Originally posted by theone
we beat Golden State Gorillas 23-3 But yet we still get no respect in these rankings
we beat Golden State Gorillas 23-3 But yet we still get no respect in these rankings
Defeugo
offline
offline
Originally posted by makbeer
I understand where people are coming from but make no mistake - Las Vegas definitely belongs in the top 10.
And Stick, though it would be surprising, the Outlaws vs Lincoln game (where we lost on a missed FG) shows we can hang with the top in this league. We are a round 1 upset waiting to happen.
The Webzoners beat you 12-3 and have a better record than you. Are you saying you deserve to be above us? I'm not saying that we deserve to be higher, but I am saying the second tear teams in this league of which we are both part of could all argue that we belong above or below each other. I think your opinion may be a little biased.
I understand where people are coming from but make no mistake - Las Vegas definitely belongs in the top 10.
And Stick, though it would be surprising, the Outlaws vs Lincoln game (where we lost on a missed FG) shows we can hang with the top in this league. We are a round 1 upset waiting to happen.
The Webzoners beat you 12-3 and have a better record than you. Are you saying you deserve to be above us? I'm not saying that we deserve to be higher, but I am saying the second tear teams in this league of which we are both part of could all argue that we belong above or below each other. I think your opinion may be a little biased.
makbeer
offline
offline
I said we belong in the top 10. I didn't say we belonged above you/below you.
If you want to get defensive and take that as a slight against your team go ahead.
I respect that you beat us, but when I say top 10 team I mean now. We're nowhere near the team that we were in the first half of the season.
If you want to get defensive and take that as a slight against your team go ahead.
I respect that you beat us, but when I say top 10 team I mean now. We're nowhere near the team that we were in the first half of the season.
Defeugo
offline
offline
You really didn't read what I wrote or I didn't write my message clearly. My point was that the second tier of teams in our league are all fairly even talent wise. They all have the ability to beat the better teams in the first tier, but also to lose to teams that are equal or worse than us. The only thing you really can go on for ranking is production and record. Based on record the Outlaws do not really belong in the the top 10. Based on production they do. I think that you being from the Outlaws would have a biased opinion as to your own ranking and would probably say production should have more sway than record just like a person from the Navigators would have a biased opinion and say that record should have more sway.
Personally I think any of the 2nd tier teams could be a "round 1 upset waiting to happen." I am willing to bet that the Dread City Diabolicals (who beat the Webzoners) and the Yazoo City Saints that beat the Outlaws (both having a 7-4 record) would argue that they belong in the top 10. They would have a fairly good argument.
Personally I think any of the 2nd tier teams could be a "round 1 upset waiting to happen." I am willing to bet that the Dread City Diabolicals (who beat the Webzoners) and the Yazoo City Saints that beat the Outlaws (both having a 7-4 record) would argue that they belong in the top 10. They would have a fairly good argument.
makbeer
offline
offline
Don't confuse bias with belief in self/team.
My belief that we are a top 10 team doesn't apply as bias because I'm not directly saying team X is better than team Y.
If I did, for example, a power rankings and placed us as #1, yes that's biased.
My belief that we are a top 10 team doesn't apply as bias because I'm not directly saying team X is better than team Y.
If I did, for example, a power rankings and placed us as #1, yes that's biased.
Defeugo
offline
offline
Based on record alone you are at best the 14th ranked team. That is the reason I said I think your biased. You are saying that you are better than teams that beat you or have better records than you. It doesn't really matter though. I appreciate what Stickman is doing here, but all and all it doesn't really make a difference in the games. In fact, being ranked poorly helps me out because it motivates my players to spend more time figuring out how to win and improve our ranking. I guess we will see at the end of the season where people belong in the power rankings.
Stickman
offline
offline
I just posted a message about a similar sort of thing in BBB#4....lol
The power rankings can't/don't take into account anything about game planning, because that's just not quantifiable information available for use in a ranking system, yet it can have a significant effect on the outcome of the games.
So if I was going to implement it (but I'm not) this could possibly be accounted for in some kind of GM/owner' poll. The teams who played you toughest would get more credit than those you blew out, and teams who (on paper at least) look like you should destroy them, but they hang in close would get big props. But I'm not going to do that, because it's pain in the ass.
