Playing on five teams?!?

[OrangePower]

This posts makes my head hurt.

You're the one arguing it is all or nothing. You're the one saying it will result in pushing those players from powerhouse teams. I'm the one highlighting it's a complex issue that you can't look at it in a vacuum like you're doing. It's not going to necessarily do that. It's going to push ringers to other powerhouse teams or create new powerhouse

I'm not ignoring opportunity costs. I'm just looking at them realistically. You're the person trying to argue that making more money would be bad for you because it's going to move you into a higher tax bracket. It's an illogical argument.

I've acknowledge you have a legitimate argument from the players perspective. Your proposal would eliminate the incentive for a lot of ringers to not play on additional teams.

But you're still refusing to acknowledge your proposal doesn't have the same impact from the captains perspective. At this point you're either reusing to admit you're wrong or you truly don't understand why your argument is wrong. Either way it's sad.

If we agree that it makes ringers less attractive to powerhouse captains, then the conclusion to be reached is that it will result in ringers being distributed differently, and that the new distribution will have less of them going to powerhouse teams. If you're not able to make that deductive step, then I can't help you.

Also I think you don't understand the concept of opportunity cost. The correct analogy for opportunity cost is: Let's say you have $1,000. Let's say you can invest this at 1% interest. Great, you can make $10 a year. But now let's say that you also have the opportunity to invest it at 5% interest, but choose not to. In this case the opportunity cost of choosing to invest at 1% is $40. If you can't follow that concept then I can see how my point would be lost on you.

In our scenario, the opportunity cost is the playoff-eligible players you could have recruited to fill your roster spots instead of the playoff-ineligible ringers. This of course assumes that roster spots are limited - an assumption I've acknowledged multiple times, but that happens to be realistic.

 

[Startzel]

If we agree that it makes ringers less attractive to powerhouse captains, then the conclusion to be reached is that it will result in ringers being distributed differently, and that the new distribution will have less of them going to powerhouse teams. If you're not able to make that deductive step, then I can't help you.

Also I think you don't understand the concept of opportunity cost. The correct analogy for opportunity cost is: Let's say you have $1,000. Let's say you can invest this at 1% interest. Great, you can make $10 a year. But now let's say that you also have the opportunity to invest it at 5% interest, but choose not to. In this case the opportunity cost of choosing to invest at 1% is $40. If you can't follow that concept then I can see how my point would be lost on you.

In our scenario, the opportunity cost is the playoff-eligible players you could have recruited to fill your roster spots instead of the playoff-ineligible ringers. This of course assumes that roster spots are limited - an assumption I've acknowledged multiple times, but that happens to be realistic.

What happens to your opportunity cost when you don't take that ringer and you end up not even making the playoffs because another team in the league took that ringer?

The problem is you are continuing to look at this in an either or scenario. Yeah you might take the 1% option and that's worse than the 5% option. But it's still better than the option you're proposing to just not take a ringer and lose 2% to inflation.

You guys can continue to accuse me of trolling, but this is clearly a time when you're wrong. It's unfortunate you're unable to admit it or maybe you truly don't understand why you're wrong.

You're better off arguing it from the player perspective, because that's actually a legitimate argument.

 

[OrangePower]

What happens to your opportunity cost when you don't take that ringer and you end up not even making the playoffs because another team in the league took that ringer?

The problem is you are continuing to look at this in an either or scenario. Yeah you might take the 1% option and that's worse than the 5% option. But it's still better than the option you're proposing to just not take a ringer and lose 2% to inflation.

You guys can continue to accuse me of trolling, but this is clearly a time when you're wrong. It's unfortunate you're unable to admit it or maybe you truly don't understand why you're wrong.

You're better off arguing it from the player perspective, because that's actually a legitimate argument.

I appreciate you making a coherent response. I agree with you that taking a non-playoff-eligible ringer is better than leaving that roster spot open. Is that the point you've been trying to make?

That is not however what I've been postulating, and not what would happen in reality. Powerhouse teams are able to attract enough good players to fill out their rosters. So the choice would really be between A+ caliber non-playoff-eligible players or A caliber playoff-eligible players. And I've already demonstrated which is the better choice between these two options.

