![[DEV] ISFL Forums](http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/images/emerald/logo.png "[DEV] ISFL Forums"){kind=logo}
+- [DEV] ISFL Forums (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Community (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Media (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Graded Articles (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+---- Thread: *Isidore94's DSFL POWER RANKINGS WEEKS 11-14 (/showthread.php?tid=20477)
*Isidore94's DSFL POWER RANKINGS WEEKS 11-14 - Isidore94 - 03-27-2020
[div align=\\\"center\\\"]DSFL POWER RANKINGS WEEKS 11-14[/div]
TLDR:
1. Kansas City
2. Myrtle Beach
3. Portland
4. Dallas
5. Norfolk
6. Tijuana
7. London
8. Minnesota
What an interesting week for the DSFL. Expansion teams went 2-0 each on Thursday, The Lame Ducks continue to suck (76 TPE QB’s being ran at the same rate, or more, as their 250 max TPE QB will do that), and the playoff races take form as we come into the final week of the season. The SFC is a deadlock, while the NFC has a close contest between the Royals and the Pythons for the final playoff spot
[div align=\\\"center\\\"]METHOD[/div]
I’m simply copy and pasting the same method changes for both power rankings to reduce confusion on what is the latest methodology.
Changes for both NSFL and DSFL Power rankings this week include
1. Reweighting the formulas to make sure TPE is only 33% and not creeping up to 50+ (this was a mistake on my part in how I set things up)
2. Reduced emphasis on Index. Index now provides, at most, 1 point. Secondarily, extremely low index ratings wont affect performance ratings, as was the case in prior power rankings (again this is my bad. Brackets are hard and their misplacements caused a few errors). The final weightings so far should be 60-75% based in TPE and performance (which should be 33% and 66% respectively) and 40-25% based on Index. The variation is strictly due to the fact that only the max team gets 1 point from index, and other teams receive a fraction based on that 1 point, so their index contributions may be quite low and therefore may represent a smaller portion of their final score.
3. Recalculated how the “pure performance” bit is measured. It now totally takes out TPE from the picture (again due to how I was measuring things, TPE played a role. My bad here once again)
4. Tuned the defense and offensive variables to greater reward teams that play better in terms of yards and points. Now, top teams in each category can receive up to 1.5 points (up from 1 point) and teams not in the top place will receive a fraction of points based off of 1.5 max points (determined by their yards/points in relation to the max/least yards/points).
5. Finally, as putting out these power rankings can be quite time consuming, I have decided to only be updating my spreadsheets twice a season, once before week 1 games are played, and once before the first playoff game is played. I may consider also doing one at the halfway point of each season going forward as well, given I have just updated the spreadsheets for both leagues in terms of TPE status.
[div align=\\\"center\\\"]RESULTS[/div]
OFFENSIVE POWER RANKINGS
(number in brackets denotes TPE rankings)
1. Kansas City 1.9438 (3)
2. Myrtle Beach 1.8743 (4) UP 1
3. Tijuana 1.8447 (6) UP 1
4. Norfolk 1.770 (5) DOWN 2
5. Portland 1.7443 (2) UP 1
6. Minnesota 1.7326 (1) DOWN 3
7. London 1.6645 (8)
8. Dallas 1.6236 (7)
DEFENSIVE POWER RANKINGS
(number in brackets denotes TPE rankings)
1. Portland 1.8564 (1)
2. Kansas City 1.8180 (6)
3. Norfolk 1.7278 (3) UP 2
4. Myrtle Beach 1.7198 (5) DOWN 1
5. Minnesota 1.5993 (2) DOWN 1
6. Tijuana (4) DOWN 2
7. Dallas (7) UP 1
8. London (8) DOWN 1
[div align=\\\"center\\\"]
FINAL COMBINED POWER RANKINGS WITH INDEX[/div]
(First bracket number is purely stats/performance. Second number is TPE rankings)
1. Kansas City 2.8809 (1) (3)
2. Myrtle Beach 2.6705 (2) (5)
