Okay, we have eliminated the co-managers actually earning a spot in the yearly standings within the Lifetime Standings and your actual finish should now be reflected in these listings. The rankings are also reflective of just one spot per team, even teams with co-managers. Check it out and let me know if we have this down now.
We still used a baseline of 300 teams to compare 2004 to 2005 and 2006. I know that John had UFS used 330 as a baseline for his rankings and it's possible we could use the highest number each year going forward. But right now the baseline is 300 teams.
Again, give me feedback on this setup and let me know if we finally have this down pat.
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 41087
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
-
nydownunder
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
Can you take into consideration league strengths, drunken participants, location distractions (ie pretty women), and adjust for injuries? 
Only kidding. You can't satisfy everyone Greg, but you gave it a good stab. If teammates want their names split ask for divorce documenation.
Only kidding. You can't satisfy everyone Greg, but you gave it a good stab. If teammates want their names split ask for divorce documenation.
Wagga Wagga Dingoes (NY#4)
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity!
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity!
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
I'm happy and understand it now too. I think it's done. Good job.
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
1) mathematically looks better
2) philosophically, still needs to be fixed
#1 Brent Grooms, played two yrs finishing 9th and 20th
#2 Andrew Nolan/Chris Stephenson played all three yrs, finishing 3rd, 18th, 22nd
Who deserves the higher ranking Greg? No doubt it should be the Nolan team, by a wide margin.
Five years into this contest, based on statistical probability, most if not all of the top 10 will be comprised of guys that played two years then quit, or played in only the recent two years. Right now 6 of the top 10 guys have played only two years ... the best players that have played EVERY year will have virtually no chance to remain in your top 10. You gotta fix that IMO.
[ January 19, 2007, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
2) philosophically, still needs to be fixed
#1 Brent Grooms, played two yrs finishing 9th and 20th
#2 Andrew Nolan/Chris Stephenson played all three yrs, finishing 3rd, 18th, 22nd
Who deserves the higher ranking Greg? No doubt it should be the Nolan team, by a wide margin.
Five years into this contest, based on statistical probability, most if not all of the top 10 will be comprised of guys that played two years then quit, or played in only the recent two years. Right now 6 of the top 10 guys have played only two years ... the best players that have played EVERY year will have virtually no chance to remain in your top 10. You gotta fix that IMO.
[ January 19, 2007, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
-
nydownunder
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
KJ,
You're splitting hairs. I certainly would not argue 'no doubt' because of the sequence of their 1st 2 years. In 5-10 years time Greg can always implement a 3 or 4 yr minimum.
In the end does it really matter: there are no prizes for this ranking. Whether your 1 or 2 you'll still have the respect of all.
You're splitting hairs. I certainly would not argue 'no doubt' because of the sequence of their 1st 2 years. In 5-10 years time Greg can always implement a 3 or 4 yr minimum.
In the end does it really matter: there are no prizes for this ranking. Whether your 1 or 2 you'll still have the respect of all.
Wagga Wagga Dingoes (NY#4)
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity!
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity!
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
1) mathematically looks better
2) philosophically, still needs to be fixed
#1 Brent Grooms, played two yrs finishing 9th and 20th
#2 Andrew Nolan/Chris Stephenson played all three yrs, finishing 3rd, 18th, 22nd
Who deserves the higher ranking Greg? No doubt it should be the Nolan team, by a wide margin.
As I mentioned before, 5 years into this, based on statistical probability, most if not all of the top 10 will be comprised of guys that played two years then quit. Right now 6 of the top 10 guys have played only two years ... the best players that have played EVERY year will have virtually no chance to remain in your top 10. You gotta fix that IMO. My list fixes that.
In 5 years, my list will show that a person missing one year, but doing well all the other four years should be right up there.
That owner will no doubt be viewed as a very good owner.
The owner that played 2 of 5 years will have many doubts and should not be shown as being at the top.
Glad to see Greg finally come around on the co-owner thing. Now we have to get him to give 300 (or 330) points for being #1 and rank by total points, and have a column for adjusted average also that is another SORTABLE for those that want to view it that way also.
