NFBC Lifetime Rankings

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:13 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

it is unfair to slap us with a 150 for the rest of our lives. How is it unfair when you've already passed 39 guys that have played ALL THREE years?

And even more that played in 2004 and not all three years?

You're one year behind.

Five years from now, you'll be ahead of everyone new to join in those next five years.

If I'm going to create shorther lists, I'm going to create them based on playing the latest years only (last two, last three,etc), and I already posted the Top 20 from last two years in an earlier post.

Found it...

Top 20 owners from 2005/2006 combined

This is using 330 as baseline

Owner 2006 (2006 RANK PTS) 2005 (2005 RANK PTS)

Christopher Stephenson/Andrew Nolan 3 328 22 306.9

Brent Grooms 9 322 20 309.1

Richard Bales, Jr./Debbie Bates 13 318 26 302.5

Karl Mische 4 327 47 279.4

Stephen Jupinka/James Doherty 35 296 19 310.2

Joseph Anello 25 306 30 298.1

John Hogan 14 317 43 283.8

Rey Diaz 24 307 35 292.6

Douglas Jaffe 62 269 9 321.2

Joe Martino 5 326 61 264

Albert Petit 61 270 14 315.7

Joshua Sack 46 285 29 299.2

David DiDonato 1 330 70 254.1

David Deterra 7 324 71 253

Joe Thelen/Jim Thelen 67 264 17 312.4

Dan Kenyon 88 243 2 328.9

Dave Clum 65 266 24 304.7

Martin Bedell 90 241 3 327.8

Kevin Forman 49 282 46 280.5

Eric Price 33 298 67 257.4

[ January 14, 2007, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: UFS ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:41 pm

Five years from now, you'll be ahead of everyone new to join in those next five years. 1. Exactly. It hurts newer players. The idea is to make it equal--not hurt them for our benefit. I don't want to be artificially inflated in front of anyone, just as I don't want anyone inflated in front of me.

2. Five years from now, my lowest rank would still be the gd 150 I got slapped with.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 10:59 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote: Five years from now, you'll be ahead of everyone new to join in those next five years. 1. Exactly. It hurts newer players. The idea is to make it equal--not hurt them for our benefit. I don't want to be artificially inflated in front of anyone, just as I don't want anyone inflated in front of me.

2. Five years from now, my lowest rank would still be the gd 150 I got slapped with. [/QUOTE]And it hurts old players by giving artificial points. Oh wait, you already brought that up.

I live in a world where you earn things. The idea is not to make them equal. No artificial BS. The idea is it's just a list of all owners that have ever played in the NFBC, normalized. The guy that has done well for three years should always outscore the guy that has done well two years.

I'm sorry it's not anal enough for you. My apologies.

Your average is 249. So add 249 to your score if that floats your boat. Add 165 if adding the average score floats your boat.

I hope in the next five years, you get slapped with more gd 150's, whatever those are.

Lastly, it doesn't hurt newer players. Newer players will have something more to shoot for by seeing all these ranking lists, and will walk into their drafts, having a 100x greater understanding of who the best players have been, and the strategies they will need to use to beat them.

At the end of the day, these lists should raise the bar on the level of play even more, and that's why they're all good.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:27 am

The idea is not to make them equal. No artificial BS. These are contradicting statements. You're saying nothing should be artificial, then saying we should give people 150's or whatever the average score based on the baseline is. Those are artificial. In ten years, newbies would start out with 10 years worth of average scores. They'd have to land in first place overall ten years in a row just to have a 75 average.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:59 am

Cutting the Gordian knot!

Ok, so to solve this issue, I would recommend 2 different rankings. First, I would keep the lifetime rankings showing all stats (with NOTHING added).

Secondly, I would add a percentage (%) finishing rating for every participant (from 1 to infinite) number of years played. This would be based on their adjusted finish

This would allow both recognition for the people who have demonstrated years of accomplishment, while giving the newbies another rating approach to keep them excited.

They do similar things for coaches for example - 880 lifetime wins, .600 winning percentage...

What do people think?

Spy

Sack · Post by **Sack** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:06 am

I think you should stop sweating the Overall Rankings SPY and start doing your homework.

After I spring for that free meal you took me for last year in the Main Event it will be ON this year buddy. Still got an opening in the 5K Auction my friend.

Cya in Vegas.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 4:36 am

hey there Sack,

The good news? my wife is pregnant, the bad news? I won't be able to be in Vegas this year! Come to NYC and we can have a real meal

Spy

Sack · Post by **Sack** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 11:33 am

Spy:

Congrats on the addition. We'll CATCH up at one of these events. Best of luck on 2007.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Mon Jan 15, 2007 7:20 pm

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote: The idea is not to make them equal. No artificial BS. These are contradicting statements. You're saying nothing should be artificial, then saying we should give people 150's or whatever the average score based on the baseline is. Those are artificial. In ten years, newbies would start out with 10 years worth of average scores. They'd have to land in first place overall ten years in a row just to have a 75 average. [/QUOTE]You're incredible. They must still have good drugs in the bay area.

NONE of your response here relates one iota to what I said.

Do you not have one ounce of humor in your entire body?

I did not say to add 150 points or whatever.

I said for YOU to add them if it floats your boat.

That means for YOU to take the numbers and turn them into whatever you like. And when you do that, those numbers be just as flawed as any other list you see posted.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:33 am

I'm still not sure I understand the lifetime standings. I finished 80th in 2005 and 31st in 2006, but it's got me for 121 in 2005 and 39 in 2006. I know it's adjusted for 300, but shouldn't that mean I'm adjusted up for 2006? And 2005 had exactly 300 and somehow I lost 41 spots. Signed still confused.

JohnZ · Post by **JohnZ** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:45 am

Originally posted by Vander:

I'm still not sure I understand the lifetime standings. I finished 80th in 2005 and 31st in 2006, but it's got me for 121 in 2005 and 39 in 2006. I know it's adjusted for 300, but shouldn't that mean I'm adjusted up for 2006? And 2005 had exactly 300 and somehow I lost 41 spots. Signed still confused. This is due to partners being counted as two seperate teams with the same result.

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:01 am

I don't have a partner.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 10:33 am

Originally posted by Vander:

I don't have a partner. anyone ahead of you with a partner would push you down the rankings, it's not a realistic list