+- Ottawafoos - Ottawa's Foosball Community (http://forums.ottawafoos.com)
+-- Forum: Ottawa Foosball (http://forums.ottawafoos.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Leagues (http://forums.ottawafoos.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Doubles Matchups (/showthread.php?tid=1197)
Pages:
1
2
Doubles Matchups - PACKER - 01-Dec-2012
In the summer there was some issue with the doubles section of the sheets. I'm not sure if we discussed it here on the forum or if I just spoke to a number of people about it, but there was a little change so that one player wasn't stuck only playing one doubles match while the other two players got to play the first two matches in both sets.
With the change that I made there was no issue until this week when JP mentioned that the way it is set up, as long as the team made player 1 their best player, they had a great chance to get 6 easy points in doubles. This was a very valid point and I never knew about this before.
When looking at the game sheets from Wednesday night, the team Taha subbed for had Taha as player 1, and since player 1 plays the first two games of each doubles set, they won 6 points easily. This was also the case for our team, IGYSRH, and Hammerblow.
So I spent some time figuring out how to make each player's contribution to the doubles matches equal. Jesse and I spoke about assigning value to a player which depends on which games they play during doubles.
We decided that it made sense to assign a value of 3 to each player that plays in the first game of a set because it is the most important. The first game of each set is most important because you need to win it in order to have a chance to win the second game and get the 3 points for that set.
The second game in the set is also important because if you've won the first one then you want your best players playing in the second game in order to have the best chance of sweeping the opponent and getting the three points. For this reason we assign a value of 2 to each player that plays in the second game of the set.
The third game in the set is not guaranteed to be played, and if it needs to be played it means that the 3 points is off the table and the most that a team will get is 2 points. Since this is the least important game in the set, the players in this match will get a value of 1.
Game # 1 = value of 3, Game # 2 = value of 2, Game # 3 = value of 1
Now that we have translated the qualitative "players' contribution" into quantitative values for each player, we can find a set up that makes all three players' contributions to the doubles matches equal. This will eliminate the bias that JP brought up on Wednesday night.
Here is the Current League Sheet:
[attachment=51]
You can see what JP was talking about when we assign the values 3,2,1 to the players depending on the game (it's importance) they play in. The chart titled "Value Available" shows how the value is assigned to each player for team 1. The totals for each Player on each team is shown in the bottom chart, where you can clearly see that Player 1 is the most valuable, and player 3 is the least valuable (or has the least opportunity to contribute).
Here is the Proposed New League Sheet:
[attachment=52]
With these changes you can see in the bottom chart that at the end of the doubles matches each player is equal on both teams with a value of 8. Therefore I believe that with this set up, all players will have the same opportunity to contribute, and the bias towards teams putting their best player as player 1 would be eliminated.
I spent a bunch of time on this (probably more than I should have), but feel free to voice your opinions and criticisms.
It is the objective of this thread to solve this issue.
Thanks,
Packer
RE: Doubles Matchups - jpguywatchout - 01-Dec-2012
it looks pretty good Packer.... at least, better than the sheet we were using.
also try and keep in mind that I believe the rest of the sheet deserves consideration when making those doubles match-ups... i.e. if there is a sweep in doubles, does one player on my team end up playing less overall during the entire night? i think that was one of Chris' considerations back in the day... i could be mistaken. (for example, because player 2 only plays one singles game - in the 'specialty' category - all night.....)
granted, it's a minor consideration. just wanted to throw it out there. i'm happy with your new set up.
RE: Doubles Matchups - 5000 Years Old Man - 02-Dec-2012
yes as jp says it is player 2 that should be given some consideration and in that regard the proposed version is better than the current one since player 2 as proposed would be playing 3 out of 4 of the first two games for both teams -- in the current version that is 3 out of 4 for the team on the left but only 2 out of 4 for the team on the right.
as much as possible all 3 players should have the same number of games. I don't have league forms in front of me, what I remember is that only players 1 and 3 play on the actual singles (right at the start), and it seems to me that in the specialty singles one match is 2 vs 2 and the other might be 2 vs 3. Also another match that should be verified on the issue of equal number of games by player is the two-ball since only two players are involved in it (2 and 1?).
one more thing for me, out of simplistic curiosity:
for the team matches at the end, why are player line-ups different for the team on the left and the team on the right, any reason? why not the same line-up, is it just to "mix it up"?
