Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Welsh76
Here's that list.. (Average Playoff Rank in Brackets)

1. Hawk (16)
2. Wolf (17)
3. Gator (21)
4. Eagle (24)
5. Osprey (27)
6. Hyena (32)
7. Rhino (38)
8. Cobra (40)
9. Cheetah (47)
10. Piranha (50)
11. Python (51)
12. Tiger (53)
13. Gorilla (54)
14. Cougar (56)
15. Komodo (61)


That hawk league.

BTW this also applies to all the new teams given out in S2 - they were given a rating lower than all the existing sophomore teams also, including ones that were well under .500. It took something like 2-3 games for any of those teams to catch any of the bottom existing teams, so they had an even worse rating and have had even fewer games to correct that.

And any game where two midseason teams played, or a midseason team played an S2 team, didn't really help fix it, as the ratings gain/loss is based off of an opponent rating that was also inherently too low. So for the most part, only the ladder games help get this right. Same logic as for why Corndog wants more interplay between rookies and sophomores.

Originally posted by NiborRis
Sadly, you don't understand the actual problem with the midseason team ratings, which had absolutely nothing to do with playing fewer games, even if Bort thinks it did, because frankly Bort doesn't properly understand his rating system either.

The problem was that the midseason teams were given a starting rating *lower* than every other team that was currently in the game, including winless teams. Basically, the assumption was that every midseason team was worse than every other team currently in existence, which was clearly a terrible assumption. It takes a while for the # of games to overcome a weird starting rating like that, and we're *just now* starting to reach that point.

They should have started at the same value that other teams started at. Which Bort keeps telling Corndog they did, except they didn't. We could all see the rankings pages, and we all saw exactly where they were ranked the first few weeks (not just the first week, so it wasn't some ranking anomaly).

We don't have information on what the starting rating for D0 teams was, or what the rating was that was given to the midseason teams (that information may be impossible to know now), or what the k-value is, so of course no one can say for certain how long it takes to overcome having the wrong starting rating. I'd say it's getting close now, just based on watching Osprey play in ladder play (which is really unscientific but it's about the best I've got). You can follow along here:
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5148603
but I was out of town last weekend and didn't get the last game week in.

My point is that these teams have a full season under there belt now, plenty of time to close or widen the gap they started at.

I don't think it was the debate that they haven't more so that they shouldn't have had too and would be ranked higher if they didn't need to.

Originally posted by Stobie

I don't think it was the debate that they haven't more so that they shouldn't have had too and would be ranked higher if they didn't need to.

It seems to be because my exact statement was this.

Originally posted by Parab00n
That midseason excuse should be long gone, last season wins/losses barely even matter at this point.

Season 2 is in the books and for the most part all sophomore teams are right where they should be.

Originally posted by Parab00n
My point is that these teams have a full season under there belt now, plenty of time to close or widen the gap they started at.

And my point is, no, it's not. The in-league games don't matter enough; unless you're dominating the league and putting on a 16-0 run. Mostly it's just the ladder games, and that's only 16 a season, which *probably* isn't enough. There's a reason chess uses 20 (I think that's what it is now) game minimums before declaring your rating non-provisional. You probably need about 30 games, at a minimum, which for the midseason teams we're just barely reaching now - which means teams that for whatever reason got unlucky with not getting matched up to appropriate opponents or whatever are still improperly ranked. And for the teams that were started with the beginning of this season, they're still poorly rated - maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong, but the accuracy is still poor. The good news for the teams new this season is they were in a league with other teams that already had good ratings, so more of their league games work towards fixing their ratings.

By the end of next season I'd be comfortable with where the ratings are; right now it's premature. The high end might be okay but the middle range - 20th-100th or so - is still probably off.

Originally posted by Stobie

I don't think it was the debate that they haven't more so that they shouldn't have had too and would be ranked higher if they didn't need to.

Bort speculated it was exactly that last season at some point.

Originally posted by bhall43
That hawk league.

That wolf league.

Originally posted by NiborRis
Sadly, you don't understand the actual problem with the midseason team ratings, which had absolutely nothing to do with playing fewer games, even if Bort thinks it did, because frankly Bort doesn't properly understand his rating system either.

The problem was that the midseason teams were given a starting rating *lower* than every other team that was currently in the game, including winless teams. Basically, the assumption was that every midseason team was worse than every other team currently in existence, which was clearly a terrible assumption. It takes a while for the # of games to overcome a weird starting rating like that, and we're *just now* starting to reach that point.

They should have started at the same value that other teams started at. Which Bort keeps telling Corndog they did, except they didn't. We could all see the rankings pages, and we all saw exactly where they were ranked the first few weeks (not just the first week, so it wasn't some ranking anomaly).

