View Single Post
02-07-2014, 01:36 PM
Registered User
BraveCanadian's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,767
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Yes, comparing to average would show how far above average star players are, but really, who cares? If the value of the average changes, I really don't give a rat's ass how far a player is above average, and I don't see why anyone else would.
Their value as a star is exactly equal to how much better than the average player with the same opportunities they are...

Why would I be afraid of that? If the standard used to create VsX is properly calibrated, an 85 before and after expansion should be treated equally.
1 - because it is impossible to calibrate properly. It started off as a system and ended up being massaged by hand to make it work.

2 - because they obviously aren't equal which is why you were worried about expansion on measuring how players did in the first place.

You seem to be proposing that the best players suddenly became significantly better in 1968 than they were in 1967, because suddenly they were farther above the league average. You can't possibly think that that is a rational result, can you?
That is not at all what I am saying.

The top players being farther from the average would illustrate explicitly that the average was possibly worse after the expansion rather than hide it.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote