Lifetime Standings?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:21 am

I just took a peek at the lifetime standings and there seems to be something wrong with the way the standings are computed. for instance, and no offense meant, but how can Aaron Smith be ranked higher than Shawn Childs??????

Aaron's body of work...

Played two years

2007 - finished 15th

2008 - currently 51st

Zero league titles

Shawn's body of work...

Played 5 years

2004 - finished 3rd

2005 - finished 5th

2006 - finished 102nd

2007 - finished 3rd

2008 - currently 48th

Three league titles

if these standings are to be taken seriously, there has to be a better way of computing them.

[ September 28, 2008, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:32 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

I just took a peek at the lifetime standings and there seems to be something wrong with the way the standings are computed. for instance, and no offense meant, but how can Aaron Smith be ranked higher than Shawn Childs??????

Aaron's body of work...

Played two years

2007 - finished 15th

2008 - currently 51st

Zero league titles

Shawn's body of work...

Played 5 years

2004 - finished 3rd

2005 - finished 5th

2006 - finished 102nd

2007 - finished 3rd

2008 - currently 48th

Three league titles

if these standings are to be taken seriously, there has to be a better way of computing them. They are for you to enjoy and decipher yourself. In the NFFC, we list all of the five-year members separate from the group and honestly I don't like that method. A guy like Jack Haan isn't in the top because he hasn't played as many years. Honestly, I've thought about asking STATS to change the NFFC to our NFBC format. As the years add up in baseball, the cream will rise to the top.

But I'd rather not separate owners by 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years, here. Thoughts?

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:38 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

I just took a peek at the lifetime standings and there seems to be something wrong with the way the standings are computed. for instance, and no offense meant, but how can Aaron Smith be ranked higher than Shawn Childs??????

Aaron's body of work...

Played two years

2007 - finished 15th

2008 - currently 51st

Zero league titles

Shawn's body of work...

Played 5 years

2004 - finished 3rd

2005 - finished 5th

2006 - finished 102nd

2007 - finished 3rd

2008 - currently 48th

Three league titles

if these standings are to be taken seriously, there has to be a better way of computing them. They are for you to enjoy and decipher yourself. In the NFFC, we list all of the five-year members separate from the group and honestly I don't like that method. A guy like Jack Haan isn't in the top because he hasn't played as many years. Honestly, I've thought about asking STATS to change the NFFC to our NFBC format. As the years add up in baseball, the cream will rise to the top.

But I'd rather not separate owners by 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years, here. Thoughts? [/QUOTE]come on greg, when aaron can be ranked 5TH OVERALL based upon...

Playing two years

2007 - finished 15th

2008 - currently 51st

Zero league titles

something is fundamentally wrong with the system. childs is the cream (can't believe i just referred to someone as the "cream"

). how much better do u want shawn to do before he passes aaron??? shawn has finished higher than aaron in both years aaron has played in the nfbc!!!

makes no sense how anyone with that body of work can be ranked ahead of him. the current system appears to heavily favor "new players" again, no offense to aaron.

[ September 28, 2008, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:01 am

I would suggest a panel of perhaps 4 players along with Greg to come up with a system that reflects meaningful NFBC/NFFC achievement. The current system is fundamentally and statistically flawed and so meaningless that no one takes it seriously.

I'd be happy to take the lead on this. The rankings should reward players that have proven themselves not those who had a lucky season or two. I also think it should be on some kind of rolling basis, i.e., the last 3-5 seasons - no point in penalizing players who had a bad team many years ago.

Cowboy Joe · Post by **Cowboy Joe** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:35 am

Here's an idea. Award a fixed set of points each season based on finish, and accumulate player's totals for all fantasy seasons.

For example:

1st place finish = 10 pts

2nd thru 5th = 7 pts

6th thru 10th = 5 pts

11th thru 25th = 3 pts

26th thru 50th = 2 pts

51st thru 100th = 1 pt

101st thru 250th (or non-participation) = 0 pts

251st thru 300th = -1 pt

301st thru 350th = -2 pts

351st or worse = -3 pts

This system rewards longevity as long as the player does well. Bad seasons are (and should be) detrimental to a player's overall score.

Under this system, Aaron would have 4 points and Shawn would have 23.

