Forum
Dottir takes November TAZD.
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 9:57 AM, Thursday December 1, 2011 EST
The TAZD and baseball-style standings are explained on my Wall. At least 35 regular games played in the month are require to qualify for the monthly TAZD. Shown are Games Behind, TAZD, and player name.
GB TAZD Player 06 12178 dottir 13 11141 Emre Oguz 03 10171 masticore 00 9719 Invola 39 9539 Shevar 03 8878 OneShot7 18 8842 jona_vicente 06 8419 savif 22 8352 [Ocean]Flushed 32 8336 Mazaman 02 8224 toms 10 8170 what_up23 47 8155 jfdis 08 8113 @ata 24 8064 Az_Balu 17 7666 kostur 20 7604 L3xy 48 7603 bcmatteagles 16 7600 22-Apr 11 7427 Lady Lite 07 7406 Vollhonk 66 7294 Scabbard 26 7159 kdiceplaya! 22 6840 chaiNblade 29 6829 IFIGENIUS 17 6518 FPP 24 6504 _smile_ 69 6474 Remiel 43 6441 Simmo3k 40 6411 Mercantile 12 6397 xjxaxnx 11 6328 @Toomyfriends 93 6315 franklyghost 14 6259 Bu7Ch3r 34 6214 fish28 18 6129 Free Flags 19 6043 hcdug 24 5928 kudoukun 18 5921 ovbogaert 14 5907 peter luftig 36 5658 @engr2002 49 5588 EddyB 22 5474 @MikeTamburini 31 5398 Brighty 30 5333 fearlessflyer 39 5281 Lord Death 92 5210 Loobee 35 5123 Gurgi 66 5087 barmat 21 5065 joero14 66 5054 Jily 40 5044 hatty 33 4952 longpube 32 4921 NikkeKnatterton 29 4841 scarp8 54 4794 stackshotbilly 34 4784 OviloN 66 4733 Silesia 100 4730 axlehammer 45 4623 mrb2097 47 4600 nexon 21 4582 Volvic 23 4484 beatol 33 4471 Fatman_x 25 4411 KDancer 41 4306 xXxJozefxXx 25 4289 Keeley 26 4019 euphrates7 87 4003 Rsquared 36 3917 Poker Style 48 3808 "MC" 34 3760 haloducks 41 3641 bivo 69 3261 orestis85 52 3201 greekboi 73 3179 cool g 33 2960 MNK10 57 2817 Trkz 58 2784 greenman 65 2759 These tards suck 76 2714 GreGGwar 70 2500 absolutgimlet 61 2463 Johnboat 44 2285 Kingofskillz 84 2218 DonnieScribbles 93 2208 GR3ENMAN 73 2028 CCSKAOT 94 1253 Kdot 92 1248 ji-jo |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 6:14 PM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST TAZD doesn't take PPG into account. When I that in kdice, games that result in a negative PPG are forgiven, what I was trying to say is kdice doesn't force a player into negative point territory. You could have one seventh place with a PPG of -50 or fifty sevenths places with a PPG of -50. In either case you could win your next game and qualify for the Friday Fives. This is a feature of kdice, not the TAZD. All players of zero score are on equal footing in being able to qualify for the Friday Fives regardless of how many games they have lost.
In football, the more games you lose, the further you are behind your division mates in trying to make it to the playoffs. To summarize: in kdice, all zero-score players are created equal in their ability to advance. In football, not all zero-win teams are created equal. |
|
Vermont wrote
at 7:24 PM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST That's only true if we're talking about points scored. However, TAZD does not take that into account at all. You're making a straw man argument there.
As far as TAZD goes(games played and percentages,) football and kdice operate the same way. Fact: losses hurt your percentages in both cases. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 7:47 PM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST Fact: percentages don't affect incentives the same way in kdice and football. The zero datum for the TAZD is a composite of the various types of players in the zero score pool, whose incentives are the same regardless of their percentages. Their actions may not all be the same, for some players may flag out quickly to go to the next game while others may want to fight out a losing game to gain experience and skill.
In football you don't need a composite. No one can do worse than the team that currently is worst in the league. Any datum that includes a team that is doing better than the worst team in the league is not a valid zero datum. |
|
superxchloe wrote
at 7:51 PM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST can we please stop with the sports analogies? When you find me a sport that has a 200 game season and seven teams in every game i'll stop being annoying with it. Drawing comparisons across different games is ineffective, especially when skrum (or anyone else) can just create the stats they want to from said sport. He didn't listen when we argued using baseball last year, and he clearly does not see your point with football this year. So let's abandon that avenue, yeah?
|
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 8:05 PM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST By what authority do you make this statement? Sports have some things in common. During my last visit to a sports bar I heard that one element common to all sports is courage.
|
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 8:11 PM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST I never said sports have nothing in common. I said that drawing comparisons across different games is ineffective- every game requires different skills, and many have extremely different scoring systems.
|
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 8:22 PM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST I heard it the first time. "Ineffective" means of no effect. Would it have been better if you had said "difficult" or "challenging" or "invites research"?
|
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 8:32 PM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST Sorry chloe. I was hoping using a trivial example from something he might understand better would make apparent to skrum what everyone else has already figured out. I'm more than content to not use sports analogies anymore.
It was nice to bash the lousy Colts and the cheating Patriots, though. |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 8:51 PM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST Perhaps some kdice specific examples would be more useful. I'll give a few scenarios which should be readily obvious (or perhaps not.)
For these scenarios, I've assume the TAZD from skrum's wall: 10 10 10 13 16 17 19 (You could adjust the numbers easily to make the same points with any other zero datum.) If these players have played the same number of games, who should rank ahead in any skill ranking that is based on the percentages? * Scenario 1 * Player 1: 10 10 10 13 16 17 19 Player 2: 7 13 10 13 16 17 19 Player 1, based on the percentages, is clearly the superior player. Yet the TAZD would rank player 2 higher. * Scenario 2 * Player 1: 10 10 10 13 16 17 19 Player 2: 9 9 9 13 17 18 20 Player 1 has more high placed finishes and fewer low placed finishes. Yet the TAZD would rank player 2 higher. * Scenario 3 * Player 1: 21 16 18 16 9 7 5 Player 2: 16 21 18 16 9 7 5 These are both quite good players based on the percentages. However, based on those percentages player one is clearly better. Yet, their TAZD would be the same. ******** Three different examples that all clearly point out the flaws that (almost) everyone readily sees. |
|
barmat wrote
at 9:37 PM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST all mums and dads of ugly babies think it's the most beautiful in the world
|