There is no need to debate the impact on the ringers' motivation, since that is so clear even to you. Of course, it's just another aspect of the same proposition. At the end of the day you either accept that the proposition would have a positive impact, or not.

 

[Startzel]

I appreciate you making a coherent response. I agree with you that taking a non-playoff-eligible ringer is better than leaving that roster spot open. Is that the point you've been trying to make?

That is not however what I've been postulating, and not what would happen in reality. Powerhouse teams are able to attract enough good players to fill out their rosters. So the choice would really be between A+ caliber non-playoff-eligible players or A caliber playoff-eligible players. And I've already demonstrated which is the better choice between these two options.

There is no need to debate the impact on the ringers' motivation, since that is so clear even to you. Of course, it's just another aspect of the same proposition. At the end of the day you either accept that the proposition would have a positive impact, or not.

No. I'm pointing out the issue is much more complex than the either or scenario you're presenting.

You haven't shown you're better off taking the weaker player. You've shown you would be better off in the playoffs.

However, you've ignored the fact you have to get to the playoffs first. You're assuming the team will. That's an awfully big assumption.

Your proposal would make a positive impact but not for the reason you're currently arguing.

 

[OrangePower]

No. I'm pointing out the issue is much more complex than the either or scenario you're presenting.

You haven't shown you're better off taking the weaker player. You've shown you would be better off in the playoffs.

However, you've ignored the fact you have to get to the playoffs first. You're assuming the team will. That's an awfully big assumption.

Your proposal would make a positive impact but not for the reason you're currently arguing.

The probabilities of getting to playoffs first have not been ignored. Please go re-read posts 77 and 86. They will walk you through example probabilities in the two scenarios, both in terms of making playoffs at all, and then in terms of progressing, and then what the final expected 'payout' would be.
If you have specific examples with alternate or conflicting probabilities to offer, please provide your take on the numbers and we can discuss.

At any rate, the discussion is academic at this point since we both conclude that the proposal would make a positive impact. I doubt anyone else is still reading this thread so we can put it to bed, unless you want to discuss the numbers as per above.

 

[Startzel]

The probabilities of getting to playoffs first have not been ignored. Please go re-read posts 77 and 86. They will walk you through example probabilities in the two scenarios, both in terms of making playoffs at all, and then in terms of progressing, and then what the final expected 'payout' would be.
If you have specific examples with alternate or conflicting probabilities to offer, please provide your take on the numbers and we can discuss.

At any rate, the discussion is academic at this point since we both conclude that the proposal would make a positive impact. I doubt anyone else is still reading this thread so we can put it to bed, unless you want to discuss the numbers as per above.

Yeah it's time to end the conversation because we are at the point where you're just refusing to admit you were wrong.

I post on my phone so I don't see the post #s. But im assuming you're referring to the numbers you and s&v are using. Those numbers are just made up percentages. I can make up numbers just like you can.

Team A with ringers: 100% chance to win local league. 25% chance of winning district.

Team A without ringers: 40% chance of winning local league. 40% chance at winning district.

You're more than 1.5 times more likely to win district by taking the ringers.

 

[navigator]

^^ Ha.

I'm not even part of this discussion - I don't even know what it's about - but I'll occasionally click on a Startzel post to make sure that the discussion has devolved into one of the following phrases (or a derivation thereof):

"You're refusing to admit you're wrong."
"You're illogical."
"You're a cheater."
"That's cheating."
"You're a pusher."
"Pushing is not real tennis."

Virtually all of his posts are about his being right, the other person being wrong and/or illogical, and complaints about pushing and cheating. The consistency is pretty incredible.

 

[OrangePower]

Yeah it's time to end the conversation because we are at the point where you're just refusing to admit you were wrong.

I post on my phone so I don't see the post #s. But im assuming you're referring to the numbers you and s&v are using. Those numbers are just made up percentages. I can make up numbers just like you can.

Team A with ringers: 100% chance to win local league. 25% chance of winning district.

Team A without ringers: 40% chance of winning local league. 40% chance at winning district.

