Power Rankings (Human .v. Human games)

Danger_dave1

First off just wanna say fair play Rob ! Some great work in dealing with this, I think this way could be the best way to determine who gets to pick first. However i feel it may not be as cut and dry to look wins/loses straight off that bat.

After reading your stuff and thinking about what you've correlated I've a few thoughts

1. I think either making it to the play offs or winning play off games should be weighted.

Looking at just player vs player rankings a few names jump out, Paddy(Linebacker) who is the bears is ranked 5th. Dont get me wrong Paddy is one of the surprises of the league and has played at a high level throughout madden 12, do i see him as a top five player in the BFL ? Right now no, because he's not shown that level in the play off's. ( Can Paddy prove me wrong this season ? :pac: )

Yourself at rank 15, again Having played you i definitely wouldn't consider you to be 15th in the league, You've made the play offs in both season 1 and 2 and personally you and I are 1-1 in the play offs against each other. So i think that counts against the formula.

I could be considered a player with a skewed human vs human % For the fact that i play Berty twice a year in the regular season and last year i played him 3 times. So out of my 6 loses in season 2 and 3 I've had 5 of them from Berty while I've had 9 win against other human players. The other loss was an impressive win from Paully when he was the Cowboys.

If you just go with human vs human records people in madden 12 who only played season 3 will have a skewed record, maybe there worse maybe there better than there draft position donates.

Then you look at Santry : He's won every superbowl in madden 12. Should that not put a last spot ? ( Not sure if winning the trophy should be weighted ? just actual play off wins ?)

Away to combat this is to have either play off qualification or play off wins as a weighted category in the equation.

P.S Should we not count season 1 as well for human vs human games?

Once again super effort on the stats building (Even though we all know you love it :P )

Thoughts people ?

ibmax

Danger_dave1 wrote: »

Thoughts people ?

Since you ask... I've always been of the opinion that the rankings should be based on playoff records. In the real world, if you have a tough schedule and scrape through to the playoffs, this is all irrelevant if you go on to win the superbowl. This will give you the title of world champs and you'll "earn" the last pick in the draft. I don't see why this shouldn't/couldn't apply for us.

I'm not sure anyone said to the Giants, "well done winning the superbowl and good news... cause of those bizarre losses at home to the Seahawks and Redskins you're moving up to pick 27 in the draft!!!"

Then again, maybe they did and uncle Tom said, "no thanks"!!!

Anyone who has never made the playoffs can then be ranked off Rob's numbers. CPU or human games don't matter in this case as if they aren't making the playoffs they're probably beating neither on a regular basis!!!

etloveslsd

I would agree with this. There are probably a few of us that are 0-1 but we could use the human vs human rankings to decide an order then.

helimachoptor

I dont see the point in separating out the play off teams and not, the play off teams will generally have better records than the non play off teams anyway

Danger_dave1

helimachoptor wrote: »

I dont see the point in separating out the play off teams and not, the play off teams will generally have better records than the non play off teams anyway

well the myself and the bengals would be 2 teams that would be out position and get teams better than are level within the BFL would warrant imo. Plus Santry not being last to pick even tho he's won every superbowl?

empacher

I'd be in favor of the play off teams being the last 12 picks.

SantryRed

Danger_dave1 wrote: »

Plus Santry not being last to pick even tho he's won every superbowl?

What's wrong with that? :pac:

etloveslsd

helimachoptor wrote: »

I dont see the point in separating out the play off teams and not, the play off teams will generally have better records than the non play off teams anyway

Take me for instance, I was a playoff team in the first year, but had a terrible season last year, 5 wins I think. I'm gonna be play off team this year. Should I get better pick cause I had bad season?

etloveslsd

empacher wrote: »

I'd be in favor of the play off teams being the last 12 picks.

I think Ibmax means play off record throughout madden 12, so all 3 seasons.

empacher

Also should it not be based exclusively on season 3, with anyone who has dropped out being given the latter picks?

matthew8

Just throw up a system that gives me the Panthers. That's all I want. I don't want to be stuck with the Raiders and *shudder* Stanford Routt.

etloveslsd

empacher wrote: »

Also should it not be based exclusively on season 3, with anyone who has dropped out being given the latter picks?

