|
Post by gotlaid on Jun 26, 2011 1:35:15 GMT -5
Anything about running the draft order through again to make it more "random"? Maybe 4-5 times and averaging the results to make it completely random?
|
|
|
Post by playmaker26 on Jun 26, 2011 6:04:28 GMT -5
Anything about running the draft order through again to make it more "random"? Maybe 4-5 times and averaging the results to make it completely random? That doesn't really do anything - it's completely random every time.
|
|
|
Post by gotlaid on Jun 26, 2011 6:10:03 GMT -5
Anything about running the draft order through again to make it more "random"? Maybe 4-5 times and averaging the results to make it completely random? I'm just thinking that it would make it more random... If you put it through just once it's like rolling a dice just once. If you put it through a few times it just makes it that much more random. But if you are happy with just once, it's fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by drury2396 on Jun 26, 2011 9:36:17 GMT -5
Anything about running the draft order through again to make it more "random"? Maybe 4-5 times and averaging the results to make it completely random? I'm just thinking that it would make it more random... If you put it through just once it's like rolling a dice just once. If you put it through a few times it just makes it that much more random. But if you are happy with just once, it's fair enough. LOL, somebody needs a quick lesson in probability. 1 or 100 times it makes absolutely no difference.
|
|
|
Post by gotlaid on Jun 26, 2011 17:16:24 GMT -5
Yeah it would make a difference... because it would even it out, so it's not based on one result. It's the same as a scientific study, you test say 50-100 subjects to see if the study is randomly conclusive. You don't just study one person then draw conclusions from one person.
I would pretty much guarantee you that even if we did it for a second time the results would be different than what we have now...
|
|
|
Post by drury2396 on Jun 26, 2011 17:35:11 GMT -5
Yeah it would make a difference... because it would even it out, so it's not based on one result. It's the same as a scientific study, you test say 50-100 subjects to see if the study is randomly conclusive. You don't just study one person then draw conclusions from one person. I would pretty much guarantee you that even if we did it for a second time the results would be different than what we have now... Doesn't matter whether it's based on one or result or ten billion - this has no semblance to a scientific experiment. If we did it a second time, yes, it would be different - but that's aimless. It's as random doing it one time as it is doing it a million times. And believe me, I wish we could since I have 9th crack at FA's and there are some good ones.
|
|
|
Post by gotlaid on Jun 26, 2011 17:37:33 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we have to do it. I'm just thinking it's more fair if we did it a couple of times that way it's just not one time luck of the draw type thing. Not a biggy...
|
|
|
Post by drury2396 on Jun 26, 2011 17:38:35 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying we have to do it. I'm just thinking it's more fair if we did it a couple of times that way it's just not one time luck of the draw type thing. Not a biggy... Yeah, if everyone felt that way I'd be fine with it. I'm just saying, scientifically it makes no difference in terms of "randomness."
|
|
|
Post by seadawg on Jun 26, 2011 17:41:12 GMT -5
Random is random. I don't see the point in doing it again.
|
|
|
Post by gotlaid on Jun 26, 2011 17:44:11 GMT -5
fair enough
|
|