Ive got some free time so I am looking at different ways to make a ranking. Ill either give my ideas and some stats from them or have a ranking alittle later tonight. Its more so just to get another look out there and give another suggestion for discussion on how to make the rankings.
twntower50
offline
offline
ok, I know when everyone reads this it will already be outdated stats, but I'd like everyone to look at how I made it and tell me what you think about the method. If you think the rankings are pretty fair and a good way to do it then I can try and do this every 3 games or so. I only did it for the Zeta conference this time since I was just playing with numbers to see if i could get a good formula going and considering it would be outdated.
twntower50
offline
offline
first off, the main categories that went into these rankings were strength of schedule, avg. margin of your losses, # of losses, and qaulity wins. I'll explain how I found these categories and then how the categories weighed in the final formula and why.
STRENGHT OF SHCEDULE: To find the strength of schedule I first gave every team a ranking by wins and losses. So the Rhine Red Raiders and the Hellhounds were each #1 because they had the same record, Bad Bay Hackers was #2 for the second best record, the Glowsticks, Range Roamers, Chewpacabras, and Berlin Bears were all #3 because they all had the 3rd best and so on and so on. To find the strength of schedule I just looked at each teams schedule and added the teams rankings up that they had already played. Whoever had the lowest total has had the hardest schedule thus far, and were ranked #1 in this category. For us it was the Istanbul Turks.
AVG. MARGIN OF LOSSES: This speaks for itself. I added up the total points from all their losses and divided it by the #of games they lost. Then ranked them from lowest margin of loss to highest.
# OF LOSSES: I used this 3 ways. One is obviously just the number of losses you had straight up. Also, I used this in a fraction for the final formula where I divided how many losses you had out of the number of games youve played so far (6). It also helped me calculate the Quality Wins.
QUALITY WINS: Looking at each teams schedule, I went through and looked at all their wins. If they beat a team by the same or more than that teams avg. margin of loss, then I considered that a Quality win. Doing it this way avoids giving teams unfair and stupid bonus's for destroying terrible teams. By doing it this way, if a team DOMINATES a terrible team, they get 2 good things out of it in a more suttle way. For one, they make that teams avg. margin of losses higher, making it harder for other teams to get a quality win against them, and they get the quality win. I then went back and ranked the teams from most quality wins to least. There were only 7 overall teams with atleast a quality win. 2 teams had 5, 2 teams had 2, and 2 teams had 1. I ranked these teams 1-4, and every other team was #5.
FINAL FORMULA: In the end I added up all the rankings the teams got in each category,and the team with the lowest overall number is the best. but there is a twist to how I did a few of them. Since weve only played 6/16 games, I took that fraction and multiplied it by the teams ranking in the strength of schedule to get the number I used when adding it all together.
Ex: College Station Chewpacabras had the 5th hardest schedule (5 x .375= 1.875)
Range Roamers had the 10th hardest schedule (10 x .375=3.75)
The next number I added was the Quality wins ranking.
Ex: College Station Chewpacabras had 1 Quality win which ranked them 4th (4+ 1.875=5.875)
Range Roamers had 0 so they were ranked 5th (5+3.75=8.75)
Next I added the number of losses the team had
Ex: College Station Chewpacabras have lost 2 (5.875 + 2= 7.875)
Range Roamers have lost 2 ( 8.75+2= 10.75)
Lastly, I added in the avg. margin of losses rankings. Since a team that has only lost 3 games by say an avg of 20 points shouldnt be ranked way worse than a team that has lost all their games but only by an avg of maybe 9 points, I took how many games they lost divided by number of games played and multiplied that by their ranking in the category.
Ex. C.S. Chewpacabras were ranked 8th in avg. loss but only lost 2 games (2/6 or .33 x 8=2.64) this is what I added to the total.
