New college quizbowl stats website

[ryanrosenberg]

I'm pleased to announce the release of College Quizbowl Stats, a new quizbowl stats website.

Welcome to College Quizbowl Stats. This site has two intended purposes:

• To serve as a repository of quizbowl statistics, preserving records of the game’s playing history. This includes traditional statistics such as wins and losses, points per bonus, and powers/gets/negs; detailed statistics such as scoresheets, per-category statistics, conversion statistcs, and buzzpoints; and metadata about how the game was created and played, such as editing and hosting statistics.
• To serve as a reference for quizbowl statistics, enabling easy lookup of player stats, team strengths, tournament attendance, and whatever else ends up on the site. Above all, the site should be easy to access and use.

Status
Currently, the site includes all closed collegiate tournaments in the seasons from 2011-2012 to 2022-2023 that have posted stats, with the exception of those that only posted stats on Neg5 or that posted stats without a Scoreboard page (and 2023 SCT/ICT, which will be added over the summer). Open tournaments that were primarily composed of closed collegiate teams, as well as Chicago Open, were also included. If you know of a tournament that isn't included here that you believe should be, contact me at [email protected].

Data corrections and name changes
If you have any name changes or data corrections (e.g. two player entries who are actually the same player and should be combined, a team that's mislabeled) please email me at [email protected] and I'll fix it ASAP.

Set difficulty
This site uses the same set difficulty notation as collegequizbowlcalendar.com.

Future plans
An immediate priority is streamlining data ingestion so more tournaments can be added (both future tournaments and filling in more past tournaments). Eventually, I'd like the site to at least host stats from all available closed collegiate tournaments, and perhaps all open tournaments.

This site is designed to be extensible: it can easily be configured to host additional data, such as detailed stats or player/team strength metrics. If you'd like to work on adding these, please contact me at [email protected].

[kammajos000]

Great website. Easy to use and I like the design.

However, I must take umbrage with the fact that neg records are included in these statistics. To some of us, negs are small shameful personal failures best forgotten in the labyrinth of hsquizbowl.org stats, and so you can imagine my dismay when I found out that my name appeared not one, not two, but three (3) times on the top 10 list of Most Negs in a Game. Anyone that knows me knows I left it all out on the field every time I stepped up to the buzzer, so to know that my failures to lead my team to victory are immortalized, nay spotlighted on quizbowlstats.com/records is heartbreaking.

[Borrowing 100,000 Arrows]

This is so cool! I love the sleek design and it's awesome how much information you've compiled into one source!

One thing I noticed: a lot of tournament placement stats are slightly off. Sometimes this seems to be because the website is breaking ties by PPG (e.g., this year's Nats), which seems like an easy fix. However, sometime it's because the finals series wasn't entered into the main stats file (e.g., this year's Penn Bowl), which would probably be a huge pain for one person to fix.

[ryanrosenberg]

Great website. Easy to use and I like the design.

However, I must take umbrage with the fact that neg records are included in these statistics. To some of us, negs are small shameful personal failures best forgotten in the labyrinth of hsquizbowl.org stats, and so you can imagine my dismay when I found out that my name appeared not one, not two, but three (3) times on the top 10 list of Most Negs in a Game. Anyone that knows me knows I left it all out on the field every time I stepped up to the buzzer, so to know that my failures to lead my team to victory are immortalized, nay spotlighted on quizbowlstats.com/records is heartbreaking.

I thought for a while about whether or not to include Most Negs, and ultimately concluded that it was worth including. I would argue that being a high-neg player is indicative of a desire to compete and win, and that negs are only a temporary failure that we endure on our road. In that light, the Most Negs table is meant to honor the players that have gone through the most tribulations and suffered the most.

This is so cool! I love the sleek design and it's awesome how much information you've compiled into one source!

One thing I noticed: a lot of tournament placement stats are slightly off. Sometimes this seems to be because the website is breaking ties by PPG (e.g., this year's Nats), which seems like an easy fix. However, sometime it's because the finals series wasn't entered into the main stats file (e.g., this year's Penn Bowl), which would probably be a huge pain for one person to fix.

As you point out, there's not a great way to automatically calculate/display order of finish. I have a separate table in my database to record order of finish, which right now stores the scraped/calculated order: my idea is that that table can be manually updated over time as I/others discover tournaments where the order of finish needs to be manually fixed.

[trisarahtops]

I thought for a while about whether or not to include Most Negs, and ultimately concluded that it was worth including. I would argue that being a high-neg player is indicative of a desire to compete and win, and that negs are only a temporary failure that we endure on our road. In that light, the Most Negs table is meant to honor the players that have gone through the most tribulations and suffered the most.

