Rob has bolted out to the weekly lead with an 11-3, two games better than Cullen and Bob, and thanks to my (5-9) and Kristy's (3-11) horrible showings he has also vaulted from fourth all the way to second. Whoops, again.
I've figured the standings counting this week's games, though Kristy and I would both drop it technically. But even if we do, Rob remains ahead of us. So we've got some serious drama with three games left. And Rob, if he can take two of three from Chris, now could win first overall. So if he has any balls he can't just sit on his lead.
I guess it's fitting that this year's race, which has been so close for so long, would come down to this. Here are the standings:
Overall standings
(weekly win in bold; worst week in red)
- Chris 34-8, 37-14, 35-13, 28-19, 28-19, 32-10, 30-16, 29-17, 28-19, 26-18, 28-17, 37-11, 33-16, 39-19, 26-7, 13-7, 14-16, 26-12, 25-19, 8-6 (542-267, .670)
- Rob 31-11, 37-14, 31-17, 29-18, 29-18, 30-12, 29-17, 34-12, 29-18, 26-18, 31-14, 34-14, 28-21, 40-18, 19-14, 11-9, 18-12, 29-9, 18-26, 11-3 (526-269, .662)
- Ron 33-9, 38-13, 37-11, 29-18, 27-20, 26-16, 27-19, 34-12, 27-20, 26-18, 27-18, 35-13, 29-20, 42-16, 25-8, 12-8, 16-14, 26-12, 27-17, 5-9 (532-277, .658)
- Kristy 30-12, 39-12, 27-21, 31-16, 28-19, 31-11, 28-18, 32-14, 30-17, 26-18, 31-14, 35-13, 31-18, 37-21, 26-7, 13-7, 19-11, 20-18, 29-15, 3-11 (526-275, .657)
- Cullen 35-7, 38-13, 31-17, 28-19, 26-21, 25-17, 27-19, 32-14, 31-16, 26-18, 32-13, 35-13, 31-18, 40-18, 24-9, 11-9, 14-16, 25-13, 21-23, 9-5 (527-282, .651)
- Amy 32-10, 40-11, 29-19, 30-17, 28-19, 25-17, 24-22, 26-20, 30-17, 26-18, 34-11, 35-13, 31-18, 40-18, 22-11, 12-8, 17-13, 27-11, 25-19, 5-9 (514-279, .648)
- Bob 31-11, 34-17, 31-17, 34-13, 26-21, 28-14, 24-22, 28-18, 34-13, 26-18, 27-18, 34-14, 26-23, 40-18, 22-11, 11-9, 16-14, 22-16, 22-22, 9-5 (503-292, .633)
- Lonnie 30-12, 37-14, 28-20, 27-20, 26-21, 24-18, 28-18, 31-15, 28-19, 26-18, 28-17, 35-13, 31-18, 39-19, 23-10, 9-11, 20-10, 22-16, 27-17, 8-6 (518-301, .632)
- Cheryl 29-13, 35-16, 33-15, 26-21, 27-20, 27-15, 27-19, 30-16, 33-14, 25-19, 29-16, 30-18, 28-21, 36-22, 20-13, 12-8, 12-18, 22-16, 20-24, 8-6 (497-312, .614)
- Chip 33-9, 41-10, 32-16, 28-19, 30-17, 30-12, 25-21, 29-17, 28-19, 25-19, 27-18, 34-14, 34-15, 38-20, 18-15, 14-6, 0-30, 21-17, 0-44, 0-14 (487-308, .613)
- Lane 30-12, 34-17, 30-18, 28-19, 27-20, 28-14, 25-21, 25-21, 28-19, 23-21, 32-13, 29-19, 21-28, 30-28, 24-9, 12-8, 14-16, 14-24, 17-27, 5-9 (445-312, .588)
5 comments:
I'd like to drop my 21-23 week instead of the 14-16 week.
--Cullen
I was wondering when somebody was going to notice this: If your worst week percentage-wise is close enough to your second-worst week but your second worst week contained significantly more games, it's actually to your advantage to drop your second-worst week as opposed to your worst week because the greater number of games affects your overall percentage more detrimentally despite being slightly better in pure percentage.
Get it? Let's let Cullen's case be an example:
His worst week is 14-16, or a .467. He's currently dropping that week, which leaves him at 527-282 and .651.
His second-worst week is 21-23, or a .477. But since that .477 comes over 44 games as opposed to 30, if you add the 14-16 and drop the 21-23 he actually goes up to a .657.
So, of course, was the 14-16 really the worst week? Apparently not. But here are the problems:
1. If we change the definition of worst week in the 20th week, that doesn't strike me as fair for a number of reasons. If people had known and understood this, undoubtedly they would have changed the way they picked during the course of the year for light-game weeks.
2. My above statement is not self-serving. Dropping a different week would also help me, Chris, Lonnie - and it would actually, the case of me and Chris, extend our lead over Cullen and definitely help us gain some ground on Rob and Kristy. And that's just off the top of my head because we are also dropping that same 30-game week as Cullen. I don't know who else might be helped, because we're starting to get into a fair amount more calculator work for me to find out.
Finding out your worst week this way, with worst week meaning most detrimental effect on your final score as opposed to the worst weekly percentage, requires factoring in everyone's TWO worst weeks, and, if the scores are close enough, perhaps THREE worst weeks. Honestly, that probably is the better way to do it, but, dude, I'd better start getting paid for all that shit. I'm serious.
So here's what I propose: We vote. Out in the open. Let us know what you think. We can keep it the way it is, obviously, or we can recalculate things. If we decide to recalculate things, I'm also asking for volunteers to do some data entry. You can also vote you don't give a fuck, but that wouldn't really be very helpful.
Where do you all stand?
Jesus Christ, forget I asked.
--Cullen
In light of Arizona actually winning, I will now be going for the gusto and picking BALTIMORE over pissburgh in the improbable chance to catch Chris.
Ron,
When I calculated the games and was dropping the worst week, I always dropped the week that would leave us with the highest overall winning percentage. As you've noted, that doesn't mean that we'd have to drop the worst week percentage wise.
I think it's far more fair to drop the week that will give everyone the best overall winning percentage.
Post a Comment