Range Roamers were rankde 3rd for avg loss and lost 2 games. ( 2/6 x 3= .99)
So overall C.S.C ended with (1.875+4+2+2.64=10.515)
STRENGHT OF SHCEDULE: To find the strength of schedule I first gave every team a ranking by wins and losses. So the Rhine Red Raiders and the Hellhounds were each #1 because they had the same record, Bad Bay Hackers was #2 for the second best record, the Glowsticks, Range Roamers, Chewpacabras, and Berlin Bears were all #3 because they all had the 3rd best and so on and so on. To find the strength of schedule I just looked at each teams schedule and added the teams rankings up that they had already played. Whoever had the lowest total has had the hardest schedule thus far, and were ranked #1 in this category. For us it was the Istanbul Turks.
AVG. MARGIN OF LOSSES: This speaks for itself. I added up the total points from all their losses and divided it by the #of games they lost. Then ranked them from lowest margin of loss to highest.
# OF LOSSES: I used this 3 ways. One is obviously just the number of losses you had straight up. Also, I used this in a fraction for the final formula where I divided how many losses you had out of the number of games youve played so far (6). It also helped me calculate the Quality Wins.
QUALITY WINS: Looking at each teams schedule, I went through and looked at all their wins. If they beat a team by the same or more than that teams avg. margin of loss, then I considered that a Quality win. Doing it this way avoids giving teams unfair and stupid bonus's for destroying terrible teams. By doing it this way, if a team DOMINATES a terrible team, they get 2 good things out of it in a more suttle way. For one, they make that teams avg. margin of losses higher, making it harder for other teams to get a quality win against them, and they get the quality win. I then went back and ranked the teams from most quality wins to least. There were only 7 overall teams with atleast a quality win. 2 teams had 5, 2 teams had 2, and 2 teams had 1. I ranked these teams 1-4, and every other team was #5.
FINAL FORMULA: In the end I added up all the rankings the teams got in each category,and the team with the lowest overall number is the best. but there is a twist to how I did a few of them. Since weve only played 6/16 games, I took that fraction and multiplied it by the teams ranking in the strength of schedule to get the number I used when adding it all together.
Ex: College Station Chewpacabras had the 5th hardest schedule (5 x .375= 1.875)
Range Roamers had the 10th hardest schedule (10 x .375=3.75)
The next number I added was the Quality wins ranking.
Ex: College Station Chewpacabras had 1 Quality win which ranked them 4th (4+ 1.875=5.875)
Range Roamers had 0 so they were ranked 5th (5+3.75=8.75)
Next I added the number of losses the team had
Ex: College Station Chewpacabras have lost 2 (5.875 + 2= 7.875)
Range Roamers have lost 2 ( 8.75+2= 10.75)
Lastly, I added in the avg. margin of losses rankings. Since a team that has only lost 3 games by say an avg of 20 points shouldnt be ranked way worse than a team that has lost all their games but only by an avg of maybe 9 points, I took how many games they lost divided by number of games played and multiplied that by their ranking in the category.
Ex. C.S. Chewpacabras were ranked 8th in avg. loss but only lost 2 games (2/6 or .33 x 8=2.64) this is what I added to the total.
Range Roamers were rankde 3rd for avg loss and lost 2 games. ( 2/6 x 3= .99)
So overall C.S.C ended with (1.875+4+2+2.64=10.515)
twntower50
offline
offline
I know this seems ridiculous, but its really not hard at all once you get your main numbers, it would probly take me an hour to do both leagues. Im just trying to figure out the best way to combine them right now so any suggestions are welcome. here are the ranking I got for Zeta
1. Hellhounds 4.375
2. Red Raiders 4.75
3. Hackers 5.58
4. Glowsticks 9.23
5. Chewpacabras 10.515
6. Bears 11.23
7. Range Roamers 11.74
8. Destroyers 12.375
9. Turks 13.405
10. Gorgons 13.85
11. Wankstas 16
12. Blazers 17.065
13. Chargers 19.425
14. Reptillians 20.71
15. Terriers 23.125
16. Convicts 24.245
1. Hellhounds 4.375
2. Red Raiders 4.75
3. Hackers 5.58
4. Glowsticks 9.23
5. Chewpacabras 10.515
6. Bears 11.23
7. Range Roamers 11.74
8. Destroyers 12.375
9. Turks 13.405
10. Gorgons 13.85
11. Wankstas 16
12. Blazers 17.065
13. Chargers 19.425
14. Reptillians 20.71
15. Terriers 23.125
16. Convicts 24.245
twntower50
offline
offline
Please let me know what everyone thinks, I know the numbers I used were wierd and might be confusing so feel free to ask questions, criticize, or give ideas to make it better!
redrayder28
offline
offline
Originally posted by twntower50
Please let me know what everyone thinks, I know the numbers I used were wierd and might be confusing so feel free to ask questions, criticize, or give ideas to make it better!
