| 0 |
Subject: King of Smallworld
Posted by: Dr. Doom
- [16142182] Fri, Aug 03, 00:01
Here is the idea. We decide on which games are to be particpated in. Anyone interested in joining enters a team in each sport and the winner is the one who has the most points after one session of each sport has completed.
First cut as to the games to play.
1. Football
2. Hockey
3. Basketball
4. Baseball
Maybe soccer, (I know nothing of this, but could be fun). Possibly a pick 'em game. Suggestions welcome.
Ground rules
1. Play 'em all.
2. One team/game only, no swapping teams.
3. Most points at the end wins.
Any and all suggestions welcome and appreciated.
Doom.
|
| 1 | JKaye
Sustainer
ID: 4711592917
Fri, Aug 03, 01:19
|
My ideas:
1. Limit it to SW. Including pick'ems, and other games really defeats the purpose of "King of Smallworld."
2. Allow participants to play 3 of 4 games instead of all 4. Hockey and Basketball run parallel basically, and many do not have the time for both. Football is weekly and baseball is in the summer so those are easier to fit in. But overall, I think people should be able to choose any 3.
3. Allow people to pick TWO team id's they can use for the SW challenge. The idea is to get everyone's best team and not have a bunch of "c" teams battling it out. Just like the Gurupie Standings, there would be a cut off for when final changes to the team used for the SW challenge are made.
4. No special division should be needed for this. Most people probably already have divisions they ar bound too. People should not think of this as an EXTRA team, but rather a compilation of your normal SW ranks. Just like the Gurupie Standings does not need one division, this doesn't. We just collect the id's.
5. To register for the SW Challenge, we can simply have people place a "SWC" next to their team id in the gurupie standings. If they wish to indicate a possible 2nd team at that time, it will be recorded ad switches can be made until a TBD deadline.(whoever records ids should indicate this in the standings thread)
I would be happy to keep track of standings for this. When I had the idea, I really didn't want the rules to be too strict. I think those I have outlined will make for a really fun competition ending after 2002 baseball.
If anyone has major problems with my ideas, please post. This is really what I had in mind when I proposed it. The idea is that EVERYONE plays the SW challenge at rotoguru.com, not just a select few who chose to actually play all 4 games.
|
| 2 | rockafellerskank
Donor
ID: 4911539
Fri, Aug 03, 01:47
|
there's more discussion on this in the baseball forum and perhaps this should be posted in the Hockey and Basketball forum to alert the lurkers that might not be playing baseball or football but will join in. If they don't see it until their sport is online at SW, football will be underway.
I'll post post this info and links in those forums to alert them.
rfs
|
| 3 | blue hen, Guru Jr.
Leader
ID: 27048221
Fri, Aug 03, 02:48
|
This is not a very original idea.
|
| 4 | Strike One
ID: 356372421
Fri, Aug 03, 07:31
|
I think one of the two football pick'em games should be mandatory. Other than that. 3 of 4 games must be choosen from football, basketball, hockey, and baseball.
|
| 5 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Fri, Aug 03, 07:51
|
my proposition:
3 FS games, 1 MS and 2 pick'ems out of the 4 major sports (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB).
stating the 2001 football season.
after next year's baseball season is over, you just add up all the rankings and whoever have the lowest number wins.
|
| 6 | LuckyBruin
ID: 1465468
Fri, Aug 03, 13:03
|
If it's most points, then you are weighting it toward the games that score higher. Like Football. That does not place a premium on ALL the games. What would be better would be to take the place each participant finishes in each sport, then average them. This would mean that it would be more important to finish ahead of others in various sports, as opposed to finishing with a slew of points in the games that allow for more points.
Luck to all....
|
| 7 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Fri, Aug 03, 13:06
|
I didn't say add up all the points, add up all the rankings. it's pretty much just like averaging them...
|
| 8 | beastiemiked
ID: 17414316
Fri, Aug 03, 14:09
|
No pickems, that has nothing to do with SW and managing. Instead of deciding if you have to participate in a certain number of games you could have a 2 sport king, 3 sport king, and 4 sport king. That would get more involvement as it wouldn't force anyone to play a game they wouldn't enjoy.
|
| 9 | Species
Donor
ID: 304521510
Tue, Aug 07, 12:04
|
I think this would be a great idea. You have to show some versatility - no hiding behind your lofty 1-sport WWR.
