Warrior General Games

Again, folks... Three games of data. I can't stress that enough. As a result, they're not going to be perfect.

* If you want a ranking done only by record, the standings are on the league page.
* If you disagree with the stats being used, lobby for GLB to give me some new stats to use. I'm somewhat limited in what I have available to me, as there are probably a half dozen more stats I would love to use, but are unavailable.
* If you're lost as to why teams move the way they do, remember it's not like other rankings where there is some unwritten rule that you can't move down if you win. It's about what you and the other teams do.

Now, in regards to comments about "Well team xyz beat a team ranked in the top 10, that should count for something!" It does, but again, you need more than 3 games played for that to become relevant. Right now, I think it's safe to say that Miami is the best team in the league. If they were to play the worst team in the league, they'd probably win by about 90 points. If they were to play a team in the middle of the pack, they would probably still win, but it wouldn't be nearly as large of a margin. Next, let's consider a team that's mediocre. Since we are all playing the same teams, they go up against the worst team in the league. They may win by a lot still, but likely not 90. Now, if they go up against a middle of the pack team, they may squeak out a close one, but likely not as big of a win as Miami would have. As a result, the better team, with the more quality victories, will have that reflected with a better number in the rankings... And the team that is mediocre, while they may still beat both teams, will not have as quality of wins, and it too will reflect in their numbers.

I mentioned this in another thread, these are a derivation of my NFL rankings, which I've been doing for 4 years now. Those end up being quite accurate, so I like to think I have a semblance of a clue as to what I'm doing.

...Wow, that was long winded.

Originally posted by sully

* If you disagree with the stats being used, lobby for GLB to give me some new stats to use. I'm somewhat limited in what I have available to me, as there are probably a half dozen more stats I would love to use, but are unavailable.

What stats are those? And just curious since you said you did NFL rankings too, do you happen to know how they calculate strength of schedule?

Originally posted by chad13
Originally posted by sully


* If you disagree with the stats being used, lobby for GLB to give me some new stats to use. I'm somewhat limited in what I have available to me, as there are probably a half dozen more stats I would love to use, but are unavailable.

What stats are those? And just curious since you said you did NFL rankings too, do you happen to know how they calculate strength of schedule?

Some stats I would like to use, but GLB does not have or has, but they are not usable from the stats page:
* Turnover margin
* 3rd Down Conversion Rates
* Time of possession
* Division record (This would involve separating conferences into divisions, though)

Not all inclusive, but just a start.

As for strength of schedule, it's basically the win/loss record of all the teams you've played. For example, the Lumberjacks have played Coruscant (2-1), St. Paul (1-2), and Seattle (2-1). Thus, the win/loss record of teams played is 5-4, and the strength of schedule is 0.556 (55%).

Originally posted by sully
Originally posted by chad13

Originally posted by sully



* If you disagree with the stats being used, lobby for GLB to give me some new stats to use. I'm somewhat limited in what I have available to me, as there are probably a half dozen more stats I would love to use, but are unavailable.

What stats are those? And just curious since you said you did NFL rankings too, do you happen to know how they calculate strength of schedule?

Some stats I would like to use, but GLB does not have or has, but they are not usable from the stats page:
* Turnover margin
* 3rd Down Conversion Rates
* Time of possession
* Division record (This would involve separating conferences into divisions, though)

Not all inclusive, but just a start.

As for strength of schedule, it's basically the win/loss record of all the teams you've played. For example, the Lumberjacks have played Coruscant (2-1), St. Paul (1-2), and Seattle (2-1). Thus, the win/loss record of teams played is 5-4, and the strength of schedule is 0.556 (55%).

What's your power ranking formula look like? (if you don't mind sharing)

Basically, I have the following stats available right now to use:

Win/loss record
Point differential
Yardage on offense
Yardage on defense
Field goal %
Yards per play on offense
Yards per play on defense

These stats are all combined and weighted, then added up to give a final number which is the ranking.

Originally posted by sully
Basically, I have the following stats available right now to use:

Win/loss record
Point differential
Yardage on offense
Yardage on defense
Field goal %
Yards per play on offense
Yards per play on defense

These stats are all combined and weighted, then added up to give a final number which is the ranking.

Cool, my only real suggestion would be to throw in SoS and maybe put a bigger emphasis on W-L. I realize that with only 3 games the stats will be skewed but it seems to me like these power rankings are dominated by those who run up the score the most.

Originally posted by chad13


Where did I call his rankings very lame or say if he did this for a living he would be broke?

You didn't but you jumped to the defense of the guy that did. I simply disagreed with you calling it "constructive criticism" because there was really nothing "constructive" about it.

Originally posted by RichG
Originally posted by chad13



Where did I call his rankings very lame or say if he did this for a living he would be broke?

You didn't but you jumped to the defense of the guy that did. I simply disagreed with you calling it "constructive criticism" because there was really nothing "constructive" about it.