I'd say the actual ranks/scores you have listed are a better indicator of the teams relative ranking than the others I've seen popping up in the forums.
I like it so far.
Please let me know what everyone thinks, I know the numbers I used were wierd and might be confusing so feel free to ask questions, criticize, or give ideas to make it better!
I'd say the actual ranks/scores you have listed are a better indicator of the teams relative ranking than the others I've seen popping up in the forums.
I like it so far.
The more rankings the better IMO!twntower50
offline
offline
Does anyone have any ideas on what to add to this to make it a ranking that will make it a legitimate ranking when combining the 2 conferences into one league ranking? Im having trouble thinking of a good way to do this. I guess instead of doing it league by league, I could take these stats and turn everything that I used a ranking for and turn it into a 1-32 ranking. Any other ideas?
Rudger
offline
offline
Originally posted by twntower50
Does anyone have any ideas on what to add to this to make it a ranking that will make it a legitimate ranking when combining the 2 conferences into one league ranking? Im having trouble thinking of a good way to do this. I guess instead of doing it league by league, I could take these stats and turn everything that I used a ranking for and turn it into a 1-32 ranking. Any other ideas?
I could see simply doing them seperate, just 1-16 Alpha and 1-16 Zeta. Let the playoffs decide the rest.
Does anyone have any ideas on what to add to this to make it a ranking that will make it a legitimate ranking when combining the 2 conferences into one league ranking? Im having trouble thinking of a good way to do this. I guess instead of doing it league by league, I could take these stats and turn everything that I used a ranking for and turn it into a 1-32 ranking. Any other ideas?
I could see simply doing them seperate, just 1-16 Alpha and 1-16 Zeta. Let the playoffs decide the rest.
twntower50
offline
offline
well I'll say I was very impressed with the Range Roamers this week. When I did these rankings I kinda felt it came out right and that they were overrated, but their defense played a great game again and they showed they are definately a quality team. I think a team that is also very dangerous are the Turks. Theyve got some great players and ratings and if it wasnt for their very difficult schedule thus far, I think they would be in great shape. They could make a very strong push for a #5 spot in the playoffs I think.
Scandal Silverdust
offline
offline
Originally posted by twntower50
well I'll say I was very impressed with the Range Roamers this week. When I did these rankings I kinda felt it came out right and that they were overrated, but their defense played a great game again and they showed they are definately a quality team. I think a team that is also very dangerous are the Turks. Theyve got some great players and ratings and if it wasnt for their very difficult schedule thus far, I think they would be in great shape. They could make a very strong push for a #5 spot in the playoffs I think.
I agree that the Turks a a very good team.
I can see them winning approx 6 out of the remaining 9 games.
If they don't make the play offs I would be very surprised.
Our conference is the best and most interesting leagues I have players in!
It is really fun playing here.
well I'll say I was very impressed with the Range Roamers this week. When I did these rankings I kinda felt it came out right and that they were overrated, but their defense played a great game again and they showed they are definately a quality team. I think a team that is also very dangerous are the Turks. Theyve got some great players and ratings and if it wasnt for their very difficult schedule thus far, I think they would be in great shape. They could make a very strong push for a #5 spot in the playoffs I think.
I agree that the Turks a a very good team.
I can see them winning approx 6 out of the remaining 9 games.
If they don't make the play offs I would be very surprised.
Our conference is the best and most interesting leagues I have players in!
It is really fun playing here.
twntower50
offline
offline
well the numbers dont lie ha... but hopefully the numbers will have you dropping after we play yall.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
