|
Kris Dunn
Dec 26, 2017 19:44:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 26, 2017 19:44:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John Stockton on Dec 28, 2017 5:46:52 GMT -5
Can we at least get gms to start putting current ratings in these posts? It'd be nice to have a little snippet of what they've done recently as well, but I think it should be at least required to post a current rating to save others time
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Dec 28, 2017 10:07:57 GMT -5
Can we at least get gms to start putting current ratings in these posts? It'd be nice to have a little snippet of what they've done recently as well, but I think it should be at least required to post a current rating to save others time Amen. Basically all of the SW posts lately have had absolutely nothing in them. If you don't know what argument you want to make about the player aside from "is pretty good," or nothing at all (like Pete's), don't make a damn stockwatch. But ffs, at the very least post current rating and "increase/decrease."
|
|
Pete Maravich
Washington Wizards
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 772
Total Bank: 55,000
|
Post by Pete Maravich on Dec 28, 2017 10:40:01 GMT -5
Why does the stockwatch originator need to push a narrative whether a guy needs an increase or decrease? If I have to write a novel about why someone needs to be stockwatched then I'll just be a hermit who only SWs his own players like everyone else. For example, I don't really care if Giannis stays where he is or gets bumped 5 points but I do think it is one the league needs to review.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Kris Dunn
Dec 28, 2017 11:01:28 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Steve Jobs on Dec 28, 2017 11:01:28 GMT -5
Why does the stockwatch originator need to push a narrative whether a guy needs an increase or decrease? If I have to write a novel about why someone needs to be stockwatched then I'll just be a hermit who only SWs his own players like everyone else. For example, I don't really care if Giannis stays where he is or gets bumped 5 points but I do think it is one the league needs to review. Why? For the exact opposite of the BS reason you just stated. The stock watch is LITERALLY about generating a discussion. The vote is blind, but if no discussion is generated then we might as well eliminate the stockwatch, designate the 8-10 most active stockwatch voters as the new ratings committee and let them decide the ratings amongst themselves. If you notice that a player has the right rating and the wrong build, say "current rating: xx; Good rating, bad build." It doesn't have to be a novel, it just shouldn't be on 10 people to research how/why a players rating/build is flawed in order to vote on it when the original poster was too lazy to compile that data and make the discussion/vote more streamlined and accurate. Again, I don't care if you don't post at all, I don't care if you post every single player... just don't lose sight of the fact that the stock watch exists to inspire discussion when you post.
|
|
Pete Maravich
Washington Wizards
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 772
Total Bank: 55,000
|
Post by Pete Maravich on Dec 28, 2017 11:10:44 GMT -5
I view the stockwatch differently. The only thing I see coming from the "discussion" is getting the meek to vote higher/lower than they should. I only view it as a call to get a current median rating from the community. Everyone should be familiar enough with the players & can access b-r.
|
|
|
Post by kong on Dec 28, 2017 13:19:53 GMT -5
The stock watch is LITERALLY about generating a discussion. The vote is blind, but if no discussion is generated then we might as well eliminate the stockwatch, designate the 8-10 most active stockwatch voters as the new ratings committee and let them decide the ratings amongst themselves. There is no discussion though. There are 4-5 members that whatever they say seem sacred and whatever anyone else argue wont matter.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Kris Dunn
Dec 29, 2017 9:24:24 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Steve Jobs on Dec 29, 2017 9:24:24 GMT -5
The stock watch is LITERALLY about generating a discussion. The vote is blind, but if no discussion is generated then we might as well eliminate the stockwatch, designate the 8-10 most active stockwatch voters as the new ratings committee and let them decide the ratings amongst themselves. There is no discussion though. There are 4-5 members that whatever they say seem sacred and whatever anyone else argue wont matter. Just because it isn't working like it is supposed to doesn't mean we should completely eliminate the most important part of it all. If there is a problem with generating discussion, saying nothing instead of trying to get the conversation started won't help at all. Maybe we could find some way to implement a rule similar to open voting on trades where the voter has to have some kind of relevant response that contributes to the discussion around a player before their vote will be counted? Either way, worrying about which GMs have influence and which ones are worried their opinion won't matter doesn't do us much good. GMs that can't be confident enough in their opinions about a player to jump into a stockwatch discussion and defend their position toward an influential GM like Billy or Allan realistically will not be good GMs.
|
|
|
Post by kong on Dec 29, 2017 9:44:55 GMT -5
well, that is a a 2-ways street. It is easier to be a good GM when SW threads go your way because as it often happens over here, players that get a higher rating than expected don't last for long. Usually, they end up in some new GM's team that primarily goes by ratings in his first 2 weeks.
