Lifetime Standings??

Walla Walla · Post by **Walla Walla** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:36 pm

The nice thing about being a crappy player is I don't have to worry about life time standings.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:04 am

Originally posted by Buster:

More on Lifetime Standings.

STATS is using an Adjusted overall ranking, so that it can compare years where there were different numbers of participants. This is certainly the right idea, as finishing 190th out of 190 is far different from finishing 190th out of 390.

Here are the numbers of participants each year:

2004 195 participants

2005 300 participants

2006 330 participants

2007 375 participants

2008 390 participants

2009 390 participants

STATS has chosen to use 2005 as the base year, and compare the other years to 2005. Parenthetically, if performed correctly, this calculation isn’t dependent upon which year STATS chooses as the base year.

Therefore, as there were only 195 participants in 2004, and the base year had 300 participants, STATS should use an ADJUSTMENT FACTOR of 1.54 to adjust 2004 results to the base year results (300 / 195).

However, if you look at the final 2004 standings, you will find an additional 15 teams listed. These fifteen teams are labeled as “Test” teams. In STATS world, even though these teams didn’t compete, and even though each team earned an impossible zero points per team, each of these teams are listed and therefore they somehow exist. So, STATS is using an ADJUSTMENT FACTOR instead of 1.43 (300/ 210).

If you look at 2004 standings, you will see that Artie Rastelli , who won the league, has a 1.43 Adjusted Ranking for 2004. Shawn Childs , who finished 3rd overall, has an Adjusted Ranking of 4.29, which just happens to be 3 times 1.43. Further evidence of the use of this incorrect ADJUSTMENT FACTOR is that Mark Srebro , who finished 93rd, has an Adjusted Ranking of (93 x 1.43) 132.99.

In 2005, the ADJUSTMENT FACTOR is one, as STATS is using the base 300 as the control number. Hence, participants’ ranking in 2005 correspond exactly with each participants’ 2005 Adjusted Ranking. Childs finished 5th, and has an Adjusted Ranking of 5. Srebro finished 74th, and has an Adjusted Ranking of 74. Stephen Jupinka finished 18th, and has an Adjusted Ranking of 18, and Brian Oldenski finished first, and has an Adjusted Ranking of 1.

In 2006, there were a total of 330 participants, so STATS should use an ADJUSTMENT FACTOR of 0.91 (300/330). STATS is indeed using that factor, as evidenced by 2nd place finisher Rick Thomas who has an Adjusted Ranking of 1.82 (0.91 x 2), Srebro with a 106th place finish and an Adjusted Ranking of 96.46 (0.91 x 106), and Shawn Childs with an Adjusted Ranking of 92.82 (102nd place x 0.91 factor).

In 2007, there were 375 participants, so the proper ADJUSTMENT FACTOR should be 0.80 (300/375). STATS is using the right number, as evidenced by Childs’ 3rd place finish (3 x .80) for an Adjusted Ranking of 2.40, Srebro’s 5th place finish (5 x .80) for an Adjusted Ranking of 4.0, and Aaron Smith’s 15th place finish for an Adjusted Ranking of 12.0 (15 x. .80). Champion Terry Haney has an Adjusted Ranking of 0.80.

In 2008, there were 390 participants, so the proper ADJUSTMENT FACTOR should be 0.77 (300/390). STATS is using the incorrect ADJUSTMENT FACTOR of 0.71 for reasons unknown. That ADJUSTMENT FACTOR equates to a total of 422.5 teams, which of course we didn’t have in 2008.

You can check this by looking at champion Robert Jurney who has a 2008 Adjusted Ranking of 0.71. Childs’ 57th ranking should equate to 43.89 (300/390 x 57), but STATS has it listed as 40.47, and Srebro’s 6th place finish which should equate to an Adjusted Ranking of 4.62. Instead, STATS assigned an Adjusted Ranking of 4.26.

Amazingly, as there are the same number of teams in 2009 as there were in 2008, STATS uses a different ADJUSTMENT FACTOR for 2009 than it does for 2008. In 2009, STATS is using an ADJUSTMENT FACTOR of 0.74. This equates to 405 teams (300/405). Of course, there are only 390 teams this year. This causes the 2009 results to be incorrect, as well.