Cowboy Joe · Post by **Cowboy Joe** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 6:44 am

I'd also throw in a bonus of 1 or 2 points for winning an individual league.

Asumijet · Post by **Asumijet** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:55 am

As statistically flawed as an adjusted average over 5 years might be, players do take some pride in where they stand. In a significant way, this helps ensure that many don't quit their respective league. At some point, you could treat the score like a golf handicap. An average of your best 10 finishes in the past 15 years; for now, an average of your best 4 (two seasons to qualify) out of 5. An average place within a Main Event league, either standing alone or combined with the overall ranking in some manner would be an alternative as well.

Aside from that, create all-time lists for Main Event League titles, Live event wins, auctions wins, live event cashes (1-3rd places) and similar categories for the satellites. Give some gold bat or gold ball electronic trophies attached to your posting profile might add a little historical notice and prestige to the accomplishments.

Buster · Post by **Buster** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:29 am

The system, as configured, is flawed. You've got to give credit for those who have played most, if not all, of the years.

Let's consider the L.A. Lakers. Who are the best coaches in Los Angeles Laker history?

If you went only on winning percentage (similar to what we doing in our lifetime standings), without any thought to number of games coached, you might be surprised.

4th place with a winning percentage of .667 is Bill Bertka (with 3 games coached);

3rd place with a winning percentage of .692 is Jack McKinney (with 13 games coached);

2nd place with a winning percentage of .693 is Del Harris (with 162 games coached); and

1st place with a winning percentage of .733 is Pat Riley.

Riley belongs, but Harris, McKinney and Bertka?

Ridiculous you say? Not any more than placing a guy with two years in the NFBC ahead of Childs.

Parenthetically, Phil Jackson is fifth among the Lakers' coaches in winning percentage.

headhunters · Post by **headhunters** » Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:14 pm

jack haan is not ranked because i have seen jack haan and he is no shawn childs. not in baseball, not in football, not in anything

Asumijet · Post by **Asumijet** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:48 am

Originally posted by Buster:

The system, as configured, is flawed. You've got to give credit for those who have played most, if not all, of the years.

Let's consider the L.A. Lakers. Who are the best coaches in Los Angeles Laker history?

If you went only on winning percentage (similar to what we doing in our lifetime standings), without any thought to number of games coached, you might be surprised.

4th place with a winning percentage of .667 is Bill Bertka (with 3 games coached);

3rd place with a winning percentage of .692 is Jack McKinney (with 13 games coached);

2nd place with a winning percentage of .693 is Del Harris (with 162 games coached); and

1st place with a winning percentage of .733 is Pat Riley.

Riley belongs, but Harris, McKinney and Bertka?

Ridiculous you say? Not any more than placing a guy with two years in the NFBC ahead of Childs.

Parenthetically, Phil Jackson is fifth among the Lakers' coaches in winning percentage. What? Magic Johnson and Kurt Rambis did not make list? I am shocked.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:37 am

Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:

I just took a peek at the lifetime standings and there seems to be something wrong with the way the standings are computed. for instance, and no offense meant, but how can Aaron Smith be ranked higher than Shawn Childs??????

Aaron's body of work...

Played two years

2007 - finished 15th

2008 - currently 51st

Zero league titles

Shawn's body of work...

Played 5 years

2004 - finished 3rd

2005 - finished 5th

2006 - finished 102nd

2007 - finished 3rd

2008 - currently 48th

Three league titles

if these standings are to be taken seriously, there has to be a better way of computing them. They are for you to enjoy and decipher yourself. In the NFFC, we list all of the five-year members separate from the group and honestly I don't like that method. A guy like Jack Haan isn't in the top because he hasn't played as many years. Honestly, I've thought about asking STATS to change the NFFC to our NFBC format. As the years add up in baseball, the cream will rise to the top.

But I'd rather not separate owners by 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years, here. Thoughts? [/QUOTE]come on greg, when aaron can be ranked 5TH OVERALL based upon...

