2006 Pre-Kickoff FF -- IT'S ON!

[Billfred]

Ah, such are the breaks of this sort of challenge.

Just for the record, I haven't forgotten about this league. Final scores will come after Atlanta, when I can breathe.

Problem is, we still have that issue of FIRST not giving data on Week 1 regionals (mainly because the data they do have is, for most intents and purposes, erroneous). It seems like the best way to go about it would be to dump scoring for W/L/T, seeding, and Highest Match Score, which leaves drafting performance, eliminations performance (both of which we can cobble together from Delphi), and awards. It's lame, but I can't think of a way to even it out when some folks had more week 1 teams than others.

If anyone else can think of a better system, I'm all ears.

[Corey Balint]

I think I am doing pretty well so far...
358-Regional Finalist--UTC, Regional Champ--LI
384-Regional Chairmans, Regional Finalist--VCU
25-Regional Champs, Regional Chairmans, WFFA--NJ
231--Yet To Play.

[Jay Trzaskos]

121 has a Regional win under their belt along with the General Motors Industrial Design Award at Boston.
66 won Chairmans at GLR.
1279 is also a Regional winner at NJ
66 is competing again at the West Michigan Regional and 65 is Competing at the Greater Toronot Regional.

[Conor Ryan]

I'm doing pretty good I think


254

1st at PNW
1st at Silicon Valley

16


Runners Up at St. Louis
Still to play at Palmetto

103


1st at NJ
Unlucky at Chespeake
Still got Philly to play

4


1st at Southern Cal
Still got GTR

4 Regional wins, not too shabby, 3 more chances to go!

[Billfred]

Lessee...

71: EI, Finalist, Chairman's, and Champion in two regionals.
180: Champion at Florida, plus a couple of other handy awards. They've historically done pretty well at Palmetto as well.
342: Alright, so UCF was a little rough for them. They made semis at Palmetto last year, not to mention claiming every single Chairman's Award the regional has ever awarded. I have high hopes.
1398: The Robo-Raiders might not be the most successful robot on the field, but they have a solid track record at Palmetto when it comes to their work in the community, which has led to some pretty big awards in their past (Rookie All-Star in 2004, EI in 2005). I have equally high hopes.

[Billfred]

Lessee...

71: EI, Finalist, Chairman's, and Champion in two regionals.
180: Champion at Florida, plus a couple of other handy awards. They've historically done pretty well at Palmetto as well.
342: Alright, so UCF was a little rough for them. They made semis at Palmetto last year, not to mention claiming every single Chairman's Award the regional has ever awarded. I have high hopes.
1398: The Robo-Raiders might not be the most successful robot on the field, but they have a solid track record at Palmetto when it comes to their work in the community, which has led to some pretty big awards in their past (Rookie All-Star in 2004, EI in 2005). I have equally high hopes.
OH YEAH!

180: Alliance Captain, made the semis
342: Made the dance, got a couple of awards
1398: 3-6 on the field, but who can top Chairman's? (And Keenan is only going to Palmetto and the Championship, which means there are fewer events to affect their average score.)

So that's what, two championships (71, 180), two Chairman's (71, 1398), an EI (71), a bunch of smaller awards, and three of my four made the dance thus far this season? I like those odds! ;)

[JackN]

My aliance did OK.
1 Regional win (70)
2 Regional Finalists (70 and 910)
3 Quarter Finals (245, 70 and 279)
1 Regional Chairmans (245)
1 WFA (245)
2 Safety Awards (279, 70)
1 Xerox Creativity award (70)

How do you plan to score the league?

[Billfred]

I'm planning on scoring it after the mayhem of next week. That also happily coincides with the end of the spring semester at USC, so I'll have time to score it.

All of the original categories will be scored, provided I can get data on all the teams.

[Conor Ryan]

Looks like everyone did well, it's gonna be close

[Billfred]

Looks like everyone did well, it's gonna be close
Indeed, as I'm scoring them right now, it's looking really competitive.