So, just on the ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, it is clear that numbers for 2004, 2008 and 2009 are incorrect, causing the Lifetime Standings to be incorrect, as well.

Just another issue that STATS needs to address if our Lifetime Standings are going to be meaningful.

Buster Okay, STATS went in and made these changes for us. Buster or anyone else, let me know if the changes are correct and if we need to make anything else different.

I'll ask STATS to see if we can sort by number of years played in the NFBC. Then we should be good...or at least better. Thanks again Scott for the thorough analysis.

TOXIC ASSETS · Post by **TOXIC ASSETS** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 9:14 am

Lifetime standings is nonsense. There's only one thing that matters here. How much money have you won and how much money have you risked to win it. The best players are those who have won the most money. Period.

rkulaski · Post by **rkulaski** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:54 am

Originally posted by TOXIC ASSETS:

Lifetime standings is nonsense. There's only one thing that matters here. How much money have you won and how much money have you risked to win it. The best players are those who have won the most money. Period. Your messageboard name is nonsense. "toxic" ??.

What you might not know is that Greg is offering 10k to each person who is ranked in the top 10 of the Lifetime Standings after the 10th anniversary year of the NFBC. Right Greg?

Gordon Gekko II · Post by **Gordon Gekko II** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:29 am

Originally posted by Buster:

Here are the numbers of participants each year:

2004 195 participants

2005 300 participants

2006 330 participants

2007 375 participants

2008 390 participants

2009 390 participants

STATS has chosen to use 2005 as the base year, and compare the other years to 2005.

why is lifetime standings based on 2005 data (300 people)? why isn't it based on 390 participants?

Gordon Gekko II · Post by **Gordon Gekko II** » Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:51 am

greg - the following people ALL have wrong adjusted averages. the "should be" is the last # listed.

Rank Owner Adj Avg; Adj Avg Should be

2 Aaron Smith 26.79 ; 77.41

14 Andrew Nolan * 43.79 ; 43.16

17 David Clum * 49.28 ; 45.28

20 Mrs. Josh Hamilton * 56.45 ; 87.90

37 Dickie V 68.46 ; 87.73

40 Jason Duponte 70.08 ; 64.17

60 Brian Eagle * 80.37 ; 63.55

68 Tom Zarogiannos 82.78 ; 137.99

69 Jeff Dobies ** 83.41 ; 95.69

80 Sullivan * 86.3 ; 164.19

99 Scott Williams 95.32 ; 77.41

109 Charles Gillespie 100.72 ; 88.43

111 Tim Scanlan 100.86 ; 95.51

112 Jay Pobis 101.12 ; 133.81

118 Terrence Haney * 104.31 ; 87.95

123 Mike Wilson * 105.36 ; 100.78

130 Richard Lepow 109.91 ; 98.03

134 Masters 110.48 ; 112.58

136 Dave Dvorchak 110.75 ; 93.85

153 James Cummings 116.08 ; 131.25

165 Jules McLean 119.35 ; 87.90

187 Zac Staples 126.8 ; 178.22

212 David Shoup 133.79 ; 104.19

265 Paley 149.8 ; 167.53

266 Gregory Morgan * 150.18 ; 153.68

273 Patrick Gagne 152.83 ; 170.83

285 Perry Mullin 154.82 ; 166.26

287 Ed O'Donnell 156.7 ; 160.55

290 Peters, Jr. 158.17 ; 108.11

311 Ed O'Donnell 164.41 ; 160.55

322 Pobis 166.5 ; 133.81

341 Mullin 173.88 ; 166.26

353 Chris Schinker 175.05 ; 204.04

388 Daniel Cox 187.4 ; 183.17

391 Lance Turbes 188.79 ; 189.14

400 David Martino 193.12 ; 152.73

401 R.T. Davis 193.27 ; 182.75

415 John S. Longo 197.31 ; 199.91

452 Kevin Sullivan 216.12 ; 164.19

462 Josh Schwartz 222.53 ; 172.62

489 Schinker 247.54 ; 204.04

[ June 24, 2009, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko II ]

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:25 am

Bump. Is there any chance we can get the lifetime standings fixed?

