03-22-2019, 10:05 AM(This post was last modified: 03-22-2019, 10:07 AM by GCool.)
03-22-2019, 09:56 AMcpetrella Wrote:
03-22-2019, 08:20 AMGCool Wrote: Nah, I have a problem with that, too. It's bullshit and has little reading value. It's cool stuff, but that's about it. With all of his TPE ranking threads being a circle jerk, why would I post a critical reply in there? It would just get lost.
So you come and critique a new user’s post thats just trying to make money and is just starting out on the site? I don’t see the logic in that. Wouldn’t you want more people to see the issues? Commenting this on Luke’s medias would be much more practical if thats what you want.
Also, who wants to get paid maybe 600k for a bunch of work? These statistical things are not easy to set up like god forbid users get paid for it.
I've been trying to talk to Luke about a lot of things for weeks, especially on the updating side of things. I continuously get ignored. I even approached him privately to see if he was taking issue with things I was saying, since my tone does come off as largely negative most of the time (yeah, sorry). It seemed fine, but I don't get the response from him that makes me think a technical conversation is worth either of our time.
If you want to question my approach, that's fine, but gordie clearly picked up what I put down. It almost makes more sense for me to approach a new guy, since you guys have just been applauding graphs of a veteran user for multiple seasons. Nothing I can really do about that. There's no practicality associated with posting comments anywhere, if I'm honest. People just glance over what I say 90% of the time. I commented on this because I had commented on a previous post of gordie's - saying that a certain rating could be normalized by TPE and maybe produce a result that could be better interpreted - and gordie had been posting quite often lately.
There's absolutely no way that someone would be paid just 600k for doing work. I know that we base it on word count, but look at Izzy's comments about creating videos. We all know this takes extra work to do, and we haven't fully automated media grading [yet, omg], so it would get rewarded a bonus. @Baelor Swift advocated for that back in the day and I'm pretty sure it still happens. But yeah, I even commented at first that if that was indeed the fear, then I completely understand the approach of just publishing all the data.
Did I miss anything? Also FWIW, this stat in particular is easy to set up. I like the approach, but it's not complex.
03-22-2019, 09:56 AMcpetrella Wrote: So you come and critique a new user’s post thats just trying to make money and is just starting out on the site? I don’t see the logic in that. Wouldn’t you want more people to see the issues? Commenting this on Luke’s medias would be much more practical if thats what you want.
Also, who wants to get paid maybe 600k for a bunch of work? These statistical things are not easy to set up like god forbid users get paid for it.
I've been trying to talk to Luke about a lot of things for weeks, especially on the updating side of things. I continuously get ignored. I even approached him privately to see if he was taking issue with things I was saying, since my tone does come off as largely negative most of the time (yeah, sorry). It seemed fine, but I don't get the response from him that makes me think a technical conversation is worth either of our time.
If you want to question my approach, that's fine, but gordie clearly picked up what I put down. It almost makes more sense for me to approach a new guy, since you guys have just been applauding graphs of a veteran user for multiple seasons. Nothing I can really do about that. There's no practicality associated with posting comments anywhere, if I'm honest. People just glance over what I say 90% of the time. I commented on this because I had commented on a previous post of gordie's - saying that a certain rating could be normalized by TPE and maybe produce a result that could be better interpreted - and gordie had been posting quite often lately.
There's absolutely no way that someone would be paid just 600k for doing work. I know that we base it on word count, but look at Izzy's comments about creating videos. We all know this takes extra work to do, and we haven't fully automated media grading [yet, omg], so it would get rewarded a bonus. @Baelor Swift advocated for that back in the day and I'm pretty sure it still happens. But yeah, I even commented at first that if that was indeed the fear, then I completely understand the approach of just publishing all the data.
Did I miss anything? Also FWIW, this stat in particular is easy to set up. I like the approach, but it's not complex.
I don't agree with this at all, I like stats and people who take the time to gather it, even if it's mostly automated or scripted.
It brings value to the league and should be encouraged, not discouraged.
Lukes articles might be structure in the same way over again but they are something I look forward to each season.
03-22-2019, 10:15 AM(This post was last modified: 03-22-2019, 10:21 AM by GCool.)
03-22-2019, 10:13 AMMayuu Wrote:
03-22-2019, 10:05 AMGCool Wrote: I've been trying to talk to Luke about a lot of things for weeks, especially on the updating side of things. I continuously get ignored. I even approached him privately to see if he was taking issue with things I was saying, since my tone does come off as largely negative most of the time (yeah, sorry). It seemed fine, but I don't get the response from him that makes me think a technical conversation is worth either of our time.
If you want to question my approach, that's fine, but gordie clearly picked up what I put down. It almost makes more sense for me to approach a new guy, since you guys have just been applauding graphs of a veteran user for multiple seasons. Nothing I can really do about that. There's no practicality associated with posting comments anywhere, if I'm honest. People just glance over what I say 90% of the time. I commented on this because I had commented on a previous post of gordie's - saying that a certain rating could be normalized by TPE and maybe produce a result that could be better interpreted - and gordie had been posting quite often lately.