We don't have information on what the starting rating for D0 teams was, or what the rating was that was given to the midseason teams (that information may be impossible to know now), or what the k-value is, so of course no one can say for certain how long it takes to overcome having the wrong starting rating. I'd say it's getting close now, just based on watching Osprey play in ladder play (which is really unscientific but it's about the best I've got). You can follow along here:
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/game/forum/thread/5148603
but I was out of town last weekend and didn't get the last game week in.

Nice effort of you, but para simply doesnt want to see why he is wrong. Always liked and respected him, but since he dropped from #1 he seems to be ignorant. Still a great Team, but not worth any discussion

Originally posted by peeti
Nice effort of you, but para simply doesnt want to see why he is wrong. Always liked and respected him, but since he dropped from #1 he seems to be ignorant. Still a great Team, but not worth any discussion

Because I disagree with both of you I'm ignorant? You didn't even put together any type of rational argument, even when you accused me of not doing any type of research and I asked you to post yours you disappeared. I at least know where Niboris stands now, even though I disagree. I still don't even know what your stance is period.

Originally posted by Parab00n
Because I disagree with both of you I'm ignorant? You didn't even put together any type of rational argument, even when you accused me of not doing any type of research and I asked you to post yours you disappeared. I at least know where Niboris stands now, even though I disagree. I still don't even know what your stance is period.

Its actually the opposite, as you said you dont care bout conclusion, everything has been sorted out. i asked if u actually Took any research, got no answer as expected. i really dont care anymore and my Last statement has not been exclusively about this Topic. I see You have a different point and I can live with that, so please accept just mine.

I would only debate sth with someone who seems to be Open for arguments, you simply arent. At least thats what I think, and thats enough for me to Not waste any effort. Great Season, btw

Originally posted by peeti
Its actually the opposite, as you said you dont care bout conclusion, everything has been sorted out. i asked if u actually Took any research, got no answer as expected. i really dont care anymore and my Last statement has not been exclusively about this Topic. I see You have a different point and I can live with that, so please accept just mine.

I would only debate sth with someone who seems to be Open for arguments, you simply arent. At least thats what I think, and thats enough for me to Not waste any effort. Great Season, btw


My entire point is that I don't believe you or anyone else can make a valid claim that a Mid-Season 1 team would be ranked any higher now than if they started with different ELO or at a earlier time. If I'm not mistaken Iowa got all the way into the Top 5 befofe the big Man Coverage change(they kinda fell apart since) and now they are a few mid season teams cracking the top 20. I'm not trying to argue whether its right or wrong that those teams got the shaft by whatever ELO they started with, just that there has been plenty of games for teams to get a pretty accurate rating.

Originally posted by Parab00n

My entire point is that I don't believe you or anyone else can make a valid claim that a Mid-Season 1 team would be ranked any higher now than if they started with different ELO or at a earlier time. If I'm not mistaken Iowa got all the way into the Top 5 befofe the big Man Coverage change(they kinda fell apart since) and now they are a few mid season teams cracking the top 20. I'm not trying to argue whether its right or wrong that those teams got the shaft by whatever ELO they started with, just that there has been plenty of games for teams to get a pretty accurate rating.

Yeah

Originally posted by Parab00n
Because I disagree with both of you I'm ignorant? You didn't even put together any type of rational argument, even when you accused me of not doing any type of research and I asked you to post yours you disappeared. I at least know where Niboris stands now, even though I disagree. I still don't even know what your stance is period.

We can disagree, but I think looking at teams like #16 Tampa Piranhas and #10 Providence, we just don't know if that's where they belong yet - mostly because they just got to those rankings and haven't played enough of the other teams in the top 20 to really feel comfortable that we have the ratings right. Providence has only lost 4 games this season, which is fewer than anyone else in Sophomore as far as I know (at least in the top 50 or so, and how are you not that high if you've only lost 3-4 games?), and Tampa is right up there with only 5 losses. Tampa's played 2 league games against Alpine - and split them - but other than that, has either of those teams played anyone else in the top 10 right now?
Pretty hard to say they've had enough time to sort out the rankings when they are just getting to where we *think* they belong and haven't had any games there to really fine tune it, in my opinion.

Originally posted by Parab00n

My entire point is that I don't believe you or anyone else can make a valid claim that a Mid-Season 1 team would be ranked any higher now than if they started with different ELO or at a earlier time.

Thunderoo can, assuming it's valid. It's been a while since he ran the numbers but in weeks past it was pretty clear we just weren't there yet, not even really close. Hopefully he'll make an end of season post, which would add some clarity.