okay two more wins
Forum > Pro Leagues > Griff's WL power rankings - LOL away.
griffin8r
offline
offline
Originally posted by Disastermaster
Interesting formula
Just run it after yesterday games and after game 7 it looks like :
Pos Score Name Season Playoffs
1 1823 Valhalla . 1823 0
2 987 Chocolate Blaze 987 0
3 182 Ministry of Dotball 182 0
4 72 Machu Picchu Hidden Dragons 72 0
5 54 Lincoln Navigators 54 0
6 52 Dakar Dragons 52 0
7 34 Bonn Dynamo 34 0
8 31 Warsaw Wrath 31 0
9 15 East St Louis Tire Fires 15 0
10 9 Haliblack Rap Esplosion 9 0
11 9 Providence Radicals 9 0
12 9 Port Harcourt Playmakers 9 0
13 7 Estonian Wife Carriers 7 0
14 7 The Drunken Addicts of Omertà 7 0
15 3 Boston Dogs 3 0
16 -2 Queen City Black Cats -2 0
17 -5 South Otto Fragile Porcelain Mice -5 0
18 -6 Honolulu Hurricane Warriors -6 0
19 -7 Tampa Bay Krakens -7 0
20 -7 Three Kingdom Warriors -7 0
21 -21 Kansas City Rams -21 0
22 -49 Santiago Benitos -49 0
23 -79 Chicago Hedgehogs -79 0
24 -104 Nashville Hounds -104 0
25 -157 Sparta Battle Chickens -157 0
26 -202 Manila Warlords -202 0
27 -307 Rosarica Titans of Fire -307 0
28 -431 So Cal BDC -431 0
29 -505 Surrey Fighting Stanleys -505 0
30 -565 Sumatra Sea Hawks -565 0
31 -606 Korb Destroyers -606 0
32 -2606 Marblehead Longhorns -2606 0
nice. we won our fith game and we are now second to last. So with a win in week 8 we maybe can jump to last place
Impressive jump by Rosarica from 31 to 27 after they lost only by 124 points
I'm going to build a manual Excel to verify this, but I have a suspicion that your loss to 1-6 Port Harcourt is the albatross that's dragging you down. If they ever get above .500 (or you ever beat a team with more than 3 wins) then the script will start being more friendly to you.
Explained another way:
Your best quality win to date was 40-27 over Chicago. That win scored you 13*(3^2)/(4^2), or about 7 points.
Meanwhile, your 17 point loss to Port Harcourt cost you 17*(6^2)/(1^2), or 180 points.
Your other loss was to a 3-4 team, and the only other wins you have are over 1-6 teams.
Meanwhile, you look at a team like Rosarica, and while they have yet to win a game, three of their losses were to top-shelf teams (Tire Fires, Valhalla, Dynamo...) so those losses don't hurt them nearly as bad as that one hurts you.
The first time they lose to a really crappy team, they'll drop, and if you ever beat a good team, you'll go up. See how that works?
SoS plays on a game-by-game basis in this ranking system. If you look at the old GLB power ranking script, it probably has Rosarica in the top 10 because the aggregate SoS is so high, despite their lack of a win.
PS: Hopefully Port H won't go 1-15 and really screw you to a wall.
