Individual Rankings

Old college threads.
Locked
User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Individual Rankings

Post by theMoMA » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:12 am

I'm working on a quizbowl stat, so it would be incredibly helpful to me if I had some kind of consensus ranking to match the stat against, just to make sure I'm doing it close to right.

With the two national tournaments the major invitationals done, I'm going to call upon the board to submit ballots ranking their top 25 college quizbowl players.

Base the rankings off of whatever you want. This should be interpreted as the order you'd take these players if you were picking one player to build a one-year nationals-level team around. Age and undergrad/grad student status are not factors. Keep it to active players please.

Please send your rankings to limozeen@gmail.com (I love spam) by Wednesday, April 25, one week from today.

If this goes well, I'll probably try to get a top undergraduate and top Div II eligible poll as well.

Resources:
MLK stats
ICT stats
ACF Nationals round robin
ACF Nationals Playoff

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker » Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:58 pm

I would just like to point out that the people I would pick for my hypothetical nationals team are not necessarily the people I would say are the best overall quizbowl players. For example, it might make more sense for me to have Susan Ferrari on my team than Matt Weiner, depending on who else I'm playing with.

Honestly, I'm guessing these rankings will probably be very close to the ACF Nats/ICT stats, so I'm not sure what the purpose of this poll is; plus, it gets pretty hard to rank people below position 15 or so because the variability is too large. I guess I'll give it a shot anyway.

edit: there needs to be some sort of quizbowl fantasy league, seriously. Does anyone know if the capabilities for this sort of thing exist?
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed » Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:42 pm

grapesmoker wrote:For example, it might make more sense for me to have Susan Ferrari on my team than Matt Weiner, depending on who else I'm playing with.
I think the scenario here is that you are a NON-PLAYER, and are attempting to assemble a quizbowl team that you will manage, rather than play on. You get to pick one good player to build around, and then the rest of the team will just be random dudes.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker » Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:03 pm

Bruce wrote:
grapesmoker wrote:For example, it might make more sense for me to have Susan Ferrari on my team than Matt Weiner, depending on who else I'm playing with.
I think the scenario here is that you are a NON-PLAYER, and are attempting to assemble a quizbowl team that you will manage, rather than play on. You get to pick one good player to build around, and then the rest of the team will just be random dudes.
It might make more sense for a non-player to have Matt Weiner and Susan Ferrari on one team rather than Matt Weiner and myself, for example. I think the point holds. I'm just saying that the best team is not necessarily the team composed of the individually best players.

edit: apparently I'm confused by the concept of "building a team" around a player. Anyway, the first post of this thread should have been, "Who is best in quizbowl, Conan?"
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
pray for elves
Auron
Posts: 1047
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: 20001

Post by pray for elves » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:14 pm

grapesmoker wrote:
Bruce wrote:
grapesmoker wrote:For example, it might make more sense for me to have Susan Ferrari on my team than Matt Weiner, depending on who else I'm playing with.
I think the scenario here is that you are a NON-PLAYER, and are attempting to assemble a quizbowl team that you will manage, rather than play on. You get to pick one good player to build around, and then the rest of the team will just be random dudes.
It might make more sense for a non-player to have Matt Weiner and Susan Ferrari on one team rather than Matt Weiner and myself, for example. I think the point holds. I'm just saying that the best team is not necessarily the team composed of the individually best players.

edit: apparently I'm confused by the concept of "building a team" around a player. Anyway, the first post of this thread should have been, "Who is best in quizbowl, Conan?"
He who powers tossups, sees questions answered before him, and hears the lamentation of his opponents for their hesitation!

Or not. Either way.

User avatar
Jeremy Gibbs Lemma
Rikku
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:49 pm
Location: Kirksville, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Jeremy Gibbs Lemma » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:41 pm

FANTASY QUIZ BOWL LEAGUE

User avatar
Mr. Kwalter
Tidus
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:48 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Mr. Kwalter » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:44 pm

So, should we make a list of people who are active? Not everyone, obviously, but maybe come to a consensus as to whether Yaphe, Sudheer, Vik, Meigs, Ullsperger, etc are active. They've all played tournaments within the last year, and Meigs will be circuit again next year. What's the word?

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:45 pm

Kentb426 wrote:FANTASY QUIZ BOWL LEAGUE
See second post.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
Jeremy Gibbs Lemma
Rikku
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:49 pm
Location: Kirksville, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Jeremy Gibbs Lemma » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:51 pm

shhiiiitt ... well then I second your idea :-P

and I think it is definitely feasible

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:08 pm

The idea is that you're a non-quizbowler choosing one player to be your number one on a nats-level team this year. We're not talking hypothetical teams, just a descending order of players you think give whatever team they're on the best chance to win.