Sully and I seemed to be able to have a civilized dialogue about the power rankings. I did give him constructive criticism and I also jumped to Smoke's defense because I honestly believe that if a 2-0 team ranked #10 beats the #2 ranked team and goes to 3-0, they shouldn't be dropped to #12 while the team they just beat sits at #4 because they blew out some junk teams.

Originally posted by chad13
Originally posted by sunshineks

what I said had nothing to do with the actual argument you made. you got called out and made fun of and now your crying. like I said before, shut the fuck up. you're only making yourself look dumber.

Oooh, you can cuss! I'm so scared! If only I was man enough to pretend to be tough over the internet like sunshineks!

Seriously dude, you fail at life.

shows just how stupid you are, in what was quoted I cussed once. And how is saying shut the fuck up trying to be an internet badass? you're a fucking idiot

Originally posted by SmokeATL
Originally posted by sunshineks

what I said had nothing to do with the actual argument you made. you got called out and made fun of and now your crying. like I said before, shut the fuck up. you're only making yourself look dumber.

sun youre an idiot sully was wrong with where he ranked the dirtybirds. why cant you just admit that?

lol

Originally posted by chad13


Sully and I seemed to be able to have a civilized dialogue about the power rankings. I did give him constructive criticism and I also jumped to Smoke's defense because I honestly believe that if a 2-0 team ranked #10 beats the #2 ranked team and goes to 3-0, they shouldn't be dropped to #12 while the team they just beat sits at #4 because they blew out some junk teams.

That's fine and I have no problem with that but doesn't change the fact that the comments I referred to were anything but constructive criticism like you claimed.

Originally posted by RichG
Originally posted by chad13



Sully and I seemed to be able to have a civilized dialogue about the power rankings. I did give him constructive criticism and I also jumped to Smoke's defense because I honestly believe that if a 2-0 team ranked #10 beats the #2 ranked team and goes to 3-0, they shouldn't be dropped to #12 while the team they just beat sits at #4 because they blew out some junk teams.

That's fine and I have no problem with that but doesn't change the fact that the comments I referred to were anything but constructive criticism like you claimed.


Well then you sir, need to stop being so damn sensitive about what anonymous people say over the internet. If someone points out something wrong with his rankings, even if the tone of the message is less than benevolent, why wouldn't he just take it as constructive criticism. It seems to me that most mature people wouldn't be worried about what some people on a MMORPG forum would say. Not to mention the constructive criticism that I mentioned (6th post down in page 2) was referring to my own comments about SoS as indicated by the sentence right after that.

Originally posted by chad13
Originally posted by sully

Basically, I have the following stats available right now to use:

Win/loss record
Point differential
Yardage on offense
Yardage on defense
Field goal %
Yards per play on offense
Yards per play on defense

These stats are all combined and weighted, then added up to give a final number which is the ranking.

Cool, my only real suggestion would be to throw in SoS and maybe put a bigger emphasis on W-L. I realize that with only 3 games the stats will be skewed but it seems to me like these power rankings are dominated by those who run up the score the most.

Actually, W-L does have quite a heavy weighting in the rankings. As far as Strength of Schedule, I'm personally against that. Check my long-winded post at the top of the page for an explanation that indirectly shows why I don't use it.

Originally posted by sully
Originally posted by chad13

Originally posted by sully


Basically, I have the following stats available right now to use:

Win/loss record
Point differential
Yardage on offense
Yardage on defense
Field goal %
Yards per play on offense
Yards per play on defense

These stats are all combined and weighted, then added up to give a final number which is the ranking.

Cool, my only real suggestion would be to throw in SoS and maybe put a bigger emphasis on W-L. I realize that with only 3 games the stats will be skewed but it seems to me like these power rankings are dominated by those who run up the score the most.

Actually, W-L does have quite a heavy weighting in the rankings. As far as Strength of Schedule, I'm personally against that. Check my long-winded post at the top of the page for an explanation that indirectly shows why I don't use it.

But the Dirtybirds are 3-0 and ranked 12th behind the guys they beat. In any way thats wrong.

Originally posted by chad13
Originally posted by RichG



That's fine and I have no problem with that but doesn't change the fact that the comments I referred to were anything but constructive criticism like you claimed.


Well then you sir, need to stop being so damn sensitive about what anonymous people say over the internet. If someone points out something wrong with his rankings, even if the tone of the message is less than benevolent, why wouldn't he just take it as constructive criticism. It seems to me that most mature people wouldn't be worried about what some people on a MMORPG forum would say. Not to mention the constructive criticism that I mentioned (6th post down in page 2) was referring to my own comments about SoS as indicated by the sentence right after that.

LOL who's the sensitive one again? Do I need to link you to dictionary.com so you can find the definition of constructive criticism?

The post of yours I quoted was clearly a part of the post pyramid that started due to the attack post that you claim was constructive. Try to weasel yourself out of it all you'd like but you clearly either a liar or you don't know what it means.

Here this might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism

Now take some of your own advice and stop being so sensitive.