Talk Fantasy Football

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:41 pm**

lunchmoney wrote:There are 3 matches that have a score line of -1/-1. How did that happen? (Two of them from Thrudball 2013 and one from the idea thieving Speedbowl Cup in Australia. I'm slightly concerned over the Thrudball entries as I was the one who recorded results on the day......I pretty sure I didnt put in a -1 score line.... )

Did anyone take a look at this? Surely -1/-1 shouldnt be in there?

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:45 pm**

mubo wrote:
lunchmoney wrote:
mubo wrote:I still think it's bizzare though how often lunchmoney was the 'home' player.
I like the left....
If you entered your own results that might explain it...

I've always entered results by uploading the Score file, even when I do someone elses tourney (Thrud for example) I set it all up for Frank to just upload the Score file.

It really is just I like the left and tend to gravitate there

Posted: **Fri Feb 13, 2015 11:54 pm**

Chris wrote: The only one that makes me really sad is Humans. There performance at any TV doesn't seem to match their fluff position at all. Orcs to a lesser extent.

You'd figure that teams that take a big hit in percentage are those that are likely to be struggling. Humans losing 3% is a big black eye - the 'Orcs are hurt by n00bs' argument is more widespread in addition to being a pretty meh roster.

Having just about everyone between 45 and 55% does indicate very good game balance generally, certainly tournaments that hand out little inducement to Woodies and Undead and plenty to Chaos and Humans would be the way forward in my estimation - whether it screws up the numbers or not.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2015 11:23 am**

Has anyone else looked at this at a coach level? For me that gave some surprises!

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2015 2:52 pm**

lunchmoney wrote:
lunchmoney wrote:There are 3 matches that have a score line of -1/-1. How did that happen? (Two of them from Thrudball 2013 and one from the idea thieving Speedbowl Cup in Australia. I'm slightly concerned over the Thrudball entries as I was the one who recorded results on the day......I pretty sure I didnt put in a -1 score line.... )
Did anyone take a look at this? Surely -1/-1 shouldnt be in there?

Will pass it on.

Posted: **Sat Feb 14, 2015 6:54 pm**

Well not directly to the winning statistics, but still a nice view.

based on
a) games per nation summary: http://www.thenaf.net/2015/01/naf-data-2013-14/
b) active membership per nation http://www.thenaf.net/2015/02/active-na ... -snapshot/

only listing the nations mentioned in a)
I removed the europen/eurobowl event from belgium stat, to be somewhat fair.
sorted accodring to games per member.
So I guess belgium/netherland profit rom their neighbouring countries. active player award seems to go to France then

membergames.jpg

Code: Select all

Nation	games played 2014(right axis)	active member(right axis)	games per active naf member(left axis)
Austria	0	6	0
Switzerland	78	17	4,59
United States	1304	271	4,81
Denmark	227	43	5,28
Canada	409	75	5,45
Sweden	520	77	6,75
Germany	1126	160	7,04
United Kingdom	2410	304	7,93
Spain	2631	294	8,95
Netherlands	212	23	9,22
New Zealand	192	20	9,6
Australia	895	92	9,73
Italy	2270	179	12,68
Belgium (w/o EuroEvent)	594	39	15,23
France	2660	140	19
Belgium	1386	39	35,54

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:07 pm**

Updated graph, with win percentages in the cells.
Home/away now ignored, and mirror matches removed.

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:13 pm**

Also, worked out the most successful players during this period. Removed games with and vs the weakest 6 races.

The performance metric is based on first quartile of the beta distribution, so basically you get credit for having a small variance as well as high win ratio, ie the more games played the more confident in a coach's ability abilities we can be. I wouldn't pay too much attention as tweaking the parameters makes a sizable difference to the order, depending on the balance between win % and games played.

Code: Select all

|    ID|NAME          | raw_performance| played_games| mean_losses| mean_wins| performance|
|-----:|:-------------|---------------:|------------:|-----------:|---------:|-----------:|
| 19538|cyberedelf    |       0.9444444|           15|   0.8333333|  14.16667|   0.8526479|
| 13696|Gaixo         |       0.8145833|           50|   9.2708333|  40.72917|   0.7675509|
| 20024|Turbo_Ralle   |       0.9285714|            7|   0.5000000|   6.50000|   0.7668428|
| 16130|Noerciux      |       0.8750000|           12|   1.5000000|  10.50000|   0.7624592|
|  9721|twak          |       1.0000000|            4|   0.0000000|   4.00000|   0.7578583|
|  5290|Pippy         |       0.7843112|          142|  30.6278061| 111.37219|   0.7578304|
| 13583|Harti         |       0.7637845|          165|  38.9755639| 126.02444|   0.7389384|
| 20025|kapi          |       0.8409091|           14|   2.2272727|  11.77273|   0.7384475|
|  5654|Pulpo_Fiction |       0.7954545|           36|   7.3636364|  28.63636|   0.7374653|
|   586|RentTreznor   |       0.9166667|            6|   0.5000000|   5.50000|   0.7371558|
| 20455|envy89        |       0.9166667|            6|   0.5000000|   5.50000|   0.7371558|
|  3312|Joemanji      |       0.7572917|          152|  36.8916667| 115.10833|   0.7311563|
|  1103|Tarra         |       0.8333333|           14|   2.3333333|  11.66667|   0.7307547|
| 13561|Matt_le_Fou   |       0.7731481|           61|  13.8379630|  47.16204|   0.7300217|
| 11777|Purplegoo     |       0.7556452|          157|  38.3637097| 118.63629|   0.7299352|
|  8199|disk          |       0.7791667|           46|  10.1583333|  35.84167|   0.7285604|
| 13417|Spartako      |       0.7497830|          224|  56.0486111| 167.95139|   0.7284885|
|  7037|GardenGnome   |       0.7500391|          113|  28.2455790|  84.75442|   0.7190982|
| 11491|BiBi          |       0.7589286|           70|  16.8750000|  53.12500|   0.7187152|
| 13409|mubo          |       0.8000000|           20|   4.0000000|  16.00000|   0.7173995|