Maybe it is simpler to just show one example. No offense to Mrs. Josh Hamilton but she has the following adjusted ranks: 100, 13, 126, 195 to give her the average adjusted rank of 56 and is in 22nd place. The adjusted rank should actually be 109. She gets bumped up 53 points and is ranked 22nd when she should be 129th!

I think one of the best things about the lifetime rank is that it gives people an incentive to manage their teams if they have no shot at money at this time of the year, but not so much when they're inaccurate.

Thanks for considering my request.

[ August 14, 2009, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:12 pm

391 Lance Turbes 188.79 ; 189.14

I always knew I was ranked much higher than I should have been!

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:05 am

I think the most obvious example of the lifetime standings needing to be fixed is that of Chris Stephenson & Ed Nolan (by the way, pretty impressive histories there).

If you look at the standings, they've obviously partnered every year in the NFBC. Therefore, their yearly finishes are exactly the same. Yet when arriving at the final column which shows the "adjusted average", they have different scores.

How do two players who've teamed up every single year have different adjusted scores?

I agree that this should be fixed and pretty quickly.....outside of personal pride, this is the only incentive for teams out of the hunt to continue monitoring their teams. With the baseball season racing towards the stretch, this should be fixed as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Glenn

Joe Sambito · Post by **Joe Sambito** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 11:20 am

Glenn,

It's actually Andy Nolan, (although there is an Ed Nolan in the competition). Co-managers have always thrown a kink in the lifetime standings. If they wanted to list us as Chris Stephenson/Andy Nolan that would work for us. I know there are co-managers who then branched off. I think Shawn Childs may have branched off from Kevin Deckel or vice versa I forget who was the brains in that operation. But you are right we have been teamed up for the last 5 years, and are fired up for the next five.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:19 pm

Originally posted by Joe Sambito:

Glenn,

It's actually Andy Nolan, (although there is an Ed Nolan in the competition). Co-managers have always thrown a kink in the lifetime standings. If they wanted to list us as Chris Stephenson/Andy Nolan that would work for us. I know there are co-managers who then branched off. I think Shawn Childs may have branched off from Kevin Deckel or vice versa I forget who was the brains in that operation. But you are right we have been teamed up for the last 5 years, and are fired up for the next five. Well said Ed!

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:36 pm

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by Joe Sambito:

Glenn,

It's actually Andy Nolan, (although there is an Ed Nolan in the competition). Co-managers have always thrown a kink in the lifetime standings. If they wanted to list us as Chris Stephenson/Andy Nolan that would work for us. I know there are co-managers who then branched off. I think Shawn Childs may have branched off from Kevin Deckel or vice versa I forget who was the brains in that operation. But you are right we have been teamed up for the last 5 years, and are fired up for the next five. Well said Ed! [/QUOTE]Thanks Chest for rubbing it in.....to be honest, this cracked me up.

Sorry Andy....one of my weaknesses is getting names right, but usually thats in person, not on a message board. Thanks for the correction and again, impressive resume. Good luck the rest of the year.

Glenn

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:31 pm

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by Joe Sambito:

Glenn,

It's actually Andy Nolan, (although there is an Ed Nolan in the competition). Co-managers have always thrown a kink in the lifetime standings. If they wanted to list us as Chris Stephenson/Andy Nolan that would work for us. I know there are co-managers who then branched off. I think Shawn Childs may have branched off from Kevin Deckel or vice versa I forget who was the brains in that operation. But you are right we have been teamed up for the last 5 years, and are fired up for the next five. Well said Ed! [/QUOTE]

I don't think anybody has done more in this competition with less recognition than Ed, er, Andy.

The lifetime standings do need a fix. If the names on the team are Stephenson/Nolan on a yearly team, then Stephenson/Nolan should be in the lifetime standings. No need for seperation. If it was Childs/Deckel for two years and Childs for four years, it should be recorded in the lifetime standings that way too. A little like Simon and Garfunkel and then Paul Simon on his own.