One thing that I do think will help, is when I add in the game by game stats, that will help give credit to the teams who play "good" teams close. I think I'm going to limit this to going back to the last 5 games or so, which will also help teams who have been on a tear of late (either because they've signed new talent which is really helping, or because they've gotten better at gameplanning)
In the end, I'm glad you guys like the power rankings (I enjoy doing them, because I'm a big nerd) and I agree that teams ranked lower still have a shot at winning the whole thing, although it's low. I do in fact believe (and I didn't make this clear in my notes last night) is that I most definitely believe that a lower ranked team will win a game in the playoffs over a top tier team. I just think it's unlikely that who ever that is will beat 3 top tier teams to win the whole thing.
Thanks,
StickMan
The power rankings can't/don't take into account anything about game planning, because that's just not quantifiable information available for use in a ranking system, yet it can have a significant effect on the outcome of the games.
So if I was going to implement it (but I'm not) this could possibly be accounted for in some kind of GM/owner' poll. The teams who played you toughest would get more credit than those you blew out, and teams who (on paper at least) look like you should destroy them, but they hang in close would get big props. But I'm not going to do that, because it's pain in the ass.
One thing that I do think will help, is when I add in the game by game stats, that will help give credit to the teams who play "good" teams close. I think I'm going to limit this to going back to the last 5 games or so, which will also help teams who have been on a tear of late (either because they've signed new talent which is really helping, or because they've gotten better at gameplanning)
In the end, I'm glad you guys like the power rankings (I enjoy doing them, because I'm a big nerd) and I agree that teams ranked lower still have a shot at winning the whole thing, although it's low. I do in fact believe (and I didn't make this clear in my notes last night) is that I most definitely believe that a lower ranked team will win a game in the playoffs over a top tier team. I just think it's unlikely that who ever that is will beat 3 top tier teams to win the whole thing.
Thanks,
StickMan
Bountytaker
offline
offline
Originally posted by Stickman
Originally posted by Bountytaker
First time I have issue with the standings. Dread City stayed put at 13, despite eeking out a win over the number 11 team. Fine, I could see that....
But, you've got Milwaukee jumping FIVE spots, over both us AND Madden nation, despite the fact that they are a game under .500. Even if the record isn't getting much weight...we're in the top ten in two of three categories, and are higher than Milwaukee in two of those three categories.
Heck, if the season ended today, both D.C. and Madden would be five seeds in the playoffs...and Milwaukee would finish two spots out.
It's not like we've played cupcakes, either, so I can't imagine s.o.s is that much of a difference here.
Like I said...first time I disagree with what the numbers show. No offense to you or the good folks of Milwaukee
I forgot to explain this...
This is mostly due to tweak to the defensive rankings. I changed one of the categories (% of opponent possessions resulting in a punt or Turnover) to % of enemy possessions resulting in a non-score). The previous category did not account for failed 4th down conversions (ie turn over on downs), or an opponent possession that did not score due to the possession ending at half or the end of the game.
This actually shuffled the numbers quite a bit more than I thought they would have, but I think it's a better indicator of an effective defense.
I still don't understand how that jumps a 5-6 team ahead of TWO 7-4 teams, one of whom (DC) out ranks the 5-6 in TWO categories. And, since we've all played difficult teams by now, I think its weird if SoS is playing that much of a role.
Plus, did you notice my second post about the typo. In the Week 11 rankings, you have DC listed as 13LW/13TW....but, last week, we were 11th. Could that be affecting this weeks scores (applying the wrong numbers to the wrong team?).
Otherwise, it means we won, but dropped two spots, while the 5-6 team won, and jumped 5 spots?!?
Originally posted by Bountytaker
First time I have issue with the standings. Dread City stayed put at 13, despite eeking out a win over the number 11 team. Fine, I could see that....
But, you've got Milwaukee jumping FIVE spots, over both us AND Madden nation, despite the fact that they are a game under .500. Even if the record isn't getting much weight...we're in the top ten in two of three categories, and are higher than Milwaukee in two of those three categories.
Heck, if the season ended today, both D.C. and Madden would be five seeds in the playoffs...and Milwaukee would finish two spots out.
It's not like we've played cupcakes, either, so I can't imagine s.o.s is that much of a difference here.
Like I said...first time I disagree with what the numbers show. No offense to you or the good folks of Milwaukee
I forgot to explain this...
This is mostly due to tweak to the defensive rankings. I changed one of the categories (% of opponent possessions resulting in a punt or Turnover) to % of enemy possessions resulting in a non-score). The previous category did not account for failed 4th down conversions (ie turn over on downs), or an opponent possession that did not score due to the possession ending at half or the end of the game.
This actually shuffled the numbers quite a bit more than I thought they would have, but I think it's a better indicator of an effective defense.