The way I view things now, Grooms is damn good!! But he needs one more good year to match all the "Tri Guys"
[ January 19, 2007, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: UFS ]
1) mathematically looks better
2) philosophically, still needs to be fixed
#1 Brent Grooms, played two yrs finishing 9th and 20th
#2 Andrew Nolan/Chris Stephenson played all three yrs, finishing 3rd, 18th, 22nd
Who deserves the higher ranking Greg? No doubt it should be the Nolan team, by a wide margin.
As I mentioned before, 5 years into this, based on statistical probability, most if not all of the top 10 will be comprised of guys that played two years then quit. Right now 6 of the top 10 guys have played only two years ... the best players that have played EVERY year will have virtually no chance to remain in your top 10. You gotta fix that IMO. My list fixes that.
In 5 years, my list will show that a person missing one year, but doing well all the other four years should be right up there.
That owner will no doubt be viewed as a very good owner.
The owner that played 2 of 5 years will have many doubts and should not be shown as being at the top.
Glad to see Greg finally come around on the co-owner thing. Now we have to get him to give 300 (or 330) points for being #1 and rank by total points, and have a column for adjusted average also that is another SORTABLE for those that want to view it that way also.
The way I view things now, Grooms is damn good!! But he needs one more good year to match all the "Tri Guys"
[ January 19, 2007, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: UFS ]
-
Greg Ambrosius
- Posts: 41087
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
1) mathematically looks better
2) philosophically, still needs to be fixed
#1 Brent Grooms, played two yrs finishing 9th and 20th
#2 Andrew Nolan/Chris Stephenson played all three yrs, finishing 3rd, 18th, 22nd
Who deserves the higher ranking Greg? No doubt it should be the Nolan team, by a wide margin.
Five years into this contest, based on statistical probability, most if not all of the top 10 will be comprised of guys that played two years then quit, or played in only the recent two years. Right now 6 of the top 10 guys have played only two years ... the best players that have played EVERY year will have virtually no chance to remain in your top 10. You gotta fix that IMO. Kevin, you are correct, the data will be more relevent after 5 years and even greater after 10 years. Maybe in the next year or so we'll have breakout links for 5 year members, 4 years, 3 years, etc. But for now it's important to include all players who competed at least two years and have the data out there for everyone to see. Everyone can now see that Brent competed two years compared to Chris and Andy at three years. They can decipher that from the data we've provided. But we also want guys who competed just in 2006 to be added during the season as well, so there will be another group of new members to the Lifetime Rankings very soon.
Again, eventually we'll create bustout links and I hope that down the road we can include your data as a separate link and include auction leagues and satellite leagues. Then we'll have all kinds of data to chew on. That's the ultimate goal and we'll get there down the road.
1) mathematically looks better
2) philosophically, still needs to be fixed
#1 Brent Grooms, played two yrs finishing 9th and 20th
#2 Andrew Nolan/Chris Stephenson played all three yrs, finishing 3rd, 18th, 22nd
Who deserves the higher ranking Greg? No doubt it should be the Nolan team, by a wide margin.
Five years into this contest, based on statistical probability, most if not all of the top 10 will be comprised of guys that played two years then quit, or played in only the recent two years. Right now 6 of the top 10 guys have played only two years ... the best players that have played EVERY year will have virtually no chance to remain in your top 10. You gotta fix that IMO. Kevin, you are correct, the data will be more relevent after 5 years and even greater after 10 years. Maybe in the next year or so we'll have breakout links for 5 year members, 4 years, 3 years, etc. But for now it's important to include all players who competed at least two years and have the data out there for everyone to see. Everyone can now see that Brent competed two years compared to Chris and Andy at three years. They can decipher that from the data we've provided. But we also want guys who competed just in 2006 to be added during the season as well, so there will be another group of new members to the Lifetime Rankings very soon.
Again, eventually we'll create bustout links and I hope that down the road we can include your data as a separate link and include auction leagues and satellite leagues. Then we'll have all kinds of data to chew on. That's the ultimate goal and we'll get there down the road.