I think it was mentioned in the baseball thread, but I have to admit that acheiving a higher WWR in Hockey is in fact easier than in baseball or hoops. That doesn't mean that those in the top 10 in hockey aren't outstanding SW players, but I think even I got into the top 250 with pretty minimal effort 2 years ago.
I think the "3 out of 4" idea is a good one. If you're good in hockey, you can still play it....if you play it well, you're rewarded for it with a lofty WWR that can be included in the KOS (King of Smallworld) standings. If you have no clue, you're not penalized.
Further to the "3 out of 4" theory, and this may have been mentioned already, I think it can be any 3 of the 4 designated sports - and you don't have to designate which ones in advance. Try all 4 and you may get lucky on one you thought you were weak in. It will encourage more participation, and perhaps in the future we can bump it up to mandate all 4 sports instead of making it an option.
|
| 10 | C.C. SOLDIERS @ Home
ID: 27451209
Tue, Aug 07, 14:34
|
I dont like the idea of allowing us to switch teams. Someone with no life could form 100 teams for each sport. One is bound to cash in. I say we get one team and suck it up.
|
| 11 | Rick
ID: 39716619
Tue, Aug 07, 16:41
|
as a self proclaimed lurker - I think that this is an excellant idea. My thoughts are that in order to be the "KING OF SMALLWORLD", then all 4 sports should be mandatory. As well all competitors should only be allowed one team in each sport to concentrate on.
Just my 2 cents. (and that is probably exactly what this is worth)
Rick
|
| 12 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 3571123
Tue, Aug 07, 16:51
|
I agree with Rick. You want to be King, you have to play them all. You want to be Queen, play 3 of 4.
The points v rankings argument is interesting. It is easier to get points in some sports, but by making possible Kings play all 4 sports then no one gets an advantage in playing sports in which rankings or points are easier to get.
BH, Matt S, I believe, bandied this idea around on the boards about 3 years ago. Maybe this is another idea ESPN lifted from RotoGuru, like the Pickoff and March Madness games Guru invented? :)
pd
|
| 13 | blue hen wannabee
Sustainer
ID: 3502218
Tue, Aug 07, 18:05
|
I only play 1 or 2 (baseball and MAAAAYBE football).
Can I be jester of smallworld? ;)
|
| 14 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Tue, Aug 07, 21:20
|
3 of 4 seems sufficient, asking someone to concentrate fully on hoops and hockey at the same time just seems unfair, not to mention that hockey seems to go 24/7/12.
|
| 15 | allhair allstars
Sustainer
ID: 36620316
Tue, Aug 07, 21:25
|
Ditto Ender on that. I can't ever seem to sustain the interest for an entire year to begin with, but I know there's no way I'm playing Hockey. Great sport and whatnot, I just don't have the time/energy for it. Three of the four? I'm in. All four? I'm out.
|
| 16 | C.C. SOLDIERS @ Home
ID: 27451209
Wed, Aug 08, 12:49
|
I say play all four. If you are the king of Smallworld, you should be able to play a game and do well while putting in very little time.
|
| 17 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Aug 08, 15:23
|
I don't think that is a very realistic statement at all.
|
| 18 | chode at work
ID: 41046211
Wed, Aug 08, 16:29
|
While the part about "do well ... little time" (post 16) is a little far-fetched, I think you should have to do all four to be declared "King of Smallworld". Sure it's a big commitment. That what it means to be King.
|
| 19 | C.C. SOLDIERS @ Home
ID: 27451209
Wed, Aug 08, 16:34
|
Who freakin cares about how much time is needed. The point is I think that a person needs to compete in all the games to be declared King of Smallworld. How can you see only play this or that and you dont have to play this. YOu guys are trying to make this easy.
|
| 20 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 28059111
Wed, Aug 08, 16:52
|
Ender, I think you are right, but the King of Smallworld Competition should be hard and (at times) time consuming.
pd
|
| 21 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Aug 08, 17:52
|
I think playing for 12 months is enough. No matter what you do there is going to be overlap, at the beginning and end of sports, but I just don't see the need to force someone into playing sports that are concurrent the whole season.