Interesting formula
Just run it after yesterday games and after game 7 it looks like :
Pos Score Name Season Playoffs
1 1823 Valhalla . 1823 0
2 987 Chocolate Blaze 987 0
3 182 Ministry of Dotball 182 0
4 72 Machu Picchu Hidden Dragons 72 0
5 54 Lincoln Navigators 54 0
6 52 Dakar Dragons 52 0
7 34 Bonn Dynamo 34 0
8 31 Warsaw Wrath 31 0
9 15 East St Louis Tire Fires 15 0
10 9 Haliblack Rap Esplosion 9 0
11 9 Providence Radicals 9 0
12 9 Port Harcourt Playmakers 9 0
13 7 Estonian Wife Carriers 7 0
14 7 The Drunken Addicts of Omertà 7 0
15 3 Boston Dogs 3 0
16 -2 Queen City Black Cats -2 0
17 -5 South Otto Fragile Porcelain Mice -5 0
18 -6 Honolulu Hurricane Warriors -6 0
19 -7 Tampa Bay Krakens -7 0
20 -7 Three Kingdom Warriors -7 0
21 -21 Kansas City Rams -21 0
22 -49 Santiago Benitos -49 0
23 -79 Chicago Hedgehogs -79 0
24 -104 Nashville Hounds -104 0
25 -157 Sparta Battle Chickens -157 0
26 -202 Manila Warlords -202 0
27 -307 Rosarica Titans of Fire -307 0
28 -431 So Cal BDC -431 0
29 -505 Surrey Fighting Stanleys -505 0
30 -565 Sumatra Sea Hawks -565 0
31 -606 Korb Destroyers -606 0
32 -2606 Marblehead Longhorns -2606 0
nice. we won our fith game and we are now second to last. So with a win in week 8 we maybe can jump to last place
Impressive jump by Rosarica from 31 to 27 after they lost only by 124 points
I'm going to build a manual Excel to verify this, but I have a suspicion that your loss to 1-6 Port Harcourt is the albatross that's dragging you down. If they ever get above .500 (or you ever beat a team with more than 3 wins) then the script will start being more friendly to you.
Explained another way:
Your best quality win to date was 40-27 over Chicago. That win scored you 13*(3^2)/(4^2), or about 7 points.
Meanwhile, your 17 point loss to Port Harcourt cost you 17*(6^2)/(1^2), or 180 points.
Your other loss was to a 3-4 team, and the only other wins you have are over 1-6 teams.
Meanwhile, you look at a team like Rosarica, and while they have yet to win a game, three of their losses were to top-shelf teams (Tire Fires, Valhalla, Dynamo...) so those losses don't hurt them nearly as bad as that one hurts you.
The first time they lose to a really crappy team, they'll drop, and if you ever beat a good team, you'll go up. See how that works?
SoS plays on a game-by-game basis in this ranking system. If you look at the old GLB power ranking script, it probably has Rosarica in the top 10 because the aggregate SoS is so high, despite their lack of a win.
PS: Hopefully Port H won't go 1-15 and really screw you to a wall.
Edited by griffin8r on Feb 21, 2010 19:39:03
griffin8r
offline
offline
Originally posted by GMathiasf
The top looks pretty good, but the middle and bottom seems a little screwy. Korb may not be that good, but still, they have 4 wins, so they certainly are better than that ranking of them. And PHP is 1-5, though played a tough schedule. Just like almost all of these script rankings, they have their issues.
I'm not saying it's perfect, this is only the second season I've run it, and the first that it's actually been out there as a GM script (much thanks to Pabst for building it for me, I know squat about that kind of programming).
It's about as close as I've seen one come to accurate, particularly in the top of the rankings. By week 10, it'll be pretty well spot on.
The top looks pretty good, but the middle and bottom seems a little screwy. Korb may not be that good, but still, they have 4 wins, so they certainly are better than that ranking of them. And PHP is 1-5, though played a tough schedule. Just like almost all of these script rankings, they have their issues.
I'm not saying it's perfect, this is only the second season I've run it, and the first that it's actually been out there as a GM script (much thanks to Pabst for building it for me, I know squat about that kind of programming).
It's about as close as I've seen one come to accurate, particularly in the top of the rankings. By week 10, it'll be pretty well spot on.
PFDS
offline
offline
Originally posted by griffin8r
I'm going to build a manual Excel to verify this, but I have a suspicion that your loss to 1-6 Port Harcourt is the albatross that's dragging you down. If they ever get above .500 (or you ever beat a team with more than 3 wins) then the script will start being more friendly to you.