Greg Ambrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Founder, National Fantasy Baseball Championship
General Manager, Consumer Fantasy Games at SportsHub Technologies
Twitter - @GregAmbrosius
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
Originally posted by nydownunder:
KJ,
You're splitting hairs. I certainly would not argue 'no doubt' because of the sequence of their 1st 2 years. In 5-10 years time Greg can always implement a 3 or 4 yr minimum.
NY, I'm not splitting hairs, the example I cited was just an example of the "problem". It skews the entire list, top to bottom, and will get progressively worse with time.
Originally posted by nydownunder:
In the end does it really matter: there are no prizes for this ranking. Whether your 1 or 2 you'll still have the respect of all. You're right in this regard. I just have a thing for accuracy when it comes to probabilities and analyis. We're just "estimating" who the best players have been anyway, but if you're gonna do it, why not do it the best way possible (it wouldn't even take any extra effort)?
KJ,
You're splitting hairs. I certainly would not argue 'no doubt' because of the sequence of their 1st 2 years. In 5-10 years time Greg can always implement a 3 or 4 yr minimum.
NY, I'm not splitting hairs, the example I cited was just an example of the "problem". It skews the entire list, top to bottom, and will get progressively worse with time.
Originally posted by nydownunder:
In the end does it really matter: there are no prizes for this ranking. Whether your 1 or 2 you'll still have the respect of all. You're right in this regard. I just have a thing for accuracy when it comes to probabilities and analyis. We're just "estimating" who the best players have been anyway, but if you're gonna do it, why not do it the best way possible (it wouldn't even take any extra effort)?
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
1) mathematically looks better
2) philosophically, still needs to be fixed
#1 Brent Grooms, played two yrs finishing 9th and 20th
#2 Andrew Nolan/Chris Stephenson played all three yrs, finishing 3rd, 18th, 22nd
Who deserves the higher ranking Greg? No doubt it should be the Nolan team, by a wide margin.
Five years into this contest, based on statistical probability, most if not all of the top 10 will be comprised of guys that played two years then quit, or played in only the recent two years. Right now 6 of the top 10 guys have played only two years ... the best players that have played EVERY year will have virtually no chance to remain in your top 10. You gotta fix that IMO. Kevin, you are correct, the data will be more relevent after 5 years and even greater after 10 years. [/QUOTE]Greg, you mis-read me there, using the current method, the ranking will get progressively worse with time, not better.
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
1) mathematically looks better
2) philosophically, still needs to be fixed
#1 Brent Grooms, played two yrs finishing 9th and 20th
#2 Andrew Nolan/Chris Stephenson played all three yrs, finishing 3rd, 18th, 22nd
Who deserves the higher ranking Greg? No doubt it should be the Nolan team, by a wide margin.
Five years into this contest, based on statistical probability, most if not all of the top 10 will be comprised of guys that played two years then quit, or played in only the recent two years. Right now 6 of the top 10 guys have played only two years ... the best players that have played EVERY year will have virtually no chance to remain in your top 10. You gotta fix that IMO. Kevin, you are correct, the data will be more relevent after 5 years and even greater after 10 years. [/QUOTE]Greg, you mis-read me there, using the current method, the ranking will get progressively worse with time, not better.
-
nydownunder
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
KJ, no method is really going to tell you exactly who's better than who. There are just too many variables as to why someone finished where they finished.
As for the progressively worse, I think every year this comp gets progressively more difficult as the poor performers move on and the better players remain. Assumign the numbe rof leagues remained the same, an overall 10 in year 2006 is better than a 10 in year 2004.
Then again, Vegas continues to bring back more deadbeats than other locations.
[ January 19, 2007, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]
As for the progressively worse, I think every year this comp gets progressively more difficult as the poor performers move on and the better players remain. Assumign the numbe rof leagues remained the same, an overall 10 in year 2006 is better than a 10 in year 2004.
Then again, Vegas continues to bring back more deadbeats than other locations.
[ January 19, 2007, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: nydownunder ]
Wagga Wagga Dingoes (NY#4)
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity!
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity!