Honestly, if that's the way it is going to be, I am not at all interested in the title. There is no way I will be able to be the father, husband, and teacher need to be, and enjoy being if that's the kind of time commitment required. I have cut way back on my board presence and SW addiction this summer in the name of my family. I would love to be King of SW, but I'd rather be King of my own small world, my family.
Forgive me for climbing on the soapbox, but I know I'm not hte only one who struggles with a legitimate addiction to these games.
I think the bigger issue as far as this friendly competition is concerned is the fact that if you require all 4, then some people won't play. I don't think you could actually call the winner King of Smallworld if a significant number of heavy weights (I don't care whether I am considered one or not) sit out because of the competition being too demanding. If you make it 3 out of 4, then I think more of the people you want to outrank would be willing to play. I say this only because I know for certain there are some major vets around here who would sit out for this very reason.
I am willing to bet if we took a straw poll, the people who want all 4 sports are single with no children. That's fine, I'm not knocking that fact because we have all been there at one time or another. I'm just saying you're restricting participation by some of the gurupies I know you would like ot compete against if you make it all 4.
|
| 22 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 28059111
Wed, Aug 08, 18:14
|
I understand the problem of time, too. I think they'd have to name it something else if all four major sports are involved.
BTW, I'm a father myself, and own my own business. My posting happens anytime, day or night, because of scheduling concerns. I think most of those who are pushing for all four are not necessarily all single, but are the ones who play SW hockey.
pd
|
| 23 | JKaye
Sustainer
ID: 4711592917
Wed, Aug 08, 20:09
|
The idea that making it all 4 somehow makes this competition tougher is wrong. All it does is drive good managers like Ender away. Being the best in 3 of 4 is a VERY hard task. The idea here is to have fun here not to push people to insanity by forcing them to play games they don't want to.
I can understand what the other side is saying, but let's not forget what the real point of this is. 3 of 4 is the best way to do this.
|
| 24 | C.C. SOLDIERS @ Home
ID: 27451209
Wed, Aug 08, 20:27
|
Ender just made an excellent point. I did not think about it that way. If having 4 games drives some away, it may take away some of the better competitors of Smallworld. I still prefer all 4 but Ender's comment does make sense.
|
| 25 | clank
ID: 4972821
Wed, Aug 08, 21:04
|
Instead of arguing, let's make a decision. From what I see there are two major issues: number of games and points/ranking.
I personally think that a person should be able to play any smallworld game and have it count. But to legitimize it then there needs to be a min number of games. I think that golf/racing/soccer should be included. My proposal is that you are allowed to include as many teams as you want(One per game). Every team must be recorded BEFORE the start of that season according to SW. At the end of the year (end of baseball), only your four highest teams count, based on WWR. You are only allowed one pickem team for the standings.
|
| 26 | JKaye
Sustainer
ID: 4711592917
Wed, Aug 08, 21:08
|
Currently the smaller games--golf, NASCAR, soccer won't be included. They simply are not as popular. Lets keep this simple guys. 3 out of 4 major sports, based on average WWR.
|
| 27 | chode
ID: 1810431921
Wed, Aug 08, 21:23
|
A straight WWR calculation still doesn't accommodate for the games played with fewer participants. A system based on percentile finish would. Some lingering questions:
1. Why shouldn't the smaller sports count? The percentile solution above takes care of the smaller participation issue, and it's not like someone will be crowned "King of Smallworld" simply because they dominate NASCAR. Conversely, someone who *is* good at one of the smaller sports shouldn't be penalized/excluded.
