Run-Down Forums

Conway · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2001 9:35 pm Post subject:

Some things may have to be determined by the number of participants we have .. Set a deadline for participants and once it closes then finish with the rules .. Of course we could state before hand what the rules are and some things are dependent on number of participants and spell out what those things are .. For example how many individuals can own the same player ..

Dan · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2001 6:08 pm Post subject:

I guess we can shape the rules as we go along. Main thing now is for me to get the program put together for entering players/athletes/rosters/meets/events/results/scores. I've got the core of it in place, and the scoring system is functioning well, but I haven't yet decided how results will be entered and stored from the standpoint of the database. Just a matter of time til I decide on the best route...

I borrowed a 1970 copy of the Purdy tables book and checked it against my page of calculations, and it's near dead-on for almost every event and time. Except for the 200, which has a couple times that are off a bit, almost everything else is within a few tenths of a point, which is more than accurate enough for our purposes, especially since we won't be using the raw Purdy points, rather a percentage of the WR points within that event.

Dan

Conway · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2001 9:35 pm Post subject:

Then it sounds like it is recruiting time ... That and determining which events will be contested ...

I would imagine we would have the 100 and 1500 since those two are the standard bearers of the sport if you will .. Need at least one hurdle race I would think .. 110s perhaps ... That would give us 3 events ... Need at least one long sprint ... The 400 perhaps ... And a distance event .. Although that gets tricky becasue the 5 & 10 tend not to be contested as often .. Maybe a 5/10 combo where your athlete being used is dependent upon which race is being contested ... And maybe the same with the 100/200 ??? What about field events ... Those get tricky too .. So what do you think ???

Dan · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2001 9:43 pm Post subject:

Any idea how to award performance points for the hurdles? The Purdy tables only cover the flat events... The multievent scoring calculations could be used, following the same plan of attack as the other events where the score is compared to the WR level in that event. Assuming the points follow a somewhat linear distribution relative to the Purdy system (I'm not entirely confident that would be the case, since scores from multis equate to about 1400 points vs. 1100 points), that ought to work.

The 1500/mile would need to also be a combined event, since anytime one is run the other is pretty much non-existant or the other half of the field, which presents its own set of challenges...

Dan

Conway · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2001 9:53 pm Post subject:

Hurdles could use the modified system .. 1500/mile could use combined scoring in the case where both are run in the same meet ... So what about field events .. And has any more thought been given to the relay concept ???

Dan · Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2001 10:18 pm Post subject:

Conway · Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2001 8:28 pm Post subject:

I see you keep avoiding the field events topic ... Smile

...

Relay wise we would have to determine which events would comprise the relay .. And then which individuals would comprise each team .. Events could be (for example) 100, 110H, 800 & 1500 ... Then you would just have total combined time .. No handoffs .. Just pure time ..

I think it would be rather easy !!! Would give individuals a chance ot make up for earlier losses (just like real relays do) ...

Could be fun ...

Dan · Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2001 8:32 pm Post subject:

How would we know ahead of time that any of the athletes on our roster are going to run the "relay" events in the meet in question? If one athlete sits out their event that week, suddenly the fictional relay is short a member...

We can probably do some of the field events in the same manner as the hurdles -- using multievent scoring tables to rate the performances -- so I'm not avoiding them, just not dealing with them. Wink

Dan

Dan · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 12:31 am Post subject:

Conway · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 7:53 am Post subject:

I saw the golden league data yesterday as well .. Would that be too many events for our league or should we pair it down some .. Would seem that this list would serve as our guide in this regard .. Golden LEague meets would then be automatic .. And we could take a look and see if there would be any other events that we would like to add .. Some European Level I meets perhaps ... Would also be nice to be able to add a few domestic meets - but that presents the problem of not having Europeans ... So may not be feasible .. Unless we had "domestic squads" ... And that would just complicate things I suppose ... Any thoughts ???

And I like the work that you've done so far ... I agree that some events have WRs so far out there that normal PUrdy points would render them nothing !!!

Dan · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 9:25 am Post subject:

I'm not sure how much I like the selection of Golden League events, and I don't have a clue what the distinction is between Premium and Classic events... What we can definitely do is use the Golden League meets and be sure that any events we choose from the above list will be included, then add any other events we want that are likely to show up from meet to meet.

For one thing, I have no method of calculating 400h points, but I've got a good calculation for the 110h, which is typically a more interesting event anyway. It would be a shame not to have a men's 200 and/or 400, as those events will really test our selection skills next year! Smile

Strange that the distance events on both sides are 3k/5k combos. No mention of the 10k, which is as common as the 3k for the men and just happens to be a championship event...

Domestic meets might fit well into a round of tune-up games to make sure we have a good handle on how things will work. The Pre Classic is getting big enough that we might gain a large enough international field to kick off the official tourny with some accuracy.

Below are my notes on testing the different multievent tables. I haven't tested the women's heptathlon events yet, as I have yet to benchmark their Purdy performances against the men's, beyond a rough calculation of women/men percent of WR level by event.