Explained another way:
Your best quality win to date was 40-27 over Chicago. That win scored you 13*(3^2)/(4^2), or about 7 points.
Meanwhile, your 17 point loss to Port Harcourt cost you 17*(6^2)/(1^2), or 180 points.
Your other loss was to a 3-4 team, and the only other wins you have are over 1-6 teams.
Meanwhile, you look at a team like Rosarica, and while they have yet to win a game, three of their losses were to top-shelf teams (Tire Fires, Valhalla, Dynamo...) so those losses don't hurt them nearly as bad as that one hurts you.
The first time they lose to a really crappy team, they'll drop, and if you ever beat a good team, you'll go up. See how that works?
SoS plays on a game-by-game basis in this ranking system. If you look at the old GLB power ranking script, it probably has Rosarica in the top 10 because the aggregate SoS is so high, despite their lack of a win.
PS: Hopefully Port H won't go 1-15 and really screw you to a wall.
oh okay, lets see Boston is 3-4...bah we don't wanna beat them then.
I'm going to build a manual Excel to verify this, but I have a suspicion that your loss to 1-6 Port Harcourt is the albatross that's dragging you down. If they ever get above .500 (or you ever beat a team with more than 3 wins) then the script will start being more friendly to you.
Explained another way:
Your best quality win to date was 40-27 over Chicago. That win scored you 13*(3^2)/(4^2), or about 7 points.
Meanwhile, your 17 point loss to Port Harcourt cost you 17*(6^2)/(1^2), or 180 points.
Your other loss was to a 3-4 team, and the only other wins you have are over 1-6 teams.
Meanwhile, you look at a team like Rosarica, and while they have yet to win a game, three of their losses were to top-shelf teams (Tire Fires, Valhalla, Dynamo...) so those losses don't hurt them nearly as bad as that one hurts you.
The first time they lose to a really crappy team, they'll drop, and if you ever beat a good team, you'll go up. See how that works?
SoS plays on a game-by-game basis in this ranking system. If you look at the old GLB power ranking script, it probably has Rosarica in the top 10 because the aggregate SoS is so high, despite their lack of a win.
PS: Hopefully Port H won't go 1-15 and really screw you to a wall.
oh okay, lets see Boston is 3-4...bah we don't wanna beat them then.
griffin8r
offline
offline
Originally posted by PFDS
oh okay, lets see Boston is 3-4...bah we don't wanna beat them then.
I'm just telling you how the formula works.
You gotta admit, while it is wonky in some circumstances, it's not as wonky as we've had prior in automated scripts.
oh okay, lets see Boston is 3-4...bah we don't wanna beat them then.
I'm just telling you how the formula works.
You gotta admit, while it is wonky in some circumstances, it's not as wonky as we've had prior in automated scripts.
Edited by griffin8r on Feb 21, 2010 20:29:32
should probably tweak the formula a bit so you don't see such extreme highs and lows imo. not sure if you'd do that by maxing the scores at a lower point, or multiplying by some sort of normalization factor, but seeing teams in the thousands (jeb's is over 7000) is kinda silly.
tautology
offline
offline
You know GLB has it's own ranking formula and it looks pretty accurate to me....