I still don't understand how that jumps a 5-6 team ahead of TWO 7-4 teams, one of whom (DC) out ranks the 5-6 in TWO categories. And, since we've all played difficult teams by now, I think its weird if SoS is playing that much of a role.
Plus, did you notice my second post about the typo. In the Week 11 rankings, you have DC listed as 13LW/13TW....but, last week, we were 11th. Could that be affecting this weeks scores (applying the wrong numbers to the wrong team?).
Otherwise, it means we won, but dropped two spots, while the 5-6 team won, and jumped 5 spots?!?
Stickman
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bountytaker
Originally posted by Stickman
Originally posted by Bountytaker
First time I have issue with the standings. Dread City stayed put at 13, despite eeking out a win over the number 11 team. Fine, I could see that....
But, you've got Milwaukee jumping FIVE spots, over both us AND Madden nation, despite the fact that they are a game under .500. Even if the record isn't getting much weight...we're in the top ten in two of three categories, and are higher than Milwaukee in two of those three categories.
Heck, if the season ended today, both D.C. and Madden would be five seeds in the playoffs...and Milwaukee would finish two spots out.
It's not like we've played cupcakes, either, so I can't imagine s.o.s is that much of a difference here.
Like I said...first time I disagree with what the numbers show. No offense to you or the good folks of Milwaukee
I forgot to explain this...
This is mostly due to tweak to the defensive rankings. I changed one of the categories (% of opponent possessions resulting in a punt or Turnover) to % of enemy possessions resulting in a non-score). The previous category did not account for failed 4th down conversions (ie turn over on downs), or an opponent possession that did not score due to the possession ending at half or the end of the game.
This actually shuffled the numbers quite a bit more than I thought they would have, but I think it's a better indicator of an effective defense.
I still don't understand how that jumps a 5-6 team ahead of TWO 7-4 teams, one of whom (DC) out ranks the 5-6 in TWO categories. And, since we've all played difficult teams by now, I think its weird if SoS is playing that much of a role.
Plus, did you notice my second post about the typo. In the Week 11 rankings, you have DC listed as 13LW/13TW....but, last week, we were 11th. Could that be affecting this weeks scores (applying the wrong numbers to the wrong team?).
Otherwise, it means we won, but dropped two spots, while the 5-6 team won, and jumped 5 spots?!?
I did see that about your post with the typos...I don't think it was a typo, I think it was an artifact of me not recording last weeks rankings until after I'd updated the formula. So the formulas were recalculated using the new categories, which changed the values for last week from what I posted, then the games played on the 17th affected the rankings further. So, my changes to the formula moved you to 13th, then you stayed there this week.
The other interesting factor about this is a bunch of the teams in the middle are pretty close in a lot of their statistics. This allowed Milwaukee (who did have a pretty dang good performance, albeit against oner of the leagues weaker teams) to increase their average statistics enough to improve 2-5 places in almost every offensive category, and improve about 2 spots in each defensive category.
For example, Milwaukee didn't commit any turnovers, so they stayed at 16 for the year, which last week was 14th, but this week put them at 8th. Another example, their offensive yards per carry went from 4.0 to 4.2, but that moved them from 7th to 2nd in the league for that category.
Right now, if you even move in front of someone by 0.01 of a unit, then you get an entire point bonus in the rankings. I have another system that awards points on a continuous scale (rather than an integer scale as this is) but the values were still close enough that the Milwaukee jumped 6 spots there too. (I haven't published any rankings determined by this formula yet, since it's going to be a big update, and I'm going to try and work in the performance for the last couple of games now, so it will be a bit longer before you guys see it. However, I will say the rankings are highly similar to what I'm already publishing, but the main difference seems to be that it prefers the teams with fewer losses over the teams with more losses, ie 11-0 teams are typically ranked higher than 9-2 teams.)
So while that's pretty long, I hope that helps some.
If nothing else this reinforces my opinion that you guys are going to keep me honest about this...which is a good thing.
Thanks,
StickMan
Originally posted by Stickman
Originally posted by Bountytaker
First time I have issue with the standings. Dread City stayed put at 13, despite eeking out a win over the number 11 team. Fine, I could see that....
But, you've got Milwaukee jumping FIVE spots, over both us AND Madden nation, despite the fact that they are a game under .500. Even if the record isn't getting much weight...we're in the top ten in two of three categories, and are higher than Milwaukee in two of those three categories.
Heck, if the season ended today, both D.C. and Madden would be five seeds in the playoffs...and Milwaukee would finish two spots out.
It's not like we've played cupcakes, either, so I can't imagine s.o.s is that much of a difference here.
