You're a Bunch of Factors

This may have been raised in the past so I apologise if so.

I believe that there should be a Strike Rate implemented in addition to the Best Average and would be interested in hearing people's thoughts.

As in limited overs cricket, the Strike Rate has now taken over the Average as the best guide for determining the better performing players.

A Strike Rate could be introduced on the basis of your % of "points winning games" ie if you play 50 games in a season and earn points in 28 of those games you would have a strike rate of 56%. There would need to be a minimum number of games played to qualify, say 15 like the averages.

This will give more people a chance and add more interest. At present people are having to go flat out to play as many games as they possibly can in a season to improve their average. I would say those people are in the minority in our League and the rest have virtually no chance of getting anywhere near their figures.

It would also benefit those people who feel they have to play 20 times a week to keep improving. They can concentrate on quality and not quantity.

Your thoughts are welcomed. Feel free to smash me!!!

Cheers
Pnut_man

I like the concept you are raising, and it would work if all venues had the same amount of runners, or of points were allocated as a percentage of runners, but the fact is that its easier to make the points at a venue with less runners.


Player A: plays regularly at PGCC and makes the points 5 times in a season where 100+ runners is the average.


Player B: Plays at waikerie club which averages 35 runners and makes the points 7 times out of 10 in a season.

Who has had the better season? You would probably say player A, but this wouldn't be reflected in your system.


I agree with you that the state leaderboard doesn't necessarilly give you the best player in the state, but we have had a few conversations about this, and im not sure we have actually decided what would be a fair way of deciding this.

But i like conversations of this nature as they always stimulate good debate. Good post you pnut and welcome to the forum!

I guess it depends what you're looking to introduce such a thing for.

Let's pretend for a moment that it's not intended to be used for qualifying for anything.

In that case, I like the idea but think it's flawed.

We all know the 'state leaderboard' average is an artificial average, and quite often a players actual average is waaayyyyyy less than that, but there's plenty of other things that could be used (other than average points) to determine how well a player does over time.

Total number of games, total number of times placed, number of games in a set period, times placed in that period, average placing, average points, average field size participated in, and the list goes on.

I think it would be far better to use *those* kind of stats when associating 'quality' with any kind of player.

As for using those stats for anything event related... that's another discussion entirely.

My personal feelings on this have being expressed several times. The business standpoint has been broadcast as well.

On a slight tangent what I would like to see, and something that won't be necessarily ready by 2090, is a statistics page for players.

Important Stats:

Total Events
Total Wins
Total Points
Average points per event
Average placing
Average field size
Highest placing/field size

Number of times in points
Number of times on final table
Percentage of wins on final table
Percentage of wins heads up

Highest venue ranking
Highest regional ldb ranking
Highest State Ldb ranking

Have these broken down into season/quarter/year/career pages.

Then have some graphical representation of your total points scored from week to week, month to month, etc....

And if we can work it out using those states where you rank in comparison to other NPL players in your region, state, country via a percentile band (standard deviations above the norm).

What do you think of that?

If I get a resounding yes I will submit this to Steve and see how successful we are.

Have to remember though, that people in the top 50 might actually have better strike rates if they didn't try for the top 50 - and just concentrated on points each time.

I think that many of them go "hard" at events, beleiving that this will get them further 15 times, than points, more times.

HELL YES.


This has indeed been brought up before and my opinions certainly haven't changed either


David - better include a 'well it's time I went to the Payneham anyway' stat.

Sounds like an awesome idea Garth. It will show once and for all that maccatak is better than bennymacca

Now you KNOW he's only going to point out stats that make him or his argument look decent

im still laughing at his remark

'Cheers
Pnut_man'