I do think that Most Negs is a reasonable inclusion, but I don't really think you need to try to justify the inclusion of "Most Negs" as how it's really a mark of honor? I like to make jokes about having racked up more than my fair share of negs, but it's more or less self-deprecation; I'm never trying to claim that being in the totally wrong century/country/book/etc on a tossup made me a better player in the long run.

I think of the stat as similar to how NCAA keeps track of less-coveted records like "Most Passes Had Intercepted" or "Most Hit Batters", as something that people understandably don't want to win (though I admit that I was a bit disappointed not to come close), but might be interested in finding out about. I guess I'm not fully consistent about the idea that it's important to record the bad records too though, because while "Most Negs" is totally reasonable to me, having a stat like "Fewest Points", which you could justify similarly, would just seem unnecessarily cruel.

Small digression: one stat I'd like to see that isn't there is Fewest Negs (with some kind of minimum attempts standard, but I don't really know what that minimum should be).

[The Ununtiable Twine]

This is pretty cool!

It's nice that you have A-values listed on each tournament page. Since you have the A-values for each team that played each set, it would be informative to have a column for A-value rank so that viewers can more easily compare teams across each set. On the circuits page, it seems that some of the player records are a bit off. For instance, it says that Tracy has played 24 tournaments. When I click on Tracy's name, there are considerably more listed.

[ryanrosenberg]

This is pretty cool!

It's nice that you have A-values listed on each tournament page. Since you have the A-values for each team that played each set, it would be informative to have a column for A-value rank so that viewers can more easily compare teams across each set. On the circuits page, it seems that some of the player records are a bit off. For instance, it says that Tracy has played 24 tournaments. When I click on Tracy's name, there are considerably more listed.

You can click column headers to sort the table -- I was thinking that that would suffice in lieu of adding another column. Or do you mean a set-wide ranking (e.g. where this A-value ranked out of all teams that played the set)?

For the circuit records, it only counts tournaments played at sites in the circuit, so while Tracy has played more than 24 tournaments, 24 of those are in sites that are defined as being in the Southeast circuit.

[ValenciaQBowl]

Good work, Ryan!

So in the CC section, when one clicks on "Florida," one can see an alphabetical list of community college programs in our state, but Valencia isn't listed there. However, our records are shown in the players and school top ten lists. Nutty!

[ryanrosenberg]

Good work, Ryan!

So in the CC section, when one clicks on "Florida," one can see an alphabetical list of community college programs in our state, but Valencia isn't listed there. However, our records are shown in the players and school top ten lists. Nutty!

It looks like Valencia was grouped in the four-year Southeast circuit and not the Florida CC circuit -- I'll fix that.

[The Ununtiable Twine]

You can click column headers to sort the table -- I was thinking that that would suffice in lieu of adding another column. Or do you mean a set-wide ranking (e.g. where this A-value ranked out of all teams that played the set)?

The latter.

[ryanrosenberg]

Good work, Ryan!

So in the CC section, when one clicks on "Florida," one can see an alphabetical list of community college programs in our state, but Valencia isn't listed there. However, our records are shown in the players and school top ten lists. Nutty!

It looks like Valencia was grouped in the four-year Southeast circuit and not the Florida CC circuit -- I'll fix that.

Fixed, and I've also assigned schools that were previously not assigned to any local circuit (because they had only played online mirrors during COVID) to a circuit.

You can click column headers to sort the table -- I was thinking that that would suffice in lieu of adding another column. Or do you mean a set-wide ranking (e.g. where this A-value ranked out of all teams that played the set)?

The latter.

Hm, I'll think about this. I'm wary of adding too many columns to tables, and you can get the A-Value ranking of teams that played the set on the set page (perhaps the answer here is to add a link to the set page on the tournament page).

[ryanrosenberg]

I've updated the site with tournaments played at the end of this competition season, as well as the NAQT tournaments from this season. I believe I have a fairly smooth process for updating the site now, so the plan is to update the site weekly during the next competition season as stats are posted on the tournament DB.

This (creating a better process for adding tournaments and adding the remaining 2022-23 tournaments) has been my main development priority on the site for the summer. My list of planned updates to the site, in rough priority order:

• Compiling and adding detailed stats
• Adding more tournaments (tournaments pre-2011, open tournaments)
• Creating and adding a player/team strength metric
• An Immaculate Grid-like game

If you have opinions on what should/shouldn't be on this list and in what order, let me know.

[Dantooine is Big!]

