Warrior General Games

Projected Standings

Rk Team W L T % PF PA
1 Christchurch Knightmares 16 0 0 100% 1,484 70
2 Tonga Thunderbirds 15 1 0 94% 1,700 281
3 Chinese Bandits 14 2 0 88% 1,047 244
4 El Fuego 13 3 0 81% 1,167 309
5 Solomon Islands Alchemy 11 5 0 69% 1,421 294
6 Mauna Kea Chenabogs 11 5 0 69% 1,266 499
7 Tasmania Devils 10 6 0 63% 766 261
8 Dunedin Wolverines 10 6 0 63% 1,006 316
9 The Four Horsemen 7 9 0 44% 1,212 1,735
10 Redscape Diplomats 6 10 0 38% 945 478
11 Coney Island Warriors 6 10 0 38% 917 563
12 Cimmerian Barbarians 5 11 0 31% 786 494
13 Uluru Rockies 4 12 0 25% 500 611
14 Tasmania Sand Gnats 2 14 0 13% 421 920
15 Los Cabolo Sharks 1 15 0 6% 22 4,250
16 Brisbane Brown Bears 0 16 0 0% 0 3,394



Toughest Remaining Schedule

Opponents'
Rk Team W L T % PF PA
1 Christchurch Knightmares 39 21 0 65% 3,060 1,399
2 Tasmania Sand Gnats 35 25 0 58% 3,310 3,442
3 Cimmerian Barbarians 34 26 0 57% 2,933 2,522
4 Redscape Diplomats 32 28 0 53% 2,798 2,462
5 Uluru Rockies 31 29 0 52% 3,183 3,402
6 El Fuego 31 29 0 52% 3,033 2,414
7 Tasmania Devils 30 30 0 50% 3,057 2,645
8 Chinese Bandits 29 31 0 48% 2,876 2,628
9 Solomon Islands Alchemy 29 31 0 48% 2,604 2,702
10 Los Cabolo Sharks 29 31 0 48% 2,438 2,654
11 The Four Horsemen 27 33 0 45% 3,050 2,506
12 Tonga Thunderbirds 27 33 0 45% 2,838 2,674
13 Mauna Kea Chenabogs 27 33 0 45% 2,812 2,684
14 Dunedin Wolverines 27 33 0 45% 2,473 4,876
15 Coney Island Warriors 27 33 0 45% 2,466 3,573
16 Brisbane Brown Bears 26 34 0 43% 2,379 2,727



Toughest Schedule So Far

Opponents'
Rk Team W L T % PF PA
1 Tonga Thunderbirds 20 10 0 67% 1,446 1,428
2 Brisbane Brown Bears 19 11 0 63% 1,178 778
3 Los Cabolo Sharks 18 12 0 60% 1,087 627
4 Uluru Rockies 17 13 0 57% 1,668 820
5 Solomon Islands Alchemy 16 14 0 53% 1,746 1,558
6 The Four Horsemen 16 14 0 53% 1,290 1,687
7 Dunedin Wolverines 15 15 0 50% 1,747 700
8 Coney Island Warriors 15 15 0 50% 1,565 1,617
9 Chinese Bandits 15 15 0 50% 1,353 1,692
10 Mauna Kea Chenabogs 15 15 0 50% 1,270 1,590
11 Tasmania Devils 14 16 0 47% 1,361 1,699
12 Redscape Diplomats 13 17 0 43% 1,512 1,649
13 Cimmerian Barbarians 13 17 0 43% 1,497 1,674
14 El Fuego 13 17 0 43% 1,371 1,752
15 Tasmania Sand Gnats 13 17 0 43% 1,354 837
16 Christchurch Knightmares 8 22 0 27% 1,210 2,547



Toughest Opponents in Defeats

Opponents'
Rk Team W L T % PF PA
1 Chinese Bandits 5 0 0 100% 452 89
2 El Fuego 5 0 0 100% 448 89
3 The Four Horsemen 5 0 0 100% 447 90
4 Mauna Kea Chenabogs 5 0 0 100% 426 72
5 Coney Island Warriors 13 2 0 87% 1,275 253
6 Uluru Rockies 16 4 0 80% 1,299 429
7 Tasmania Devils 12 3 0 80% 1,050 340
8 Dunedin Wolverines 12 3 0 80% 1,014 245
9 Solomon Islands Alchemy 15 5 0 75% 1,428 303
10 Cimmerian Barbarians 13 7 0 65% 1,419 434
11 Brisbane Brown Bears 19 11 0 63% 1,178 778
12 Los Cabolo Sharks 18 12 0 60% 1,087 627
13 Redscape Diplomats 13 12 0 52% 1,505 541
14 Tasmania Sand Gnats 13 17 0 43% 1,354 837



