Originally posted by Homage
we can tag?
i consider me applying a offense/defense for the situation tagging.
we can tag?
i consider me applying a offense/defense for the situation tagging.
Forum > Goal Line Blitz 2 > S2 Thunderoo's Top Ten Tournament
Thunderoo
offline
offline
Round 2 has been completed (sort of!).
So DD and OG GLB didn't schedule their two away games however the results are pretty clear as for finalists and DD have a penalty of being the second seed in Alpha as a result of not playing their two games.
The semi finals are:
Maine vs DD
Sunday Funday vs Alpine
These are the clear top four teams in the game right now and each of them showed it with dominant performances in almost all pool matches. Hopefully we can get these matches scheduled soon so the final doesn't clash with playoffs at all! For those interested in who is looking to be invited for next season I'll update the top 20 shortly.
So DD and OG GLB didn't schedule their two away games however the results are pretty clear as for finalists and DD have a penalty of being the second seed in Alpha as a result of not playing their two games.
The semi finals are:
Maine vs DD
Sunday Funday vs Alpine
These are the clear top four teams in the game right now and each of them showed it with dominant performances in almost all pool matches. Hopefully we can get these matches scheduled soon so the final doesn't clash with playoffs at all! For those interested in who is looking to be invited for next season I'll update the top 20 shortly.
Thunderoo
offline
offline
Current S3 line up is:
Alpine
DD
SF
Maine
QCB
Seattle
Portland
Carolina Pirates
Legacy
MEM
Legacy may drop a bit as they have some very tough league games coming up and may miss the ratings boost from play off wins that others in the top 20 will have. I would say that everyone from Jeb and above have a shot at making the top 10 only team that definitly won't be back at this point is OG GLB.
Current top 20:
Rank Team Rating Win Loss Tie
1 Alpine 1551.889322 41 11 0
2 Doinitin Djibouti 1536.600121 46 7 0
3 Sunday Funday 1510.358673 40 12 1
4 Maine Snails 1498.907618 44 8 1
5 Queen City Brewmasters 1490.13336 39 13 0
6 Seattle Seahawks 1483.082387 40 13 0
7 Portland Ronin 1478.48651 39 11 3
8 Carolina Pirates 1470.683688 39 13 1
9 Legacy 1463.620268 39 14 0
10 Monmouth EVIL MONKEYS 1458.936076 34 14 3
11 Rocky Mountain Reapers 1456.081893 38 14 0
12 New Jersey Generals 1449.517328 35 14 2
13 TT's Wolfpack of One 1445.064532 37 14 2
14 Iowa Rogues 1441.579952 36 9 0
15 Chicago Bruins 1440.75276 36 15 1
16 Annapolis Freedom 1430.815623 37 14 0
17 Jebediahs Oblong Ball Club 1429.632195 36 15 1
18 Providence Radicals 1428.940808 32 10 1
19 Las Vegas Outlaws 1415.775891 34 16 1
20 Minnesota Stunners 1412.088878 34 11 0
Alpine
DD
SF
Maine
QCB
Seattle
Portland
Carolina Pirates
Legacy
MEM
Legacy may drop a bit as they have some very tough league games coming up and may miss the ratings boost from play off wins that others in the top 20 will have. I would say that everyone from Jeb and above have a shot at making the top 10 only team that definitly won't be back at this point is OG GLB.
Current top 20:
Rank Team Rating Win Loss Tie
1 Alpine 1551.889322 41 11 0
2 Doinitin Djibouti 1536.600121 46 7 0
3 Sunday Funday 1510.358673 40 12 1
4 Maine Snails 1498.907618 44 8 1
5 Queen City Brewmasters 1490.13336 39 13 0
6 Seattle Seahawks 1483.082387 40 13 0
7 Portland Ronin 1478.48651 39 11 3
8 Carolina Pirates 1470.683688 39 13 1
9 Legacy 1463.620268 39 14 0
10 Monmouth EVIL MONKEYS 1458.936076 34 14 3
11 Rocky Mountain Reapers 1456.081893 38 14 0
12 New Jersey Generals 1449.517328 35 14 2
13 TT's Wolfpack of One 1445.064532 37 14 2
14 Iowa Rogues 1441.579952 36 9 0
15 Chicago Bruins 1440.75276 36 15 1
16 Annapolis Freedom 1430.815623 37 14 0
17 Jebediahs Oblong Ball Club 1429.632195 36 15 1
18 Providence Radicals 1428.940808 32 10 1
19 Las Vegas Outlaws 1415.775891 34 16 1
20 Minnesota Stunners 1412.088878 34 11 0
NiborRis
offline
offline
Wow, that's a pretty big discrepancy in Alpine's rating vs GLB's official rankings. That must be almost entirely due to the effect of Osprey being a mid-season league with a poor starting rating; Osprey is for the most part putting up great records in the ladder due to this effect and Alpine going 11-0 so far in that league gives us a bit of a boost in this version.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by Thunderoo
Round 2 has been completed (sort of!).