3. Portland 2.4923 (5) (1)
4. Dallas 2.4444 (6) (7) UP 4
5. Norfolk 2.4156 (3) (4) UP 1
6. Tijuana 2.3787 (4) (6) DOWN 2
7. London 2.3121 (7) (8)
8. Minnesota 2.02464 (8) (2) DOWN 3
1. Minnesota continues its losing ways. After starting the season 3-2, the Grey Ducks lost to the London Royals, and could just never turn it around. Never scoring more than 20 points and struggling to score more than 20 (although they did manage it once after the Royals game), the Grey Ducks are this seasons mystery. Their chances for playoffs are nearly nil at this point. At this point the Grey Ducks will be a good write up topic for the end of the season. My pre-season predictions had Minnesota as the #1 team, and here they are in last place. DSFL is weird
2. London comes in at #7, with two straight wins in weeks 9 and 10 to offset two losses in weeks 7 and 8. Playoffs are possible for this team if they can win 3 of their last 4, with one of those wins coming against the Pythons. I’d say their chances are less than 10% at this point. Regardless, a 4-win season for a new expansion team is already respectable. They likely finish 6-8.
3. Tijuana lost both games in weeks 9 and 10 against both expansion teams. The most important loss was against Dallas. They are now Jeopardizing their playoff chances, as they finish week 10 5 and 5, tied with Dallas and Norfolk for a 3-way tie for the 2nd and final playoff spot. I still think Tijuana holds on to it given they have 3 homes games to Dallas’s 2 and Norfolks 1. Despite this, Tijuana falls to 6th on these rankings due to these expansion losses, despite putting up the 4th best numbers so far this season. No matter what happens it will be tight with these 3 teams
4. Norfolk comes in at #5, but as I said during my Tijuana review, Norfolk likely does not make the playoffs. Their loss to the Royals will likely be seen as the final nail. Norfolk does deserve a better fate in my eyes, with the 3rd best performance and the 4th best team in terms of TPE. That being said Norfolk does have to play 3 of their last 4 on the road. Their one saving grace is that their one home game is against Tijuana. They also play the Grey Ducks and the Birddogs on the road, two winnable games.
5. Dallas comes in at #5 thanks to a 3-game winning streak. Propelling them from mediocrity to serious playoff contentions. Dallas is the topic of this weeks write up so we’ll save the rest for that
6. Portland is still our # 3 team. Their playoff hopes are firmly in their control. Portland only needs to win their homes games (one of which is against London) to secure a playoff berth
7. Myrtle Beach holds onto the #2 spot. Myrtle Beach continues its streak of 1 win and 1 loss that has been the case since week 3. If Myrtle Beach goes 2-2 in the last 4 weeks, they will secure a playoff berth
8. Kansas City is again our #1 team. Going 3-1 since last weeks power rankings, they remain the strongest team in the league with the #1 offence and #2 defense. 1 win in the final 4 games will secure a playoff berth
[div align=\\\"center\\\"]The Dallas Birddogs[/div]
I will be adding a segment I’ve done sporadically. Each week I will analyze 1 team and pick out some of their games to do a short write up on, using the power rankings and the various stats that I keep track off. I have already done a write up of the Pythons, and this week I will be covering the Birddogs
The Birddogs have put together an impressive week 7-10, going 3-1. I won’t be covering their one loss against Norfolk, as the 17-12 loss was close in all regards and was a toss up in my eyes.
Game 1: Weeks 8 matchup against the Royals was the 2nd game in this new expansion rivalry. Dallas firmly outplayed the Royals this game after being outplayed in their first game against London. Dallas put up 357 yards and 27 points in this win. With a time of possession of 39 minutes to London’s 21 points, this was as lopsided of a game one could have. Not much to say here.