There's absolutely no way that someone would be paid just 600k for doing work. I know that we base it on word count, but look at Izzy's comments about creating videos. We all know this takes extra work to do, and we haven't fully automated media grading [yet, omg], so it would get rewarded a bonus. @Baelor Swift advocated for that back in the day and I'm pretty sure it still happens. But yeah, I even commented at first that if that was indeed the fear, then I completely understand the approach of just publishing all the data.
Did I miss anything? Also FWIW, this stat in particular is easy to set up. I like the approach, but it's not complex.
I don't agree with this at all, I like stats and people who take the time to gather it, even if it's mostly automated or scripted.
It brings value to the league and should be encouraged, not discouraged.
Lukes articles might be structure in the same way over again but they are something I look forward to each season.
In what way am I discouraging stats being gathered? I'm encouraging it. I just wish it was actually visualized and interpreted to produce a conversation. Not just a list of 9000 words, most of them player names, and then 15 replies of "neat look at my player".
If it never changes, I don't really fucking care. I'm just providing my view on it. It's only half the work to produce the data.
Quick example: If you look at my chart on the first page, you'd see all sort of underperformed by virtue of this metric versus their final standing - but especially . They had the most "powerful" first line and weren't far off the pace with the 3rd line, yet finished out of the playoffs. Points to a huge chemistry problem.
To that point, LA and Minnesota overperformed based on the overall strength of their line, which makes sense given the additional playing time that strong players get on their roster.
03-22-2019, 09:56 AMcpetrella Wrote: So you come and critique a new user’s post thats just trying to make money and is just starting out on the site? I don’t see the logic in that. Wouldn’t you want more people to see the issues? Commenting this on Luke’s medias would be much more practical if thats what you want.
Also, who wants to get paid maybe 600k for a bunch of work? These statistical things are not easy to set up like god forbid users get paid for it.
I've been trying to talk to Luke about a lot of things for weeks, especially on the updating side of things. I continuously get ignored. I even approached him privately to see if he was taking issue with things I was saying, since my tone does come off as largely negative most of the time (yeah, sorry). It seemed fine, but I don't get the response from him that makes me think a technical conversation is worth either of our time.
If you want to question my approach, that's fine, but gordie clearly picked up what I put down. It almost makes more sense for me to approach a new guy, since you guys have just been applauding graphs of a veteran user for multiple seasons. Nothing I can really do about that. There's no practicality associated with posting comments anywhere, if I'm honest. People just glance over what I say 90% of the time. I commented on this because I had commented on a previous post of gordie's - saying that a certain rating could be normalized by TPE and maybe produce a result that could be better interpreted - and gordie had been posting quite often lately.
There's absolutely no way that someone would be paid just 600k for doing work. I know that we base it on word count, but look at Izzy's comments about creating videos. We all know this takes extra work to do, and we haven't fully automated media grading [yet, omg], so it would get rewarded a bonus. @Baelor Swift advocated for that back in the day and I'm pretty sure it still happens. But yeah, I even commented at first that if that was indeed the fear, then I completely understand the approach of just publishing all the data.
Did I miss anything? Also FWIW, this stat in particular is easy to set up. I like the approach, but it's not complex.
You’d be shocked how little people get paid for doing work like this. I understand people like Luke get paid well but from my understanding that’s the outlier. I don’t see any issue with people posting articles like this at all.
03-22-2019, 10:35 AMcpetrella Wrote: You’d be shocked how little people get paid for doing work like this. I understand people like Luke get paid well but from my understanding that’s the outlier. I don’t see any issue with people posting articles like this at all.
I'd be offended if these people get paid less than double what the cell count is (1 cell = 1 word). It takes a few hours to set this shit up in a sheet, and I'd pay more if it was output in a way that was aesthetically pleasing.
I really just want to reiterate for emphasis: I'm not taking an issue with the articles being posted. If I even literally said that in this thread, I apologize. My issue is the realization of this data, these metrics, some recaps and findings ... it's just lazy data. Whether or not it's for the sake of getting what's rightfully theirs (when we're talking about word count and payout), it's not fun to read. I'd much prefer graphs.
This is coming from someone who looks at graphs, theory, and everything in-between all day. Text and raw data is essential for some interpretation, sometimes it's best left to a visual. Either way, they deserve equal pay, if not bonuses for added aesthetics.
03-22-2019, 11:23 AM(This post was last modified: 03-22-2019, 11:26 AM by luke.)
03-22-2019, 10:05 AMGCool Wrote:
03-22-2019, 09:56 AMcpetrella Wrote: So you come and critique a new user’s post thats just trying to make money and is just starting out on the site? I don’t see the logic in that. Wouldn’t you want more people to see the issues? Commenting this on Luke’s medias would be much more practical if thats what you want.
Also, who wants to get paid maybe 600k for a bunch of work? These statistical things are not easy to set up like god forbid users get paid for it.