You would expect that a GM that has such a high regard for a player to the point of convincing others would keep that player for as long as possible but that is not what happens. SW is such a tool right now and as such it doesn't make you want to discuss this and that unless you have to.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Kris Dunn
Dec 29, 2017 10:06:29 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Steve Jobs on Dec 29, 2017 10:06:29 GMT -5
well, that is a a 2-ways street. It is easier to be a good GM when SW threads go your way because as it often happens over here, players that get a higher rating than expected don't last for long. Usually, they end up in some new GM's team that primarily goes by ratings in his first 2 weeks. You would expect that a GM that has such a high regard for a player to the point of convincing others would keep that player for as long as possible but that is not what happens. SW is such a tool right now and as such it doesn't make you want to discuss this and that unless you have to. There is next to no evidence of any of the stuff you just claimed being true. And even if there is, that's essentially irrelevant to the situation at hand because we're talking about improving the stockwatches themselves (thus helping to eliminate bad ratings or builds) by introducing more discussion. If a GMs reasoning for not participating in the discussions is "Why discuss if the rating can be wrong and result in trades that I don't agree with," they're actively working against their own best interests by not getting more involved.
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Dec 29, 2017 10:12:51 GMT -5
well, that is a a 2-ways street. It is easier to be a good GM when SW threads go your way because as it often happens over here, players that get a higher rating than expected don't last for long. Usually, they end up in some new GM's team that primarily goes by ratings in his first 2 weeks. You would expect that a GM that has such a high regard for a player to the point of convincing others would keep that player for as long as possible but that is not what happens. SW is such a tool right now and as such it doesn't make you want to discuss this and that unless you have to. The stock watch is actually pretty boring right now. The votes are always almost all the same even with literally no one saying anything in the threads. They've always been about the same. I've theorized about changing the amounts of votes required, or switching to mean instead of median, or even taking the middle of those two. No matter how I think of how to tweak the formula it still always barely nets a change of overall rating in most players, and even if it does it's just a point or so. I'm actually extremely surprised how close together the votes are on all these players where there is literally nothing posted in the threads.
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Dec 29, 2017 16:35:54 GMT -5
How would you guys feel about publishing people's votes after the change? Seems like best of both worlds and would calm any fears brought up by our non-GM friends.
|
|
Steve Jobs
Oklahoma City Thunder
Posts: 2,918
Likes: 2,107
Total Bank: 50,500
|
Post by Steve Jobs on Dec 29, 2017 16:42:44 GMT -5
How would you guys feel about publishing people's votes after the change? Seems like best of both worlds and would calm any fears brought up by our non-GM friends. Wouldn't mind it, but I'm not exactly itching to make rule changes based on an opinion from someone who doesn't even have an account, let alone a team.
|
|
Pete Maravich
Washington Wizards
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 772
Total Bank: 55,000
|
Post by Pete Maravich on Dec 29, 2017 16:55:26 GMT -5
I would vote against that. I think people would be less likely to put what they feel is that players rating & more likely to be close to what the OP is asking (if they are asking anything at all ;)). I like the SW set up. I was just bitching about having to write a paragraph if I thought someone needed a SW.
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Dec 29, 2017 17:07:52 GMT -5
How would you guys feel about publishing people's votes after the change? Seems like best of both worlds and would calm any fears brought up by our non-GM friends. Wouldn't mind it, but I'm not exactly itching to make rule changes based on an opinion from someone who doesn't even have an account, let alone a team. I think it'd be helpful because the spreadsheet doesn't only show the votes but also the different overalls that would happen if we took the median or the mean and such and just how much it doesn't matter. We're really all on the same page even when we aren't!
|
|
|
Post by kong on Dec 29, 2017 19:50:20 GMT -5
How would you guys feel about publishing people's votes after the change? Seems like best of both worlds and would calm any fears brought up by our non-GM friends. Rather than that I was talking about discussing. If you ask me, GMs should be allowed to post nothing more and nothing less than one post with a player scouting report. The rest is just there to mislead. If you have a valid point your scouting report should speak for itself and if you think someone else is wrong so be it.
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Dec 29, 2017 20:49:33 GMT -5
How would you guys feel about publishing people's votes after the change? Seems like best of both worlds and would calm any fears brought up by our non-GM friends. Rather than that I was talking about discussing. If you ask me, GMs should be allowed to post nothing more and nothing less than one post with a player scouting report. The rest is just there to mislead. If you have a valid point your scouting report should speak for itself and if you think someone else is wrong so be it. That's an interesting idea. I see a few downfalls, such as if other people are posting incorrect information etc. And you're always welcome to vote in the stock watch or provide any input you have, Kong.
|
|
Allan Houston
New York Knicks
Deputy Commissioner
Posts: 4,110
Likes: 2,492
Total Bank: 76,000
|
Post by Allan Houston on Dec 29, 2017 21:56:34 GMT -5
As stock watch czar, I guess should say something. But fact is, I see both sides here.