2. Of course requiring 4 sports makes the competition harder (JKaye, post 23). That it would drive people away is no argument at all. I really don't care what the eventual resolution is, but realize that tailoring a competition's rules, just to suit your liking and make YOU competitive, is pretty lame.
|
| 28 | clank
ID: 4972821
Wed, Aug 08, 21:43
|
JKaye,
Why not include the other games? Isn't the idea to be the king of SW? I love hockey and baseball but don't have the time to play it. If I can include golf or NASCAR in there instead what is wrong with that? Your point is they are not as popular which implies a easier ranking. Only time will tell that.
|
| 29 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Aug 08, 22:28
|
chode: "but realize that tailoring a competition's rules, just to suit your liking and make YOU competitive, is pretty lame. "
I really don't understand where you are coming from with that comment. What did JKaye say that implied that?
I guarantee you that anyone who is competitive (i.e. wwr < 100 or some other arbitrarily impressive number) in the sports they DO play could certainly be respectably competitive in one they do not typically play. I don't think anyone is trying to make it easier for themself. I do think it should be a format that encourages as many people to compete as possible. There are plenty of baseball/football/hoops players like myself, and I know there are people that pass on either baseball or hoops in favor of hockey as well. I think if it is 3 of 4 you will even encourage some of the 2 sport gurupies to pick up a 3rd, but if you make it 4 then I don't see those same owners participating.
|
| 30 | chode
ID: 1810431921
Wed, Aug 08, 22:48
|
Ender, I was actually referring to your "[t]here is no way I will be able to [compete] if that's the time commitment required." (post 21).
My only point is that if you want the title of "King of Smallworld", then commitment is required. A competition including all four major sports would truly crown the King. Or, if you prefer, mix-and-match the sports, and allow the smaller ones to count. But your current proposal sounds like:
-I want to be King of Smallworld.
-I only care about/play certain sports (Baseball, Football, Hoops).
-Therefore, King of Smallworld should be determined in a competition where I can only play these sports, and still compete.
Call it the "Smallworld Triathlon" if you want, but somehow I don't think you'd go for that.
|
| 31 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Wed, Aug 08, 23:11
|
Personally, I don't care what you call it and I don't know if I will participate at all. I am just pitching my 2 pennies into the discussion.
When I said I didn't know if I could compete, I simply meant participate. I most certainly would be competitive. At the risk of sounding overly proud, I don't think I even have to say that. Sorry for the confusion.
If you have to compete in all 4, I don't think the winner should be called King of Smallworld. I HONESTLY believe it would be a dubious distinction because in order to win that competition he/she would have to do little else with their spare time. That is based on my experiences last summer and this winter/spring when I was competing for the #1 spot in baseball and MS hoops. Maybe it takes less effort for others and I'm wasting my time attempting to compete.
Sorry for the edge to this post, but I don't like my competitiveness being called into question and I simply don't think it's fair to expect that level of commtiment, nor do I believe it is really honorable to invest that much time into what boils down to a fantasy sports pissing contest for people with nothing better to do. I play for fun and I will keep it that way.
|
| 32 | allhair allstars
Sustainer
ID: 36620316
Thu, Aug 09, 00:07
|
Bravo!!
What's the big deal? Chode, play as many game as you want. Ender, play as many game as you want. King of Smallworld? Hey, I like the idea, but I play four SW games and hockey isn't one of them. If that means I can't be "King" so be it. The only real honor around here that matters is if you're in Guru's HOF. The only title that matters is that of "Leader", "Sustainer", or "Donor". Or "Dude". At any rate, having a competition without the top competitors would just end up crowning a pretender to the throne.
No more pissing.
|
| 33 | JKaye
Sustainer
ID: 4711592917
Thu, Aug 09, 00:23
|
chode--please don't insult me. I am not tailoring the game to suit anyone's needs. I am trying to make a fun competition which many people can compete in. Lets not forget that rotoguru.com doesn't actually cover hockey, and Guru is just kind enough to provide the stats.
