Warrior General Games

Originally posted by monkeyskin
There's no way we should be ranked over the Nasty, Pushovers, and Coyotes though... We've never beaten those teams as of yet.

Nope, but you are higher level than them right now.

Originally posted by Nanobot
Very cool, but I think you should add in a Ray Finkle variable. =P

Kickers are currently 5% of a team's overall rating, so keep those laces out

Originally posted by flames54
#15 in the West, looks like if we win it will come down to builds and tactics.

Absolutely. If you have an edge in these areas, you'll do better than the rankings expect, earn a lot of adjustment bonuses, and things will correct themselves in time. Good luck!

Originally posted by bigtisme
what does (rename) mean?

My spreadsheet is automated, it imports data directly from the GLB website. The "team name" cell includes the "rename" button for any team that has it. I don't care enough to edit it out

So from reading the FAQ, cool, good start, but they'll mean absolutely nothing until we've all played a few games. I'm quite interested in seeing how they look when actual games played are taken into account.

Originally posted by Jed
So from reading the FAQ, cool, good start, but they'll mean absolutely nothing until we've all played a few games. I'm quite interested in seeing how they look when actual games played are taken into account.

Ditto. Hope you keep updating these.

update?

Way to be patient, DD

Originally posted by Jed
So from reading the FAQ, cool, good start, but they'll mean absolutely nothing until we've all played a few games. I'm quite interested in seeing how they look when actual games played are taken into account.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they mean *absolutely* nothing. They certainly aren't dead on yet, but they're not too far off either. Here's the results from today's games, against the spreads the rankings predicted (based on the update I did but didn't post this morning before the game, not based on the ones I posted):

Boston Nighthawks (-8) won by 9
Chicago Mustangs (-12) were upset, and lost by 11
D.C Warpath (-10) won by 28
Detroit Demon Lions (-39) couldn't quite cover the spread, "only" won by 34
Detroit Nasty (-19) won by 14
Philadelphia Pushovers (-22) won by 24
Rhode Island Red Wolves (-8) won by 27
Washington Bullets (-157) won by 90 - I blame the new blowout reducing factors.
Columbus Bucks (-11) won by 7
Detroit Dump Trucks (-21) won by 10
Golden State Athletics (-12) lost by 3
Kailua Daggers (-17) won by 33
Minnesota Marauders (-7) won by 13
San Antonio Saints (-14) won by 19
San Jose Spartans (-6) lost by 30... oops
Washington Extreme (-10) lost by 4

So overall, favorites won 12 of 16 games, and went 7-9 against the spread. Of the 16 games, there were 7 in which the final margin was within one score of the spread. Perfect? Of course not, but I think there's enough predictive success there that it's excessive to claim the rankings mean nothing

Originally posted by DigitalDaggers
update?



In progress

Chemistry doesn't matter as much as your formula makes it. It should be ~5-10% of the final ranking. No more.

Originally posted by tpaterniti
Chemistry doesn't matter as much as your formula makes it. It should be ~5-10% of the final ranking. No more.

It is currently 0-9% of the final ranking...

But I will be revisiting the weight of EVERYTHING that goes into the formula in the offseason, once I have my 1000 games of data from USA Pro, USA AAA#2, Canada Pro, and Canada AAA#2. If I notice that teams with low chemistry are consistently overperforming compared to what the ratings expect, I'll reduce the penalty. If they are consistently underperforming, I'll increase it.

Originally posted by BobJoeJim
Originally posted by tpaterniti

Chemistry doesn't matter as much as your formula makes it. It should be ~5-10% of the final ranking. No more.

It is currently 0-9% of the final ranking...

But I will be revisiting the weight of EVERYTHING that goes into the formula in the offseason, once I have my 1000 games of data from USA Pro, USA AAA#2, Canada Pro, and Canada AAA#2. If I notice that teams with low chemistry are consistently overperforming compared to what the ratings expect, I'll reduce the penalty. If they are consistently underperforming, I'll increase it.

This guy is smart.....props.

Originally posted by GeneralMakaveli


This guy is smart.....props.

And of value to the game ... whether or not you agree with his rankings.

I have a team in CAN AAA2 and I hate his rankings. Why, you ask? Because he seems to get the predictions right and he predicts we will lose too many games.

Originally posted by outus
Originally posted by GeneralMakaveli



This guy is smart.....props.

And of value to the game ... whether or not you agree with his rankings.

I have a team in CAN AAA2 and I hate his rankings. Why, you ask? Because he seems to get the predictions right and he predicts we will lose too many games.


You understand what the cause and effect sequence is here, right? I hate you, on a deep and personal level, so I predict you will lose, and GLB bends itself to my will. You're welcome to blame all your losses on me because of it.

Originally posted by GeneralMakaveli
This guy is smart.....props.
Who let you out of CPL, BJJ?

Originally posted by Asheme
Originally posted by GeneralMakaveli

This guy is smart.....props.
Who let you out of CPL, BJJ?


Well now that we don't have any active mods there to keep me in my place...

Originally posted by Asheme
Originally posted by GeneralMakaveli

This guy is smart.....props.
Who let you out of CPL, BJJ?


You dont have the juice to keep him locked up no more

tbqfh






(added the last bit to make him feel at home)