I've gotten through 1derboy, Adam, Alex, Big Mike, and myself. The highest team score thus far is 71 (my first pick, 63.67 points), with the lowest score a tie between 312 (Adam's third, -4), and 22 (Alex's third, -4).

Unfortunately for MOE (and coastertux, who picked them), it seems that CA Honorable Mention wasn't one of the big awards when the scores were set way back at the start of the league. On the other hand, 10 points on top of the 45 for EI is still nothing to sneeze at.

One issue came up while I was scoring wins and losses--what should be done when a team plays a placebo match? I'm looking in particular at 484 at Chesapeake (http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/MD/rankings.html), where they had an additional match. Their record is 7-2, but the Hatch software ranked them like they were 6-2. Do they get the additional two points for the placebo win or not?

[Alex Cormier]

Their record is 7-2, but the Hatch software ranked them like they were 6-2. Do they get the additional two points for the placebo win or not?
Go with the information on the FIRST site.

[JackN]

Cory and Jay look like the two best right now, with Cory having 968, 33 and 68
while Jay had 65, 121, and 66.

[Jeff Rodriguez]

One issue came up while I was scoring wins and losses--what should be done when a team plays a placebo match? I'm looking in particular at 484 at Chesapeake (http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/MD/rankings.html), where they had an additional match. Their record is 7-2, but the Hatch software ranked them like they were 6-2. Do they get the additional two points for the placebo win or not?

I would go with the final ranking results, the way Hatch ranked them.

Did other teams have 9 matches or did 484 have a re-macth somewhere in there?

[Billfred]

I'll just throw a statistic out there to stew on.

Over the three events they competed in, 25 alone averaged a score of 74.67 points. 25 alone outscored the combined score of four of the nine players I've scored thus far. There looks to be a few more contenders out there, but Corey Balint has a heck of a score to beat.

[Corey Balint]

I'll just throw a statistic out there to stew on.

Over the three events they competed in, 25 alone averaged a score of 74.67 points. 25 alone outscored the combined score of four of the nine players I've scored thus far. There looks to be a few more contenders out there, but Corey Balint has a heck of a score to beat.
Heh. :cool:

Yeah, when I joined this league, I expected nothing but complete domination.

[Lil' Lavery]

One issue came up while I was scoring wins and losses--what should be done when a team plays a placebo match? I'm looking in particular at 484 at Chesapeake (http://www2.usfirst.org/2006comp/Events/MD/rankings.html), where they had an additional match. Their record is 7-2, but the Hatch software ranked them like they were 6-2. Do they get the additional two points for the placebo win or not?
Even though I'm not competiting, I'd count the win as 2 points. They did end up going 7-2, not 6-2, and the ranking software has them listed as 7-2 (but with 12 RP).

[Billfred]

Heh. :cool:

Yeah, when I joined this league, I expected nothing but complete domination.
Well, you might want to hold off on popping the bottles of sparkling cider.

Since the curiosity was killing me, I broke the pattern I was using and went ahead and scored 111 (Steve Howland's first pick). Here's their sheet:

MWR WFA 8
MWR Chairman's 42
MWR Champion 30
MWR RadioShack Innovation in Control 2
WI Champion 30
WI RadioShack Innovation in Control 2
CMP Newton Finalist 15
CMP Chairman's 80
MWR Wins 20
MWR Losses -2
MWR Ties 1
MWR 3rd Seed 12
WI Wins 18
WI Losses -4
WI Ties 1
CMP Wins 10
CMP Losses -4
CMP Newton 8th Seed 6
CMP Newton 1st Alliance 1st Pick 8


The raw score is 275, which divided across three events is a godlike 91.67 points. Unless his other three picks (47, 571, 179) that I haven't scored really flopped hardcore or someone had a killer stealth combo, I think we might've found a winner.

11 more players to go.

[Corey Balint]

Again, why Chairman's shouldn't count so much.

If you take out the Chairmans Awards, it comes down to an average of 51 points, which still is a very high score, but a 40 point swing in a league based off averages...