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
Originally posted by nydownunder:
As for the progressively worse, I think every year this comp gets progressively more difficult as the poor performers move on and the better players remain. The probability of out-performing the field significantly over three years, or four or five, becomes MUCH MUCH more difficult, statistically, than doing it twice. My point is this - it would be VERY surprising to see anyone in the top 10 after 5 years that has played all five years, using the current ranking system.
And it doesn't just affect the top 10, it affects the entire list such that the more years you've played the lower you'll be ranked relative to how well you've actually performed. That is backwards.
As for the progressively worse, I think every year this comp gets progressively more difficult as the poor performers move on and the better players remain. The probability of out-performing the field significantly over three years, or four or five, becomes MUCH MUCH more difficult, statistically, than doing it twice. My point is this - it would be VERY surprising to see anyone in the top 10 after 5 years that has played all five years, using the current ranking system.
And it doesn't just affect the top 10, it affects the entire list such that the more years you've played the lower you'll be ranked relative to how well you've actually performed. That is backwards.
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
While I am in favor of any obscure adjustment that will somehow get me ahead of Rockwell, these look pretty good. Putting links in for years played sounds like a good solution for the future as well.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
-
No Balls No Babies
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
I was happy being ranked third!
But being 1st overall is definitley an honor.
I dont know that I am any better of a player
than anyone else in the top 10 overall but it sure is nice to see my name sitting on top.
Just wish it paid better!
But being 1st overall is definitley an honor.
I dont know that I am any better of a player
than anyone else in the top 10 overall but it sure is nice to see my name sitting on top.
Just wish it paid better!
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
Originally posted by No Balls No Babies:
I was happy being ranked third!
But being 1st overall is definitley an honor.
I dont know that I am any better of a player
than anyone else in the top 10 overall but it sure is nice to see my name sitting on top.
Just wish it paid better! congrats Balls, don't take my comments above personally - quite an accomplishment - I'm just making an argument on statistical approach
I was happy being ranked third!
But being 1st overall is definitley an honor.
I dont know that I am any better of a player
than anyone else in the top 10 overall but it sure is nice to see my name sitting on top.
Just wish it paid better! congrats Balls, don't take my comments above personally - quite an accomplishment - I'm just making an argument on statistical approach
-
No Balls No Babies
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
No offense taken Duke. I dont mind the discussion at all as I'm sure there are many owners who are just as deserving as I am.
-
Chest Rockwell
- Posts: 2400
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
Originally posted by bjoak:
While I am in favor of any obscure adjustment that will somehow get me ahead of Rockwell, these look pretty good. Putting links in for years played sounds like a good solution for the future as well. That is funny stuff- you may not be up to par with ole Chest yet, but top 50 in this contest is nothing to sneeze at. Blame it on Sheets without him I would have to imagine we would be flip flopped.
Anyone else notice how a couple of guys are great lifetime but have never won a league. I would not fly on a plane with Karl Mischke that is some bad luck.
While I am in favor of any obscure adjustment that will somehow get me ahead of Rockwell, these look pretty good. Putting links in for years played sounds like a good solution for the future as well. That is funny stuff- you may not be up to par with ole Chest yet, but top 50 in this contest is nothing to sneeze at. Blame it on Sheets without him I would have to imagine we would be flip flopped.
Anyone else notice how a couple of guys are great lifetime but have never won a league. I would not fly on a plane with Karl Mischke that is some bad luck.
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
I've been in a league with Karl. He's not only good he's a very nice guy. With terrible luck. I'll see him next draft day, but hopefully he'll be in another league.
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
Originally posted by Vander:
I've been in a league with Karl. He's not only good he's a very nice guy. With terrible luck. I'll see him next draft day, but hopefully he'll be in another league. Put me in a league full of guys with bad luck !!! I'll take my chances
I've been in a league with Karl. He's not only good he's a very nice guy. With terrible luck. I'll see him next draft day, but hopefully he'll be in another league. Put me in a league full of guys with bad luck !!! I'll take my chances
Updated NFBC Lifetime Rankings
I figure sooner or later his luck has got to change since he always puts himself in position to win. I'd rather not be the "bad luck" guy in his league when he finally blows the compitition away.