A lifetime money list for the Main event itself plus a money list for all events would be interesting as well.

Glenneration X · Post by **Glenneration X** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:18 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by Joe Sambito:

Glenn,

It's actually Andy Nolan, (although there is an Ed Nolan in the competition). Co-managers have always thrown a kink in the lifetime standings. If they wanted to list us as Chris Stephenson/Andy Nolan that would work for us. I know there are co-managers who then branched off. I think Shawn Childs may have branched off from Kevin Deckel or vice versa I forget who was the brains in that operation. But you are right we have been teamed up for the last 5 years, and are fired up for the next five. Well said Ed! [/QUOTE]

I don't think anybody has done more in this competition with less recognition than Ed, er, Andy.

The lifetime standings do need a fix. If the names on the team are Stephenson/Nolan on a yearly team, then Stephenson/Nolan should be in the lifetime standings. No need for seperation. If it was Childs/Deckel for two years and Childs for four years, it should be recorded in the lifetime standings that way too. A little like Simon and Garfunkel and then Paul Simon on his own.

A lifetime money list for the Main event itself plus a money list for all events would be interesting as well. [/QUOTE]Ed/Andy and his partner are mentioned in the Hall of Fame tab above, so I'm sure they will get their recognition in due time.

I agree with the money list...I think what would make it more interesting is a "net" money list showing profits. If someone's spending $10K a year, but only winning $8K, that's not nearly as impressive as someone spending $2K a year and winning $5K....just one man's thoughts.

George, er I mean Glenn

sportsbettingman · Post by **sportsbettingman** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:26 am

Yup...that Ed Norton is a helluva Fantasy Ball player!

"I agree completely!"

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:55 am

Originally posted by Glenneration X:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by Joe Sambito:

Glenn,

It's actually Andy Nolan, (although there is an Ed Nolan in the competition). Co-managers have always thrown a kink in the lifetime standings. If they wanted to list us as Chris Stephenson/Andy Nolan that would work for us. I know there are co-managers who then branched off. I think Shawn Childs may have branched off from Kevin Deckel or vice versa I forget who was the brains in that operation. But you are right we have been teamed up for the last 5 years, and are fired up for the next five. Well said Ed! [/QUOTE]

I don't think anybody has done more in this competition with less recognition than Ed, er, Andy.

The lifetime standings do need a fix. If the names on the team are Stephenson/Nolan on a yearly team, then Stephenson/Nolan should be in the lifetime standings. No need for seperation. If it was Childs/Deckel for two years and Childs for four years, it should be recorded in the lifetime standings that way too. A little like Simon and Garfunkel and then Paul Simon on his own.

A lifetime money list for the Main event itself plus a money list for all events would be interesting as well. [/QUOTE]Ed/Andy and his partner are mentioned in the Hall of Fame tab above, so I'm sure they will get their recognition in due time.

I agree with the money list...I think what would make it more interesting is a "net" money list showing profits. If someone's spending $10K a year, but only winning $8K, that's not nearly as impressive as someone spending $2K a year and winning $5K....just one man's thoughts.

George, er I mean Glenn [/QUOTE]I think it's sort of unfortunate that this thread always turns into a debate over the most ideal way to rank players. The math in the simple averages of our current list is wrong and has been for about three years. Let's get that fixed before we start petitioning for new and different lists.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:21 am

Greg has released money lists on a limited basis sometime in the past. Asking for those is not that big of a deal.

That said, Brian, you are right in that the lifetime list hasn't been correct for an awfully long time.

I find it amusing that numbers with names are the core of our game, yet the names and numbers with the lifetime standings haven't been right for years.

