*Official* Signup Announcements/Introductions

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Why'd you adjust Rafferty so much?

How's he going to compete with all the super signups? This is getting silly, hah, wish Marc was here to go ballistic.

With his initial stats he was hardly going to anyway. Not only is he a spinner, but his stats are mediocre.

I'd think that me not sticking to the adjustment system would be more of an issue than me actually sticking to it. I'd suggest he convert to a batsman.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Have to say once again that this is exactly why I have always wanted a system which allows you to allocate points towards each of the simming stats rather than just putting obscene numbers together... people are going to continually sign up with super stats just so they get the best possible adjustment, while those who put in realistic stats are penalised for their integrity.

Not necessarily true. There are some people who started with excellent simming averages who have done worse than those with lesser simming averages. A good simming average does not guarantee a good performance.

Also, a batting average of 41 may sound high, but considering the standards we redefined for the last season - eg Cloete is over 55, IIRC - it's still in the lower end. Batting simming averages have been raised and bowling averages lowered.

A system of allocating points would work, but it would come with its issues as well. For one it'd be virtually impossible to get even the odd high quality allrounder. And a person could still load their points toward one form. At the moment someone who loads stats toward both ends of the spectrum (eg 50 batting and 12 bowling) would be adjusted to a batsman who can bowl reasonably. Effectively it's the same thing. No one can bat better than 35 and bowl better than 30 with the current system.

Once a bowler's simming average is 30 or more (and he bowls a significant number of overs in a season), it's unlikely that it's going to drop significantly or at all on the basis of performance. Only by gathering experience points. Basically, someone with a simming average over 30 is almost certain to average well over 30 with the ball in the game.

EDIT: No one is going to create an average player if they're allowed to shift points between discipline. So either we limit the total number of points to the extent that all players must be average (which doesn't lend a lot of room for improvement) or we accept the fact that everyone is going to load their stats to start with exceptional averages. If someone has 40 points to spend, he/she is highly unlikely to leave any of those points spare. Surely this system is as good, if not better then, because players do sign up with varying levels of skill.

 

[Jamee999]

It's almost double what I average.

 

[Loony BoB]

Not necessarily true. There are some people who started with excellent simming averages who have done worse than those with lesser simming averages. A good simming average does not guarantee a good performance.

Also, a batting average of 41 may sound high, but considering the standards we redefined for the last season - eg Cloete is over 55, IIRC - it's still in the lower end. Batting simming averages have been raised and bowling averages lowered.

A system of allocating points would work, but it would come with its issues as well. For one it'd be virtually impossible to get even the odd high quality allrounder. And a person could still load their points toward one form. At the moment someone who loads stats toward both ends of the spectrum (eg 50 batting and 12 bowling) would be adjusted to a batsman who can bowl reasonably. Effectively it's the same thing. No one can bat better than 35 and bowl better than 30 with the current system.

Once a bowler's simming average is 30 or more (and he bowls a significant number of overs in a season), it's unlikely that it's going to drop significantly or at all on the basis of performance. Only by gathering experience points. Basically, someone with a simming average over 30 is almost certain to average well over 30 with the ball in the game.

EDIT: No one is going to create an average player if they're allowed to shift points between discipline. So either we limit the total number of points to the extent that all players must be average (which doesn't lend a lot of room for improvement) or we accept the fact that everyone is going to load their stats to start with exceptional averages. If someone has 40 points to spend, he/she is highly unlikely to leave any of those points spare. Surely this system is as good, if not better then, because players do sign up with varying levels of skill.

Maybe a slight random adjustment would work well, then, Liam? For a points based system, I mean. Something random would save the problem of those with integrity being penalised.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Maybe a slight random adjustment would work well, then, Liam? For a points based system, I mean. Something random would save the problem of those with integrity being penalised.

But as things stand the majority of people sign up with realistic stats anyway. At least the majority of signups are adjusted to something realistic.

 

[Robertinho]

But the people who sign up with realistic stats are generally the sort of people we want frequenting these parts and taking an active role in the Dev League. However, when they're being constantly overshadowed and outperformed by those who gave themselves exorbitant simming averages (like yours truly), they don't have the opportunity to do so. They enjoy it less, they spend less time here, etc. Give them a chance!

Though I agree with your argument re: the points system. Though I must ask - why is it that cpr's bowling is 32, rather than 30? As you said, he's basically never going to perform sufficiently well enough to lower that and thus become a decent bowler, and with an average of 25, he's unlikely to be a specialist batsman.

Also, surely 41 isn't the lower end of the batting scale? Just because there's a big gap between Cloete's 55 and 41 does not mean it's filled with other batsmen. Not many batsmen would be averaging over 40, would they? I mean, my simming average in FC is probably around 41 - and I'm centrally contracted.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I mean, my simming average in FC is probably around 41 - and I'm centrally contracted.

Mine's higher than that, surely yours would be mid 40's at least.

 

[Robertinho]

Yeah, but you forget, I've turned into a **** **** in FC. I only average 36

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah, but you forget, I've turned into a **** **** in FC. I only average 36

No wonder you're in the test side. Strong domestic performances.

 

[chaminda_00]

Wouldn't surprise me if his Test simming stats is higher then his FC simming stats.