• Compiling and adding detailed stats
• Adding more tournaments (tournaments pre-2011, open tournaments)
• Creating and adding a player/team strength metric
• An Immaculate Grid-like game

If you have opinions on what should/shouldn't be on this list and in what order, let me know.

The first one seems like the ideal first step towards the third one - an accurate player strength metric can (at least I think in theory) be easily developed with the information from detailed stats, it seems? The other two items on the list seem like lesser priorities, but still fun - probably #2 before #4?

[ryanrosenberg]

I've updated the site with tournaments played so far this competition year -- let me know if anything looks off. I've streamlined my process for adding tournaments to the site and expect to be able to regularly add tournaments during the spring semester.

[ryanrosenberg]

I've added a Detailed Stats section to the website. Currently, this is essentially a re-skinned version of Jordan Brownstein's buzzpoints app, but with a few more tournaments in the database (this year's Penn Bowl, the Columbia ACF Winter site). My plan is to coordinate an effort to compile existing detailed stats for past tournaments and add them in -- be on the lookout for a post soon laying that out.

In addition to the Detailed Stats section, I've also added a few things to the main section of the site: a section on player pages that shows per-category PPG for tournaments with category stats available, and a scoresheet view for games from tournaments with detailed stats.

Let me know any comments/feedback on these additions!

[Subotai the Valiant, Final Dog of War]

This isn't directly related to the new additions, but I just noticed that the PPGs/detailed stats are giving all players 20 tossups heard at some tournaments, even in games with substitutions (since I know which tournaments we played with subs, here are two examples from Yale: https://quizbowlstats.com/tournaments/1 ... ail#yale-a, https://quizbowlstats.com/tournaments/1 ... ail#yale-a).

[ryanrosenberg]

This isn't directly related to the new additions, but I just noticed that the PPGs/detailed stats are giving all players 20 tossups heard at some tournaments, even in games with substitutions (since I know which tournaments we played with subs, here are two examples from Yale: https://quizbowlstats.com/tournaments/1 ... ail#yale-a, https://quizbowlstats.com/tournaments/1 ... ail#yale-a).

Yep, unfortunately the scoreboard page, which is what I used to scrape most of the tournament data, doesn't have tossups heard information. I have a to-do item to go back and correct these sorts of situations, but probably won't get to until after I've added more tournaments.

[ryanrosenberg]

I've added this weekend's Regionals stats -- note that the A-value on the site is not the official ACF A-value. ACF adds additional corrections, such as the order of finish correction and removing games against teams that were ineligible to qualify for Nats, and so the A-values on this site will not be the same as the final ACF A-values for Nationals qualification.

[Shahar S.]

Does the A-value on quizbowlstats.com take strength of schedule into account?

[ryanrosenberg]

Does the A-value on quizbowlstats.com take strength of schedule into account?

It does -- the formulation is the same as ACF's, but without the order of finish correction.

[TernarySky]

This is great! Love the layout, formatting, etc. Thanks for all your hard work on this :0

I'm wondering if there will be an option in the future to (with verification of identity) change your display name for those who have a different preferred name than the one they used to play at past tournaments? (or if it's possible to contact you to do this?)

[ryanrosenberg]

This is great! Love the layout, formatting, etc. Thanks for all your hard work on this :0

I'm wondering if there will be an option in the future to (with verification of identity) change your display name for those who have a different preferred name than the one they used to play at past tournaments? (or if it's possible to contact you to do this?)

Thank you! Yes, definitely -- feel free to contact me via PM or email at [email protected] for any name changes or other corrections.

[ryanrosenberg]

Stats from this past weekend's SCT sites that were posted on HSQB have been uploaded. Please note that these are not official stats; official stats from all sites will be uploaded this summer once I get the SCT and ICT data from NAQT.

[Sit Quietly, Alone]

the rankings from last weekend's uct are kinda fucked up. it seems that (half of) the teams who tied were moved to the bottom of the standings.

[Votre Kickstarter Est Nul]

the rankings from last weekend's uct are kinda fucked up. it seems that (half of) the teams who tied were moved to the bottom of the standings.

I believe this is cause the initial combined statistics were sorted by prelim brackets. Im not sure how the stats get from there to Ryan's site but the combined stats now look correct so hopefully those stats can be brought to the site.

[ryanrosenberg]

the rankings from last weekend's uct are kinda fucked up. it seems that (half of) the teams who tied were moved to the bottom of the standings.

I believe this is cause the initial combined statistics were sorted by prelim brackets. Im not sure how the stats get from there to Ryan's site but the combined stats now look correct so hopefully those stats can be brought to the site.

This is correct, I'll fix the ordering this afternoon.