for UMASS (recent Division I transition team) and played 13 yuppie teams with horrible defenses, racking up obscene numbers but his team goes 2-11, he does not deserve the heisman or an MVP. He deserves a shot to go to a team that has an opportunity to make the playoffs - if he does contributes to their postseason run with similar stats, he deserves the trophy.
Your dot, similarly, is playing on an awful CPU team to try and boost stats for a trophy. Your team has no shot to make the playoffs. Another league dot is performing well on ST and is on a team in the playoff hunt. Therefore, he's more valuable than your stat whoring dot because he's contributing to the team's successful season. Your dot is whoring stats for the sole purpose of a trophy, and you're mad that it isn't working.
tdm13
offline
offline
Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
We aren't dealing with different leagues here. MVP is done in the vacuum of that specific league. If we were talking global rankings here, you might have a point. We aren't.
With my question, it has to be assumed that the player who puts up those stats is in the league where the Heisman is award. So here's a hypothetical: Baylor is known for great O and terrible D. Let's say next season their QB puts up those numbers and their O averages upwards of 60 points per game, but their D is so terrible that they give up more points and the result is a 3-9 record. Should their QB not get the Heisman just because the D was so bad?
Let me answer that by comparing your thought to Geno Smith. Geno threw up ridiculous numbers last year because his team had TERRIBLE D, but they began the season 5-0. Geno was considered for the Heisman race...until they started LOSING. His team fell out of BCS berth contention, then Big 12 title contention. Geno was still putting up above average numbers, but his team still couldn't stop a cold. Geno's final numbers were amazing (42 TDs, 6 INTs, 4k+ yds thrown, etc.), but his TEAM finished 7-5 and lost their bowl game. Geno was not considered for the Heisman as a result.
Comparatively, your dot is having a Geno-type season, but he's on a team that is garbage. As a result, he shouldn't be the MVP in the league because he's not contributing to major TEAM success. Your team record is 2-11, but you want a trophy? That's like all the 5 year olds playing soccer at the YMCA and getting a trophy for not winning a game. Take your dot to a WL team and produce legit stats, then whine if the formula still screws you.
We aren't dealing with different leagues here. MVP is done in the vacuum of that specific league. If we were talking global rankings here, you might have a point. We aren't.
With my question, it has to be assumed that the player who puts up those stats is in the league where the Heisman is award. So here's a hypothetical: Baylor is known for great O and terrible D. Let's say next season their QB puts up those numbers and their O averages upwards of 60 points per game, but their D is so terrible that they give up more points and the result is a 3-9 record. Should their QB not get the Heisman just because the D was so bad?
Let me answer that by comparing your thought to Geno Smith. Geno threw up ridiculous numbers last year because his team had TERRIBLE D, but they began the season 5-0. Geno was considered for the Heisman race...until they started LOSING. His team fell out of BCS berth contention, then Big 12 title contention. Geno was still putting up above average numbers, but his team still couldn't stop a cold. Geno's final numbers were amazing (42 TDs, 6 INTs, 4k+ yds thrown, etc.), but his TEAM finished 7-5 and lost their bowl game. Geno was not considered for the Heisman as a result.
Comparatively, your dot is having a Geno-type season, but he's on a team that is garbage. As a result, he shouldn't be the MVP in the league because he's not contributing to major TEAM success. Your team record is 2-11, but you want a trophy? That's like all the 5 year olds playing soccer at the YMCA and getting a trophy for not winning a game. Take your dot to a WL team and produce legit stats, then whine if the formula still screws you.
Golan
offline
offline
Might be some safeguard put in to stop people from doing teams like this, if your dot has x% amount more returns than the average of the league then you can't get first
While this definitely comes off as a whine thread, there's also clearly a problem with the formula
While this definitely comes off as a whine thread, there's also clearly a problem with the formula
Originally posted by Golan
Might be some safeguard put in to stop people from doing teams like this, if your dot has x% amount more returns than the average of the league then you can't get first
While this definitely comes off as a whine thread, there's also clearly a problem with the formula
Not really... sort of. I believe (and someone from the "business" can correct me if I'm wrong) that there are "things" put in place to weed out stat mongers. Back in the day folks put their "star dots" on CPU teams and D-League teams and other shenanigans to "pad stats" in order to win MVP's, get endorsement EQ, or post high in the HOF. Some things that happen now are sometimes the MVP doesn't win the endorsement... and there's "blow out adjustment stats" also. So it wouldn't suprise me at all to learn that there are more things out there to "keep the numbers sane".
