Code: STARTERS GP GS MIN FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A OREB DREB REB AST STL BLK TO PF PTS Allan Izett SF 14 3 36.0 7.0-17.0 0.410 1.3-3.8 0.355 2.9-3.9 0.750 2.3 4.9 7.2 1.7 1.6 1.0 2.3 3.3 18.2 Code: STARTERS GP GS MIN FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A OREB DREB REB AST STL BLK TO PF PTS Chris WarringtonC 15 0 36.0 5.7-11.1 0.514 0.0-0.1 0.000 1.8-2.2 0.793 3.7 5.6 9.3 1.4 1.3 2.5 1.7 2.9 13.2 Jake Howe C-F 15 2 36.0 5.7-10.7 0.530 0.0-0.2 0.000 1.7-3.0 0.576 3.5 7.9 11.4 1.4 0.6 2.2 1.6 4.2 13.1 Code: STARTERS GP GS MIN FGM-A 3PM-A FTM-A OREB DREB REB AST STL BLK TO PF PTS Sam Bakkum SG 15 0 36.0 6.6-13.0 0.506 1.9-3.9 0.478 2.5-3.4 0.750 1.5 3.7 5.2 2.0 2.0 0.2 1.2 1.5 17.5 Siege Morgan G 15 15 36.0 6.1-15.3 0.401 1.5-4.8 0.315 3.6-4.3 0.846 1.5 5.5 7.0 6.5 2.4 0.7 2.4 2.6 17.4
This is the posts I meant btw mousey. Eds trying to prove my selections wrong instead of coping them and hoping and playing for next year's all-star game.
Or he could have been curious as to how he went compared to players that are on a similar level to him. Mousey told people to request comparisons if they wish to do so and Eds requested it against players that he is quite similar to.
They're not to be taken all that seriously either. Comparing two players who give similar production per minute while playing less minutes overall would be like comparing a batsman who's averaged 50 in 10 games to someone who's averaged 50 in 30 games. The starter has maintained that production over long minutes, and had to deal with more fatigue and playing against better defenders tbh. I'd only ever be questioning my role if I'm far out performing another player in multiple categories.
AWTA. It should be able to change every week if you have the bench that is full of superstars. *Cough Tigers Cough*
Of course selections should be able to change that is a given, and I am not saying that no one should discuss selections, but if selectors aren't egtting support from the top then it becomes a bit of a crap and thankless job. And you know what skippos you can't give me that tripe, because I do my very best to always give you the support at the stingrays rather than give people reasons to doubt you. That is all I am asking for, not a gag but support.
It seems as if a gag is support. We've got an extensive thread in the 'rays subbie where we discuss selections. People are free to challenge my selections; I welcome it - and just as they're free to challenge, I'm free to explain to them in no uncertain terms why they're not playing BS/x or y is bowling ahead etc. It wouldn't be proper if I expected everyone to support my decisions. I expect them to 'accept' them, but of course they're not all going to agree so support is a step too far. Every selection, if required, should have justification (which they do; one makes them for a reason) and I don't think people should just have to sit down and pretend they're happy and have no issue with a selection that troubled them. Once reasoning has been provided I think acceptance is key, but enforcing support? that's not support, that's a gag. A bit of tu quoque there Steven. I don't mean to fight but the last thing I do is refuse to discuss selections and gag the discussion; I've always opened it up I've just become frustrated when the same people make the same comments week in week out and I have to recite the same posts in reply. If you've explained it to Eds then I apologise, I hadn't seen it - but I haven't seen it and my whole argument is based around you virtually telling eds to accept why he wasn't selected off the back of excellent performances starting for a successful team while the guy he's starting ahead of and another dude who's benched for a shitter team got the nod. It's a debatable selection, surely you can acknowledge that - so all people want is an explanation not be told to accept it. If your favourite RL team dropped their star winger for an ageing hack you'd expect the club to explain why. That's all I'm saying
If there was a bad selection I'd say something myself, so anyone who complains is making themselves look foolish tbh.
I'm not complaining nor saying it was a bad selection; based on longevity I'd say it was the right one. I'm just saying there was a case for any one of three options; it wasn't a 'lock and load' selection - and in that case I do think an explanation is owed in 'tough' calls. It shouldn't be difficult anyway, one makes the decision for a reason so just explaining the logic behind it shouldn't be tough.
Yeah I don't disagree with open selection discussions at all, I am in no way advocating a gag. I am suggesting that as sim runner it is not within Mousey's scope to make it easier for people to maintain there selection bug bears. I am very happy with Mousey continuing to provide all the information that he does, and every single person in this simulator already has access to every single bit of information that I do when I make any selections decisions I might need to make. (at least in regards to the sim itself, I may have a greater knowledge or understanding of the sport of basketball available to me than at least some people) I am merely suggesting that within Mouseys scope as sim runner he doesn't use that power to make certain information so easily available out of respect to the people who are working quite hard to make sure the sim is successful along side him. I am more than happy with my selection decisions, I maintain them and think considering many people would think north the weaker team I was very happy with the result I was able to get. I do not fear examination at all, and as I said I only have to select one team once a season in one sim so I think this affects me less then most. I am more than happy for eds to continue to gripe about not getting selected if he thinks it is justified and I am more than happy for him to, if he wants to put in the effort, try and prove me wrong. I just think that it is not in the best interest of the sim as a whole for mousey to promote people with these sorts of bug bears against their selectors as it just pushes key members of the community out of those key positions if the people in charge just provide ammunition. I never once showed any desire to Mousey that the per 36 min stats not be put out, I like the idea greatly. I just don't want to see people trying to use these stats to undermine people who are putting a lot of effort in to helping this sim thrive. Long story short, I am looking for support from Mousey not from the player base, they can question me all they want, just as long as Mousey isn't out the back writing their banners for them. (which I don't think he was intending on doing, but I just saw it as a potential unseen side effect)
Yeah, I could see that players could use it to attempt to undermine selections. It'd be stupid and only make them look stupid though as: a) I'll always back the selectors unless there's a major fuck up (when I will PM someone). This has never happened. b) Starters face tougher defenders and have to perform over a larger sample size. c) There's more than stats anyway.
