|
|
Post by Tigertecz on May 4, 2010 16:45:15 GMT -5
Fair enough I suppose. But I'm not sure I agree with your formula now.. Because say a team is like 3rd seed every year and make the conf finals each year but never go further. Say they do it for ten years. Then say another team doesn't make the playoffs for 8 of the 10 seasons, makes two finals and wins one title. Which team scores better? Because despite consistency, the team didn't win anything. you beat the Grizzlies in most of your title runs as I recall....you got 27 points for winning that fourth game...I think thats enough of a bonus....but the team getting to the conference finals each year? well if I am a fan though I get frustrated...however it is nice to be competitive every year, and as an owner I am gonna take in a hell of a lot more money winning that much.....I ran through this formula quite a bit, but if I weighted the playoffs much more it pretty much went by Playoff score, rather than a balance...notice that me and the Pacers both are actually higher individually in each the Total Regular Season, and Playoff points total positions than our overall, because teams can make up huge ground in the playoffs Fair enough I guess. I just look at the rankings, see the Grizzlies in a league of their own, yet a few other teams have as many rings, and one has more than twice as many. Doesn't work IMO but I see where the points are made up in the rankings I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on May 4, 2010 16:47:20 GMT -5
you beat the Grizzlies in most of your title runs as I recall....you got 27 points for winning that fourth game...I think thats enough of a bonus....but the team getting to the conference finals each year? well if I am a fan though I get frustrated...however it is nice to be competitive every year, and as an owner I am gonna take in a hell of a lot more money winning that much.....I ran through this formula quite a bit, but if I weighted the playoffs much more it pretty much went by Playoff score, rather than a balance...notice that me and the Pacers both are actually higher individually in each the Total Regular Season, and Playoff points total positions than our overall, because teams can make up huge ground in the playoffs Fair enough I guess. I just look at the rankings, see the Grizzlies in a league of their own, yet a few other teams have as many rings, and one has more than twice as many. Doesn't work IMO but I see where the points are made up in the rankings I guess. (Really I cheated...docked you 300 points for signing Al Jefferson) |
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on May 4, 2010 16:50:31 GMT -5
you beat the Grizzlies in most of your title runs as I recall....you got 27 points for winning that fourth game...I think thats enough of a bonus....but the team getting to the conference finals each year? well if I am a fan though I get frustrated...however it is nice to be competitive every year, and as an owner I am gonna take in a hell of a lot more money winning that much.....I ran through this formula quite a bit, but if I weighted the playoffs much more it pretty much went by Playoff score, rather than a balance...notice that me and the Pacers both are actually higher individually in each the Total Regular Season, and Playoff points total positions than our overall, because teams can make up huge ground in the playoffs Fair enough I guess. I just look at the rankings, see the Grizzlies in a league of their own, yet a few other teams have as many rings, and one has more than twice as many. Doesn't work IMO but I see where the points are made up in the rankings I guess. Tiger...even if I give 75 points for a title....you are behind |
|
|
|
Post by Tigertecz on May 4, 2010 16:52:06 GMT -5
Yeah that's cool.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on May 4, 2010 16:53:40 GMT -5
and the problem with giving 75 points for a title is it basically makes it so that it goes
TItle Team
Title Team Title Team......etc in order of the number of titles you have...then the teams without titles
|
|
|
|
Post by J on May 4, 2010 16:57:43 GMT -5
Obviously I haven't been GMing this team long, because there's no way in hell they'd have been that bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tigertecz on May 4, 2010 17:01:09 GMT -5
and the problem with giving 75 points for a title is it basically makes it so that it goes TItle Team Title Team Title Team......etc in order of the number of titles you have...then the teams without titles Kinda makes sense if it were like that. I like your original rankings though. It's cool. |
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on May 4, 2010 17:06:42 GMT -5
and the problem with giving 75 points for a title is it basically makes it so that it goes TItle Team Title Team Title Team......etc in order of the number of titles you have...then the teams without titles Kinda makes sense if it were like that. I like your original rankings though. It's cool. what about the Rockets...they went to the Finals four times, but because they didn't get it done they should be 15th? they sure as hell are better overall than my Nets...by the way, congrats on your title in 4 years.... |
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on May 4, 2010 17:10:12 GMT -5
Here is how the teams stacked up over the past five years for anyone who cares...
1 Grizzlies 518
2 Pacers 425
3 Warriors 407
4 Lakers 392
5 Bucks 367
6 Clippers 328
7 Spurs 309
8 Cavaliers 301
9 Raptors 277
10 Nets 268
11 Knicks 262
12 Heat 258
13 Jazz 258
14 Suns 255
15 Bulls 251
16 Magic 251
17 Kings 247
18 Bullets 227
19 Supersonics 212
20 76ers 208
21 Mavericks 199
22 Hawks 192
23 Celtics 189
24 Timberwolves 186
25 Pistons 183
26 Rockets 139
27 Trailblazers 137
28 Nuggets 117
29 Hornets 103
|
|
|
|
Post by Tigertecz on May 4, 2010 17:11:24 GMT -5
That makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on May 4, 2010 17:19:18 GMT -5
everytime I write this article though, you win a championship....at 3 times in a row it is starting to get a bit odd.....and I plan out when I do this before the year.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Tigertecz on May 4, 2010 17:25:50 GMT -5
Do it every year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on May 4, 2010 17:27:08 GMT -5
Figured you might say that |
|
|
|
Post by J on May 4, 2010 17:27:45 GMT -5
Hawks will be top 10 over the next 5 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brophdog88 on May 4, 2010 17:29:11 GMT -5
Hawks will be top 10 over the next 5 years. It'll be four next time, I let it get to five so I would hit the twentieth season..... |
|