RE: Doubles Matchups - PACKER - 02-Dec-2012
(02-Dec-2012, 03:04 AM)5000 Years Old Man Wrote: one more thing for me, out of simplistic curiosity:
for the team matches at the end, why are player line-ups different for the team on the left and the team on the right, any reason? why not the same line-up, is it just to "mix it up"?
If you look at it logistically it is exactly the same, I just switched the numbers slightly to ya "mix it up" but it would be no different in terms of player contribution if we had exactly the same line up for both teams.
RE: Doubles Matchups - Jester - 03-Dec-2012
(01-Dec-2012, 04:57 PM)PACKER Wrote: In the summer there was some issue with the doubles section of the sheets. I'm not sure if we discussed it here on the forum or if I just spoke to a number of people about it, but there was a little change so that one player wasn't stuck only playing one doubles match while the other two players got to play the first two matches in both sets.
With the change that I made there was no issue until this week when JP mentioned that the way it is set up, as long as the team made player 1 their best player, they had a great chance to get 6 easy points in doubles. This was a very valid point and I never knew about this before.
When looking at the game sheets from Wednesday night, the team Taha subbed for had Taha as player 1, and since player 1 plays the first two games of each doubles set, they won 6 points easily. This was also the case for our team, IGYSRH, and Hammerblow.
So I spent some time figuring out how to make each player's contribution to the doubles matches equal. Jesse and I spoke about assigning value to a player which depends on which games they play during doubles.
We decided that it made sense to assign a value of 3 to each player that plays in the first game of a set because it is the most important. The first game of each set is most important because you need to win it in order to have a chance to win the second game and get the 3 points for that set.
The second game in the set is also important because if you've won the first one then you want your best players playing in the second game in order to have the best chance of sweeping the opponent and getting the three points. For this reason we assign a value of 2 to each player that plays in the second game of the set.
The third game in the set is not guaranteed to be played, and if it needs to be played it means that the 3 points is off the table and the most that a team will get is 2 points. Since this is the least important game in the set, the players in this match will get a value of 1.
Game # 1 = value of 3, Game # 2 = value of 2, Game # 3 = value of 1
Now that we have translated the qualitative "players' contribution" into quantitative values for each player, we can find a set up that makes all three players' contributions to the doubles matches equal. This will eliminate the bias that JP brought up on Wednesday night.
Here is the Current League Sheet:
You can see what JP was talking about when we assign the values 3,2,1 to the players depending on the game (it's importance) they play in. The chart titled "Value Available" shows how the value is assigned to each player for team 1. The totals for each Player on each team is shown in the bottom chart, where you can clearly see that Player 1 is the most valuable, and player 3 is the least valuable (or has the least opportunity to contribute).
Here is the Proposed New League Sheet:
With these changes you can see in the bottom chart that at the end of the doubles matches each player is equal on both teams with a value of 8. Therefore I believe that with this set up, all players will have the same opportunity to contribute, and the bias towards teams putting their best player as player 1 would be eliminated.
I spent a bunch of time on this (probably more than I should have), but feel free to voice your opinions and criticisms.
It is the objective of this thread to solve this issue.
Thanks,
Packer
^ Not a single mention that it was the math of a political science student that got the accountant onto the idea ^
RE: Doubles Matchups - deliverance - 03-Dec-2012
The consideration should come secondly, it's probably not far off -- if off at all, just that shuffling of the order of the matches played in doubles is restructured.
At least this helps so that the first half of the sheet isn't meaningless if player 1 on a team can win it in 4 games and collect their 6 points.