Machu Picchu Hidden Dragons 7-0-0
Dakar Dragons 7-0-0
Lincoln Navigators 7-0-0
East St Louis Tire Fires 7-0-0
Korb Destroyers 5-2-0
Queen City Black Cats 5-2-0
Haliblack Rap Esplosion 4-3-0
The Drunken Addicts of Omertà 3-4-0
Chicago Hedgehogs 3-4-0
Boston Dogs 3-4-0
Port Harcourt Playmakers 1-6-0
Three Kingdom Warriors 1-6-0
Manila Warlords 1-6-0
Marblehead Longhorns 1-6-0
Surrey Fighting Stanleys 0-7-0
Sumatra Sea Hawks 0-7-0
Chocolate Blaze 7-0-0
Valhalla . 7-0-0
Bonn Dynamo 6-1-0
Ministry of Dotball 6-1-0
Honolulu Hurricane Warriors 5-2-0
Warsaw Wrath 4-3-0
Kansas City Rams 4-3-0
Providence Radicals 4-3-0
So Cal BDC 4-3-0
Tampa Bay Krakens 4-3-0
Estonian Wife Carriers 2-5-0
Santiago Benitos 2-5-0
Sparta Battle Chickens 1-6-0
South Otto Fragile Porcelain Mice 1-6-0
Nashville Hounds 0-7-0
Rosarica Titans of Fire 0-7-0
Originally posted by tautology
You know GLB has it's own ranking formula and it looks pretty accurate to me....
Machu Picchu Hidden Dragons 7-0-0
Dakar Dragons 7-0-0
Lincoln Navigators 7-0-0
East St Louis Tire Fires 7-0-0
Korb Destroyers 5-2-0
Queen City Black Cats 5-2-0
Haliblack Rap Esplosion 4-3-0
The Drunken Addicts of Omertà 3-4-0
Chicago Hedgehogs 3-4-0
Boston Dogs 3-4-0
Port Harcourt Playmakers 1-6-0
Three Kingdom Warriors 1-6-0
Manila Warlords 1-6-0
Marblehead Longhorns 1-6-0
Surrey Fighting Stanleys 0-7-0
Sumatra Sea Hawks 0-7-0
Chocolate Blaze 7-0-0
Valhalla . 7-0-0
Bonn Dynamo 6-1-0
Ministry of Dotball 6-1-0
Honolulu Hurricane Warriors 5-2-0
Warsaw Wrath 4-3-0
Kansas City Rams 4-3-0
Providence Radicals 4-3-0
So Cal BDC 4-3-0
Tampa Bay Krakens 4-3-0
Estonian Wife Carriers 2-5-0
Santiago Benitos 2-5-0
Sparta Battle Chickens 1-6-0
South Otto Fragile Porcelain Mice 1-6-0
Nashville Hounds 0-7-0
Rosarica Titans of Fire 0-7-0
you'd rank sumatra before valhalla?
You know GLB has it's own ranking formula and it looks pretty accurate to me....
Machu Picchu Hidden Dragons 7-0-0
Dakar Dragons 7-0-0
Lincoln Navigators 7-0-0
East St Louis Tire Fires 7-0-0
Korb Destroyers 5-2-0
Queen City Black Cats 5-2-0
Haliblack Rap Esplosion 4-3-0
The Drunken Addicts of Omertà 3-4-0
Chicago Hedgehogs 3-4-0
Boston Dogs 3-4-0
Port Harcourt Playmakers 1-6-0
Three Kingdom Warriors 1-6-0
Manila Warlords 1-6-0
Marblehead Longhorns 1-6-0
Surrey Fighting Stanleys 0-7-0
Sumatra Sea Hawks 0-7-0
Chocolate Blaze 7-0-0
Valhalla . 7-0-0
Bonn Dynamo 6-1-0
Ministry of Dotball 6-1-0
Honolulu Hurricane Warriors 5-2-0
Warsaw Wrath 4-3-0
Kansas City Rams 4-3-0
Providence Radicals 4-3-0
So Cal BDC 4-3-0
Tampa Bay Krakens 4-3-0
Estonian Wife Carriers 2-5-0
Santiago Benitos 2-5-0
Sparta Battle Chickens 1-6-0
South Otto Fragile Porcelain Mice 1-6-0
Nashville Hounds 0-7-0
Rosarica Titans of Fire 0-7-0
you'd rank sumatra before valhalla?
griffin8r
offline
offline
Originally posted by Gart888
should probably tweak the formula a bit so you don't see such extreme highs and lows imo. not sure if you'd do that by maxing the scores at a lower point, or multiplying by some sort of normalization factor, but seeing teams in the thousands (jeb's is over 7000) is kinda silly.