Like I said...first time I disagree with what the numbers show. No offense to you or the good folks of Milwaukee
I forgot to explain this...
This is mostly due to tweak to the defensive rankings. I changed one of the categories (% of opponent possessions resulting in a punt or Turnover) to % of enemy possessions resulting in a non-score). The previous category did not account for failed 4th down conversions (ie turn over on downs), or an opponent possession that did not score due to the possession ending at half or the end of the game.
This actually shuffled the numbers quite a bit more than I thought they would have, but I think it's a better indicator of an effective defense.
I still don't understand how that jumps a 5-6 team ahead of TWO 7-4 teams, one of whom (DC) out ranks the 5-6 in TWO categories. And, since we've all played difficult teams by now, I think its weird if SoS is playing that much of a role.
Plus, did you notice my second post about the typo. In the Week 11 rankings, you have DC listed as 13LW/13TW....but, last week, we were 11th. Could that be affecting this weeks scores (applying the wrong numbers to the wrong team?).
Otherwise, it means we won, but dropped two spots, while the 5-6 team won, and jumped 5 spots?!?
I did see that about your post with the typos...I don't think it was a typo, I think it was an artifact of me not recording last weeks rankings until after I'd updated the formula. So the formulas were recalculated using the new categories, which changed the values for last week from what I posted, then the games played on the 17th affected the rankings further. So, my changes to the formula moved you to 13th, then you stayed there this week.
The other interesting factor about this is a bunch of the teams in the middle are pretty close in a lot of their statistics. This allowed Milwaukee (who did have a pretty dang good performance, albeit against oner of the leagues weaker teams) to increase their average statistics enough to improve 2-5 places in almost every offensive category, and improve about 2 spots in each defensive category.
For example, Milwaukee didn't commit any turnovers, so they stayed at 16 for the year, which last week was 14th, but this week put them at 8th. Another example, their offensive yards per carry went from 4.0 to 4.2, but that moved them from 7th to 2nd in the league for that category.
Right now, if you even move in front of someone by 0.01 of a unit, then you get an entire point bonus in the rankings. I have another system that awards points on a continuous scale (rather than an integer scale as this is) but the values were still close enough that the Milwaukee jumped 6 spots there too. (I haven't published any rankings determined by this formula yet, since it's going to be a big update, and I'm going to try and work in the performance for the last couple of games now, so it will be a bit longer before you guys see it. However, I will say the rankings are highly similar to what I'm already publishing, but the main difference seems to be that it prefers the teams with fewer losses over the teams with more losses, ie 11-0 teams are typically ranked higher than 9-2 teams.)
So while that's pretty long, I hope that helps some.
If nothing else this reinforces my opinion that you guys are going to keep me honest about this...which is a good thing.
Thanks,
StickMan
turkishkamel
offline
offline
i was a little surprised to see us (MIL) jump up to #11, especially ahead of some 7-4 teams. we have a great defense, but the offense has been sub par to say the least. i would be very happy if we finished with the 11th best record, but to this point im not sure we've played like the 11th best team.
Bountytaker
offline
offline
Originally posted by Stickman
I did see that about your post with the typos...I don't think it was a typo, I think it was an artifact of me not recording last weeks rankings until after I'd updated the formula. So the formulas were recalculated using the new categories, which changed the values for last week from what I posted, then the games played on the 17th affected the rankings further. So, my changes to the formula moved you to 13th, then you stayed there this week.
The other interesting factor about this is a bunch of the teams in the middle are pretty close in a lot of their statistics. This allowed Milwaukee (who did have a pretty dang good performance, albeit against oner of the leagues weaker teams) to increase their average statistics enough to improve 2-5 places in almost every offensive category, and improve about 2 spots in each defensive category.
For example, Milwaukee didn't commit any turnovers, so they stayed at 16 for the year, which last week was 14th, but this week put them at 8th. Another example, their offensive yards per carry went from 4.0 to 4.2, but that moved them from 7th to 2nd in the league for that category.
Right now, if you even move in front of someone by 0.01 of a unit, then you get an entire point bonus in the rankings. I have another system that awards points on a continuous scale (rather than an integer scale as this is) but the values were still close enough that the Milwaukee jumped 6 spots there too. (I haven't published any rankings determined by this formula yet, since it's going to be a big update, and I'm going to try and work in the performance for the last couple of games now, so it will be a bit longer before you guys see it. However, I will say the rankings are highly similar to what I'm already publishing, but the main difference seems to be that it prefers the teams with fewer losses over the teams with more losses, ie 11-0 teams are typically ranked higher than 9-2 teams.)
