Lifetime standings

cfolson · Post by **cfolson** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:36 am

The lifetime standings don't make sense to me. Last year I finished 13th (if I recall correctly). This year I'm in 26th. The lifetime standings show my average rank as 27. Is there a new definition of average?

Some teams have average ranks over 300. Since the NFBC has never had more than 300 teams, this seems odd, too.

My only guess as to what is going on (and I'm probably wrong) is that teams with co-owners are being counted as two teams for determining the rankings. If this is the case, it is clearly wrong.

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:07 am

I'll get in touch with STATS, Clark, and ask them about this. I'll let you guys know what they say.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:53 am

Originally posted by Clark Olson:

The lifetime standings don't make sense to me. Last year I finished 13th (if I recall correctly). This year I'm in 26th. The lifetime standings show my average rank as 27. Is there a new definition of average?

Some teams have average ranks over 300. Since the NFBC has never had more than 300 teams, this seems odd, too.

My only guess as to what is going on (and I'm probably wrong) is that teams with co-owners are being counted as two teams for determining the rankings. If this is the case, it is clearly wrong. Yeah, this is my fault for not resolving this sooner. I'll get with STATS on this and get this fixed as we definitely want the Lifetime Standings to be prominent during the off-season and I definitely want to have the top player after our first two years recognized.

This is my fault and I'll get this fixed. Basically, the system should be adding your rank points from year one with your rank points from year two and then accumulating those points (in your case that would be 39 rank points). Then list all the teams from 2004 and 2005 by rank points and we have the correct rankings. I'll get this done soon.

viper · Post by **viper** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 7:41 am

A couple of things to consider.

1. Right now you show 166 owners in the lifetime standings. It certainly appears that, in fact, only 151 "teams" have competed in the main event both years as 15 of the 166 owners seem to be part of a two-owner tag-team. The includes the current 3/4 & 7/8 owners in the standings. Not sure if this means anything but thought it should be noted. It is interesting to see that 151 of the first season's 195 owners/teams returned for year two.

2. Adding the 2004 & 2005 standings and then dividing by two is not mathematically correct. In 2004, finishing 98th would have represented a 50% percentile finish. In 2005, finishing 150th would represent an identical "skill level". Next season is you have 315 teams, then finishing 158 would be the 50% mark. You probably need to do some type of percentile ranking for the first two years (and all subsequent years) and then add those percentiles together before you divide by years competed.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:51 am

Originally posted by viper:

A couple of things to consider.

1. Right now you show 166 owners in the lifetime standings. It certainly appears that, in fact, only 151 "teams" have competed in the main event both years as 15 of the 166 owners seem to be part of a two-owner tag-team. The includes the current 3/4 & 7/8 owners in the standings. Not sure if this means anything but thought it should be noted. It is interesting to see that 151 of the first season's 195 owners/teams returned for year two.

2. Adding the 2004 & 2005 standings and then dividing by two is not mathematically correct. In 2004, finishing 98th would have represented a 50% percentile finish. In 2005, finishing 150th would represent an identical "skill level". Next season is you have 315 teams, then finishing 158 would be the 50% mark. You probably need to do some type of percentile ranking for the first two years (and all subsequent years) and then add those percentiles together before you divide by years competed. 1. Yes, I believe that number is correct as some teams split and yet the co-manager gets credit for Year One's numbers.

2. I understand that, but at least for this year we're still comparing the finishes of everyone who was in Year One and Year Two. Going forward we'll need to figure out how we compare Year Three with the other years. My concern now, however, is to compare the results of our first two years.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:58 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

For this year we're still comparing the finishes of everyone who was in Year One and Year Two. Going forward we'll need to figure out how we compare Year Three with the other years. My concern now, however, is to compare the results of our first two years. Greg,

This is how I'd do it ...

Very simple. Accumulative points each year for the number of points that a team is above or below the mean.

This allows for direct comparison no matter how many years a team plays (would be applicable even in yr1, so all 300 teams competing now would already have a lifetime rank) while rewarding teams that play well year in and year out, rather than those that do well just once.

Also, it would be very simple for STATS (or anyone) to calculate. The average overall points each year is 5 times the number of teams competing (so long as we have 10 scoring categories). Simply subtract a team's points from the average for that year and add up each year.

EXAMPLE:

In 2004 avg pts = 195*5 = 975

In 2005 avg pts = 300*5 = 1500

Triple A

2004 Pts = 1580.5

2005 Pts = 1807.5

Lifetime Pts = 3388 -2475 = +913

CC's Desperados

2004 Pts = 1538.5

2005 Pts = 2447.5

Lifetime Pts = 3986 - 2475 = +1511

Zefurs

2004 Pts = 674

2005 Pts = 1537

Lifetime Pts = 2211 - 2475 = -264

What I also like - we would have have a zero baseline, such that teams like my own that are below the "Mendoza line" of fantasy baseball have something to keep fighting for.

And finally, this calculation would also make it very easy to establish a lifetime auction rank by adding cumulative points above or below for the mean for each auction league that players compete in. I will look much better there, too.

[ September 22, 2005, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

cfolson · Post by **cfolson** » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:40 pm

Giving this a bump.

I still don't understand. I finished 13th in 2004 and I finished 11th in 2005. My lifetime average rank is 16?

Clark Olson

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 3:35 am

Originally posted by Clark Olson:

Giving this a bump.

I still don't understand. I finished 13th in 2004 and I finished 11th in 2005. My lifetime average rank is 16?

Clark Olson Yeah, I'm working with STATS to get this changed. Basically, the Lifetime Standings were originally calculated using your average pitching and hitting points over 2 years. I instead wanted your average ranking from Year 1 and Year 2, which obviously would put you in the Top 10 for sure. That hasn't gotten done yet. But going forward we'll pro-rate the rankings from 2004 when we had 195 owners to the 300 we had in 2005 and the 300+ we'll have in 2006. Then we'll have it down pat.