If you use all 3 seasons, players like Paully, Steve-o, McG and daflood, should they all comeback would not get better teams as they would have play off records.

Say there are 16 teams with play off records, the will be the last 16 human picks. So the players with no play off records will have the earlier picks.

I think it's the fairest way, but that's my opinion.

helimachoptor

Danger_dave1 wrote: »

well the myself and the bengals would be 2 teams that would be out position and get teams better than are level within the BFL would warrant imo. Plus Santry not being last to pick even tho he's won every superbowl?

There's always statistical anomalies, also we can just make Santry the last pick!

For me I dont see a huge difference tbh, i havent won and play off games despite always making it to the play offs.

This isnt easy, also need to take into account newer players.

empacher

I'm just securing the pats for myself :cool:

etloveslsd

helimachoptor wrote: »

There's always statistical anomalies, also we can just make Santry the last pick!

For me I dont see a huge difference tbh, i havent won and play off games despite always making it to the play offs.

This isnt easy, also need to take into account newer players.

It does, nerd can still get into the play offs this year, so will matthew, the seahawks can also still make it.

ibmax

etloveslsd wrote: »

empacher wrote: »

I'd be in favor of the play off teams being the last 12 picks.

I think Ibmax means play off record throughout madden 12, so all 3 seasons.

I do... So whoever has the most playoff wins gets the later pick. Simples.

No farting about trying to figure out who beat who, who was on holidays and when, when someone joined and left and so on...

Everyone has opinions on who the best players are. These opinions are based on who's made the playoffs/made it to the superbowl/won the superbowl/etc and not who beat a CPU team by 80 points 3 weeks in a row!!! Basing ranking on anything other than playoffs means you end up with results where Santry is only the 4th best, which of course goes against everyone's opinions!!! Simples... again

ibmax

matthew8 wrote: »

Just throw up a system that gives me the Panthers. That's all I want. I don't want to be stuck with the Raiders and *shudder* Stanford Routt.

Stanford Routt is a Chief!!!

matthew8

ibmax wrote: »

Stanford Routt is a Chief!!!

Thank god, but they still suck. Just added the Cowboys to my list of approved teams (among realistic ones, 3 teams long) for next year, albeit with a change of scheme.

etloveslsd

helimachoptor wrote: »

For me I dont see a huge difference tbh, i havent won and play off games despite always making it to the play offs.

Well that would work in your favour then? Of all the teams with play off records, you would have one of the earlier picks!!!

helimachoptor

etloveslsd wrote: »

Well that would work in your favour then? Of all the teams with play off records, you would have one of the earlier picks!!!

ok on second thought its a greaty idea!!
i more meant i cant see me getting a huge advantage and ill havr my eye on 2 lesser teams anyway

ibmax

helimachoptor wrote: »

ok on second thought its a greaty idea!!
i more meant i cant see me getting a huge advantage and ill havr my eye on 2 lesser teams anyway

The way things are going all the "lesser" teams are all gonna be taken so I'll just sit back and wait for the packers

BigBadRob83

Was just putting this up as a discussion point, and yes Dave do enjoy statistical analysis, though not the compilation. Season 1 would be a nightmare to compile going through the old forum, that was main reason only did Seasons 2& 3. Unless people want to submt their own results for season 1, then can add that in.

Just a couple of points on the suggestions.
If its based on playoff wins, it would push the guys who have been here the longest down furthest as they would have more opportunities at playoffs.
Before we decide on a system, need to know what the effect is we're trying to achieve. Best teams to worst players or what?

The idea being using Human-v-Human results was to avoid some of the skewing of results that happens by using regular season overall record (which decides playoff results) which can be heavily influenced by how many CPU games a team plays and who is in their division.

Based on the data I've got, could work out the strength of schedule for each player which would give a weighting towards each win/loss which might be a better system? (Could loosely be described as the Berty effect).