In general, more discussion in general is good for the health of the league. Creating an active community is important. Plus it's fun to debate and talk about basketball.
Furthermore, these low effort posts suck for me in particular. Guys who do them are able to post a bunch at once. For each stock watch post, I have to update the form, the linked spreadsheet, and then edit each post to link the form. And I was adding the current rating as well if the OP didn't, but I started to get annoyed. Individually it doesn't take long, but if you post up 10 stock watches, it can get real tedious for me. So at the very least, forcing some effort to be put into the stock watch thread provides a bit of a barrier of entry, reducing my workload. And it makes sure that the most deserving changes get posted, rather than more marginal ones.
And for those of you worried that if it weren't for their low effort posts, the necessary adjustments wouldn't take place, know that I'm going to take up any slack. I keep a spreadsheet and regularly post the top guys who deserve an increase and decrease based on that sheet. My habit last year was 6 guys a week (3 increases, 3 decreases), But the SW has been very active with these posts, so I've held off a little bit.
On the other hand, as far as the stock watch "mini-game" is concerned, I do think there might be issues of signaling. There's a valid argument that the most "accurate" results would come from the least discussion, since the discussion is probably biased. That's the inspiration behind blind voting in the first place. I do think most of the vets here follow the NBA very closely and their perspectives aren't likely to be shifted by others' arguments. But if that the case, i.e. discussion has no deleterious effect on the voting, then discussion for it's own sake is good as mentioned above. And I think some newer folks and those who follow the NBA less, particularly when fringe players come up, might be influenced adversely by the signaling others. It does seem like when someone calls for an increase/decrease, that pretty much always happens. Of course, there's strong selection bias there. Idk, I think these worries might be more theoretical, but my game/voting theoretic background won't let go of them.
All that said, the Stock Watch guidelines do call for posters to include the current rating and whether an increase, decrease, or build change is called for. I'm going to stick by that guideline and start deleting the "is good" posts. You don't need a paragraph, let alone an essay. And please don't make me add more rules by spamming "Current Rating: X increase" posts.
|
|
Pete Maravich
Washington Wizards
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 772
Total Bank: 55,000
|
Post by Pete Maravich on Dec 29, 2017 22:25:08 GMT -5
Good post Allan. I can’t refute any point made so I concede my original argument. I thought I was helping by posting SW for players that were “due” either way but didn’t fully realize the additional work it was creating. I appreciate all the work you put in to these to help make the league run.
|
|
billy
Miami Heat
Posts: 7,174
Likes: 6,145
Total Bank: 3,050
|
Post by billy on Dec 29, 2017 22:29:54 GMT -5
Good post Allan. I can’t refute any point made so I concede my original argument. I thought I was helping by posting SW for players that were “due” either way but didn’t fully realize the additional work it was creating. I appreciate all the work you put in to these to help make the league run. 2 a day over 5 days is way better for us than 10 in one day. It also probably leads to more research by the voters.
|
|
|
Post by DJ Jazzy Jeff on Dec 30, 2017 4:46:03 GMT -5
Now, back to Kris Dunn. He really took a big step from last year. Honestly thought he was Jonny Flynn 2.0. Great distributor and playmaker, and has shown he can create his own shot. I like him
|
|
|
Kris Dunn
Dec 30, 2017 6:18:15 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Brian Scalabrine on Dec 30, 2017 6:18:15 GMT -5
Tbf, I did say that he was the real KD.
In seriousness though, he's a second year player who until now has been in the category where he seemed like he could wash out of the league, but was still so young that it didn't make sense to decrease him.
Now, he's clearly got a place in the league and seems like a guy every team would want somewhere on their squad, based on his play instead of his potential.
|
|
|
Kris Dunn
Dec 30, 2017 9:01:18 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Stuff The Magic Dragon on Dec 30, 2017 9:01:18 GMT -5
Tbf, I did say that he was the real KD. In seriousness though, he's a second year player who until now has been in the category where he seemed like he could wash out of the league, but was still so young that it didn't make sense to decrease him. Now, he's clearly got a place in the league and seems like a guy every team would want somewhere on their squad, based on his play instead of his potential. not on my team, Lonzo is the goat
|
|