The competition is: 3 of 4 major sports. If you don't like it don't play, but to me, this is the way to get the best managers(and most) involved.
|
| 34 | JKaye
Sustainer
ID: 4711592917
Thu, Aug 09, 00:31
|
And BTW--I am one of the biggest NASCAR fans at rotoguru.com, and have often had to defend it. So don't think I am trying to put down NASCAR and golf guys.
|
| 35 | JKaye
Sustainer
ID: 4711592917
Thu, Aug 09, 00:33
|
Sorry, one more post to correct a statement. post 33 should say that Guru provides the forum not the stats for hockey.
|
| 36 | C.C. SOLDIERS @ Home
ID: 27451209
Thu, Aug 09, 00:39
|
Can we just take a vote from all interested gurupies?
|
| 37 | KTxGOD
ID: 463661
Thu, Aug 09, 02:13
|
I'll go with JKaye's idea - there is no way i can play 4 sports... i can barely stand 1 now with this TSN crap... they keep going down the only time i have a computer... grrr
|
| 38 | VIDevilRays
Leader
ID: 29439176
Thu, Aug 09, 07:19
|
I'll offer an unbiased perspective from a non-participant:
Who really cares how many sports you include? Just set the rules and go for it. Whomever wants to be King of Smallworld will play by those rules.
Want to be fair? How does one be fair? By using the "major" sports? What are the major sports? Soccer had over 200,000 participants last year. I don't know how many hockey had but I believe baseball this year is about the same. I know a lot of quality fantasy players (El Tel, Dai, Motley Crue, Tom) that play soccer but not one or the other major sports. How does one's ranking in one sport equate to another sport?
We seem to have plenty of computer savvy Gurupies around so maybe there is a way to weight the process-one sport to another. Seems to complicated to me.
Which really brings me back to my original post. Just set the rules and whomever wants to be King of Smallworld will play by them. May not be fair, and I don't know how it can be made more fair. But whomever wants to be King of Smallworld will have to abide by them.
|
| 39 | chode at work
ID: 41046211
Thu, Aug 09, 08:54
|
JKaye (post 33), I did not insult you. My previous post makes clear my words weren't directed at you. I certainly respect the contributions of the likes of Gurupies like you and Ender, but don't say I insulted you when I didn't.
Okay, so it's 3 of 4. Democracy wins. I don't necessarily agree with it, but those are the breaks. I still think it's a good idea and will make for a good competition, either way.
On to the next issue: How many teams (per sport) can you enter? I've *never* played more than one team at a time, and don't see the fun/logic of hedging your bets with a bunch of teams, one of which is bound to succeed. Of course, I'm likely in the minority here as well, so I just wanted to throw that out there.
|
| 40 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Thu, Aug 09, 09:06
|
Would it be difficult to just take everyone's top team at the end of the season? I would think, in the name of competition, if a gurupie had a wwr 5 team out there, but his KoSW team was wwr 250, you would want to compare yourself to his top team.
As chode said, since this was opened up to discussion, we should honor the majority, but I know I wouldn't think I truly outplayed someone who had higher ranked teams not declared in the competition.
|
| 41 | smallwhirled
ID: 17152614
Thu, Aug 09, 09:08
|
I feel a formula should be made including all of the SW sports. A formula that includes all sports in an equal manner....but that would be a tough task.
Let the ones who feel like spending his/her entire life on the computer play all of the games and take the best three. I just think that the top three are the best way to go. I feel that if I compete, I will compete in probably football, hoops, and baseball. If my football team stinks by the time hockey comes up, I may also give that one a shot.
But back to the issue.....The formula must be forgiving in a fashion where the NASCAR, soccer, golf combo can't result in a runaway victory.
|
| 42 | JKaye
Sustainer
ID: 4711592917
Thu, Aug 09, 11:03
|
chode--you did insult me. "I really don't care what the eventual resolution is, but realize that tailoring a competition's rules, just to suit your liking and make YOU competitive, is pretty lame." That was very insulting to me whether you meant it or not. Either way, let's move on.
If someone can find a way to combine the smaller sports, be my guest. I drafted a NASCAR team, but due to time, didn't really play this year. I have 48 TR--but a WWR of 3400. 3400 is not bad for simply drafting a team and leaving it and can certainly not be done in the other sports.