Anyway, at the end of the day it's about what kind of system we want and what's the fairest, wherever your own team ends up within that

its less of a big deal for this because if theres no fantasy draft we can change teams every season

adrian522

Miracle Powerful Terminology wrote: »

its less of a big deal for this because if theres no fantasy draft we can change teams every season

Id have thought we would keep our team and try and improve through drafts and trades over 3 or 4 seasons

adrian522

adrian522 wrote: »

Id have thought we would keep our team and try and improve through drafts and trades over 3 or 4 seasons

thats a fair idea is there definitely an online franchise though

Danger_dave1

BigBadRob83 wrote: »

Before we decide on a system, need to know what the effect is we're trying to achieve. Best teams to worst players or what?

The idea being using Human-v-Human results was to avoid some of the skewing of results that happens by using regular season overall record (which decides playoff results) which can be heavily influenced by how many CPU games a team plays and who is in their division.

Based on the data I've got, could work out the strength of schedule for each player which would give a weighting towards each win/loss which might be a better system? (Could loosely be described as the Berty effect).

Anyway, at the end of the day it's about what kind of system we want and what's the fairest, wherever your own team ends up within that

Well said rob, makes sense about season 1, would be head wrecking. I think we should strive for the weakest players get to pick the stronger teams in my opinion. Realistically we'll prob only have 22/24 total start next season which means everyone is going to get a strong ish team and within 2 season will be able to compete for the SB

Anyone who decides to join the BFL and have never played before i would assume would go to the back of the line if they joined before the draft . Thoughts people ?

Could win's in the post season also be weighted ? like with the strength of schedule you talking about

---

Side note : Madden 13 if we play 5 days a week from the start we should get 4 seasons in. I presume everyone will be happy to go with that ?

linebacker52

adrian522 wrote: »

Id have thought we would keep our team and try and improve through drafts and trades over 3 or 4 seasons

i agree with adrain on this if there is only going to be 20-22 of us playing next season it wont matter as we would all get a fairly strong team anyway. if people pick the team they support eg titains bears loins there should be strong teams left for anyone that whated them.

BigBadRob83

Danger_dave1 wrote: »

Anyone who decides to join the BFL and have never played before i would assume would go to the back of the line if they joined before the draft . Thoughts people ?

Would agree with that alright

Danger_dave1 wrote: »

Could win's in the post season also be weighted ? like with the strength of schedule you talking about

Can do that.
Will do up a draft and see what people think, will attach the Excel sheet so everyone can see how it is worked out.
If I increase the importance of post-season games round-by-round maybe.

Danger_dave1 wrote: »

Side note : Madden 13 if we play 5 days a week from the start we should get 4 seasons in. I presume everyone will be happy to go with that ?

Definitely happy with that, 4 seasons would be savage

helimachoptor

New players should be left to last.

However what do we do about returning players?
McG, Stevo_o, mikemac etc?

A game every 5 days is good, as the beers people were chatting about on Friday, it allows you to pick up a good rated rookie and progress him.
It also means that giving up picks may have bigger impacts if you trade for an older player etc.

BigBadRob83

Explanation first of how this is worked out. Tried to use a similar formula to ones I have seen used on some college football websites to rank teams, using your opponents winning % to determine to 'strength' of each win/loss.

Worsksheets:
RESULTS-Tracks all the results for seasons 2 & 3
Records (2-3)-Summarises each teams records in different types of games
Weighting-This is where the Weighted Power Rankings are calculated
Picture-Where everything goes into a pretty picture (below)

Only Human-v-Human game results are used for this.

Each game is given a 'weighting', to take into account importance (to give heavier weight to more important games)
Regular Season = 1
Wildcard = 2
Divisional = 3
Conference = 5
Super Bowl = 10

The 'value' of each Human win is calculated as follows:
Weighting * Opponents' Human Winning Percentage

The 'value' of each Human loss is calculated as follows:
1 * (100% - Opponents' Human Winning Percentage)
Removed weighting from losses, as would actually end up making someone who lost Super Bowl's record worse

The final Power Ranking number (Weighted Winning Ratio) is calculated as follows:
(Sum total of all Weighted Wins / Sum total of all Weighted Losses)*2
Multiplied by 2 so that the average player should equal 1.00, just to give a reference point


Anyway, think it gives a fairly accurate representation (not 100% accurate, but that's never going to happen). Might update it every couple of weeks as more results come in. Obviously, more results more accurate it becomes.

