Run-Down Forums

Swoosher · Lurker Joined: 15 Sep 2005 Posts: 8

Hi Dan - thanks for running the game again this year

One suggestion along this current theme. I am not sure it would work from a programming side - but perhaps you could allow say 10 changes (equal to one for each meet). But these were able to be used at any time. So that if I wished I could use all my 10 changes for the 2nd meet - but then would not be able to change at all for the rest of the season.... Just a thought. Or make it harder and allow 5 for the whole season.

Also maybe to increase the steady number of players - you could promote the game somewhere (I am sure you probably already do) perhaps the IAAF forums page?

Thanks again.

Conway · Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:26 am Post subject:

The one change per meet sounds workable ... Though the 10 total changes per season would be interesting .... But from what i know about the system the 1 per meet would be easier to manage ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

Dan · Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:03 am Post subject:

I like the 10 total changes idea, but like Conway said, that brings us back to the conundrum of how to manage it from a scoring perspective.

A secondary advantage of the one change per meet approach is that it keeps people involved throughout the contest, which is something that's been lacking.

I've never been a fan of self-promotion... I posted announcements a couple places, but I prefer to let the contestants do the talking. Smile

Goals for '06:

1) build in a changeable roster option
2) come up with scoring models for additional events
3) get more people involved
4) keep said people involved throughout the contest

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

Conway · Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:23 am Post subject:

Looks like a good set of goals ... And all doable !!! Wink

... I think we've done a great job with this thing over the years ... And it keeps getting better and better !!! Great job ....
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

Dan · Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:18 am Post subject:

Now, while all the accolades are being doled out and we're all feeling warm and fuzzy, anyone want to tackle that analysis of the IAAF distance events, for figuring a 3k -> steeple conversion? Smile

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

Conway · Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:50 am Post subject:

The Big Green Book has a 3000 to 3200 to 2 mile cpnversion chart ... It converts 7:20.7 3000 to 7:53.3 3200 ... Which is a difference of 1.0085% ...

Conversly, if you take the existing WR for 3000 (7:20.67) and compare it to the exisitng WR for the steeple (7:56.63) you get the difference of 1.0077% ...

Now taking this year's leaders in the events 7:28.56 to 7:55.51 you get a difference of 1.0064% ...

Taking an average of the 3 - The Greene Book, The WR, and the Yearly leader gives a factor of 1.0075% .... Does that work ???
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

Dan · Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:21 pm Post subject:

That's certainly got some potential. It may not be exact, but the error could be in either direction and probably too difficult to discern ahead of time to give anyone an advantage.

I don't have the BGB handy for reference ... any similar stats that could be gleaned for other events, such as the hurdles (we've got the 110h covered) or field events?

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

Dan · Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:46 pm Post subject:

I've got Conway's 1.075x suggestion plugged into the demo scoring model for the steeples:

http://run-down.com/fantasy/score.php

Give it a whirl and see if the values seem realistic.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

Conway · Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 7:44 am Post subject:

I think it works ... But then again it was my idea !!! LOL ... But would like ot hear what others think ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

Dan · Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:06 am Post subject:

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it gets group approval... As long as it's pretty close and tracks reasonably well across a range of performances, it should be good to go. That was the problem with the scoring models we had for some of the throws (from deca scoring tables) -- they'd be close for some performances and way off for others.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

Conway · Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:09 am Post subject:

Agreed ... I think our best models have been the simpler ones ... And actually tend to have been the one's we've developed ourselves ... Makes me wonder about some of the "tables" that are out there ...
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

Dan · Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:47 am Post subject:

We didn't develop them, we just fudged existing models toward better accuracy. Smile

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

Discussion Forum

Share the Love!

What's New