Game 2: Weeks 9 matchup was a game against the Lame Ducks. Dallas Squeaked out of this one 13-10 and honestly, I’d say they probably did not deserve to win this game. Dallas was helped by the fact that Minnesota took 12 penalties to the Birddogs 8, and that the Grey Ducks are, for some reason, running their 76 TPE, barely active QB, just as much if not MORE than Vega. They have been doing this all season and its just silly. The fact the Grey Ducks took a QB at all in the draft, and is forced to play them, is likely the reason why the suck so much this year. Dallas will happily take the win here for 2 in a row.
Game 3: Another strong game from the Birddogs. QB Monty Jack had a great game with a 110-passer rating, and Birddogs RB combo of Goodman, Jones and Feels ran for 253 yards, at 5.5 YPC. Unlike in the Royals game, the Luchadores actually put up a fight. With 311 yards, this game got away of Tijuana in the late second quarter to the early 4th quarter, where Dallas put up 24 straight points. Tijuana fought back with 10 points but it was not enough. What I will say about this game is that the Luchadores main weakness seems to be their dependence on the passing game, which to be fair is the #1 passing offense in the league, does tend to stall out at times. Running the ball only 29 times probably left some yardage on the table in short yardage situations. Combine that with 7 penalties, and a safety against, and one has to wonder if the Luchadores strategy is not the correct one. Regardless, Dallas pulled out a clutch win, a win that is the only reason they are in a position to even possibly make the playoffs. The Birddogs can be proud of this win no doubt. A 3-win streak is among the best we’ve seen this season. Perhaps the Birddogs can ride this momentum into a very difficult week 11 and 12
So, do these Birddogs have a chance at playoffs, riding a 3-game win streak? Well, the Birddogs have a very tough final 4 games, and they will need to at least 2 of them, but likely 3 to make the big show. They have a very tough week 11 and 12 matchup going against the #1 and #2 team on the road. For week 13 and 14, they go against the #3 team and the Norfolk Seawolves, who have put up the 3rd best yards/points in the league. My prediction is that the Birddogs go 1-3 and end this season 6-8, with their one win coming against the Pythons at home. A 6-8 season itself would be very respectable and something the Birddogs could be proud of, but it will still hurt to see with playoffs seemingly in reach. If its any consolidation, the Luchadores have the tie breaker at this point, and so even if the Birddogs win 2 in the next 4 games it still won’t be enough. Is it possible the Birddogs win 3? Yeah it is. But that would require defeating either Myrtle Beach or the Coyotes on the road. But it is the DSFL so anything can happen.
Word Count=1903
*Isidore94's DSFL POWER RANKINGS WEEKS 11-14 - Memento Mori - 03-27-2020
I still don't understand how you reach these TPE rankings. For example, you say that Myrtle Beach has the 5th best defense by TPE. Going to compare MB's defensive TPE using the best eleven players that fit into a nickel formation (425, 245 or 335), as that's the defensive formation most commonly used, to one of the teams ranked higher. I've picked Norfolk so that I'm not always dismissing Portland.
MB's nickel defense, ranked 5th in TPE:
DL Longshot, 250 TPE
DL Egghands 184 TPE
DL Clemente 180 TPE
DL Frackerson 100 TPE
LB Mouseman 242 TPE
LB Radson 148 TPE
DB Scott 250 TPE
DB Booker 183 TPE
DB Hellzapoppin 177 TPE
DB Altidor 148 TPE
DB Lanier 102 TPE
1964/11 = 179 average TPE
Norfolk's nickel defense, ranked 3rd in TPE:
DL Jimbo Jr 232 TPE
DL Rikiya 177 TPE
LB Scott 172 TPE
LB Marshall 125 TPE
LB Banks 116 TPE
LB Suzuki 109 TPE
DB Quin 187 TPE
DB Cross 180 TPE
DB Bumper 179 TPE
DB Eriksen 161 TPE
DB Brosley 124 TPE
1762/11 = 160 average TPE
How are you determining which team has the highest TPE? Because MB's defensive TPE is much higher than Norfolk, yet they're ranked 5th and Norfolk are ranked 3rd.