So while that's pretty long, I hope that helps some.
If nothing else this reinforces my opinion that you guys are going to keep me honest about this...which is a good thing.
Thanks,
StickMan
I see...so, what you're saying is, the overall O, D, and ST rankings, don't really equate to that much. Leading another team in two categories by a larger margin than you're behind in the third doesn't mean as much as moving ahead in some of the myriad stats that make up those final rankings.
So, if I improve from 10th best turnover ratio to 5th best,it might move me up two spots on the overall list, even though it may only have improved my overall defense from 14th best to 13 best.
Strange way of doing it...but I get it now.
I did see that about your post with the typos...I don't think it was a typo, I think it was an artifact of me not recording last weeks rankings until after I'd updated the formula. So the formulas were recalculated using the new categories, which changed the values for last week from what I posted, then the games played on the 17th affected the rankings further. So, my changes to the formula moved you to 13th, then you stayed there this week.
The other interesting factor about this is a bunch of the teams in the middle are pretty close in a lot of their statistics. This allowed Milwaukee (who did have a pretty dang good performance, albeit against oner of the leagues weaker teams) to increase their average statistics enough to improve 2-5 places in almost every offensive category, and improve about 2 spots in each defensive category.
For example, Milwaukee didn't commit any turnovers, so they stayed at 16 for the year, which last week was 14th, but this week put them at 8th. Another example, their offensive yards per carry went from 4.0 to 4.2, but that moved them from 7th to 2nd in the league for that category.
Right now, if you even move in front of someone by 0.01 of a unit, then you get an entire point bonus in the rankings. I have another system that awards points on a continuous scale (rather than an integer scale as this is) but the values were still close enough that the Milwaukee jumped 6 spots there too. (I haven't published any rankings determined by this formula yet, since it's going to be a big update, and I'm going to try and work in the performance for the last couple of games now, so it will be a bit longer before you guys see it. However, I will say the rankings are highly similar to what I'm already publishing, but the main difference seems to be that it prefers the teams with fewer losses over the teams with more losses, ie 11-0 teams are typically ranked higher than 9-2 teams.)
So while that's pretty long, I hope that helps some.
If nothing else this reinforces my opinion that you guys are going to keep me honest about this...which is a good thing.
Thanks,
StickMan
I see...so, what you're saying is, the overall O, D, and ST rankings, don't really equate to that much. Leading another team in two categories by a larger margin than you're behind in the third doesn't mean as much as moving ahead in some of the myriad stats that make up those final rankings.
So, if I improve from 10th best turnover ratio to 5th best,it might move me up two spots on the overall list, even though it may only have improved my overall defense from 14th best to 13 best.
Strange way of doing it...but I get it now.
Stickman
offline
offline
Originally posted by Bountytaker
I see...so, what you're saying is, the overall O, D, and ST rankings, don't really equate to that much. Leading another team in two categories by a larger margin than you're behind in the third doesn't mean as much as moving ahead in some of the myriad stats that make up those final rankings.
So, if I improve from 10th best turnover ratio to 5th best,it might move me up two spots on the overall list, even though it may only have improved my overall defense from 14th best to 13 best.
Strange way of doing it...but I get it now.
I think that's pretty close. But just to make sure. The moving up in several individual categories improves the Def, or Off or ST score. Those 3 scores are then used to determine the overall score =(3.5*Off + 3.5*Def + 1*ST)/8
So if you improve your average ranking in Def by 3 spots across the board, your Def ranking score will be lower by 3 points, meaning your overall score will be lower by 1.31 =(3)*(3.5)/(8) which would be a sizable jump with the way the rankings are currently computed.
Thanks,
StickMan
I see...so, what you're saying is, the overall O, D, and ST rankings, don't really equate to that much. Leading another team in two categories by a larger margin than you're behind in the third doesn't mean as much as moving ahead in some of the myriad stats that make up those final rankings.
So, if I improve from 10th best turnover ratio to 5th best,it might move me up two spots on the overall list, even though it may only have improved my overall defense from 14th best to 13 best.
Strange way of doing it...but I get it now.
I think that's pretty close. But just to make sure. The moving up in several individual categories improves the Def, or Off or ST score. Those 3 scores are then used to determine the overall score =(3.5*Off + 3.5*Def + 1*ST)/8
So if you improve your average ranking in Def by 3 spots across the board, your Def ranking score will be lower by 3 points, meaning your overall score will be lower by 1.31 =(3)*(3.5)/(8) which would be a sizable jump with the way the rankings are currently computed.
Thanks,
StickMan
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