I did not realize soccer had 200,000 players and certainly if there are a handful who want to play that as one of the three, we could include that. But golf and NASCAR at only 50,000 does makes it tougher.
As for the teams issue--I suggested allowing a gurupie to submit 2 possible teams to be included as the King of Smallworld team. Plenty of people use two teams, and like Ender said--we want their best team. 2 allows for someone to get their best team in over a bad one, but does not allow for someone to create 10 teams to try and do well.
|
| 43 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 28059111
Thu, Aug 09, 11:18
|
OK, this might be a silly idea, but let me throw it out:
Assuming that winning the top spots is tougher the more competition you have (no matter which sport you are talking about), why not assign one point for every team that you finish higher than in the final rankings of each sport? It's simple enough to just draft a team without having to do any maintanance on it, which would give you some points, and the harder you work the better you will do.
If a manager (like Ender, or AA) feel that their time is better spent on just 3 sports, they will probably do better at those more popular sports and pile up points there. They only need draft teams in other sports to pick up some "gimme" points. For those other sports, you wouldn't even have to look at them again.
In this scenerio, final points matter no matter how many teams you actually have, or even draft.
I think it's do-able, but maybe some of you might offer refinement on the idea?
pd
|
| 44 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 28059111
Thu, Aug 09, 11:48
|
OK, the more I look at it, the better I like this idea. You can pick & choose what sports you want to participate in. The more popular sports make it more difficult to do as well in (which is how it should be) and ignoring minor sports isn't a huge obstacle, since you need only draft a team to pick up points.
Also, the smaller number of teams entered into the minor sports means that a minor sport stud manager won't overwhelm the competition in the King contest.
Final highest ranking minus total teams entered as of the last points posting equals each sport's point total for a manager. Add in all sports participated in for a calander year, and you have a grand total for the competition.
pd
|
| 45 | rfs @ work
ID: 32728910
Thu, Aug 09, 11:53
|
.... to many chefs..... etc, etc....
Someone (JKaye?) just needs to set rules and those that want to participate can play. Those that do not want to play can go about their lives and not stress about it. You can't possible please everybody unless we have a dozen different tourneys
Lastly, i think the goal of attracting many managers will enhance the competition. The more complicated and the more rules and the less flexible that you make it will just serve to eliminate more and more owners. For example, if Hockey is MANDATORY, I for one will not partcipate (but I won't complain). It will just be too much for me to handle.
$0.02
rfs
|
| 46 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 28059111
Thu, Aug 09, 12:00
|
rfs, so what do you think of my proposal? Posts 43-44? Should simplify things without making anything mandatory.
pd
|
| 47 | El Tel
ID: 117443011
Thu, Aug 09, 12:05
|
Soccer looks more and more a dead issue.Though it says Fantasy Premier League 'coming soon',if it is the English Premier League again,the season starts a week on Saturday.Rival games in Europe have been actively marketing for 2/3 weeks.I cannot see TSN getting a worthwhile soccer game together.The Grand Prix game was flawed from the outset and can also be discounted.
El Tel
|
| 49 | rfs @ work
ID: 32728910
Thu, Aug 09, 12:29
|
PD- the more I think about it... is this what you mean:
Let's say there are 300,000 owners in Hoops and you finish #100 in WWR and I finish #1500 in WWR... you would get 299,900 points and I would get 298,500 points based on the fact that's the number of managers that we beat?
Here is my concern. under that scenario, you kicked my a%^, but I got 99.533% as mnay points as you towards the crown. I think a 100WWR is ALOT harder to acheive than a 1500 WWR based on the above exampe and should be rewarded more.
Am I intepreting your formula correct?
rfs
|
| 50 | Rogue's Strikers
ID: 33732119
Thu, Aug 09, 13:13
|
Assuming that IS what PD meant, this is what your missing rfs. Yes, you got 99.533% of the points that PD did. Your still 1400 points behind him. How will you make that up? You gotta beat him by 1400 points in a sport. That means that if you finish, lets say, 500 wwr in baseball, if PD finishes anywhere above 1900 then he's still leading you. Of course, he'll have gotten about 99.432% of the points that you did (at 1900 wwr) and you'll have kicked his ass. Assuming everyone playing is good enough to get a top 5000 wwr in every sport, the points race will be decided by probably a couple hundred points. The idea behind this is that a sport like golf, with only 50 000 people participating (?, dunno the actual number) won't produce enough points to make it a feasable sport. (The 1 wwr guy still only gets 49999 points. In order to beat that you'd have to finish around 150000 in baseball...)