[Billfred]

Again, why Chairman's shouldn't count so much.

If you take out the Chairmans Awards, it comes down to an average of 51 points, which still is a very high score, but a 40 point swing in a league based off averages...
The pros and cons of Chairman's have been argued to death elsewhere. On the regional level, I think the numbers are about right. (They also work on a philosophical level, too--if the Chairman's teams are best exemplifying FIRST's mission of changing the culture, then they are The Answer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life%2C_the_Universe%2C_and_Everythi ng). That came up late last night--if it's not humorous to anyone else, I apologize.) One could argue that the Championship Chairman's Award is a little broken with its 35-point gap over EI, especially since most teams that bring home the clock are also pretty successful on the field as well, such as 111 (2006, Newton finalist), 67 (2005, World Champs), and 254 (2004, Newton Quarterfinalist).

I'm not going to change it for this year, but next year's league will have some tweaks to the system.

[Lil' Lavery]

Chairman's should stay the biggest award. If you just look at it from a numerical standpoint it makes sense why it's worth so much. It has the lowest probability of being won at the Championship level, because it RECQUIRES you to have won the award at the regional level, and only 1 team per event wins it, plus you may win it only once per year(with the exception of the single team that wins twice per year). Therefor, it is the HARDEST award to win, and should be worth the most.

[Billfred]

WE HAVE A SCORE!

Name....... Team 1 Score Team 2 Score Team 3 Score Team 4 Score Total:
Corey Balint 25 74.67 358 38 231 30 384 45.25 187.92
Greg Needel 233 62.33 395 60.67 1305 31 1492 2 156
Cory....... 330 30.33 33 23.75 68 24.67 968 58 136.75
Dan Swando 217 56 229 37 188 26.33 639 4 123.33
Steve Howland 111 91.67 47 6 571 11 179 14 122.67
Billfred 71 63.67 180 30 342 6 1398 22 121.67
Vince Lau 503 45.67 48 24.38 1241 32.67 1006 18 120.71
Koko Ed... 1511 22 79 50 1507 -10 1126 57.5 119.5
Jay Trzaskos 65 9 121 46.5 66 39 1279 17 111.5
Alex Cormier 118 21.25 469 53.67 22 -4 195 40.25 111.17
Conor Ryan 254 47.67 16 20.67 103 27.75 4 14.67 110.75
Dez....... 1114 64.25 191 25 222 6.5 61 9 104.75
Elgin Clock 175 18.83 69 21.25 148 18.75 192 40 98.83
Tim Delles 173 9 177 50.67 234 15 135 18.67 93.33
Jeff Rodriguez 157 19.33 716 27 383 20 93 23 89.33
Icurtis.... 341 35 108 6.67 1251 9.33 1519 29 80
Ted Boucher 126 29.67 56 16 88 9.33 116 18 73
1derboy.... 245 16.67 70 38.25 910 8.5 279 5.25 68.67
Steve Horn 176 31 236 27 839 -11 230 21 68
coastertux 365 59.67 1676 9.5 484 8.5 1640 -10 67.67
Holtzman 980 2 1503 40.75 302 2.25 1002 20.33 65.33
Lisa Perez 67 12.33 27 26.67 1213 24.5 830 -1.67 61.83
Big Mike 1923 0 75 28 303 8 343 25.33 61.33
Marc P.... 494 25.5 237 19.67 38 10 555 -2.33 52.83
Adam Richards 190 23.67 20 31 312 -4 845 0 50.67
Matt Kaplan 45 14.67 60 14 269 8.67 107 -5.5 31.83


Congratulations to the 2006 Preseason FF winner, Corey Balint! The spreadsheet I used to calculate the results can be found here (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/1840).

Just a few statistics to make life fun:

Best first round pick: 111 (Steve Howland, 91.67 points)
Worst first round pick: 1923 (Big Mike, 0 points)

Best second round pick: 395 (Greg Needel, 60.67 points)
Worst second round pick: 47 (Steve Howland, 6 points)

Best third round pick: 66 (Jay Trzaskos, 39 points)
Worst third round pick: 839 (Steve Horn, -11 points)

Best fourth round pick: 968 (Cory, 58 points)
Worst fourth round pick: 1640 (coastertux, -10 points)

[Don Wright]

I'm not a FF guy, so I might be way off base, but it looks like the stats for 469 are way off...

