2012 League Discussion

@DarthMaximus:

The one thing about any type of pt system is you don’t get an official tally until the year is over sice players can go up and down in “ranking”.

Right.  But it takes care of itself in the end.

In season updates would probably be just listed by win %.

Yep

I’ll have to think about this a little more.

Cool

@Gamerman01:

Gamer           17
DutchmanD    11
Lucky             10
Boldfresh        8
Tyzoq              8
JWW               8
Zhukov            7
Dragon            3
SouL                3
Billy                3
OBG                 2
Anchovy           1
SAS                 -1
Akreider           -1
Journalist          -2

Fixed Bold and updated for RD vs. Billy result

A few potential concerns I have with the most recently suggested scoring system.

1. The newly proposed weighted system suggests utilizing the current winning percentage system as a means to assign point values to wins and losses.

I would argue, that if the current percentage based scoring system is deemed inequitable, then, any future system, using the percentage system as its foundation, would be similarly faulted.

An example of this can be realized by reviewing the rankings change of BoldFresh in this proposed system. BF’s winning percentage record regulates a specific value associated with beating him to “X”, and everyone that defeated him get’s a multiple of “X” to tabulate their total win/loss value or score. The problem with this as can be noted in BoldFresh’s final standing placement as a top tiered player. One could easily argue that any victories against BF should have had the higher weighted value of “Y”.

Further, the reverse argument can be made for wins or losses against Zhukov if this format is utilized.

2. Tiers – who decides when one tier starts and another one ends? How many tiers should we have? What values do we use to assign to each tier? The placement of these tiers seems to be a critical component in the scoring system.
3. It was noted that a “weakness” in this system surrounds what should be done with players who only played 1 or 2 games. If we consider Anchovy, a strong player IMO, who didn’t participate much this year, or if we speculate that our old friend HOBO or Yoshi partook in a few games, but decided against completing more than 1 or 2, are we to weigh victories against these strong players as less valuable than those of players who had records such as 2-8, 5-15 etc….I would argue, not.
4. Even if we employ this new system or something similar, which by the way, was done back in 06-07, it appears that it will have a small impact on the overall and final rankings.

I certainly don’t want to seem indifferent to players who get “squeaked” out of the playoffs but in both systems three out of the four playoff participants are the same.

5. Considering the above, agreed to issues, players with 1-2 games played given a value, and the other “speculative” problems I note above, I would argue that adopting a new weighed system would be a bad idea.
6. Lastly, and in my opinion, this new scoring system goes against the KISS principle, of which, I am a strong advocate.
7. This is only my opinion on these “fun”, gaming matters. I will humbly abide and continue to participate by whatever ruling the powers that be or the masses desire.

They were all strong points,  :-D I left a few “weak” ones off the table. If you want some of the weak ones let me know.

now get back to work, kicking my arse the our league game. I want to record the loss this year!! Stop stalling.

Kind of agree to JWW points, but also appreciate the detailed proposition and examples of everyone. I definitely do not appreciate the points system from revised ; too much value for the number of games played to my mind (but that’s just my opinion of course)

@JWW:

6. Lastly, and in my opinion, this new scoring system goes against the KISS principle, of which, I am a strong advocate.

What is this KISS system ?

KISS = Keep it simple, stupid

JWW, the distinction between Bold and OBG is the centerpiece of my argument.  Bold is a top tier player, and this is not seen in the straight won/loss record.  Yes, I know I used records to make tiers.  You guys - I took TWENTY MINUTES to devise the system and also calculate the rankings.  It’s the general idea that I’m putting out, a lot of the details are changeable, and it can be very simple, yes.

The straight won/loss record has a significant flaw - it punishes players who play tough opponents, and rewards players who bottom-feed.  A simple strength of schedule component (could be even simpler that what I threw out there today for thoughts) significantly increases the accuracy of the standings.

I find JWW and DM’s arguments for KISS and simplicity quite convincing.  It seems to be true that both systems ‘would’ produce similar results.  Obviously they’ve put alot of thought into it so I will be fine with whatever they decide.

But……it seems to me that the best objection to JWW’s reasoning above is the ‘hypothetical’ one of a user who was bent on ‘gaming’ the system and only took games against noob opponents that he/she knew he could defeat.  It’s exactly this sort of user (if he/she appeared) that would produce a difference b/w a weighted and non-weighted system.  Since we are (mostly  :lol:) honorable in these parts, and the top players are willing to test themselves against other good players (to a limited extent anyway), there is essentially no difference between the weighted and non-weighted scores.  The potential for an exceptional case is what would make the various proposed extra rules and weighted scoring necessary.

Since we don’t seem to have much in the way of abuses, laisse-faire simplicity seems reasonable.  But if an abuser came along, I could see perceptions changing.

In other words, while previously the abuses have been indirect and more or less unconscious, if someone came along that was ‘directly’ and straightforwardly gaming the system, then Gamer’s argument that “The straight won/loss record has a significant flaw - it punishes players who play tough opponents, and rewards players who bottom-feed” might become more convincing than the KISS principle.

Good discussion all.

@JWW:

I certainly don’t want to seem indifferent to players who get “squeaked” out of the playoffs but in both systems three out of the four playoff participants are the same.

It’s just a fun little playoff at the end between the top 4 players.  It’s single elimination, so one unlucky game would eliminate the best player.  So we shouldn’t make too big of a deal out of the selection method.

The fact that 3 of 4 participants are the same is just a testament to the fact that both systems are good.

I like my little strength of schedule calculation a lot, and will use it privately in the future to rank the skills of players.  I don’t care if it’s used by everyone for deciding playoff participants, but I decided to throw it out there for fun and because I think it’s a great idea.