The only problem with this is that it heavily favors football and baseball and puts hockey and basketball at a disadvantage. (Hockey gets about half that of baseball...) For this reason PD, I'd favor the average of WWR. Its still not perfect, but think of it like this: There might be half as many people playing hockey as baseball, but the top 500 is still comprised of the top 500 people in that sport. I don't see it being easier to crack the top 500 in hockey than in baseball. Why would it? Both top 500's are comprised of the best of that sport. (That make sense?)
FWIW, I'm in if its 3 of 4 sports. I'm not too great at basketball and football, but I will pick one and figure it out for the contest. Don't really feel like doing it for two sports. (I guess I'm one of those 2 sport people who is willing to pick up a 3rd sport to run in the contest.)
|
| 51 | Fireworks
ID: 50743913
Thu, Aug 09, 14:09
|
FYI here are the number of teams at the end of the season for the 4 sports last year.
Hockey : 274338
Football : 503615
Basketball : 443910
Baseball 2000 : 554507
Current season in Baseball 2001 :363485
There is a big difference in baseball beetween this year and last year. I don't know why and i don't think we should consider the number total of teams because there are a lot of them probably inactive. But i think that it's as hard to finish 1st in hockey than in football even with less teams because the real active players are strong in any of these sport. For example the 10000 best players in hockey are as strong as the 10000 best in football.
|
| 52 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 3571123
Thu, Aug 09, 15:24
|
Rogue's Strikers That's exactly what I mean. And yes, while a top 500 (or 100) means you are the tops of that sport, it stands to reason that in the more popular sports you are going to have a more difficult time achieving a top 500 than in a less popular sport. So I disagree with Fireworks that the top managers of each sport are equivalent. They can't be, if it's easier to get to the top of one than another.
So how do you discount the easier ones? You don't. You simply reward the managers finishing higher in the more popular sports more, not by looking at how high one finishes from the top (i.e., how many teams beat you), but by how many you finished above (i.e., how many teams you beat).
How does my proposal simply things? You don't have to pick sports if you don't want to. You can draft teams without the need to follow them if you want to pick up more points. We don't have to decide what sports everyone needs to play. And if gives proper balance, IMO, to minor sport managers.
pd
|
| 53 | wildyams
ID: 16755822
Thu, Aug 09, 19:29
|
And, if you consider the fact that golf started early this year (and many didn't know that) thus the lower % and number from last year.
my $.02
|
| 54 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Thu, Aug 09, 21:01
|
This might be more math than would be liked, but this may help, so I'll throw it out there: what if we took a percentile in each sport and averaged them together. For example, if you finish 500th in a 50,000 person game, your score for that game would be (50000-500)/50000, or 90%. This would be equal to a 5000th place finish in a 500,000 person game.
Make it 3 of the 4 major sports, plus 1 wild-card of either the 4th major sport or another SW game. This would put all sports on an even footing because every sport would be scored from 0% to 100%. It would also give more weight to high finishes in the games with more players.
|
| 55 | beastiemiked
ID: 430122212
Thu, Aug 09, 23:50
|
Well I know I'm not setting the rules but here's the way I think it should be. I basically agree with the rules that JKaye tentavily set.
1. 3 of 4 sports only major sports(hockey, hoops, football, and baseball).
