Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 7:28:19 GMT -5
If we had to start today, I'd say 125.
|
|
|
Post by WHALERS_GM_AL on Oct 17, 2012 10:24:06 GMT -5
I'm good with 125.
Basically do a full season at 125, and then reevalute it in the off-season...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2012 10:26:22 GMT -5
I'm good with 125. Basically do a full season at 125, and then reevalute it in the off-season... I'd agree... seems like the worst case could be that theres not much change and we run some trials next season at 150 to see if it's too much? those are my thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Oct 17, 2012 11:34:05 GMT -5
Well, we need enough to get a strong sample base, or we're guessing. We don't need 100, but maybe 10? Also if we could increase to about 40 days, that would be a larger sample of each season. (43 days is roughly 25% of the full season) Ok, well it takes about a minimum 10-15 minutes to run a 40 day test, look through and record the info. So if you want 30 done (10 @ 3 different levels) it's gonna be a few days. Jon - Don't waste your valuable time - use your judgement and we'll trust it.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Oct 17, 2012 14:08:03 GMT -5
I agree with Alain and Chris.
Dont spend 3 days on this!
Why dont we just say 125 for the season and re-evaluate.
Or leave it as is until next season.
But doing statistical analysis for 3 days just doesnt seem like a good use of anyones time
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Oct 17, 2012 14:41:20 GMT -5
I go along with most here and say 125 and like others said don;t sweat it but spending days testing when you can be something else....like play music!
|
|
|
Post by BruinsGM on Oct 17, 2012 15:43:58 GMT -5
I go along with most here and say 125 and like others said don;t sweat it but spending days testing when you can be something else....like play music! 125 sounds good to me.. rock on
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Oct 17, 2012 19:37:16 GMT -5
Yeah I really don't have the patience to put in 2-3 hours running test sims. And if it's too high or too low then I gotta do it again. I say we set it between 115-120 and see how things go.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Oct 17, 2012 19:47:21 GMT -5
Yeah I really don't have the patience to put in 2-3 hours running test sims. And if it's too high or too low then I gotta do it again. I say we set it between 115-120 and see how things go. Sounds good, let's drop the Puck.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 17, 2012 20:52:55 GMT -5
Works for me
|
|
|
Post by Nordiques - Chris on Oct 17, 2012 21:46:31 GMT -5
Yeah I really don't have the patience to put in 2-3 hours running test sims. And if it's too high or too low then I gotta do it again. I say we set it between 115-120 and see how things go. I like that idea as well Jon - we might even find the previously suggested 125 is too much; so if an increase might be best to be on the conservative side. 115 is even a 15% increase, which could be fairly substantial.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 17, 2012 21:53:50 GMT -5
Sounds good to me as well. This is small issue and it's not worth Jon's time.
|
|
|
Post by RangersRon on Oct 18, 2012 7:18:10 GMT -5
Yeah I really don't have the patience to put in 2-3 hours running test sims. And if it's too high or too low then I gotta do it again. I say we set it between 115-120 and see how things go. Excellent!
|
|