The power scores mean a lot less than you think they do, but really, that was the only way I could figure to ensure that a team that, for example, beat a former undefeated by 1 point still got their due from the ranking score. It creates some crazy extremes, but there's no real arguing, for example, that Valhalla is at the top of the heap until proven otherwise.
Originally posted by tautology
You know GLB has it's own ranking formula and it looks pretty accurate to me....
Really? A 1-6 team is #11 on your list, ranked ahead of Valhalla and Chocolate Blaze?
I hope you were being ironic....
Your version was exactly what I was trying to improve upon with this version. Does anyone dispute that it's a hell of a lot closer to reality than that?
should probably tweak the formula a bit so you don't see such extreme highs and lows imo. not sure if you'd do that by maxing the scores at a lower point, or multiplying by some sort of normalization factor, but seeing teams in the thousands (jeb's is over 7000) is kinda silly.
The power scores mean a lot less than you think they do, but really, that was the only way I could figure to ensure that a team that, for example, beat a former undefeated by 1 point still got their due from the ranking score. It creates some crazy extremes, but there's no real arguing, for example, that Valhalla is at the top of the heap until proven otherwise.
Originally posted by tautology
You know GLB has it's own ranking formula and it looks pretty accurate to me....
Really? A 1-6 team is #11 on your list, ranked ahead of Valhalla and Chocolate Blaze?
I hope you were being ironic....
Your version was exactly what I was trying to improve upon with this version. Does anyone dispute that it's a hell of a lot closer to reality than that?
Edited by griffin8r on Feb 21, 2010 20:52:24
Edited by griffin8r on Feb 21, 2010 20:51:14
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by Gart888
you'd rank sumatra before valhalla?
Alpha>Zeta, I thought that was obvious....
you'd rank sumatra before valhalla?
Alpha>Zeta, I thought that was obvious....
griffin8r
offline
offline
Originally posted by Gart888
you'd rank sumatra before valhalla?
Jesus, didn't even notice that, 2 0-7's, 4 1-6's, and 2 3-4's ranked ahead of four teams with 2 losses between them.
That's quality stuff, right there... O_O
you'd rank sumatra before valhalla?
Jesus, didn't even notice that, 2 0-7's, 4 1-6's, and 2 3-4's ranked ahead of four teams with 2 losses between them.
That's quality stuff, right there... O_O
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by griffin8r
Really? A 1-6 team is #11 on your list, ranked ahead of Valhalla and Chocolate Blaze?
I hope you were being ironic....
Your version was exactly what I was trying to improve upon with this version. Does anyone dispute that it's a hell of a lot closer to reality than that?
The Joke ------------>>>>
griffin8er's head ------->>>>
Really? A 1-6 team is #11 on your list, ranked ahead of Valhalla and Chocolate Blaze?
I hope you were being ironic....
Your version was exactly what I was trying to improve upon with this version. Does anyone dispute that it's a hell of a lot closer to reality than that?
The Joke ------------>>>>
griffin8er's head ------->>>>
Edited by tautology on Feb 21, 2010 20:57:08
Originally posted by griffin8r
Jesus, didn't even notice that, 2 0-7's, 4 1-6's, and 2 3-4's ranked ahead of four teams with 2 losses between them.
That's quality stuff, right there... o_O
lol, he just copy and pasted the league standings, and didn't bother to splice the two conferences together, or mark them as separate.
glad to see that ol' level still works though.
Jesus, didn't even notice that, 2 0-7's, 4 1-6's, and 2 3-4's ranked ahead of four teams with 2 losses between them.
That's quality stuff, right there... o_O
lol, he just copy and pasted the league standings, and didn't bother to splice the two conferences together, or mark them as separate.
glad to see that ol' level still works though.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
