| Tango01 | 06 Dec 2017 4:08 p.m. PST |
So good!
1/72
Main page
link
Amicalement
Armand
|
 Whirlwind  | 06 Dec 2017 4:09 p.m. PST |
Sabermetric techniques prove that Napoleon was the best battlefield general ever? link |
| Winston Smith | 06 Dec 2017 4:58 p.m. PST |
He doesn't understand why Hannibal ranked Pyrrhus #2. It was because of his sterling ability to construct fortified camps. 
Therefore Pyrrhus doesn't qualify for his rather stringent criteria.
But the real question is how well he did with men on base in scoring positions, since he's using sabermetrics. I wonder what would happen if Wellington and Napoleon had the same conversation as did Hannibal and Scipio. Would Nosey ask Boney if he would rank himself higher if he had defeated him? |
 Parzival | 06 Dec 2017 5:25 p.m. PST |
My ranking is simpler. In the end, did he win his war? If the answer is "no," then the guy (or lady) who beat him was the better general. |
| Sergeant Paper | 06 Dec 2017 6:32 p.m. PST |
So the Austrians? General Winter? Horatio Nelson? Boney got whipped several different ways. |
| Whirlwind | 07 Dec 2017 12:56 a.m. PST |
But the real question is how well he did with men on base in scoring positions, since he's using sabermetrics. You say that Winston, but surely the real problem is that he hasn't adjusted for park effects and era… |
| Whirlwind | 07 Dec 2017 12:58 a.m. PST |
Incidentally Armand, this bug is rubbish but those figures are lovely! |
| Puddinhead Johnson | 07 Dec 2017 5:53 a.m. PST |
He had an awesome slider and a respectable fastball. |
| robert piepenbrink | 07 Dec 2017 7:06 a.m. PST |
So, the guy who takes command once and wins despite overwhelming odds ranks as (not quite) 1 WAR. The flunkey just high up enough to be mentioned in wikipedia whose superior fights 12 battles at even odds and wins seven has a WAR of 1.5. And losing entire wars doesn't count because they aren't battles. I'm not as impressed as I'm evidently supposed to be. |
| 138SquadronRAF | 07 Dec 2017 8:43 a.m. PST |
this bug is rubbish but those figures are lovely! This bug is a "feature" and not rubbish. Criticism of the "bug" doubts the great wisdom of Our Dear Leader. |
| Winston Smith | 07 Dec 2017 9:46 a.m. PST |
|
| Tango01 | 07 Dec 2017 10:52 a.m. PST |
Glad you like them my friend! (smile) Amicalement
Armand |
| Frederick | 07 Dec 2017 8:23 p.m. PST |
Well, you can't argue with math You also have a hard time winning in the end when you manage to antagonize an entire continent against you! |
| Paul B | 08 Dec 2017 5:20 a.m. PST |
Does this system take into account the quality of the opponents they faced,
(troops and their general's)? |
| Whirlwind | 08 Dec 2017 5:42 a.m. PST |
Does this system take into account the quality of the opponents they faced,(troops and their general's)? NAFAIK. Personally I consider this whole thing as at the "mildly diverting" stage rather than anything else. |
 deadhead | 08 Dec 2017 8:41 a.m. PST |
Curiously the Napoleonic Forum did discuss whether longbows might have outclassed musketry in the age of Boney. Let's face it, rate of fire, degree of inaccuracy, impact and training needed not that different. Not as daft as it sounded, but the feeling was that the musket of the 1800s outdid the longbow……. |
| grahambeyrout | 08 Dec 2017 12:41 p.m. PST |
The ranking methodology takes the number of battles into account, as the author himself admits. Consequently Alexander, played 9, won 9 is ranked relatively low. |
| deadhead | 08 Dec 2017 2:15 p.m. PST |
This whole thread did appear on the utter drivel message board and, however valuable individual contributions, the chaos suggests that is where it belongs |