Playing two years

2007 - finished 15th

2008 - currently 51st

Zero league titles

something is fundamentally wrong with the system. childs is the cream (can't believe i just referred to someone as the "cream"

). how much better do u want shawn to do before he passes aaron??? shawn has finished higher than aaron in both years aaron has played in the nfbc!!!

makes no sense how anyone with that body of work can be ranked ahead of him. the current system appears to heavily favor "new players" again, no offense to aaron. [/QUOTE]No offense to Shawn either, but I think the body of work that Steve Jupinka and Andy Nolan/Chris Stephenson have put up is equally as good and the Lifetime Standings reflect that. Steve has tied Shawn with his third NFBC league title in five years and Andy and Chris have been as steady as they go in the NFBC. All of the numbers are listed for all to see and decipher.

I agree that the Lifetime Standings do favor those teams with fewer years of experience, but we agreed to include all teams with at least two years of results. Let's see if Aaron can stay with Shawn and the others next year. Ideally it would be great to be able to sort these Lifetime STandings by 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years, etc., and that seems like a reasonable request. But right now the data is all there and we can take the next steps if needed. The next step would be an NFBC Hall of Fame or independent ranking system, which makes sense.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:42 am

Originally posted by KJ Duke:

I would suggest a panel of perhaps 4 players along with Greg to come up with a system that reflects meaningful NFBC/NFFC achievement. The current system is fundamentally and statistically flawed and so meaningless that no one takes it seriously.

I'd be happy to take the lead on this. The rankings should reward players that have proven themselves not those who had a lucky season or two. I also think it should be on some kind of rolling basis, i.e., the last 3-5 seasons - no point in penalizing players who had a bad team many years ago. I thought you were going to do this last year.

I disagree that the Lifetime STandings are meaningless. It shows the consistent performances of ALL NFBC teams who have competed at least two years. Those teams who keep competing year in and year out and perform well will consistently be near the top of these rankings. And those teams that are at the top now after just two years of competing will have to be good again next year or they will fall farther in a hurry.

An NFBC Honor Roll makes sense. By Year 10, an NFBC Hall of Fame makes sense. Let's see if we can all live that long first!!

Right now we have only five years in the books and in baseball terms that's barely worthy of an All-Star break.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:21 am

I think a point system would work better than the current system. Same goes for football.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:46 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:

I would suggest a panel of perhaps 4 players along with Greg to come up with a system that reflects meaningful NFBC/NFFC achievement. The current system is fundamentally and statistically flawed and so meaningless that no one takes it seriously.

I'd be happy to take the lead on this. The rankings should reward players that have proven themselves not those who had a lucky season or two. I also think it should be on some kind of rolling basis, i.e., the last 3-5 seasons - no point in penalizing players who had a bad team many years ago. I thought you were going to do this last year.

[/QUOTE]How could I do this when I've never suggested it before?

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

I disagree that the Lifetime STandings are meaningless. It shows the consistent performances of ALL NFBC teams who have competed at least two years.

For the reasons pointed out by Gekko, Buster, and those I've made in the past, I disagree. No one cares where they are on the list because the data has alway been wrong, and it really doesn't highlight the top NFBC players anyway.

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Those teams who keep competing year in and year out and perform well will consistently be near the top of these rankings. And those teams that are at the top now after just two years of competing will have to be good again next year or they will fall farther in a hurry.

It's like intermingling Barry Sanders and Walter Payton with Matt Forte and Jon Stewart. You should have to earn your way to the top of this list, not get thrown up their by default only to slide down the list two years from now when it's apparent that you are not Walter Payton.

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

An NFBC Honor Roll makes sense.

Is this grade school? A meaningful lifetime achievment/ ranking list makes sense.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:45 am

How is it possible that Andy and Chris have different lifetime rankings???!!! Maybe we should get the ones we have right before we worry about changing.

You can't reward players for playing longer. I've never seen anyone support that unless they played every year including the first when there were under 200 teams because it would punish everyone else unjustly. However, two is too small of a sample and only teams that play for three years should be included.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:17 am

I used the following scoring format to compute the "Lifetime" NFBC rankings for the past 5 years, 4 years, 3 years, and 2 years:

An owner is awarded the amount of points equal to where he finished overall. For instance, if someone finished 1st out of 390 owners, they are awarded 390 points. If someone finished 375th out of 375 owners, they received 1 point. Top 50 for each has been listed. I did this somewhat quickly (under 30 minutes so i apologize if there are mistakes). enjoy

