You're a Bunch of Factors

In regards to the State Leaderboard,

Which ranking system should be used:

Total Points scored
Average Points
Total Points scored (Min 20 games) with total of best 20 games as rank.
Average points (Min 20 Games) with an average of best 20 games as rank.
Total points scored in blocks of 10, with best ten block as ranking.
Average points scored in blocks of ten, with best ten block as ranking.

Which one do you like and why?

Mum always said if you can't say smoething nice......


but that's never stopped me before


I'm not a huge fan of any of those but understanding where you're coming from and what it's purpose is - I'd say the avg points in blocks of 10 would be the least bad option.

I'm making the assumption that a block of 10 is just 10 consecutive games and that there's no picking and choosing.

I think that's more likely to demonstrate a decent run (of something).

What would you like to see Pete.

Based on a ten or twelve week season.

Garth Kay wrote:Total Points scored (Min 20 games) with total of best 20 games as rank.
Average points (Min 20 Games) with an average of best 20 games as rank.

firstly, aren't the above the exact same thing? divide the total points scored in your best 20 games by 20, and you get an average of your best 20 games?


personally, i think that the state leaderboard in its current form is there to cater for the insane-gamers. this means that total points is probably the best way to go imo. or the current system.


to cater for the 1-3 games a week players, what if you gave prizes for 2 leaderboards?

the first one could be in the current system, and cater for the insane gamers. the second one could be sorted on overall average, but a min 20 games to qualify. this means that someone that plays 2 venues a week, and smashes them, could get something to show for it.

this caters for both crowds - the 100 games a season players, and the 20 games a season players.

the downside might be that players that would usually play 30 games might stop after 20, but i doubt the 80 game players would stop as they have another leaderboard they can chase.



another idea

pay out $200 or something to the player with the best overall average in certain bands - i.e 20-30 games, 30-40 games, 40-50 games, as well as having a normal leaderboard for the really big gamers.

The state leaderboard is always going to be what it is - a haven for mega game players. If they want to spend upwards of $30 every game, and play 7 games a week, go for it (don't see why you wouldn't invest your money more wisely and go play at the cas, but whatever).

NPL has to/wants to reward your mega gamers (read: best customers) and that's cool. So you have to have some sort of ranking system on the state leaderboard, even if the majority of us agree that it's flawed.

You have to make it at least a little bit fair, so total points scored and average points scored are out. Total points is just for the 43 gamers a week, and will cause friction between the smaller, 9 gamers a week who feel they can't compete Average points is a poor system because once you hit a high average you can just stop playing and keep your massive lead (as Jerry Ison did in the first season). No good having players NOT playing NPL - can't even see why that option is even included in the first place.

I've always liked the "best 10/15/20 games" system. It allows a player to play as many times as they want to get higher scores, while at the same time, still giving the smaller gamers and venues a chance (win win for NPL). Albeit, a smaller one. Obviously if you play more games you have a higher chance of smashing the leaderboard. Doesn't have that large of an effect on the state leaderboard, but for regional leaderboards, it works quite well.

So we come back to the beginning - you are always going to get mega gamers. What is the best way to reward them? Give them as many chances to increase their average as they want. I think for the state leaderboard (with the top 10 always playing upwards of 80+ games a season), an average of their best 20 games is a good decision. Best 10 is a bit too short, and best 20 would at least make the top 10 look a little bit less warped.

the first one could be in the current system, and cater for the insane gamers. the second one could be sorted on overall average, but a min 20 games to qualify. this means that someone that plays 2 venues a week, and smashes them, could get something to show for it.

Doesn't the best block system cover that.

And the total points versus Average is all about aesthetics and players relating to the LDB's.

Our Venue LDB's are based on total points whilst regional and State LDB's are based on averages.

I think we've already had that discussion Garth

I want more stats than you can shake a Bennymacca at.

Although, unlike benny the cunt, I'd like them to actually be reflecting the true story and not just whatever it is we're looking for at the time


Love you benny the cunt

So how does a points scoring system not do that?

You all like to use sporting leagues as comparisons when we have this discussion, but the majority of sporting leagues and their ladders are fromed by total points scored, for winning or drawing.

They are not decided by any other stats apart from the points scored, unless there is a draw in rankings and then generally points for and against are the decider.

They do not decide ladders on incosequential stats, such as Team strike rate or average, how many inside 50's or tackles.

So what stats are we talking, times final tabled in a 60 plus field compared to times final tabled in a less than 60 field, divided by total amounts of games played?

Shouldn't just the points system reflect the most consistent player?

Garth Kay wrote:So how does a points scoring system not do that?

You all like to use sporting leagues as comparisons when we have this discussion, but the majority of sporting leagues and their ladders are fromed by total points scored, for winning or drawing.

They are not decided by any other stats apart from the points scored, unless there is a draw in rankings and then generally points for and against are the decider.

Yeah, but everyone plays the same amount of games. If every player only played x amount of games, then it would be fair. Obviously that won't be happening.

Good point AK.

Hence why average is probably the better measure over a whole season, total points wouldn't cut the mustard in my opinion.

If you're thinking of making it total points, you may as well make it 50 games to qualify