EDIT: Just to give an example of what this is calculating. Take the Falcons and Eagles (both 5-11 vs. Human opponents).
This ratio ranks the Eagles higher as their victories have come against better opponents (55.4% vs 36.4%)

helimachoptor

I get me a good pick according to this

But that means i'm $hit

Berty44

For 4 seasons to work you need to run 2 seasons x 4 day gameweeks and then 2 seasons x 5 day week gameweeks. That way you just about will get them in.

Rob, fantastic work on the spreadsheet.

helimachoptor

Berty44 wrote: »

For 4 seasons to work you need to run 2 seasons x 4 day gameweeks and then 2 seasons x 5 day week gameweeks. That way you just about will get them in.

Rob, fantastic work on the spreadsheet.

I'd be happy to sign up to that tbh.
However it may mean some games are simmed due to availability.

BigBadRob83

If I've made mistakes on any of your results, you can make changes on the below Google Spreadsheet (Just make the appropriate change and note it in columns I & J so can track it), and I will update it next time I post it up.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsO5karsgEN6dGttMEU5OExHRGQwbGY3TEVKRTJCbGc

Hopefully LM will be sorted soon.

Berty44 wrote: »

For 4 seasons to work you need to run 2 seasons x 4 day gameweeks and then 2 seasons x 5 day week gameweeks. That way you just about will get them in.

If that's what we'd have to do for 4 seasons, I'd be on board (pun very much intended)

matthew8

Berty44 wrote: »

For 4 seasons to work you need to run 2 seasons x 4 day gameweeks and then 2 seasons x 5 day week gameweeks. That way you just about will get them in.

Rob, fantastic work on the spreadsheet.

I think early advances will allow for 4 seasons anyway.

Danger_dave1

matthew8 wrote: »

I think early advances will allow for 4 seasons anyway.

One thing I would be against is early advancement. Id like if its a 4 day game week , it's a 4 day game week, I'm part of a different league and to have to organize 3 games and then be told were advancing and I have less time to organize my next game would be a struggle.

It would set out a clear calendar for drafts/Superbowls etc.

helimachoptor

I'm kinda 50/50 on this, Dave I know what you are saying and pat of me is fully in support of it (and also my GF) I could schedule all my PFL and boards games a couple of weeks in advance pretty easily, however if we have all games done within 2 days, we really should be advancing.

However there shouldnt be a constant posting of "when are we advancing etc" not looking at anyone in particular :P

Berty44

I would also agree with Dave on this and in fact we were chatting about it at the beer meetup. It really helps particularly when you are in multiple leagues to know your schedule in advance so you can figure out when to schedule games. Also real life needs to take precendce and I find its handy to schedule a couple of games for the same night thereby completely freeing up other nights for living in the real world !

In practice if you are running a 4 days schedule you will find that rarely, if ever all the games will all be played one full day early so the Comm will most likeley not being able to advance anyway. More likely is that guys have not / cannot arrange to play the game in the time and you have to decide to boot one or other or let it go to sim. So better to not even consider it, as Dave says make a specific schedule and stick to it so we all know when games are due and particularly drafts take place.

matthew8

If we're not going to have early advances I think every gameweek should be 4 days. 5 is very long to wait when you get your game played within the first 2 day nearly every time.

adrian522

Every 4 days or 2 games per week to keep the days consistent.

5 days is along time when half the games are CPU games anyway. It might be different if we had 32 players.

ibmax

adrian522 wrote: »

5 days is along time when half the games are CPU games anyway. It might be different if we had 32 players.

I'm a noob to all this but i've actually found the 5 day turnaround challenging at times. There have been several occasions where I'm the last one to play... thankfully Matthew has always been there to remind me

There's no way i'd be able to make a 4 day a week turnaround on any sort of regular basis. Once September kicks off i'll be playing sport 4 evenings/days a week, have a 9 to 5 job and a wife. While i'd love to play more Madden, finding the time to do so in the first place is tricky enough. If the aim is to have 32 human players then I don't think a shorter week than present is the best idea. If you drop it from 5 to 4 days that's already a 20% reduction in the amount of time for 2 people to find a common game time.

