A couple of methodological points, just to be rigorous about this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Zondag
Over 1200 teams had a net contribution of 10 points or less per match.
[...]
13% of the league has a sub-zero OPR at their first event. This means that our league is producing over 300 teams per year who NEVER EVEN SCORE AT ALL in their first event.
|
How are fouls being accounted for, if at all? As negative points? Could a portion of those 300 therefore be scoring fewer points than they receive in fouls? (This is of course still awful, but it doesn't mean they didn't score.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Zondag
Sure, many of these teams would still not be successful if we gave them more time, but many of them would get much better. Look at the data. After two outings the median MORE THAN DOUBLES to 24 points per team per match. This is huge. The average of the top teams does not change very much, but number of negative almost completely disappears.
|
Isn't that confounded by the likelihood that many of the worst teams only participate in one event (and thus their badness isn't reflected in the event 2 statistics)?
To measure the actual improvement, we'd want to separate out the event 1 performance of teams that participate in 2 or more events, and compare that to those teams' 2nd events. (And even after doing that, you wouldn't expect this 2-or-more-week group to be representative of the 1-week teams, because attendance at a second event—especially outside of district play—is probably strongly correlated with greater resources and organization.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Zondag
Our current system is somewhat designed to kill teams early in their life cycle.
|
I think "designed" is probably too strong a characterization. It's nevertheless completely fair to say that the system is pretty good at it.