*Isidore94's DSFL POWER RANKINGS WEEKS 11-14 - Isidore94 - 03-27-2020
(03-27-2020, 10:22 PM)Memento Mori Wrote:I still don't understand how you reach these TPE rankings. For example, you say that Myrtle Beach has the 5th best defense by TPE. Going to compare MB's defensive TPE using the best eleven players that fit into a nickel formation (425, 245 or 335), as that's the defensive formation most commonly used, to one of the teams ranked higher. I've picked Norfolk so that I'm not always dismissing Portland.
MB's nickel defense, ranked 5th in TPE:
DL Longshot, 250 TPE
DL Egghands 184 TPE
DL Clemente 180 TPE
DL Frackerson 100 TPE
LB Mouseman 242 TPE
LB Radson 148 TPE
DB Scott 250 TPE
DB Booker 183 TPE
DB Hellzapoppin 177 TPE
DB Altidor 148 TPE
DB Lanier 102 TPE
1964/11 = 179 average TPE
Norfolk's nickel defense, ranked 3rd in TPE:
DL Jimbo Jr 232 TPE
DL Rikiya 177 TPE
LB Scott 172 TPE
LB Marshall 125 TPE
LB Banks 116 TPE
LB Suzuki 109 TPE
DB Quin 187 TPE
DB Cross 180 TPE
DB Bumper 179 TPE
DB Eriksen 161 TPE
DB Brosley 124 TPE
1762/11 = 160 average TPE
How are you determining which team has the highest TPE? Because MB's defensive TPE is much higher than Norfolk, yet they're ranked 5th and Norfolk are ranked 3rd.
I've answered this question a few times now, however due to the fact some of my old power rankings were deleted due to unfortunate circumstances I will answer it again here.
1. I include all players active within the last 2 weeks of the time that I go through each team and put in their players.
2. I only update TPE three teams a season, once before week 1, once before the first playoff game, and one at midseason. The last update was included in last weeks power rankings, before the latest TPE Tracker was update.
3. I don’t just take the top 11 because DSFL rules stipulate (at least in terms of what has been told to me) that DSFL teams must play all players who have updated in the last two weeks.
This means that 1, MB has some low TPE players who have technically updated according to the TPE tracker at the time. Jason Kreuscher is an MB LB that was active on March 7th. His 57 TPE really skews the LB weighting. Since I organize TPE by position and not as a lump sum as you have done, this means that math is slightly different. Now, MB could not be playing this 57 TPE player, but since he appears in the TPE tracker, I include him in the power rankings. Minnesota’s issues this year are in part due to the fact that they must play an active 76 TPE QB due to DSFL rules. This too plays a factor. This LB is just one example. MB has plenty of low TPE D line men that you did not include in your math.
So, either I am mistaken about this rule and teams can choose to not play low active players, or 2 MB is cheating and not playing all their actives or 3, the TPE tracker is wrong and those MB players don’t exist/are not on their team
Hope this clears that up
*Isidore94's DSFL POWER RANKINGS WEEKS 11-14 - Memento Mori - 03-27-2020
Active players have to play =/= snaps must be shared equally within position groups.
Thanks for the explanation, sorry if you’ve explained that before. My concern is you’ve not used judged it according to the depth charts, which can be found on the sim file, or the best base defense. Creating your own metric seems difficult and a good way of unnecessarily introducing human error into the process.
*Isidore94's DSFL POWER RANKINGS WEEKS 11-14 - Isidore94 - 03-28-2020
(03-28-2020, 04:33 AM)Memento Mori Wrote:Active players have to play =/= snaps must be shared equally within position groups.
Thanks for the explanation, sorry if you’ve explained that before. My concern is you’ve not used judged it according to the depth charts, which can be found on the sim file, or the best base defense. Creating your own metric seems difficult and a good way of unnecessarily introducing human error into the process.