5 Year "Lifetime" NFBC rankings

1 Stephen Jupinka ** 1476

2 Andrew Nolan * 1468

3 Christopher Stephenson * 1468

4 Shawn Childs *** 1426

5 Eric Price 1347

6 Mark Srebro * 1311

7 Scott and Jason Zeidman 1224

8 Rick Thomas * 1223

9 Jeff Dobies * 1222

10 Martin Bedell 1220

11 Pat DePirro * 1204

12 Rich Verost 1186

13 Jeff Thomas * 1175

14 David DiDonato ** 1168

15 Korey Gardner 1168

16 Dave Clum 1167

17 Phillip McDonald * 1164

18 John Hogan ** 1163

19 Joseph Anello ** 1152

20 Joe Martino * 1144

21 Eddie Gillis 1142

22 David Deterra * 1130

23 Aaron Seefeldt * 1129

24 Ari Benjamin 1127

25 Douglas Jaffe ** 1114

26 Charles Gillespie 1110

27 Dickie V 1102

28 Karl Mische 1093

29 Joe Thelen ** 1084

30 Kenneth Magner 1082

31 Paul Weber 1081

32 Brian Oakchunas 1079

33 Mike O'Connor 1078

34 Todd Nord 1073

35 Michael Edelman 1061

36 James Cummings 1060

37 David Conkey * 1053

38 Matthew Snoga * 1053

39 Lindy Hinkelman 1042

40 Joshua Sack 1040

41 Clark Olson ** 1037

42 Nick Cassavetes 1023

43 Joe Kruk * 1016

44 Brent Grooms * 1007

45 Terrence Haney * 1005

46 Dan Kenyon ** 995

47 Jace Reed 994

48 Steve Wells 993

49 David Van Der Stuyf * 988

50 David Longood 985

4 Year "Lifetime" NFBC rankings

1 Stephen Jupinka ** 1290

2 Andrew Nolan * 1290

3 Christopher Stephenson * 1290

4 Shawn Childs *** 1233

5 Mark Srebro * 1208

6 David DiDonato ** 1168

7 Dave Clum 1167

8 Eric Price 1165

9 Joseph Anello ** 1152

10 Jeff Dobies * 1149

11 Joe Martino * 1144

12 David Deterra * 1130

13 Dickie V 1102

14 Rich Verost 1101

15 Brian Oakchunas 1079

16 Martin Bedell 1077

17 Douglas Jaffe ** 1075

18 Michael Edelman 1057

19 David Conkey * 1053

20 Matthew Snoga * 1053

21 Rick Thomas * 1048

22 Pat DePirro * 1043

23 Korey Gardner 1043

24 Lindy Hinkelman 1042

25 Scott and Jason Zeidman 1040

26 Nick Cassavetes 1023

27 Joe Kruk * 1016

28 Brent Grooms * 1007

29 John Hogan ** 1005

30 Dan Kenyon ** 995

31 Jace Reed 994

32 James Cummings 993

33 David Van Der Stuyf * 988

34 Phillip McDonald * 985

35 Jeff Thomas * 984

36 Eddie Gillis 976

37 Masters 965

38 Rob Maysey 965

39 Charles Gillespie 959

40 Jared Eagle * 957

41 Brian Eagle * 957

42 Todd Nord 951

43 Michael Caputo * 948

44 Lopi Asch * 947

45 Paul Weber 942

46 Ari Benjamin 939

47 David Longood 938

48 Sean Brinlee 936

49 Aaron Seefeldt * 935

50 Bob Mazur * 935

3 Year "Lifetime" NFBC rankings

1 Andrew Nolan * 1011

2 Christopher Stephenson * 1011

3 Stephen Jupinka ** 1007

4 Dickie V 984

5 Mark Srebro * 981

6 Jared Eagle * 957

7 Brian Eagle * 957

8 James Cummings 954

9 Pat DePirro * 948

10 Lopi Asch * 947

11 Shawn Childs *** 937

12 David DiDonato ** 937

13 Bob Mazur * 935

14 Eric Price 931

15 Jason Duponte 931

16 Joe Martino * 904

17 Jeff Dobies * 900

18 David Deterra * 900

19 Dave Clum 890

20 Brian Oakchunas 883

21 Joseph Anello ** 881

22 Lindy Hinkelman 880

23 Scott and Jason Zeidman 869

24 Rick Thomas * 867

25 David Conkey * 864

26 Matthew Snoga * 864

27 Phillip McDonald * 862

28 Steve Wells 855

29 Korey Gardner 850

30 Rich Verost 841

31 Michael Edelman 832

32 Tom Lord ** 832

33 Edward Nolan 831

34 Kevin Kirves 826

35 matt mickle ** 819

36 Todd Nord 814

37 Sean Brinlee 814

38 Mrs. Josh Hamilton * 812

39 Stephen Fiore 810

40 Andy Kaufmann * 808

41 Aaron Seefeldt * 807

42 Jace Reed 799

43 Ari Benjamin 794

44 Michael Bozzi 791

45 John Dean * 790

46 Nick Cassavetes 789

47 Masters 785

48 Rob Maysey 785

49 Douglas Jaffe ** 783

50 Martin Bedell 779

2 Year "Lifetime" NFBC rankings

1 Mark Srebro * 756

2 Chris Poulson * 740

3 Jeff Dobies * 727

4 Phillip McDonald * 721

5 Stephen Jupinka ** 711

6 Steve Wells 711

7 Shawn Childs *** 708

8 Bob Mazur * 708

9 Michael Edelman 705

10 John Dean * 699

11 Aaron Smith 694

12 Ned Donohue * 690

13 Andrew Nolan * 683

14 Christopher Stephenson * 683

15 Kyle Borth 683

16 Sean Brinlee 682

17 Dickie V 681

18 James Cummings 681

19 Kevin Kirves 673

20 Edward Nolan 662

21 Scott and Jason Zeidman 653

22 Jared Eagle * 651

23 Brian Eagle * 651

24 Jason Duponte 651

25 Aaron Seefeldt * 643

26 Lindy Hinkelman 635

27 Tim Short 634

28 Eric Price 633

29 Eddy Betancourt * 631

30 Winston Sapigao 626

31 Billy McAleer 625

32 Dave Clum 624

33 Lopi Asch * 624

34 Pat DePirro * 623

35 Ron Ludwin 618

36 Ryan Messick 618

37 Rich Verost 613

38 David DiDonato ** 607

39 Brian Oakchunas 604

40 Jeff Thomas * 600

41 Eddie Gillis 594

42 Cory Sarge 592

43 Mrs. Josh Hamilton * 591

44 Robert FitzGerald 587

45 Jace Reed 586

46 Thomas Greenwald * 585

47 Eric Albright 580

48 Joe Martino * 578

49 David Deterra * 576

50 Kenneth Magner 576

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:01 am

GG: That's certainly one way of doing this and separating by number of years is great. By the way, you can combine Andy and Chris as they are the same team for all five years and should be combined in the Lifetime STandings. I've asked STATS to do this on our Lifetime STandings as well.

The number of teams in the NFBC have been 195, 300, 330, 375 and 390.

Berkshire Juggernauts · Post by **Berkshire Juggernauts** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:59 am

why not just do career money leaders that to me is what its all about

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:22 am

we could have a couple different lists.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 10:48 am

Originally posted by Berkshire Juggernauts:

why not just do career money leaders that to me is what its all about Because, not to mention any names, some people spend 50K and win 20 and then like to brag about it and that would only add to the problem.

I am also biased because I am like the only person in the top 40 who never won a championship.

eddiejag · Post by **eddiejag** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:25 pm

Gordon i like this a lot, a much better idea of who the top players are.I also would like to see the top money earners.Would you do just baseball or combine the football too.

Hard Heads · Post by **Hard Heads** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 12:10 pm

Where do 1st year members rank lifetime? I scrolled looking for us and didn't find anything. Do you need at least 2 years to be factored in? Not overly concerned where we rank, just curious how this works.

Gordon Gekko · Post by **Gordon Gekko** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 1:20 pm

Originally posted by Hard Heads:

Where do 1st year members rank lifetime? I scrolled looking for us and didn't find anything. Do you need at least 2 years to be factored in? Not overly concerned where we rank, just curious how this works. need two years.

Bobby J · Post by **Bobby J** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:04 pm

at what point do you start throwing out the bad year.

bjoak · Post by **bjoak** » Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:38 pm

Originally posted by Bobby J:

at what point do you start throwing out the bad year. Maybe we should throw out the good year, mister! And I don't mean 2006.

[ October 01, 2008, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: bjoak ]