If I'm reading it right, we were picked in the second round by Alex, but on his sheet it shows up as team 33 with our stats under them... And those are the teams picked by Corey...

Maybe I don't know how it's done... sorry...

[Lil' Lavery]

Yeah, there's something funky going on with that spreadsheet. For instance, the names on the bottom tabs and on the top of the spreadsheets don't match. ALL of the teams under the spreadsheets seem to have incorrect data. :confused:

[JackN]

Name.......
Corey Balint 488.5
Greg Needel 466
Vince Lau 386.5
Cory 376
Dan Swando 362
Conor Ryan 360
Steve Howland 349
Billfred 337
Dez 329
Koko Ed 311
Tim Delles 280
Jay Trzaskos 271
Alex Cormier 276
Jeff Rodriguez 248
Holtzman 239
1derboy 230.5
Elgin Clock 216.5
Icurtis 211
coastertux 205
Ted Boucher 201
Big Mike 176
Marc P 174
Steve Horn 167
Lisa Perez 161
Adam Richards 125
Matt Kaplan 101


ok I got the overall scores for everyone. It seemed interesting to me to find out what every one scored. Conor Ryan and Vince Lau moved up big time if it were scored this way

[Billfred]

Alright, after a little investigation I've found that the team numbers get out of whack on the individual player sheets when the main sheet is sorted. It can be fixed by sorting the main sheet by player name. The problem was a design error on my part when I created the file, but the numbers work whichever way you sort the form.

[Cory]

Therefor, it is the HARDEST award to win, and should be worth the most.

Or it should be worth zero, because you don't get points in fantasy football for having the comeback player of the year, rookie of the year, or MVP.

While these awards may be slightly different, the point remains. Fantasy FIRST is about the competition, and CA is an award that is entirely removed from the competition itself.

I find it incredibly dumb that someone who picks a bunch of horrible teams, but manages to pick one team that has a chance at Chairmans, or honorable mention can swing the balance of an entire league, while someone who actually spends the time picking good teams throughout loses, because it's hard as heck to top someone who got a free 85 points or whatever.

[Billfred]

Or it should be worth zero, because you don't get points in fantasy football for having the comeback player of the year, rookie of the year, or MVP.

While these awards may be slightly different, the point remains. Fantasy FIRST is about the competition, and CA is an award that is entirely removed from the competition itself.

I find it incredibly dumb that someone who picks a bunch of horrible teams, but manages to pick one team that has a chance at Chairmans, or honorable mention can swing the balance of an entire league, while someone who actually spends the time picking good teams throughout loses, because it's hard as heck to top someone who got a free 85 points or whatever.
I still think the high reward for Chairman's is important--the robots are just a vehicle, right?

And even when you factor in the "free" 80 points that 111 scored for winning Chairman's this year, also note that four players were able to place higher. One team can not single-handedly win this sort of league--every single player in the top ten had two or more teams earning 30 points. It takes a strong combination to win.

[Mike Schroeder]

Worst first round pick: 1923 (Big Mike, 0 points)




i won't Lie, that hurt a bit

[Cory]

the robots are just a vehicle, right?

Not in Fantasy FIRST, they're not.

[Billfred]

Not in Fantasy FIRST, they're not.
Alright, I just got curious--what if the champion of this league was settled exclusively on the field?