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:34 pm**

sann0638 wrote:
lunchmoney wrote:
lunchmoney wrote:There are 3 matches that have a score line of -1/-1. How did that happen? (Two of them from Thrudball 2013 and one from the idea thieving Speedbowl Cup in Australia. I'm slightly concerned over the Thrudball entries as I was the one who recorded results on the day......I pretty sure I didnt put in a -1 score line.... )
Did anyone take a look at this? Surely -1/-1 shouldnt be in there?
Will pass it on.

Frank says Dockball for the Thrud ones. Don't know about Speedbowl.

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:07 pm**

What happened in Austria 2013 and Belgium 2014? In 2014 Austria fell 508 games (100% drop!) while Belgium increased 780 games (129% increase) year on year. Moving event?

In the meantime, the best places to live for BB (based on highest # games played per million population):

2013: Austria (59.26), Spain (56.56), Belgium (54.11), Sweden (45.37), Australia (45.35)
2014: Belgium (123.77), Spain (56.62), Sweden (53.37), New Zealand (42.57), France (39.93)

Full list (all pops are latest estimates as taken from Wikipedia, which is never wrong):

Code: Select all

Nation	2013	2014	Population	2013 gpm	2014 gpm
Belgium	606	1386	11198638	54.11	123.77
Spain	2628	2631	46464053	56.56	56.62
Sweden	442	520	9743087	45.37	53.37
New Zealand	132	192	4509900	29.27	42.57
France	2914	2660	66616416	43.74	39.93
Denmark	240	227	5700000	42.11	39.82
Australia	1077	895	23746600	45.35	37.69
United Kingdom	2485	2410	64100000	38.77	37.60
Italy	2010	2270	60782668	33.07	37.35
Germany	1193	1126	80716000	14.78	13.95
Netherlands	234	212	16912640	13.84	12.54
Canada	584	409	35675834	16.37	11.46
Switzerland	66	78	8183800	8.06	9.53
United States	1502	1304	320206000	4.69	4.07
Austria	508	0	8572895	59.26	0.00

Posted: **Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:30 pm**

Eurobowl happend to belgium and Austria

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:59 am**

Sounds reasonable. Thanks Lard

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:08 am**

Fassbinder75 wrote:
Chris wrote: The only one that makes me really sad is Humans. There performance at any TV doesn't seem to match their fluff position at all. Orcs to a lesser extent.
You'd figure that teams that take a big hit in percentage are those that are likely to be struggling. Humans losing 3% is a big black eye - the 'Orcs are hurt by n00bs' argument is more widespread in addition to being a pretty meh roster.

Having just about everyone between 45 and 55% does indicate very good game balance generally, certainly tournaments that hand out little inducement to Woodies and Undead and plenty to Chaos and Humans would be the way forward in my estimation - whether it screws up the numbers or not.

I had a look at these arguments and the results were surprising. Overall I recorded Orcs as having the 14th best win record. I then looked at the average number of tournament games played by each player, and then created a weighted average for each race. Orcs did indeed come out as very low, 23rd in the list with an average of 45 games played (only Chaos were lower at 43.4). This seemed to tie up the argument; a lot of 'noobs' play Orcs, so they do worse.

But that only answered half the question. I then decided to filter the win rate to remove coaches that had played a low number of games. I selected 13+, 31+, and 61+ as being roughly equal to 3+, 6+, and 11+ weekend tournaments. Orcs were 14/14/13/13, meaning that even amongst experienced players they don't do that well. I haven't looked at anything temporal yet, so it still might be that people start with Orcs, do badly, and then play other teams and improve.

Incidentally on that same basis humans were 15/12/10/8 - a significant improvement by experienced coaches.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 7:17 am**

Superb statting! Interesting disbelief at the weekend at the numbers to do with nationality, so might look into this a bit more.

Posted: **Thu Feb 26, 2015 8:16 pm**

I've popped the results into a google spreadsheet if anyone wants more detail.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

Slann are the most experienced team faced, with players having had an average of 62.7 tournament games.
This is followed by Woodies (59.6), Pro Elves (58.7), Undead (57.2), and Underworld (55.7).
That's probably an unexpected mix of teams, and the reason is also mixed.

When dividing the average experience by the number of games played we get a loyalty score. Basically if a team has a high experience but not many games played it is because experienced coaches will be playing these teams infrequently - perhaps as part of making their way to playing all 24 teams. This will give a low loyalty score. On the other hand if they are played a lot then they should get a high loyalty score.

This matches an expected pattern. Slann (18.0), Pro Elves (27.

, Underworld (18.9), and Vampires (19.2) have low loyalty scores. Woodies (72.9), Undead (92.3), and Norse (81.5) have good loyalty scores. But interestingly the highest loyalty score is from Orcs (129.6). This means that although there are a lot of Orc players that come for a few games and then never come back, even the ones that do come back seem to stick with Orcs, or more likely that other experienced players tend to not pick them.

Talk Fantasy Football

NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers

Re: NAF Data for Number-Crunchers