 

[Robertinho]

No wonder you're in the test side. Strong domestic performances.

Strong international performances, Schmidt. I'm a big game player.

It's the little games that get me

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Strong international performances, Schmidt. I'm a big game player.

It's the little games that get me

I'm the complete opposite tbh.

 

[cpr]

With his initial stats he was hardly going to anyway. Not only is he a spinner, but his stats are mediocre.

I'd think that me not sticking to the adjustment system would be more of an issue than me actually sticking to it. I'd suggest he convert to a batsman.

Haha, described as mediocre before i've picked up a ball

Didn't consider the ajustment tbh, otherwise i'd have signed up with better stats so that they came out around 29/28. As you say, everyones got to be adjusted, so i've no issue with that.

Gonna stick with what i've been given, as like you say, there simming stats untill 30/40 games isnt it? So theres a chance i might end up 2 or 3 better off than expected. If not, then i'd be happy being a squad player, a handy no 7/8 on a pitch that might suit 2 spinners. We cant all be Shane Warne.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

However, when they're being constantly overshadowed and outperformed by those who gave themselves exorbitant simming averages (like yours truly), they don't have the opportunity to do so.

They enjoy it less, they spend less time here, etc. Give them a chance!

How many of such players can you name who get significant game time to engage such a situation? Basically, if a player isn't active, he/she generally doesn't get played, regardless of simming potential. Also, the consistently dominant batsmen in the league have always tended to be the experienced ones. This argument has been done to death. As I said, a simming average doesn't dictate the quality of performance.

Though I must ask - why is it that cpr's bowling is 32, rather than 30? As you said, he's basically never going to perform sufficiently well enough to lower that and thus become a decent bowler, and with an average of 25, he's unlikely to be a specialist batsman.

Because I was sticking to the system, as I said before. If I were to, at my own discretion, adjust averages outside of the system, you know as well as I do that I would be criticized for it. And as a spinner he would need better than a 28 simming average to have a decent chance of performing exceptionally. That said, it doesn't mean that he won't.

Also, surely 41 isn't the lower end of the batting scale? Just because there's a big gap between Cloete's 55 and 41 does not mean it's filled with other batsmen. Not many batsmen would be averaging over 40, would they? I mean, my simming average in FC is probably around 41 - and I'm centrally contracted.

And the example is relevant because Cloete has almost never been the best batsman in the Dev League in terms of performance. The moral of the story being that even a simming average in the mid-50s does not ensure that a player will score heavily. And 41 isn't far off the average simming stat for specialist batsmen. It's definitely in the high 30s at the very least.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Haha, described as mediocre before i've picked up a ball

Alas, 'twas the stats, not the player that I referenced.

But if there is no opposition, I'd be willing to switch your stats back to the original. I've already explained my reasons for making the adjustment, though I thought they'd be obvious. I'd advise that there's not much room for unproven spinners in the league atm though. You may struggle for game time for a season or two.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Alas, 'twas the stats, not the player that I referenced.

But if there is no opposition, I'd be willing to switch your stats back to the original. I've already explained my reasons for making the adjustment, though I thought they'd be obvious. I'd advise that there's not much room for unproven spinners in the league atm though. You may struggle for game time for a season or two.

I think you have to stick to the adjusted ones, for the reasons you have outlined.

 

[chaminda_00]

I don't get why we don't just convert guys that sign up as spin bowling all rounder, straight into batsmen that bowl spin. You just look at guys like Dunn, Matt Smith, Clapham we started off as spinners and then got moved into seamers when we had shortages and now one is ODI international and the other two are/were in line for ODI spots. It not like the guys that just sign up have any idea of where the depth is in CW Cricket. If you are going to adjust player stats, you might as well adjust lower end player stats to level they can get a game. Or either put a freeze on spin bowling signings until the level change.

 

[Robertinho]

How many of such players can you name who get significant game time to engage such a situation? Basically, if a player isn't active, he/she generally doesn't get played, regardless of simming potential. Also, the consistently dominant batsmen in the league have always tended to be the experienced ones. This argument has been done to death. As I said, a simming average doesn't dictate the quality of performance.

Because I was sticking to the system, as I said before. If I were to, at my own discretion, adjust averages outside of the system, you know as well as I do that I would be criticized for it. And as a spinner he would need better than a 28 simming average to have a decent chance of performing exceptionally. That said, it doesn't mean that he won't.

And the example is relevant because Cloete has almost never been the best batsman in the Dev League in terms of performance. The moral of the story being that even a simming average in the mid-50s does not ensure that a player will score heavily. And 41 isn't far off the average simming stat for specialist batsmen. It's definitely in the high 30s at the very least.

Touche. But surely simming averages make up about 95% of actual performance? And if someone with a simming average of 41 has a probability of "x" of doing poorly, then someone with a simming average of 35 has a probability of doing poorly much lower than x.

 

[cpr]

I think you have to stick to the adjusted ones, for the reasons you have outlined.

Yeah, stick with what you gave me. Never went back to my parents and asked them to have another go when i wasnt that great at cricket IRL


Sure i'll pick up games here and there, not everyone can be first choice and international standard. I've made my bed, now to lie in it

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I wouldn't mind if you changed it back.