Home > Uncategorized > The Rankings – How And Why

The Rankings – How And Why

Fri 9 January 2009 Leave a comment Go to comments

The latest rankings provoked several comments, including:

yaseen Says:
Fri 9 January 2009 at 5:21 pm

wow.. i didnt even play and moved up for this week..

[Tom] Says:
Fri 9 January 2009 at 5:28 pm

….

@Yaseen: I didn’t play and I fell a place (?) I think.

Yasseen, Tom, you can move up and down without playing. If another player loses a game, he might move down from above you to below you.

In your case Yaseen, the result for 29 December 2008 was re-classified.

Tom, in your case, Boris climbed above you. Not that difficult to understand is it? 🙂 Even in a league table (which works on absolute points, rather than ratios), a team that doesn’t play can still move up or down if other teams above or below them wins or loses.

[Tom] Says:
Fri 9 January 2009 at 5:28 pm

….

There is a thing called rankings.

Rankings are based on data, data that “matter”, that count as data for it to be ranked.

In this case, however, you have rankings of data that matter and data that don’t (quite) matter (in the same way).

….

Tom, read this, it might help you understand.

Like I said in the today’s Update today, “If you don’t read the blog, it’s not my fault you don’t know what’s going on!” 🙂

Gilbert Says:
Fri 9 January 2009 at 5:29 pm

…. A player may be in the losing team every week and get a low ranking. This does not mean he is a bad player. ….

You’re right Gilbert, that’s why playing regularly matters, because at some stage, results do turn. I’ve been doing the rankings, and I see it.  Likewise, being high in the rankings doesn’t mean the person is a good player 🙂 .

After going his first 7 games without a win, John J has now won 5 of his last 6. Perseverence and playing regularly pays, if nothing else, in terms of health and fitness. We should all draw the right lesson – winning isn’t everything.

Every game played “scores” on the rankings, and we’re

I might start recording week-on-week movements in the rankings, and highlighting the biggest climber.

You continue:

…. For that matter, perhaps the rankings should not be posted as it may cause misunderstandings and maybe even morale issues. …..

The rankings should be taken the right way. If anyone takes it the wrong way, I have no qualms about setting them straight.

Many of the regulars love it, many others ignore it. Everyone makes their own choice.

You also said:

…. Another thing is that when the rankings gets somewhat stable, we always play against the same players, i.e. Andy M and myself have never been on the same team. Not sure if this can be changed to add some variety and unpredictability to team selection.

Since only the results from the current and preceding quarters are taken into account, this is about as stable as it gets. The fact that Boris can enter the top 10 at number four, and your lead over Andy M has been cut from 0.166 to 0.001 shows that there is still a lot potential for movement. I see a lot of movement each week. Highlighting the biggest climber might help everyone to see that.

In any event, the two teams are at liberty to swap players at the session itself.

As matters stand, if you and Andy M were on the same side, the other side would have little chance, so it’s only fair that you’re on opposing sides. 🙂 Don’t worry, it can and will change.

Just a reminder – the use of rankings to decide line ups stemmed from Bret’s suggestion on 6 August 2008 and was discussed in some detail when first implemented in October 2008.

Everyone has had plenty of opportunity to discuss the system, an opportunity that Tom has never hesitated to use regularly 🙂 .

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. rajiv
    Tue 13 January 2009 at 10:04 am

    To allow for re-jigging of the line-ups at the session itself, I suggest that everyone bring both colours for each session. The situations where this may arise are as follows:

    • Even though the line ups are based strictly on the rankings, the players playing agree that the two sides are appreciably of uneven strength.

    • There is a late replacement, and the line ups have not been re-done based on the rankings.

    A player is injured during the game, and the opposing side takes a huge lead.

    The game goes on with 9 players only (5 v 4), and the side with 5 players takes a huge lead.

  2. rajiv
    Fri 30 January 2009 at 1:06 pm

    A reminder that regular and sustainable participation carries significant weight in the rankings.

    From next week onwards, I will include highest position reached. With movement up or down from the previous week already included, it’s beginning to look like the music charts. 🙂

    More like the tennis rankings actually.

  1. Fri 16 January 2009 at 11:41 am
  2. Thu 29 January 2009 at 11:32 pm
  3. Fri 30 January 2009 at 1:36 pm
  4. Sun 8 February 2009 at 9:48 pm
  5. Sat 18 April 2009 at 12:07 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: