Can someone post how the lifetime rankings are calcuated again?

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:19 pm

I am a bit confused when I see the scoring. It says I have an average score of 1500, yet I am ranked 201. I thought it was because I had only played 2 years instead of 3, but there are people above me with only 2 years of experience who have a much lower score???

Shouldn't this be intuitive? i.e. your scores normallized and averaged then ranked in descending order???

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 2:58 am

Originally posted by Spyhunter:

I am a bit confused when I see the scoring. It says I have an average score of 1500, yet I am ranked 201. I thought it was because I had only played 2 years instead of 3, but there are people above me with only 2 years of experience who have a much lower score???

Shouldn't this be intuitive? i.e. your scores normallized and averaged then ranked in descending order??? All teams that played two or more years in the NFBC's main event are ranked in our Lifetime Standings. Basically, what I've asked STATS to do is calculate a team's final ranking in the Overall Standings for each year based on 300 teams and then rank each team accordingly. The points they are reflecting aren't being factored in the overall ranking of teams, so teams lower than you may have more average pitching and hitting points. Those stats aren't figured in the ranking system, but show how strong teams have been in the hitting and pitching categories.

Here's the formula:

** In 2004 we had 195 teams, so we are multiplying your overall ranking for that year by 1.538. If you finished 150th that year, you'd have 231 rank points.

** In 2005 we had 300 teams, so we are multiplying your final overall rank by 1. We then add that total (let's say 250) to your total in Year One.

** In 2006 we had 330 teams, so we are multiplying your final overall rank by 0.91 and getting another total. That total is added to both seasons above or just one season if you've been competing for two years.

** The rank totals are added up and then teams are listed in your order of finish. So Christopher Stevenson and Andrew Nolan rank first in our Lifetime Standings, having finished 22nd overall, 18th overall and third overall during the last three years. Those are the numbers we should be showing and I'll ask STATS if we can do that going forward.

We do give separate rankings for co-managers too just in case those owners split up at some point in the NFBC's history. So Chris and Andrew rank 1 and 1 and the next team is ranked third, even though in effect it is the second most successful team in the NFBC. So because of co-managers you may have a lower ranking than you would if we didn't include co-managers in the ranking of teams. Make sense?

We'll keep the 300 team basis so that each year has an equal number to compare from year to year.

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 9:22 am

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Spyhunter:

I am a bit confused when I see the scoring. It says I have an average score of 1500, yet I am ranked 201. I thought it was because I had only played 2 years instead of 3, but there are people above me with only 2 years of experience who have a much lower score???

Shouldn't this be intuitive? i.e. your scores normallized and averaged then ranked in descending order??? All teams that played two or more years in the NFBC's main event are ranked in our Lifetime Standings. Basically, what I've asked STATS to do is calculate a team's final ranking in the Overall Standings for each year based on 300 teams and then rank each team accordingly. The points they are reflecting aren't being factored in the overall ranking of teams, so teams lower than you may have more average pitching and hitting points. Those stats aren't figured in the ranking system, but show how strong teams have been in the hitting and pitching categories.

Here's the formula:

** In 2004 we had 195 teams, so we are multiplying your overall ranking for that year by 1.538. If you finished 150th that year, you'd have 231 rank points.

** In 2005 we had 300 teams, so we are multiplying your final overall rank by 1. We then add that total (let's say 250) to your total in Year One.

** In 2006 we had 330 teams, so we are multiplying your final overall rank by 0.91 and getting another total. That total is added to both seasons above or just one season if you've been competing for two years.

** The rank totals are added up and then teams are listed in your order of finish. So Christopher Stevenson and Andrew Nolan rank first in our Lifetime Standings, having finished 22nd overall, 18th overall and third overall during the last three years. Those are the numbers we should be showing and I'll ask STATS if we can do that going forward.

We do give separate rankings for co-managers too just in case those owners split up at some point in the NFBC's history. So Chris and Andrew rank 1 and 1 and the next team is ranked third, even though in effect it is the second most successful team in the NFBC. So because of co-managers you may have a lower ranking than you would if we didn't include co-managers in the ranking of teams. Make sense?

We'll keep the 300 team basis so that each year has an equal number to compare from year to year. [/QUOTE]I don't think it does. You shouldn't be totally all 3 years then rating because that only works if all the people played all three years. I would take the average adjusted rating then rank (actually I would adjust pitching/hitting scores for each year then rank). I would give the following statistics:

1. Average Adjusted Rank

1.a Average adjust hitting and pitching scores

2. Number of Years Played

3. Number of 1st, 2nd and 3rd place league

4. Number of overall championships won

5. Highest adjusted overall rating achieved

6. Lowest adjusted overall rating achieved.

I think the page is a great idea and worth developing. My experience with online games is these type of lists become hudge points of pride and competition and you will get people to compete more the more of these types of lists you provide (like auction league performance etc...)

Chris

Spyhunter · Post by **Spyhunter** » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:21 am

Greg, Hello? Is it really possible that I could outscore someone this much and rank lower than them?

I was looking at your email above - I think you missed the step where the division occurred right?

200 David Bowen 231.5 522.00 519.50 1,041.50 2

201 Chris Throop 232.0 744.50 802.25 1,546.75 2

JEagle · Post by **JEagle** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:49 am

no 1st year players in the overall??

Vander · Post by **Vander** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 12:24 pm

No. I didn't qualify last year. I do now. Still not sure how it says my average finish is 80 when I finished 80 last year and 31 this year though.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:34 am

Originally posted by JEagle:

no 1st year players in the overall?? Nope, one year isn't a Lifetime!

We are listing all main event players who competed two or more years with us.

I'll ask STATS to change this listing during the off-season to make this clearer. I'll ask them to list everyone's placing in the overall standings for 2004, 2005 and 2006 and then you can see how we're calculating this. All years will be based on a factor of 300 teams. We'll get this clearer soon.

One point I should add is that first year players from 2006 will be included in the Lifetime Standings next year once the season gets underway. The Lifetime Standings change daily based on each team's overall standings during the season, so you will be included in this category once 2007 begins.

[ October 18, 2006, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Greg Ambrosius ]

JEagle · Post by **JEagle** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:52 pm

sweet...it makes me feel all tingly inside