I agree it doesn't mean snaps are shared equally within position groups. You are correct in pointing out that this might be a flaw in how things ought to be calculated. As it stands right now I simply don't have the time to go and create custom weighting for each team. Maybe in a season or so once these rankings are more established and well known, teams will send me their depth charts/how they deploy players in order for me to get a more precise and accurate representation in the rankings. For now I use the same nickel defense weighting for every team
As it stands I merely use the TPE tracker and factor in recently used players. I played with the excel sheet and yes, when I just use the top 11, Myrtle Beach comes out with a score of 153 and Norfolk 142. When I factor in low TPE actives its Norfolk with 127 and Myrtle Beach with 125 (Tijuana is at 126 which is why MB is 5th and Norfolk is 3rd btw). Do you think the rankings would be represented more accurately if I just used the top 11?
Thanks for the discussion by the way this is the type of feedback/conversation I've wanted
*Isidore94's DSFL POWER RANKINGS WEEKS 11-14 - Big Edd - 03-28-2020
How’re you not going to talk about that Birddog defense smh
*Isidore94's DSFL POWER RANKINGS WEEKS 11-14 - scorycory - 03-28-2020
(03-27-2020, 07:01 PM)Isidore94 Wrote:I've answered this question a few times now, however due to the fact some of my old power rankings were deleted due to unfortunate circumstances I will answer it again here.
1. I include all players active within the last 2 weeks of the time that I go through each team and put in their players.
2. I only update TPE three teams a season, once before week 1, once before the first playoff game, and one at midseason. The last update was included in last weeks power rankings, before the latest TPE Tracker was update.
3. I don’t just take the top 11 because DSFL rules stipulate (at least in terms of what has been told to me) that DSFL teams must play all players who have updated in the last two weeks.
This means that 1, MB has some low TPE players who have technically updated according to the TPE tracker at the time. Jason Kreuscher is an MB LB that was active on March 7th. His 57 TPE really skews the LB weighting. Since I organize TPE by position and not as a lump sum as you have done, this means that math is slightly different. Now, MB could not be playing this 57 TPE player, but since he appears in the TPE tracker, I include him in the power rankings. Minnesota’s issues this year are in part due to the fact that they must play an active 76 TPE QB due to DSFL rules. This too plays a factor. This LB is just one example. MB has plenty of low TPE D line men that you did not include in your math.
So, either I am mistaken about this rule and teams can choose to not play low active players, or 2 MB is cheating and not playing all their actives or 3, the TPE tracker is wrong and those MB players don’t exist/are not on their team
Hope this clears that up
So just to clear this up a bit, that linebacker you pointed out Jason Kreuscher hasn't posted anything on the site since February 16th. By definition an inactive player is somebody that hasn't made a forum post in 14 days so he is very much inactive even though he has visited the site more recently than that. So I would appreciate if we would refrain from saying things like 'Myrtle Beach is cheating' in big bold letters
*Isidore94's DSFL POWER RANKINGS WEEKS 11-14 - Isidore94 - 03-28-2020
(03-28-2020, 08:08 AM)scorycory Wrote:So just to clear this up a bit, that linebacker you pointed out Jason Kreuscher hasn't posted anything on the site since February 16th. By definition an inactive player is somebody that hasn't made a forum post in 14 days so he is very much inactive even though he has visited the site more recently than that. So I would appreciate if we would refrain from saying things like 'Myrtle Beach is cheating' in big bold letters
The other player I noticed this with was Rico Martinez. Posted his first update on March 14th but couldn't find him anywhere on the stat sheet. The bolding was more to catch his attention just in case he didn't catch my other 2 conditional statements (i.e that the TPE tracker may be wrong or that I may be wrong about the rules).
*Isidore94's DSFL POWER RANKINGS WEEKS 11-14 - scorycory - 03-28-2020
Gotcha, Rico is in our depth chart he just hasn't gotten as much playing time as I would like sadly. He is also inactive as of today unfortunately