2. Can enter 2 teams for each sport, only best team at the end of the season counts.
3. For rankings it would be the total average WWR finish(best 3 of 4 if you play all 4 sports), lowest total would be "King of SW"
4. Recrown a new "King of SW" after each sport(if a new one needs to be crowned).
|
| 56 | Dan
Donor
ID: 45054169
Fri, Aug 10, 05:34
|
This is just a suggestion but how about this: Lets take 3 sports...we will say hockey, baseball, football. In hockey there are 200, 000 participants, in football 400,000 and then in baseball 300,000. Ok lets say in hockey you finish with a 500WWR, in Football a 10000WWR, and in baseball you finish 100WWR. Here is my proposal, you add up all your WWR which in this case would be 10600. Then you add up all of the participants in all 3 games you participated in which would be 900,000. So then I propose we divide your total WWR of all three games by the total participants in all of the games, this means that you beat 98.822% of the managers overall. Then the person with the highest overall percentage wins the 'King of Smallworld' title. I may just be babbling here but I think this may work with a few modifications or such, hey Im half asleep so Im not even sure this makes sense :-) but Im pretty sure this could work...
|
| 57 | Fireworks
ID: 467281011
Fri, Aug 10, 11:28
|
I think the suggestion made by Dan is better. Here's an example why. I'll take he number of teams given in post 51.
Suppose someone finish : 1st in hockey, 1st in baseball and 1st in basketball. If we take the total WWR he would have 274337 points for hockey, 443909 for basketball and 363484 for baseball in 2001 for a total of 1081730 points.
Another one finish : 1st in football, #154851 in basketball and #74427 in baseball, he would have 503614 points for football, 289059 for basketball and 289058 for baseball for a total of 1081731 points and could be King of smallworld and not the first one ???
If we take only the % of WWR/number of teams then the first one would have 3/1081733 = 0.000002773 and has beaten 99.9997227 % of the teams (it should be 100% but we would have to substract 3 to the WWR, i think it happens only for the 1st place) and the second one would have 229279/1311010 = 0.1748873 and has beaten 82.51127 % of the teams. Then the first one would be King of smallworld like i think he should be.
I hope my calculations are right.
|
| 58 | The Beezer
Leader
ID: 191202817
Fri, Aug 10, 11:36
|
I vote for Dan's proposal as well - it's easy to calculate and seems to be fair. Well done!
|
| 59 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Fri, Aug 10, 12:19
|
so the formula is (NOT = number of teams):
(NOT - WWR) / (NOT - 1) * (100)
(the -1 in the second part is because you didn't beat yourself).
example:
there are 100 teams, you finished 2 overall:
(100 - 2) / (100 - 1) * (100) = 98/99*100 = 98.989%
|
| 60 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Fri, Aug 10, 12:36
|
of course that if you calculate more then 1 game, you add up the NOT and WWR, and the (-1) become the number of games you colculate, because you own more teams.
|
| 61 | sarge33rd
ID: 216413121
Fri, Aug 10, 23:33
|
actually, fireworks is dead on the money in post 51, when he says the top 100 managers in each sport are equally difficult to beat. In every game, you can figure the bottom 30%-40% are teams whose managers long since gave up on them. How hard is it then, to beat an inactive team?
The nr of players is virtually irrelevant, once you have sufficient players to prohibit the possibility of having only a few good ones and many, many poor ones. For practical purposes, this would mean that once your sample population (nr of players) exceeded 10,000, the difficulty factor increases by only minute amounts with each additional player. (something of the converse to, the law of diminishing returns) just MHO for what its worth
|
| 62 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Sat, Aug 11, 07:58
|
allright. let's assume that 5% of the teams are serius:
let's say that I finished:
234 of 274338 in hockey
1231 of 503615 in football
43 of 443910 in basketball
873 of 554507 in baseball
the formula is (NOT = # of teams, NOG = # of games):
((total_NOT * 0.05) - total_WWR) / ((total_NOT) * 0.05) - NOG) * (100)
the calculation:
((1776307 * 0.05) - 2381) / ((1776307 * 0.05) - 4) * (100) =
(88815.35 - 2381) / (88815.35 - 4) * (100) =
(86434.35) / (88811.35) * (100) = 97.3235%
|
| 63 | tduncan
ID: 47616279
Thu, Aug 16, 05:56
|
JKaye you posted in another thread that you will be running this.
so how will you calculate the winners, and what games you need to play to be eligible to win this thing?
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|