So DD and OG GLB didn't schedule their two away games however the results are pretty clear as for finalists and DD have a penalty of being the second seed in Alpha as a result of not playing their two games.
The semi finals are:
Maine vs DD
Sunday Funday vs Alpine
These are the clear top four teams in the game right now and each of them showed it with dominant performances in almost all pool matches. Hopefully we can get these matches scheduled soon so the final doesn't clash with playoffs at all! For those interested in who is looking to be invited for next season I'll update the top 20 shortly.
Sorry OG has sorta checked out as of late with me not really signing in over here much.
Round 2 has been completed (sort of!).
So DD and OG GLB didn't schedule their two away games however the results are pretty clear as for finalists and DD have a penalty of being the second seed in Alpha as a result of not playing their two games.
The semi finals are:
Maine vs DD
Sunday Funday vs Alpine
These are the clear top four teams in the game right now and each of them showed it with dominant performances in almost all pool matches. Hopefully we can get these matches scheduled soon so the final doesn't clash with playoffs at all! For those interested in who is looking to be invited for next season I'll update the top 20 shortly.
Sorry OG has sorta checked out as of late with me not really signing in over here much.
Originally posted by NiborRis
Wow, that's a pretty big discrepancy in Alpine's rating vs GLB's official rankings. That must be almost entirely due to the effect of Osprey being a mid-season league with a poor starting rating; Osprey is for the most part putting up great records in the ladder due to this effect and Alpine going 11-0 so far in that league gives us a bit of a boost in this version.
Or it could be because he's using a different k value.
Wow, that's a pretty big discrepancy in Alpine's rating vs GLB's official rankings. That must be almost entirely due to the effect of Osprey being a mid-season league with a poor starting rating; Osprey is for the most part putting up great records in the ladder due to this effect and Alpine going 11-0 so far in that league gives us a bit of a boost in this version.
Or it could be because he's using a different k value.
NiborRis
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Or it could be because he's using a different k value.
That would be part of it too. I'm also not sure if you're rounding back to an integer or not; he's not, but it sure seems like GLB must be to keep getting ties after 40+ games. That would cause some effects also. I'm still guessing the starting point differences is the primary contributor in this specific instance just because Alpine got moved into Osprey this season, and then proceed to go on a tear this season. For the most part the order is the same, so the k value isn't messing with things too much.
Or it could be because he's using a different k value.
That would be part of it too. I'm also not sure if you're rounding back to an integer or not; he's not, but it sure seems like GLB must be to keep getting ties after 40+ games. That would cause some effects also. I'm still guessing the starting point differences is the primary contributor in this specific instance just because Alpine got moved into Osprey this season, and then proceed to go on a tear this season. For the most part the order is the same, so the k value isn't messing with things too much.
Thunderoo
offline
offline
Originally posted by NiborRis
That would be part of it too. I'm also not sure if you're rounding back to an integer or not; he's not, but it sure seems like GLB must be to keep getting ties after 40+ games. That would cause some effects also. I'm still guessing the starting point differences is the primary contributor in this specific instance just because Alpine got moved into Osprey this season, and then proceed to go on a tear this season. For the most part the order is the same, so the k value isn't messing with things too much.
The difference is 100% Alpine being in a league which is 10/12 mid season S1 teams. These teams all start with 1200 rating in my script (same as day 1 S1 teams) which is not what the official ladder rankings used.
That would be part of it too. I'm also not sure if you're rounding back to an integer or not; he's not, but it sure seems like GLB must be to keep getting ties after 40+ games. That would cause some effects also. I'm still guessing the starting point differences is the primary contributor in this specific instance just because Alpine got moved into Osprey this season, and then proceed to go on a tear this season. For the most part the order is the same, so the k value isn't messing with things too much.
The difference is 100% Alpine being in a league which is 10/12 mid season S1 teams. These teams all start with 1200 rating in my script (same as day 1 S1 teams) which is not what the official ladder rankings used.
Originally posted by Thunderoo
The difference is 100% Alpine being in a league which is 10/12 mid season S1 teams. These teams all start with 1200 rating in my script (same as day 1 S1 teams) which is not what the official ladder rankings used.
Nobody started with 1200 elo.
The difference is 100% Alpine being in a league which is 10/12 mid season S1 teams. These teams all start with 1200 rating in my script (same as day 1 S1 teams) which is not what the official ladder rankings used.
Nobody started with 1200 elo.
Thunderoo
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Nobody started with 1200 elo.
Doesn't really matter what the starting value is... Teams started in S1 at X, no team since then has started at X. This model assumes all teams that start in the current top tier start at the same point as teams did in S1. Teams that drop backed to rookie or started in rookie have a value that seems to match up their placements with where they are on the official ladder. This means that S1 mid season teams and teams that have played many of those teams will have higher ratings on this list than on the official one.