There will always be those who have plenty of spare time and can play their match within an hour of the week being advanced; especially when so many games are against the CPU. There will also be those who are that bit busier but can still manage the 5 day turnaround. If i was guessing i'd say there are more in the second category than the first and if you exclude (not intentionally of course!!) these players then you end up with a league of CPU teams who you play every 3 or so days... in that case you might aswell be playing offline!!!

just a penny for your thoughts :cool:

matthew8

ibmax wrote: »

I'm a noob to all this but i've actually found the 5 day turnaround challenging at times. There have been several occasions where I'm the last one to play... thankfully Matthew has always been there to remind me

There's no way i'd be able to make a 4 day a week turnaround on any sort of regular basis. Once September kicks off i'll be playing sport 4 evenings/days a week, have a 9 to 5 job and a wife. While i'd love to play more Madden, finding the time to do so in the first place is tricky enough. If the aim is to have 32 human players then I don't think a shorter week than present is the best idea. If you drop it from 5 to 4 days that's already a 20% reduction in the amount of time for 2 people to find a common game time.

There will always be those who have plenty of spare time and can play their match within an hour of the week being advanced; especially when so many games are against the CPU. There will also be those who are that bit busier but can still manage the 5 day turnaround. If i was guessing i'd say there are more in the second category than the first and if you exclude (not intentionally of course!!) these players then you end up with a league of CPU teams who you play every 3 or so days... in that case you might aswell be playing offline!!!

just a penny for your thoughts :cool:

Would it help you makes time if the schedule was fixed to certain days of the week? So like if it was 2 games per week (I would go for Sunday to Tuesday and Thursday to Saturday with Wednesday being a day for the first week but added to the second week if the first week ends quickly) and you could know your schedule weeks in advance and thus be able to make time.

SantryRed

We need to get each season done with 3 months. If we shorten the play off time to 4 days, it should be fine I think?

helimachoptor

SantryRed wrote: »

We need to get each season done with 3 months. If we shorten the play off time to 4 days, it should be fine I think?

I think we should go with 5 days, with advancements over the 3 seasons we'll fit in time for a 4th.

BigBadRob83

I would agree with Dave, I personally would like to know the schedule in advance as its tough to organise games. Have lots to be doing besides Madden, and like to sort out my schedule in advance for training and other stuff. Early advancements can throw that off.
5 days a week is good for me, 4 days could be pretty tight but am up for doing 4 seasons

linebacker52

I would really struggle with anything less that a five day advance I'm in more than one league so arranging games can be tricky sometimes. If my shoulder ever gets better I will have a lot less time for madden. Keep things are they are and maybe shorten the playoffs shouldn't be a problem if we sort it out in advanace

ibmax

matthew8 wrote: »

Would it help you makes time if the schedule was fixed to certain days of the week? So like if it was 2 games per week (I would go for Sunday to Tuesday and Thursday to Saturday with Wednesday being a day for the first week but added to the second week if the first week ends quickly) and you could know your schedule weeks in advance and thus be able to make time.

Tbh itd make things worse. I know come September I'll have some wednesday evenings, Friday evenings and most of sunday spare. There will be weeks where ill be more available but theyll be rare. In your situation if the person I'm due to play isn't available on a Sunday then it's gonna be simmed more often than not. The shifting 5 days gives a few options each week. As you reduce the days you reduce the amount of time available for two people to find a common game time. That's the key element I guess.

matthew8

Well I think it's fair to say we have a bit of a verdict. Keep it 5 days. That means that in 4 regular seasons would take 340 days, leaving us 25 days for 4 playoff series and drafts. If we're aiming for 4 seasons, we will need regular season early advances.

empacher

maybe we should just stick to 3 season then. Also generally American Football is becoming more popular in Ireland so the popularity of the game should rise. Which should hopefully have an effect on us.

We dont want to drive away rookie coaches, by having them stick to a very tight schedule. I know last year if i had to play every 4 days i would have left.

etloveslsd

I duuno if we have numbers, but what about 2 leagues? The bpl has a looser schedule so might suit some players and the main franchise for people who can commit to a tighter schedule?

Just an idea