As far as who is going to decide what, isn’t that what you and Darth do?  Darth has already refined my idea by looking at making tiers at 4ths by records.  And as far as your protest that the point system is based on records - that’s really nitpicky.  Just admit the tiered ranking/point system helps identify under-rated and over-rated players, because it quite obviously does.  :-)

If Bold exclusively played the people in the bottom 3rd, he would be about 24 and 2, and everyone would be bowing down to him.

@Gamerman01:

@JWW:

I certainly don’t want to seem indifferent to players who get “squeaked” out of the playoffs but in both systems three out of the four playoff participants are the same.

It’s just a fun little playoff at the end between the top 4 players.  It’s single elimination, so one unlucky game would eliminate the best player.  So we shouldn’t make too big of a deal out of the selection method.

The fact that 3 of 4 participants are the same is just a testament to the fact that both systems are good.

I like my little strength of schedule calculation a lot, and will use it privately in the future to rank the skills of players.  I don’t care if it’s used by everyone for deciding playoff participants, but I decided to throw it out there for fun and because I think it’s a great idea.

As far as who is going to decide what, isn’t that what you and Darth do?  Darth has already refined my idea by looking at making tiers at 4ths by records.  And as far as your protest that the point system is based on records - that’s really nitpicky.  Just admit the tiered ranking/point system helps identify under-rated and over-rated players, because it quite obviously does.  :-)

If Bold exclusively played the people in the bottom 3rd, he would be about 24 and 2, and everyone would be bowing down to him.

bowing down to me?  :lol: that might be fun but I’d much rather have the challenge of playing the best.  of course that may mean I never make the playoffs if there is no strength of schedule modifier, but that’s ok with me - as Gamer said, one really unlucky game can knock the best player out of the playoff anyway, as was clearly shown when he lost last year’s '42 league final.  i will go on accepting all the games the top players will play me but of course i’d like to see a strength of schedule modifier because one would think it would encourage top players to challenge top players. whatever can encourage that i’m for.

Since we’re having such a good discussion, let me throw another idea out there.

What about 2 game series where players each play both sides with the same bid?

I’ll bet that most of the top players in the league have played Axis more than Allies (the notable exception being LL and to a lesser extent myself).  Conversely, most of the players at the bottom have no doubt chosen Allies more than Axis.

I was hostile to the 2-game requirement when it was introduced to the TripleA ladder.  I felt that it violated KISS and it would lead to less interest and ladder games.

BUT at this point I fully concede the 2 game format is a more accurate way to measure overall skill.  The bid is indeterminate and shifting, and when it comes to AA50, people (including experts) have consistently over-rated the Allies’ chances.

I’m undecided whether this idea is a good one but I’ll throw it out there.  In it’s favor, it would lead to more accurate ratings and would encourage people to play both sides more often.

Really charged discussion gents.  I have been considering sitting out in 2012; I barely had time to get ten games in.  But, I’d like to add a couple ideas to the mix.

The Dutch Plan:

1. The point made about the people with lesser records tending to be new people to the league or people who don’t stick around is an excellent one.  Instead of the leagues being <10 games and 10+ games, pehaps the two leagues should be Veterans League and New Recruits League.  Guys must play in the New Recruits League first and then automatically get bumped up to Veteran’s League if they get at least 5 or 6 games in, regardless of record. The issue would be that there may be a limited number of opponents for this “league”, but we would allow the New Recruits to play any player and report their win without the game necessarily needing to be listed as a league game to count. They just post a completed game on the New Recxruits message board. The point is that we are looking for activity and longevity.  The Veterans could play the New Recruits, but the win-losses would not count in the Veterans League standings.

2. Leagues don’t usually take into stregth of schedule to figure the playoffs.  It is just based on record. But they also have fixed schedules assigned to them of who to play.  The strength of schedule calculation is an unneeded headache. The in our League is that we allow people to pick and choose their match-up.  I suggest we have people actually enroll in the league for 2012, and that these players that enroll are then given a randomly assigned schedule of between 10 and 12 games with other Veterans who signed up.  Everyone that enrolls commits to play the number of games we decide to have for the season. Then you can have actual structure and people have to play who they are assigned.  You could have a new game scheduled to start every month, with two beginning at the same time at the start of the season.  You could overlap your games, so there is no time constraint to finish every game in a month.  People who feel compelled to play more than 10 or 12 games (Bold, I’m talking about you) can play exibition games against whoever they want, including the New Recruits, but those games won’t count against the Veterans League record (just like in soccor).  There would be an Opening Day to the Season, and a Season ending date.

I think this kind of structure to the league actually adds a lot of interest and it will be fun to look at everybody’s schedule for the year ahead of time (ex. I have Darth in May, and Bold in June, followed by Yoshi in July, etc., etc.) You could even have divisions and wildcards if you wanted.  Much of this would depend on how many people sign up.

When  say the New Recruits automatically get bumped up,  mean that they would become eligible for the season the following year in the Veterans League.

@DarthMaximus:

BTW, Gamer in your spreadsheet, does OBG only have 8 losses.  I may have missed something but it looked like the losses were: LL, DD, RD, Soul (2), Bold (2), Billy.

No, he does have 9.  I went back through the results posts, and found that I missed one of the losses he had to Lucky.  I also hadn’t changed it to 2-0 in Lucky’s line.  Both records are correct on my spreadsheet though (and they match JWWs).

@DarthMaximus:

If you refine your system to where you like it, I’d consider a thread titled “Gamer’s Rankings” for you to post your updates.  It of course would have no barring on the League or league playoffs, but I’d consider using it for tourney seeding if one or more of the top 4 don’t return for a tourney or something.

Thanks, that would be cool.

Some players might appreciate a different way of looking at the standings……  So yeah, I could update it once a month, and I could list won/loss and percentages for those who like to see it monthly.