You're more than 1.5 times more likely to win district by taking the ringers.

Difference being, I made an honest attempt to use numbers I believe are realistic, whereas you are being disingenuous with your example.
I actually had a couple of real examples from my local league in mind when coming up with those numbers; you're just making stuff up as you said.

Anyway I agree that we should drop it. You can have the last word if you'd like.

 

[Startzel]

Difference being, I made an honest attempt to use numbers I believe are realistic, whereas you are being disingenuous with your example.
I actually had a couple of real examples from my local league in mind when coming up with those numbers; you're just making stuff up as you said.

Anyway I agree that we should drop it. You can have the last word if you'd like.

So your made up numbers have more validity than my made up numbers?

It isn't even about getting in the last word. It's about helping you realize how dumb that sounds.

 

[dizzlmcwizzl]

Here, you can play in all of the local playoffs and only have to pick a team if both teams make the sectional round.

The rule is a little different this year John. Once you have played for a team in local playoffs that has qualified for sectionals you may no longer participate in local playoffs for another team at the same level in the section. Additionally, you are only allowed to play with that team at sectionals. However if one of your other teams makes nationals you may then go with them after sectionals provided you have played enough matches.

Ultimately, I think this rule was aimed at our local "darling" that manages to get 4 teams into sectionals from different districts each year.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

But im assuming you're referring to the numbers you and s&v are using. Those numbers are just made up percentages.

I used the #s Orange provided in his example, true enough. They seemed like a reasonable SWAG to an essentially unquantifiable problem. You, on the other hand, by your own admission, made up your #s to try to show everyone you're right with no apparent concern of addressing the issue being discussed. IMO, Orange's method makes sense [although one could argue with his exact #s] whereas yours does not.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

^^ Ha.

I'm not even part of this discussion - I don't even know what it's about - but I'll occasionally click on a Startzel post to make sure that the discussion has devolved into one of the following phrases (or a derivation thereof):

"You're refusing to admit you're wrong."
"You're illogical."
"You're a cheater."
"That's cheating."
"You're a pusher."
"Pushing is not real tennis."

Virtually all of his posts are about his being right, the other person being wrong and/or illogical, and complaints about pushing and cheating. The consistency is pretty incredible.

Other hallmarks:

"Your post makes my head hurt."
"If you can't follow my logic, you shouldn't be reading the thread."
"Your opinion is wrong."
"I can't believe you guys are so bad at logic [that you can't understand MY logic]."
"We both know that I'm right."
"Everybody knows that I'm right."
"It's a fact that I'm right."
"I'm glad you admit X." [after the poster just explained why he disagreed with X]

 

[Startzel]

I used the #s Orange provided in his example, true enough. They seemed like a reasonable SWAG to an essentially unquantifiable problem. You, on the other hand, by your own admission, made up your #s to try to show everyone you're right with no apparent concern of addressing the issue being discussed. IMO, Orange's method makes sense [although one could argue with his exact #s] whereas yours does not.

His method makes sense even though we did the exact same thing.

Makes sense.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

His method makes sense even though we did the exact same thing.

Makes sense.

I pointed out where I thought your two methods varied. It appears Orange made a good faith effort to come up with realistic #s to illustrate a point. You made no such effort but stated that you came up with #s just to contradict Orange's conclusion. Therefore, in my book, Orange's #s have some validity and yours do not.

 

[Startzel]

I pointed out where I thought your two methods varied. It appears Orange made a good faith effort to come up with realistic #s to illustrate a point. You made no such effort but stated that you came up with #s just to contradict Orange's conclusion. Therefore, in my book, Orange's #s have some validity and yours do not.

How do you know my numbers weren't in good faith?

My numbers look more realistic than Orange's.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

How do you know my numbers weren't in good faith?

Because of what you wrote:

"I can make up numbers just like you can."

It's possible Orange's #s aren't in good faith although he made a reasonable attempt to justify them.

By contrast, your #s are for sure not in good faith because you said yourself you were only making them up, presumably to reach the opposite conclusion that Orange did.

Maybe it's because you operate with a different definition of "good faith" that I do.