Chest Rockwell · Post by **Chest Rockwell** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:55 am

Originally posted by bjoak:

quote:Originally posted by Glenneration X:

quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

quote:Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by Joe Sambito:

Glenn,

It's actually Andy Nolan, (although there is an Ed Nolan in the competition). Co-managers have always thrown a kink in the lifetime standings. If they wanted to list us as Chris Stephenson/Andy Nolan that would work for us. I know there are co-managers who then branched off. I think Shawn Childs may have branched off from Kevin Deckel or vice versa I forget who was the brains in that operation. But you are right we have been teamed up for the last 5 years, and are fired up for the next five. Well said Ed! [/QUOTE]

I don't think anybody has done more in this competition with less recognition than Ed, er, Andy.

The lifetime standings do need a fix. If the names on the team are Stephenson/Nolan on a yearly team, then Stephenson/Nolan should be in the lifetime standings. No need for seperation. If it was Childs/Deckel for two years and Childs for four years, it should be recorded in the lifetime standings that way too. A little like Simon and Garfunkel and then Paul Simon on his own.

A lifetime money list for the Main event itself plus a money list for all events would be interesting as well. [/QUOTE]Ed/Andy and his partner are mentioned in the Hall of Fame tab above, so I'm sure they will get their recognition in due time.

I agree with the money list...I think what would make it more interesting is a "net" money list showing profits. If someone's spending $10K a year, but only winning $8K, that's not nearly as impressive as someone spending $2K a year and winning $5K....just one man's thoughts.

George, er I mean Glenn [/QUOTE]I think it's sort of unfortunate that this thread always turns into a debate over the most ideal way to rank players. The math in the simple averages of our current list is wrong and has been for about three years. Let's get that fixed before we start petitioning for new and different lists. [/QUOTE]excellent point

I have never understood why this was not more of a priority to get correct. It has been the same response for years and that response is less than acceptable.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:01 am

wow, yahoo, RT and I are actually a little better than expected:

401 R.T. Davis 193.27 ; 182.75

Thanks Gekko

Good luck in the $1300 NY auction, we are down to a dog fight for the last month

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:45 am

Ya think that STATS could get the lifetime standings figured out in, well, our lifetimes?

Just a few more examples of STATS' creative math. No offense intended to those names I use, they're just the first of likely many that are wrong.

Mrs. Josh Hamilton: Four years with adjusted numbers in (__), 110 (110.00), 16 (12.80), 163 (125.51) and 269 (207.13). Using my handy calculater, Mrs. JH should have a combined adjusted average of 113.86, placing her 148th overall. However, Mrs. JH has a STATS adjusted average of 56.45, and a top 20 ranking.

Aaron Smith has finished 15th (12.00), 54th (41.58), and 302nd (232.54). One would think that STATS would add the three adjusted figures up, divide by three, and get an average. 12.00 + 41.58 + 232.54= 286.12. Now, divide 286.12 by three, and Aaron's average should be 95.37. Yet, it is listed at 26.79. Why? STATS apparently gave Aaron a pass in 2009, not including those numbers.

Yet, Tim McCormick has played the same three years as Aaron Smith, and STATS included all three years in Tim's lifetime numbers.

The methodology works, you can check it out on over 80% of the participants' numbers. It's just (Still) the other incorrect numbers that STATS keeps butchering.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:47 am

Originally posted by Buster:

Ya think that STATS could get the lifetime standings figured out in, well, our lifetimes?

You may have hit on the hidden meaning of "lifetime standings" there.

With new ownership, maybe they at least could settle on an appropriate methodology. I sent a suggestion awhile back and I know others have as well. Leaving both methodology and calculation to STATS is a mistake, they're no good at either.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:08 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

quote:Originally posted by Buster:

Ya think that STATS could get the lifetime standings figured out in, well, our lifetimes?

You may have hit on the hidden meaning of "lifetime standings" there.

With new ownership, maybe they at least could settle on an appropriate methodology. I sent a suggestion awhile back and I know others have as well. Leaving both methodology and calculation to STATS is a mistake, they're no good at either. [/QUOTE]The methodology will be recalculated in the near future for the Lifetime Standings, using 390 teams as our base. I understand the mistakes we have here, but it's now time to hand this off to someone else. I can't guarantee we'll have this completely cured by Opening Day, but in many ways we are close and this ship can be righted.