Nobody started with 1200 elo.
Doesn't really matter what the starting value is... Teams started in S1 at X, no team since then has started at X. This model assumes all teams that start in the current top tier start at the same point as teams did in S1. Teams that drop backed to rookie or started in rookie have a value that seems to match up their placements with where they are on the official ladder. This means that S1 mid season teams and teams that have played many of those teams will have higher ratings on this list than on the official one.
Edited by Thunderoo on Mar 2, 2014 21:05:15
Originally posted by Thunderoo
Teams started in S1 at X, no team since then has started at X.
Also not true.
Teams started in S1 at X, no team since then has started at X.
Also not true.
Thunderoo
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Also not true.
That's intriguing but ultimately pointless information; it also begs the question why did mid season 1 teams start at some ridiculously low value....
Also not true.
That's intriguing but ultimately pointless information; it also begs the question why did mid season 1 teams start at some ridiculously low value....
Originally posted by Thunderoo
it also begs the question why did mid season 1 teams start at some ridiculously low value...
Not sure, if that were true I'd have to ask Bort.
it also begs the question why did mid season 1 teams start at some ridiculously low value...
Not sure, if that were true I'd have to ask Bort.
NiborRis
offline
offline
Originally posted by Corndog
Originally posted by Thunderoo
Teams started in S1 at X, no team since then has started at XAlso not true.
It is most likely true, but there is the utter mystery of what was done at the start of S2. Even if it isn't technically true, it's effectively true. What we do know:
When S2 New Sophomore teams and Rookie teams were handed out, they all had the same starting value. And it was lower than any team's current elo rating.
At some point before the season started, something was changed, and the ratings became New Rookies were all equal to each other, and less than New Sophomores, which were all equal to each other, and less than every existing team.
Now, was the "new rookie" ranking also "X", the starting value of teams on S1D1? Possible, but only if every existing team was giving an artificial boost in rating. Or if your elo system is broken, but you insist it isn't, so I have to take that at face value. And what value were the New Sophomores sitting at that they were below every existing Sophomore team?
The waves of teams assigned out in the middle of S1, such as Osprey league, were all created with a rating lower than any existing team at the time, and all equal to each other. We have no idea what that value is, but those of us looking saw with our own eyes that every new team was rated below every existing team, even those that had lost the majority or even all of their games. They *should* have been created at X, but most certainly were not. If they *were* created at X, then your elo system is completely broken, since a significant number of teams would have been below X at that point. This is why I kept saying something is wrong.
Originally posted by Thunderoo
Teams started in S1 at X, no team since then has started at XAlso not true.
It is most likely true, but there is the utter mystery of what was done at the start of S2. Even if it isn't technically true, it's effectively true. What we do know:
When S2 New Sophomore teams and Rookie teams were handed out, they all had the same starting value. And it was lower than any team's current elo rating.
At some point before the season started, something was changed, and the ratings became New Rookies were all equal to each other, and less than New Sophomores, which were all equal to each other, and less than every existing team.
Now, was the "new rookie" ranking also "X", the starting value of teams on S1D1? Possible, but only if every existing team was giving an artificial boost in rating. Or if your elo system is broken, but you insist it isn't, so I have to take that at face value. And what value were the New Sophomores sitting at that they were below every existing Sophomore team?
The waves of teams assigned out in the middle of S1, such as Osprey league, were all created with a rating lower than any existing team at the time, and all equal to each other. We have no idea what that value is, but those of us looking saw with our own eyes that every new team was rated below every existing team, even those that had lost the majority or even all of their games. They *should* have been created at X, but most certainly were not. If they *were* created at X, then your elo system is completely broken, since a significant number of teams would have been below X at that point. This is why I kept saying something is wrong.
Originally posted by NiborRis
The waves of teams assigned out in the middle of S1, such as Osprey league, were all created with a rating lower than any existing team at the time, and all equal to each other. We have no idea what that value is, but those of us looking saw with our own eyes that every new team was rated below every existing team, even those that had lost the majority or even all of their games. They *should* have been created at X, but most certainly were not. If they *were* created at X, then your elo system is completely broken, since a significant number of teams would have been below X at that point. This is why I kept saying something is wrong.
Except I asked Bort, again, tonight, and he said that he didn't do anything special with them and they used whatever the default ELO was in the database. He said he thought about making adjustments but never did.
The waves of teams assigned out in the middle of S1, such as Osprey league, were all created with a rating lower than any existing team at the time, and all equal to each other. We have no idea what that value is, but those of us looking saw with our own eyes that every new team was rated below every existing team, even those that had lost the majority or even all of their games. They *should* have been created at X, but most certainly were not. If they *were* created at X, then your elo system is completely broken, since a significant number of teams would have been below X at that point. This is why I kept saying something is wrong.
Except I asked Bort, again, tonight, and he said that he didn't do anything special with them and they used whatever the default ELO was in the database. He said he thought about making adjustments but never did.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