Toughest Opponents in Victories

Opponents'
Rk Team W L T % PF PA
1 Tonga Thunderbirds 20 10 0 67% 1,446 1,428
2 The Four Horsemen 11 14 0 44% 843 1,597
3 Chinese Bandits 10 15 0 40% 901 1,603
4 Mauna Kea Chenabogs 10 15 0 40% 844 1,518
5 El Fuego 8 17 0 32% 923 1,663
6 Christchurch Knightmares 8 22 0 27% 1,210 2,547
7 Dunedin Wolverines 3 12 0 20% 733 455
8 Tasmania Devils 2 13 0 13% 311 1,359
9 Coney Island Warriors 2 13 0 13% 290 1,364
10 Uluru Rockies 1 9 0 10% 369 391
11 Solomon Islands Alchemy 1 9 0 10% 318 1,255
12 Cimmerian Barbarians 0 10 0 0% 78 1,240
13 Redscape Diplomats 0 5 0 0% 7 1,108



GAME 7 PREDICTIONS:

Knightmares 37, El Fuego 6

Wolverines 30, Chenabogs 28

Thunderbirds 66, Barbarians 13

Alchemy 202, Four Horsemen 30 (????)

Bandits 32, Diplomats 14

Devils 30, Warriors 16

Sand Gnats 127, Sharks 3

Rockies 129, Brown Bears 0

I'd like to put everything I have owned, currently own, and will ever own on the Horsemen to cover, please.

But I really appreciate the time you put into this, GF! I can definitely tell every week that these rankings are getting a little more correct as we go.

wow, your spreadsheet really lime Alchemy!

LOL, I would be shocked if we went 7 and 9

lil steep of a score as well with el fuego...lol but its our fault for scoring 311 pts and skewing our numbers. My offense/special teams have been running laps ever since.

It might have something to do with Christchurch being the only team that has played both Brisbane and Los Cab so far, too.

Originally posted by Sarg01
It might have something to do with Christchurch being the only team that has played both Brisbane and Los Cab so far, too.

Haha, very true that.

What the hell? I know how these formulas come together, and I'm staggered that we get such a high power ranking still. How many times do we have to lose before we stop getting this spotlight shone on us? lol

Originally posted by KevinM
What the hell? I know how these formulas come together, and I'm staggered that we get such a high power ranking still. How many times do we have to lose before we stop getting this spotlight shone on us? lol

Apparently we broke the dang thing....

lol

Thanks, Stubbs.

Ruin the fun for everyone.

ME

Originally posted by KevinM
What the hell? I know how these formulas come together, and I'm staggered that we get such a high power ranking still. How many times do we have to lose before we stop getting this spotlight shone on us? lol

It ain't you - though it being you doesn't help since the sheet does like you.

The sheet seems to think the Horsemen have the worst D in the conference except for the two gutted teams. Per the numbers at the top of the page, it considers their D roughly twice as porous as that of the Tasmania Sand Gnats, which it considers the 4th worst D in the conference. By these numbers, it considers their D 6 times more porous than Tonga's and a whopping 24 times worse than Christchurch's.

The real irony is the Horsemen have one of the statistically best Ds in the conference.

Originally posted by Sarg01
Originally posted by KevinM

What the hell? I know how these formulas come together, and I'm staggered that we get such a high power ranking still. How many times do we have to lose before we stop getting this spotlight shone on us? lol

It ain't you - though it being you doesn't help since the sheet does like you.

The sheet seems to think the Horsemen have the worst D in the conference except for the two gutted teams. Per the numbers at the top of the page, it considers their D roughly twice as porous as that of the Tasmania Sand Gnats, which it considers the 4th worst D in the conference. By these numbers, it considers their D 6 times more porous than Tonga's and a whopping 24 times worse than Christchurch's.

The real irony is the Horsemen have one of the statistically best Ds in the conference.

Can you post the power ranking breakdowns again? I love that stuff. It always makes more sense than the predictions themselves IMO.

Originally posted by KevinM
Originally posted by Sarg01

Originally posted by KevinM


What the hell? I know how these formulas come together, and I'm staggered that we get such a high power ranking still. How many times do we have to lose before we stop getting this spotlight shone on us? lol

It ain't you - though it being you doesn't help since the sheet does like you.

The sheet seems to think the Horsemen have the worst D in the conference except for the two gutted teams. Per the numbers at the top of the page, it considers their D roughly twice as porous as that of the Tasmania Sand Gnats, which it considers the 4th worst D in the conference. By these numbers, it considers their D 6 times more porous than Tonga's and a whopping 24 times worse than Christchurch's.

The real irony is the Horsemen have one of the statistically best Ds in the conference.

Can you post the power ranking breakdowns again? I love that stuff. It always makes more sense than the predictions themselves IMO.

Yes, please do!

And Sarg is completely right in the post before this.

There must have been a human error when inputting the numbers. They just dont add up.

Originally posted by KevinM


Can you post the power ranking breakdowns again? I love that stuff. It always makes more sense than the predictions themselves IMO.

Just to be clear, my ranking system is not associated with the rankings in this thread. The largest component of my system is roster strength, and in-game results are always referenced back to something. Stats reference back to conference-wide averages. Margin of victories reference back to strength of opponent.

It has the advantage of earlier accuracy and markedly less volatility, but it has a couple of downsides too. The biggest of them is it's not automated, so it takes me about 2 hours to do all the data entry. The next biggest is that since results aren't the largest component that record only indirectly influences the rankings. A 3-3 team can absolutely be ranked below a 2-4 team, etc.