----
observations (individual comparisons follow) :

- men's 110 hurdles is very close; predicts about half a percent higher than purdys
- men's long jump is very close; predicts about half a percent higher than purdys
- men's pole vault is very close; predicts about half a percent higher than purdys
- men's high jump is very close; predicts within half a percent of purdys
- men's javelin predicts much too high (5-6%)
- men's discus predicts much too high (3-4%)
- men's shot put predicts much too high (4%)
---

comparison 1:
men's Jav WR (98.48m) = 1331.28 pts, top mark of the year (92.8m) = 1242.24 pts ==> 93.31% of WR points
a) 92.8m is comparable to a 10.39 100m (relative to % of WR)
a) 9.79 = 1063.09 pts, 10.39 = 925.25 pts ==> 87.03% of WR points
b) 92.8m is comparable to a 45.82 400m (relative to % of WR)
b) 43.18 = 1111.49 pts, 45.82 = 987.58 pts ==> 88.85% of WR points

comparison 2:
men's 110h WR (12.91) = 1120.58 pts, top mark of the year (13.04) = 1102.71 pts ==> 98.41% of WR points
13.04 is comparable to a 43.61 400m (relative to % of WR)
43.18 = 1111.49 pts, 43.61 = 1090.28 pts ==> 98.09% of WR points

comparison 3:
men's 110h WR (12.91) = 1120.58 pts, 10th best mark of the year (13.17) = 1084.97 pts ==> 96.82% of WR points
13.17 is comparable to a 1:43.15 800m (relative to % of WR)
1:41.11 = 1070.38 pts, 1:43.15 = 1031.51 pts ==> 96.37% of WR points

comparison 4:
men's LJ WR (8.95m) = 1312.19 pts, top mark of the year (8.41m) = 1167.62 pts ==> 88.98% of WR points
8.41m is comparable to a 45.95 400m (relative to % of WR)
43.18 = 1111.49 pts, 45.95 = 981.85 pts ==> 88.34% of WR points

comparison 5:
men's Discus WR (74.08m) = 1383.82 pts, top mark of the year (70.99m) = 1316.85 pts ==> 95.16% of WR points
70.99m is comparable to a 45.06 400m (relative to % of WR)
43.18 = 1111.49 pts, 45.06 = 1021.76 pts ==> 91.93% of WR points

comparison 6:
men's High Jump WR (2.45m) = 1244.16 pts, top mark of the year (2.37m) = 1161.85 pts ==> 93.38% of WR points
2.37m is comparable to a 44.64 400m (relative to % of WR)
43.18 = 1111.49 pts, 45.06 = 1041.15 pts ==> 93.67% of WR points

comparison 7:
men's Pole Vault WR (6.14m) = 1277.89 pts, top mark of the year (6.05m) = 1247.77 pts ==> 97.64% of WR points
6.05m is comparable to a 43.82 400m (relative to % of WR)
43.18 = 1111.49 pts, 43.82 = 1080.08 pts ==> 97.17% of WR points

comparison 8:
men's Shot Put WR (23.12m) = 1295.62 pts, top mark of the year (21.97m) = 1223.35 pts ==> 94.44% of WR points
21.97m is comparable to a 45.44 400m (relative to % of WR)
43.18 = 1111.49 pts, 45.44 = 1004.53 pts ==> 90.37% of WR points

Since the pole vault and high jump seem to be reliable calculations, I've added those to the demo page above.

Dan

Conway · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 12:09 pm Post subject:

Looks like the weight events are the problem .. And we may have ot do without them .. Would be nice ot have one though .. Like the shot maybe ... SEems to be enough other field events (PV, LJ, HJ) for game purposes however ...

I am not thrilled about the golden league schedule either ... And I agree that if we are going with a hurdle event the 110H would be the better way ... Very competitive ... I also would like to see a long sprint or both .... But then we would be getting speed heavy .. Which is not a problem for me, becasue in reality speed is the controlling factor in most track meets anyway ... Smile

And as much as I like Dragila either we do not have the event (womens PV) or we may not be ble to have her as a competitor .. As no one else is close at this point ... Smile

Dan · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 3:40 pm Post subject:

I don't recall seeing any meets that did not hold the 110 hurdles, so we're probably safe selecting that event. Most of the guys in the high hurdles are event specialists and would have nothing else to run if it weren't held! The women seem to have more 100/long jump cross overs.

With the horizontal and vertical jumps available, I think we'll be able to satiate the field event needs, especially considering we don't have an announced throws fan around here yet. Smile

Besides, it will save us the agony of trying to figure out what to make of last year's "pick 'em" throws resutls...

The 100 is the marquee event, so we have to include that. I also think we should include a long sprint or two on both sides. We can figure out what to balance as needed when we select an actual list to work with.

Let's see if we can walk through a practical pricing example here, using the pricing of the men's 100 (not held in the Grand Prix final)...

Dan · Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2001 9:39 pm Post subject:

I updated the scoring demo to include the women's running events:

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

Curious what you think about the accuracy (consistency relative to the men's) of the calculations further down the Purdy scale...

Dan

Discussion Forum

Share the Love!

What's New