Reply With Quote
Yeah really wish he took the of season more seriously. He had a slow start last year too and he had an excuse that he was new but this year he has no excuse.
When it comes to playoffs, most teams don't go over the 10 player rotation. Our top 10 above C looks good. But we really need LMA to be top 2.
Yeah really wish he took the of season more seriously. He had a slow start last year too and he had an excuse that he was new but this year he has no excuse.
Why do the scale?
Why just not the grades?
I wonder if our bigs, namely Pau and LMA, are being neglected, or we are being too harsh on them cause of Tim, or if they are just playing bad. I think overall it's been a combination of above stated suggestions
Tony getting a higher average score than every big other than Lee is just absurd.
It would be nice to see the grade rather than the number
C'mon guys...
OP, did a fantastic job and effort here. It's also pretty straightforward, if you want a different variation lf gradings you can easily get the answer by simple calculations using the data he assembled.
The biggest thing is that he assbled a data that we can all use to evaluate the players...We can all format differently.
3.1 is fine; unfortunately that value was ambiguous as to the method you used. You appear to be doing it correctly, soBecause I only used 1 decimal place, excel automatically rounded the 3.05 into 3.1. But will use two places from now on which is a more accurate approach. Thanx for the adviceand 1 place is OK. Since you're using Excel, you aren't rounding intermediate values (which is ALWAYS bad!), so there's no real worry about having 1 place at the end.
After 30 games or so I'd be interested in seeing if a separation between winning and losing scores becomes evident.
Again, good job!
On this you and I can agree...
Because you can't average letters.
So convert back at the end...
You could easily average the letters, seeing as every letter basically represents a number.Because you can't average letters.
So convert back at the end...
Tbh
It doesn't work that way at all. What do you get when you average an A and a B?
lol are you serious.
Every letter represents a number.
Average the numbers and the letter that corresponds to the answer is your letter.
WTH
And that is the point. The question was why numbers were being used. That question was answered.
I didn't ask for your methodology. I asked for the answer. I'm assuming you either have just realized what was wrong with your initial question or always knew and are just being difficult, because there's no way that you still can't see why the numbers are used.
And just to be clear, while every letter can represent a number, the vast, vast majority of numbers cannot correspond to any combination of letters. There are just too many.
Hey, I'm open to suggestions if that's gonna make things easier to understand. What do you suggest I use instead? A traditional academic scale?
???
A+ 97 4.33 A 93 4.00 A- 90 3.67 B+ 87 3.33 B 83 3.00 B- 80 2.67 C+ 77 2.33 C 73 2.00 C- 70 1.67 D+ 67 1.33 D 63 1.00 D- 60 0.67 F 0 0.00
I think you're fine, honestly.
No need to change anything, imo.
+1
Nice work Doc, thanks.
You're fine, Doc. Sorry for the trouble. I was just looking for some info; didn't intend for a storm to start. Of course, I've been around long enough I should know better...
can we get update?
Yes, I'm on it, don't worry mate
EDIT:
Actually, I'm gonna make a new Thread and to post this and future Game Grades Averages. Better than doing a new Thread every 10 games.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