So I went back to the spreadsheet and zeroed out all of the judged awards, leaving just seeding, wins, losses, drafting (for the Championship), and eliminations. Here's what would've been:

Name..... Team 1 Avg. Team 2 Avg. Team 3 Avg. Team 4 Avg. Total:
Corey Balint 25 54 358 37.33 231 29 384 23.25 143.58
Cory........ 330 29 33 22.25 68 23.33 968 57 131.58
Greg Needel 233 44.33 395 47 1305 17.67 1492 2 111
Conor Ryan 254 47 16 20 103 23.25 4 13 103.25
Dan Swando 217 38 229 37 188 22.67 639 4 101.67
Alex Cormier 118 20.25 469 51 22 -4 195 34.25 101.5
Dez........ 1114 63.75 191 23 222 6.5 61 4 97.25
Jay Trzaskos 65 9 121 45.5 66 24.33 1279 17 95.83
Koko Ed.. 1511 9.33 79 36 1507 -10 1126 56.5 91.83
Tim Delles 173 9 177 50.67 234 9 135 18.67 87.33
Vince Lau 503 27.67 48 12.38 1241 20 1006 17.33 77.38
Steve Howland 111 47 47 6 571 8 179 14 75
Elgin Clock 175 18.83 69 21.25 148 16.75 192 9 65.83
Jeff Rodriguez 157 18 716 25.33 383 -1 93 22.33 64.67
Icurtis.... 341 19 108 6 1251 8.67 1519 29 62.67
Billfred.... 71 37.67 180 28.67 342 -2 1398 -4 60.33
Lisa Perez 67 12.33 27 26 1213 23.5 830 -2.33 59.5
Ted Boucher 126 25 56 13.67 88 8.67 116 12 59.33
1derboy... 245 0 70 37.25 910 8.5 279 4.25 50
Holtzman 980 2 1503 40.75 302 1.25 1002 4.33 48.33
Marc P.... 494 21 237 18.33 38 10 555 -2.33 47
Steve Horn 176 31 236 6 839 -12 230 20 45
Big Mike 1923 0 75 3.33 303 7 343 24 34.33
Adam Richards 190 9 20 26 312 -4 845 0 31
coastertux 365 23.33 1676 7 484 7.5 1640 -10 27.83
Matt Kaplan 45 -2 60 14 269 6 107 -5.5 12.5

So I suppose that makes Corey the undisputed champion.

[Cory]

Alright, I just got curious--what if the champion of this league was settled exclusively on the field?

So I went back to the spreadsheet and zeroed out all of the judged awards, leaving just seeding, wins, losses, drafting (for the Championship), and eliminations. Here's what would've been:


So I suppose that makes Corey the undisputed champion.

It didn't make a difference in this league, but you can see that the people who had chairman's teams definitely took noticable drops in the rankings.

[Lil' Lavery]

Or it should be worth zero, because you don't get points in fantasy football for having the comeback player of the year, rookie of the year, or MVP.

While these awards may be slightly different, the point remains. Fantasy FIRST is about the competition, and CA is an award that is entirely removed from the competition itself.

I find it incredibly dumb that someone who picks a bunch of horrible teams, but manages to pick one team that has a chance at Chairmans, or honorable mention can swing the balance of an entire league, while someone who actually spends the time picking good teams throughout loses, because it's hard as heck to top someone who got a free 85 points or whatever.
You don't get points for the team winning or losing in Fantasy Football either, you get points for what the individual does, so does that mean we should remove champion and finalist as well?
In most fantasy sports, leagues are scored on around 10 statistics (that's the yahoo default for instance). IF you removed judge's awards from FF, that leaves you with 6 (W, L, T, Draft, seeding, and result). The awards serve to fill out the rest of the statistics.
Secondly, just because a robot does poorly, I wouldn't call them a horrible team, or even a horrible pick if they win Chairman's. Just because another league member spent time determining which bots would fair the best on the field, doesn't mean the other member didn't spend time on determining which teams have a better shot at judges awards. It's like picking a big yardage QB or a TD QB in a Fantasy football league (or batting avg. vs. HR's in baseball, etc.). Sometime's it is dumb luck, but that's true for any fantasy sport. Like when you draft a back-up running back in the last round and the starter gets hurt and your back-up goes on to a pro-bowl season.

[Corey Balint]

So I suppose that makes Corey the undisputed champion.
Heh. :cool: