Lifetime Standings

Joe Sambito · Post by **Joe Sambito** » Tue May 31, 2005 6:53 am

Nice to see the lifetime standings. It would be great to have the option to sort to just the repeat participants. Nevertheless, excellent work. CC Desperados has made this year and last his personal playground...

Edwards Kings · Post by **Edwards Kings** » Tue May 31, 2005 7:32 am

How did we end up with 512 names when the league was 195 teams last year and 300 this year? And didn't we end up with an 80+% return rate? No big deal...I am sure I just missed something.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Tue May 31, 2005 7:33 am

Originally posted by Joe Sambito:

Nice to see the lifetime standings. It would be great to have the option to sort to just the repeat participants. Nevertheless, excellent work. CC Desperados has made this year and last his personal playground... Something doesn't seem right by using the averages here... finished last year at #19 and this year I'm currently #62 so my lifetime ranking is #60 ?

Looks to me like they are equally weighting your avg. batting and avg. pitching overall from 2004 and 2005. Neglecting the fact that in 2004 when there were 195 total teams vs. 300 total teams in 2005. If you're using cumulative points on a 1-195 scale vs. a 1-300 scale then last year is getting shortchanged.

(And it seems stupid that someone could even have a lifetime ranking after 35% of 1 year... but that's just an opinion)

CC's Desperados is still romping playfully. Nice job Fellas!

Dave

viper · Post by **viper** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:30 am

King,

I asked myself the same question on the number of names. Then I saw my co-manager from last season listed. He isn't playing this year but he was a paying co-manager. Of course, my son is my co-manager this year and his name does not show up. Consistency is missing.

[ June 01, 2005, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: viper ]

Kevin D · Post by **Kevin D** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:35 am

I can see how various methods of computing Life Time standings could lead to a lot of different outcomes. Rating by Team would seem to be the best for continutity. If the members of the teams change that's OK. Hey, The Rolling Stones, Chicago, the Beach Boys have different members(Of course there's only one Meat Loaf.) By doing it by team we'd be aiming at continuity from year to year (Serious players would keep the same name from year to year to accomplish this) but the likelyhood of ambiquity from players changing, teams, team names in order to look better in the standings would work against the point of the listings. DARN FANTASY PLAYERS. ALWAYS LOOKING FOR AN EDGE!!

CC's Desperados is a team effort. My feeling is the Team should be listed not the owners.

[ June 01, 2005, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Kevin D ]

Joe Sambito · Post by **Joe Sambito** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 3:51 am

In short, CC Desperados, in the spirit of the New England Patriots, would like to be introduced as a team! Go Pats!

Quahogs · Post by **Quahogs** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:38 am

not to create a mountain out of a molehill because it's a nice ancillary feature but maybe to get an accurate measure of "lifetime" standings a Team needs to have 1 full season under its belt to be considered. Otherwise every season the newcomers will have a higher standing as long as they're above the "lifers". Then again it's possible there's more to it than meets the eye and I dont see it

Q

SoxFan · Post by **SoxFan** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:01 am

not to create a mountain out of a molehill because it's a nice ancillary feature but maybe to get an accurate measure of "lifetime" standings a Team needs to have 1 full season under its belt to be considered. Otherwise every season the newcomers will have a higher standing as long as they're above the "lifers". Then again it's possible there's more to it than meets the eye and I dont see it

Completely agree with this. There are well over 100 new participants, so it would be nice to just include those who actually have completed a full season in these rankings.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Jun 02, 2005 12:41 pm

We'll tighten this up with STATS as return players were only supposed to be listed. That would be about 157 teams, I believe. I'll work with STATS on this and make sure it's correct soon.