BuzzerBeater Forums

I'm not going into a debate with someone who can put bible and science in the same sentence and not use the sentence for a joke. I'm not a biologist myself, but if your biology studies in high school still have you leaning towards creationism, than some biology course it must have been! And since I have better things to do, I'll just refer you to someone who should know what he's talking about

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/01/a_creationist_blog_quote_mines.php

Not entering in the discussion, but Richard Dawkins already explained that money part. Google it, just saying.

The first part was the whole creationism/ID argument. Anytime you hear someone say "evolutionist" it's a dead giveaway that they're a creationist. But I shouldn't even have stoked the flame bait, so that's the end of it you'll hear from me! :)

On topic of GS and DMI, like you said I have been tracking it pretty consistently for the past 2 seasons (though anyone who regularly uses buzzer-manager has been tracking it. If you click on your player where they show the week to week skills, they also track the GS and DMI from that week).

The only consistent things I've found are that DMI decreases 100 points every two weeks on untrained players. All my players are between 18 and 30, and salaries up to ~$7500, with stamina from 1 to 6. When I finally get a player to drop a second stamina level, I should be able to calculate the total contribution of a point of stamina to DMI (assuming it's all additive, at least when considering these types of players.

Other than that, in training mostly OD and PA, with some 1v1 this year, fully training of OD and PA increases DMI about 5000 on my guards, whereas 1v1 increased it about 3000. Again those exact values presuppose the actual skills of my guys, but these changes range from ODs from 7 to 10, PA from 5 to 8, and DR from about 2 to 7 or so.

It's harder to answer whether certain players prefer a certain number of minutes, or whether GS is affected by this week's and the previous week's minutes. I just don't have enough data to tease apart the random effects and the real effects.

Your example is incredbily fallacious because it assumes

1) That this is the only way the cell could have been arranged when probably infinite different ways would also have worked. It is like looking at a house and saying "what are the chances of every brick being exactly where it is so that the house can exist, 10 to the 950, must be the work of god." But anyone can easily see that while the arrangement of the bricks is indeed unique it actually doesn't matter, a diferent arrangement would have produced a different house it would still have produced something.

2) That there is only one chance to produce this miracle. Instead add up all the molecules in all of the universe, then multiply that number by all of time. It seems very unlikely looking at this that is wouldn't occur. Remember the old cliche? Sit a monkey in front of a piano for long enough and he will play Mozart.

3) Your actual example has some logic, which it doesn't. You are comparing something that happens with something that doesn't. It is like saying what is the chance of of me rolling 1000 dice and them all coming up with a 6? Very unlikely but possible. Then comparing it with what is the chance of the dice forming a society, building themselves into flowers and inventing socialism? Ridiculous. Like a jet building itself from scrap.

As far as GS goes it really seems to be a black art. I think I have expressed my theory based on a medium sized study that some players prefer more minutes than others. This could be a factor of age, stamina, hidden personality or something else, we didn't have a big enough sample (only about 100 players for a season) to draw conclusions. I do admit that my conclusions on GS could be false and this is where the previous evolution v creation discussion is relevant: any time you look at random events there is a temptation to see a hidden design and I could have fallen for this myself.

Last edited by yodabig at 9/25/2011 6:29:52 PM

The probabilities of that basic single cell forming itself is agreed by every scientist, no matter what they believe in. I am just saying I don't believe life created by chance because I think it's too complex for that. But if anyone want to believe life defied those odds, then it's their business, and I respect that. You sound so angry, relax.

Sorry if I sound angry. I'm not.

PS: I like your signature.

Unlike whatever wacky stuff is written in the bible, this is not about belief. There is evidence that favours evolution, and you make it sound like it's an eternal coin flip until a cell forms itself, when it's not. Not all processes are equally probable at the end of the day, and there's also something called "natural selection". And it really takes some lunacy to think that all the evolutionary biology could be undone by some little "see? this defies common sense" little jingle. I'm sure all this evolution of proteins and so on has been rigorously tested in labs by serious people and that the scientific community is not sitting on a big lie trying to hide the hand of the creator. The only one who makes a choice in this debate is the creationist, who chooses to be ignorant.

Wow, you never stop. You also said you don't want to debate with me. Shall we start? Also, both sides also state they have evidence on the table and both arguments have never ceased. You never miss the opportunity to take shots at people.

edit: sorry, i miss that you taking shots on me stating some mathematics. ask anybody who studies biology. it's true. any evolutionist scientist will agree with that. it's then a matter if you want to believe it or not, the chances that is.

Last edited by Ashurri at 9/25/2011 9:58:31 PM

I didn't read the whole thread because some of you started talking about cells and whatnot (how the hell did this thread deviate so much??), but I wanted to chime in with my two cents on GS.

I have this theory, backed up by examples, that I strongly believe in. The most applicable results for me are the ones that we draw from real examples. So my theory is a player has to play the same number of minutes each week to gain highest GS (proficient). So yes, he has to play somewhere between 48 and 80. But he should not alternate each week too much. Two examples:

Week 1: 56 min
Week 2: 70 min
Week 3: 48 min

These minutes won't guarantee you a desirable game shape. This player will probably stay on respectable GS or maybe strong GS with low sublevel. Now check up these two players:

Player 1: (5768298)
Player 2: (21393047)

Player 1 is constantly playing 90-96 min/week and he has a strong GS with decent sublevel (I deduct this from DMI). If he would be playing, say, 80 min/week constantly, he would be in even better GS.

Player 2, who is a trainee, plays constantly 48 min/week. Proficient GS. Nothing else to add.

I followed this logic for one of my players who is on TL and can't post him here. I played him as a starter in both league games, so he received around 75 min/week on constant basis. Result? Proficient GS for three weeks now in a row.


Last edited by Koperboy at 9/30/2011 1:48:59 AM

Just helping add data some people might think is useful. My 23 C/PF played grand total of 15 minutes last week, went up to Proficient GS this week from Strong. His DMI almost doubled, it's also the highest DMI he has this season (I was training 1 on 1 for Forwards past few weeks, he didn't pop anything). 15 minutes because last scrim he got injured in the first minute of the game.

So... I know maybe there are many other factors that count/come into play but... strong to prof GS by just playing 15 minutes the whole week??

Previous week he dropped from prof to strong (I'm not going to say because) playing 84 minutes.

If it helps, he has awful stamina. If it also helps, we're playing the 2nd best team in the league this week...

I'm going crazy about this GS thing.