RE: Doubles Matchups - 5barwarrior - 03-Dec-2012
Talk to me before you mess with the sheet. There was great effort put in to ensure that every player had the same number of games and that the match ups for the Doubles would NOT result in player 1 being the dominant player.
RE: Doubles Matchups - deliverance - 03-Dec-2012
You can easily see player 1 should be the best player on team 2 since they play in the first 2 games of both sets, which are guaranteed to be played regardless of outcome.
especially considering there is more at stake to close it out in 2 games instead of 3, it's a no brainer that there is an unfair bias for player 1 on the first sheet, 2nd team.
They all play the same amount of games.
RE: Doubles Matchups - PACKER - 03-Dec-2012
(03-Dec-2012, 12:10 AM)Jester Wrote: ^ Not a single mention that it was the math of a political science student that got the accountant onto the idea ^
(01-Dec-2012, 04:57 PM)PACKER Wrote: Jesse and I spoke about assigning value to a player which depends on which games they play during doubles.
We decided that it made sense to assign a value of 3 to each player that plays in the first game of a set because it is the most important.
For the record, you (Jesse) came up with some math that wasn't quite perfect but definitely on the right track, so I used excel to come up with what I posted above. lol
(03-Dec-2012, 10:21 AM)5barwarrior Wrote: Talk to me before you mess with the sheet. There was great effort put in to ensure that every player had the same number of games and that the match ups for the Doubles would NOT result in player 1 being the dominant player.
We are talking with you, through this forum so that everyone can provide their input. Although you'll make the final decision once we've got some viable alternatives figured out.
How did you do it before Chris? Did you assign values to the players depending on the importance of the games they played? Because if you did that already then we can use those values to make sure the other games don't also have a bias in them. It's the only way that I can think of to make the sheet even for all three players - as I showed mathematically with the doubles matches.
RE: Doubles Matchups - jpguywatchout - 03-Dec-2012
(03-Dec-2012, 10:21 AM)5barwarrior Wrote: Talk to me before you mess with the sheet. There was great effort put in to ensure that every player had the same number of games and that the match ups for the Doubles would NOT result in player 1 being the dominant player.
just so you know Chris, it's not that we're messing with the sheet... I think somehow we reverted back to an older version of the sheet where Player 1 played the first two games of doubles, both sets....
remember that sheet? that's the one we've been using for the past few weeks...
RE: Doubles Matchups - 5barwarrior - 03-Dec-2012
Player 1 should not be playing the first two games of each set. if so, then you are using an old format of the sheet (which is completely my fault since I gave you the sheet
)When considering the number of games each person plays, you must take into account a sweep in both doubles when counting games.
RE: Doubles Matchups - jpguywatchout - 03-Dec-2012
i think it's awesome that even though you aren't around... stuff that goes wrong is still your fault.
amazing.
RE: Doubles Matchups - PACKER - 03-Dec-2012
(03-Dec-2012, 12:28 PM)jpguywatchout Wrote: remember that sheet? that's the one we've been using for the past few weeks...
It's the same one I was printing all summer, and the same one we've used for the first 7 weeks of this season lol. I don't know what happened but it's no ones fault, and not an issue as long as we change it moving forward.
Nobody has agreed that my math works out.. Should we use my proposed solution for the doubles matches or are we saying that there is now a bias in the other games that was originally accounted for with the bias in the original doubles match set up?
What is the next step?
RE: Doubles Matchups - 5barwarrior - 03-Dec-2012
I'll send you the correct sheet.
RE: Doubles Matchups - 5000 Years Old Man - 03-Dec-2012
there is no doubt that compared to what we have been using for the past weeks your proposed changes would reduce the inpact of player 1 on doubles matches
as for lineups of the preceding matches, could the current and proposed entire forms be posted for a look-see?
just a suggestion, it would help in giving better informed opinions
as for "who's fault", the only way to avoid making mistakes is by not doing anything, but then that's the biggest mistake