I've been trying to talk to Luke about a lot of things for weeks, especially on the updating side of things. I continuously get ignored. I even approached him privately to see if he was taking issue with things I was saying, since my tone does come off as largely negative most of the time (yeah, sorry). It seemed fine, but I don't get the response from him that makes me think a technical conversation is worth either of our time.
If you want to question my approach, that's fine, but gordie clearly picked up what I put down. It almost makes more sense for me to approach a new guy, since you guys have just been applauding graphs of a veteran user for multiple seasons. Nothing I can really do about that. There's no practicality associated with posting comments anywhere, if I'm honest. People just glance over what I say 90% of the time. I commented on this because I had commented on a previous post of gordie's - saying that a certain rating could be normalized by TPE and maybe produce a result that could be better interpreted - and gordie had been posting quite often lately.
There's absolutely no way that someone would be paid just 600k for doing work. I know that we base it on word count, but look at Izzy's comments about creating videos. We all know this takes extra work to do, and we haven't fully automated media grading [yet, omg], so it would get rewarded a bonus. @Baelor Swift advocated for that back in the day and I'm pretty sure it still happens. But yeah, I even commented at first that if that was indeed the fear, then I completely understand the approach of just publishing all the data.
Did I miss anything? Also FWIW, this stat in particular is easy to set up. I like the approach, but it's not complex.
Well I was never dodging your questions or anything like that, I said I was busy and I read a lot of stuff on my phone and when I get home I forget to reply to a lot of things, especially this past couple weeks with midterms and shit. Ill gladly discuss whatever has been on your mind.
I dont see anything wrong with what Gordie is doing, seeing as Media revolves around word counts, In most of all my media that Ive made what I have seen is word count matters the most. You would be suprised about how much work something takes, trying to explain it in a clear and concise way as possible with as many graphs and stuff and only get paid the word count + 5% of the word count. Its very frusterating when you put all that time and effort into it and barely get paid anything, so thats why word count matters. You can see that in my media talking about the graphs that I post because graphs alone dont make up for much. So my argument is as long as the Media grades for Word count go with that system because you could put hours of work into what youre doing and earn like 1 or 2 mil, even if its not complex its still something that brings value to the site.
03-22-2019, 10:39 AMGCool Wrote:
03-22-2019, 10:35 AMcpetrella Wrote: You’d be shocked how little people get paid for doing work like this. I understand people like Luke get paid well but from my understanding that’s the outlier. I don’t see any issue with people posting articles like this at all.
I'd be offended if these people get paid less than double what the cell count is (1 cell = 1 word). It takes a few hours to set this shit up in a sheet, and I'd pay more if it was output in a way that was aesthetically pleasing.
I really just want to reiterate for emphasis: I'm not taking an issue with the articles being posted. If I even literally said that in this thread, I apologize. My issue is the realization of this data, these metrics, some recaps and findings ... it's just lazy data. Whether or not it's for the sake of getting what's rightfully theirs (when we're talking about word count and payout), it's not fun to read. I'd much prefer graphs.
This is coming from someone who looks at graphs, theory, and everything in-between all day. Text and raw data is essential for some interpretation, sometimes it's best left to a visual. Either way, they deserve equal pay, if not bonuses for added aesthetics.
And its not like I dont agree with you on this. I 100% agree that if youre able to see the data more clearly its a lot better, but with taht there needs to be a better way to grade it, but there isnt so thats why im advocating for word count, if the system changes I would love to see it. I prefer graphs all the time because its an easier way to look at data and pull the importance from it.
Also when I write those articles and people say "oh look at me" thats exactly what I write those articles for, to show people where they are compared to others
03-22-2019, 08:46 AMuGCool Wrote: Here's my attempt @gordieboom . This was just a cursory glance at what you had provided. You could break it down by position, best player on each line, etc ... I'm sure you have the Excel data since that's probably how you copied it down. But doing things like conditional formatting and normalization make it look a little cooler while giving you a window to actually explain your findings more thoroughly:
Does that make sense? I hardly want to be perceived as "all talk" - I like the work some of you guys are doing, it's just an eyesore sometimes when I want to actually read something cool or understand the creator's reasoning and gist of the data in the first place. Creating numbers is easy when you have a simulator! Interpretation is what deserves bonus fake money.
Edit: Noticed a sorting mistake my formula on the last table made. Seems like a few teams went up in rank when you normalize it - interesting!
Thanks, hadn’t thought about excel screenshot.. It indeed does make it more readable.
GCool
Mayuu
all sort of underperformed by virtue of this metric versus their final standing - but especially 
. They had the most "powerful" first line and weren't far off the pace with the 3rd line, yet finished out of the playoffs. Points to a huge chemistry problem.
![[Image: pppoopoo.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/pppoopoo.gif)
![[Image: 7925.png]](https://simulationhockey.com/tradingcards/7925.png)
![[Image: 0XJkcN5.png]](http://i.imgur.com/0XJkcN5.png)
PROFILE
![[Image: luketd.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/luketd.gif)
![[Image: o16vFLm.png]](https://i.imgur.com/o16vFLm.png)
| 