Might be some safeguard put in to stop people from doing teams like this, if your dot has x% amount more returns than the average of the league then you can't get first
While this definitely comes off as a whine thread, there's also clearly a problem with the formula
Not really... sort of. I believe (and someone from the "business" can correct me if I'm wrong) that there are "things" put in place to weed out stat mongers. Back in the day folks put their "star dots" on CPU teams and D-League teams and other shenanigans to "pad stats" in order to win MVP's, get endorsement EQ, or post high in the HOF. Some things that happen now are sometimes the MVP doesn't win the endorsement... and there's "blow out adjustment stats" also. So it wouldn't suprise me at all to learn that there are more things out there to "keep the numbers sane".
Originally posted by tdm13
The only way a QB is doing that is if he's Aaron Rodgers and he's playing middle school kids. If Robert Griffin III played for UMASS (recent Division I transition team) and played 13 yuppie teams with horrible defenses, racking up obscene numbers but his team goes 2-11, he does not deserve the heisman or an MVP. He deserves a shot to go to a team that has an opportunity to make the playoffs - if he does contributes to their postseason run with similar stats, he deserves the trophy.
Your dot, similarly, is playing on an awful CPU team to try and boost stats for a trophy. Your team has no shot to make the playoffs. Another league dot is performing well on ST and is on a team in the playoff hunt. Therefore, he's more valuable than your stat whoring dot because he's contributing to the team's successful season. Your dot is whoring stats for the sole purpose of a trophy, and you're mad that it isn't working.
You are still trying to make the relative league strength argument when that doesn't apply to GLB. We are talking about in intra-league award, not an inter-league award. For your analogy to work, we would have to be discussing the offensive player of the year award in whatever conference UMASS plays in. It doesn't matter that he is playing "yuppie teams with horrible defenses" because every other candidate for that award is doing the same. So the question is, would RGIII, if he played for UMASS, win the conference offensive player of the year award if he put up obscene numbers and had a poor record because of a horrible defense? If his numbers were as obscene relative to the norm and to his competition as lolGLB's are, he would.
Originally posted by tdm13
Let me answer that by comparing your thought to Geno Smith. Geno threw up ridiculous numbers last year because his team had TERRIBLE D, but they began the season 5-0. Geno was considered for the Heisman race...until they started LOSING. His team fell out of BCS berth contention, then Big 12 title contention. Geno was still putting up above average numbers, but his team still couldn't stop a cold. Geno's final numbers were amazing (42 TDs, 6 INTs, 4k+ yds thrown, etc.), but his TEAM finished 7-5 and lost their bowl game. Geno was not considered for the Heisman as a result.
Comparatively, your dot is having a Geno-type season, but he's on a team that is garbage. As a result, he shouldn't be the MVP in the league because he's not contributing to major TEAM success. Your team record is 2-11, but you want a trophy? That's like all the 5 year olds playing soccer at the YMCA and getting a trophy for not winning a game. Take your dot to a WL team and produce legit stats, then whine if the formula still screws you.
Again, we should be talking about the Big 12 offensive player of the year award here, not the Heisman. And his numbers might have been amazing (really, they weren't anything too crazy for the history of the Big 12), but they weren't absolutely ridiculous. You'd have to give him at least 3k more yards and 20 more TDs with 0 INTs and give his competition worse stats for the comparison to be apt. To be clear: lolGLB has almost 13k more yards and 100 more TDs (9k/80 blowout adjusted) than the first place returner. This isn't a situation where they are fairly close so wins can put one dot over the top. Here there is clearly one dots with overwhelmingly better stats.
And to be clear, part of the reason why Smith starting being dropped in the Heisman race was because he wasn't playing well in those losses. If he had put up 7k yards, 60 TDs, 0 INTs, and a 90% completion percentage, having 5 conference losses due to a bad defense would not have prevented him from winning the Big 12 Offensive player of the year award. Hell, Zac Taylor won the award on a 9-5 Nebraska team and his stats weren't anywhere near those I posted. Major Applewhite did the same on a 9-5 Texas team in 1999. At some point stats matter more than wins, and that point has obviously been passed when the difference is over 9k yards and 80 TDs. You are coming off as nothing more than a bitter fool when you make arguments otherwise.
The only way a QB is doing that is if he's Aaron Rodgers and he's playing middle school kids. If Robert Griffin III played for UMASS (recent Division I transition team) and played 13 yuppie teams with horrible defenses, racking up obscene numbers but his team goes 2-11, he does not deserve the heisman or an MVP. He deserves a shot to go to a team that has an opportunity to make the playoffs - if he does contributes to their postseason run with similar stats, he deserves the trophy.
Your dot, similarly, is playing on an awful CPU team to try and boost stats for a trophy. Your team has no shot to make the playoffs. Another league dot is performing well on ST and is on a team in the playoff hunt. Therefore, he's more valuable than your stat whoring dot because he's contributing to the team's successful season. Your dot is whoring stats for the sole purpose of a trophy, and you're mad that it isn't working.
You are still trying to make the relative league strength argument when that doesn't apply to GLB. We are talking about in intra-league award, not an inter-league award. For your analogy to work, we would have to be discussing the offensive player of the year award in whatever conference UMASS plays in. It doesn't matter that he is playing "yuppie teams with horrible defenses" because every other candidate for that award is doing the same. So the question is, would RGIII, if he played for UMASS, win the conference offensive player of the year award if he put up obscene numbers and had a poor record because of a horrible defense? If his numbers were as obscene relative to the norm and to his competition as lolGLB's are, he would.
Originally posted by tdm13
Let me answer that by comparing your thought to Geno Smith. Geno threw up ridiculous numbers last year because his team had TERRIBLE D, but they began the season 5-0. Geno was considered for the Heisman race...until they started LOSING. His team fell out of BCS berth contention, then Big 12 title contention. Geno was still putting up above average numbers, but his team still couldn't stop a cold. Geno's final numbers were amazing (42 TDs, 6 INTs, 4k+ yds thrown, etc.), but his TEAM finished 7-5 and lost their bowl game. Geno was not considered for the Heisman as a result.
Comparatively, your dot is having a Geno-type season, but he's on a team that is garbage. As a result, he shouldn't be the MVP in the league because he's not contributing to major TEAM success. Your team record is 2-11, but you want a trophy? That's like all the 5 year olds playing soccer at the YMCA and getting a trophy for not winning a game. Take your dot to a WL team and produce legit stats, then whine if the formula still screws you.
Again, we should be talking about the Big 12 offensive player of the year award here, not the Heisman. And his numbers might have been amazing (really, they weren't anything too crazy for the history of the Big 12), but they weren't absolutely ridiculous. You'd have to give him at least 3k more yards and 20 more TDs with 0 INTs and give his competition worse stats for the comparison to be apt. To be clear: lolGLB has almost 13k more yards and 100 more TDs (9k/80 blowout adjusted) than the first place returner. This isn't a situation where they are fairly close so wins can put one dot over the top. Here there is clearly one dots with overwhelmingly better stats.
And to be clear, part of the reason why Smith starting being dropped in the Heisman race was because he wasn't playing well in those losses. If he had put up 7k yards, 60 TDs, 0 INTs, and a 90% completion percentage, having 5 conference losses due to a bad defense would not have prevented him from winning the Big 12 Offensive player of the year award. Hell, Zac Taylor won the award on a 9-5 Nebraska team and his stats weren't anywhere near those I posted. Major Applewhite did the same on a 9-5 Texas team in 1999. At some point stats matter more than wins, and that point has obviously been passed when the difference is over 9k yards and 80 TDs. You are coming off as nothing more than a bitter fool when you make arguments otherwise.
Originally posted by Golan
Might be some safeguard put in to stop people from doing teams like this, if your dot has x% amount more returns than the average of the league then you can't get first
While this definitely comes off as a whine thread, there's also clearly a problem with the formula
As Theo said, stat padding was addressed through blowout adjusted stats and the MVP lottery. lolGLB has 9k+ more yards and 80+ more TDs when blowout adjusted stats are being used, so that can't be the case.
And I say again, there is nothing wrong with lolGLB's team. If it were, every owner of a team with a significant number of CPUs would be considered stat padding. It's not like I can run the same play over and over again to spam the ball to a specific WR or HB to pad stats. I have a full roster with a depth chart set and am running a casual offense and defense. If it's such a crime to use CPUs, then we just shouldn't have CPUs and owners who can't field a minimum roster should lose their team. Otherwise, there should be no complaints when an owner uses CPUs.
Might be some safeguard put in to stop people from doing teams like this, if your dot has x% amount more returns than the average of the league then you can't get first
While this definitely comes off as a whine thread, there's also clearly a problem with the formula
As Theo said, stat padding was addressed through blowout adjusted stats and the MVP lottery. lolGLB has 9k+ more yards and 80+ more TDs when blowout adjusted stats are being used, so that can't be the case.
And I say again, there is nothing wrong with lolGLB's team. If it were, every owner of a team with a significant number of CPUs would be considered stat padding. It's not like I can run the same play over and over again to spam the ball to a specific WR or HB to pad stats. I have a full roster with a depth chart set and am running a casual offense and defense. If it's such a crime to use CPUs, then we just shouldn't have CPUs and owners who can't field a minimum roster should lose their team. Otherwise, there should be no complaints when an owner uses CPUs.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