As for active/inactive, I'll just let the masses decide.

Edit: I see how Fred compensated for lack of inclusion of some teams on ballots, and it's much better than what I originally proposed.

User avatar
Mr. Kwalter
Tidus
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:48 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Mr. Kwalter » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:21 pm

wait...there's a huge difference between "build a team around them" and "he or she is most likely to score lotsa points." What's going on here?

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:30 pm

Kit Cloudkicker wrote:wait...there's a huge difference between "build a team around them" and "he or she is most likely to score lotsa points." What's going on here?
Just vote on who you think is best.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:35 pm

Kit Cloudkicker wrote:wait...there's a huge difference between "build a team around them" and "he or she is most likely to score lotsa points." What's going on here?
This is the fundamental problem of any statistic that is derived from the data we have; it doesn't take into account actual value to a team. E.g.:

Player A is normally a 10 to 40 PPG player depending on the format and team composition, but knows one niche area cold. Player A scores 12 PPG at Chicago Open playing with three superior teammates, by nailing 12 of the 13 tossups in his area on the third clue.

Player B scores 70 PPG by eating up buzzer races and giveaways against middling competition and stealing all the pickoffs. Player B continues his strategy of bringing a shallow generalism to Chicago Open, where he scores 18 PPG through such methods.

Player B wins every possible statistical matchup: he has the higher PPG on his regular team, he has the higher PPG at CO, and would have the higher PPG if he was playing on a two-man team consisting of A and B. Yet, player A is clearly the better player and is doing more for his CO team's chance to win.

The only way to test for this statistically is to gather data on where within a tossup people buzz, what categories they get, and how they do against different opponents, which is not possible to gather automatically, or at all, under current conditions. So, the subjective ranking is in fact the only thing we have right now, and statistics are good only for handing out books and making extremely coarse gradations.
Last edited by Matt Weiner on Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:36 pm

That's why I used the "build a team around" criteria, since generally the purpose of teams is to win, not rack up individual stats.

Like Jerry said, vote for who is best. Not for who would score lotsa points.

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:42 pm

theMoMA wrote:That's why I used the "build a team around" criteria, since generally the purpose of teams is to win, not rack up individual stats.
But if you actually built the team around player A, you're not going to get anywhere. Player A is a valuable contributor to a team with one or two high-power buzzers, but can't carry a team on his own. Yet, the whole purpose of sabermetric-type analysis is supposedly to show the true value or lack thereof of Player A vs. Player B. So, asking for players you would build a team around doesn't help very much.

User avatar
No Rules Westbrook
Auron
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:04 pm
Contact:

Post by No Rules Westbrook » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:50 pm

I think the simplest scenario to think about would be this: pretend you're selecting a fantasy team but you only get one pick, the rest of the players you'll have are just random and you have no idea or control over who they will be. Which player would you take first, then if he is already picked who would you take, etc. If you do this and assume utter randomness, then you won't have to favor the effective niche player or the more unpredictable generalist.

But, yeah, like Jerry said, no reason to complicate. Just vote on the best.

User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Post by cvdwightw » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:44 pm

Here is a proposal for a collegiate/open quiz bowl fantasy league:

Teams are composed of six members. Two grad students, two undergrads, and two of your choice (open, high school, grad, or undergrad). A snake draft (e.g. with n players, the player with the first pick gets picks 1, 2n, 2n+1, 4n, etc. while the player with pick n gets picks n, n+1, 3n, 3n+1, etc.) will determine composition of the teams.

The number of "games" will be determined by the number of teams in the league. ACF Fall, ACF Regionals, and ACF Nationals will certainly be three "games". In leagues containing NAQT SCT and ICT, only Division 1 will count toward the games. If a separate Division 2 league emerges, only Division 2 will count in that game. Reputable academic tournaments mirrored in multiple areas of the country (e.g. Mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Midwest, South, Southwest, West) will be added as necessary to ensure a complete round-robin. Chicago Open will be the playoff game between the two top teams. If demand is high enough, different leagues will have to form.

For each "game", each team will consist of up to four players. Teams must play at least one grad student and one undergrad; if a team's entire roster in some category is not attending the tournament, they can play with three players or waive a player and pick up another player that fits the category, but must do so a reasonable amount of time (1 day?) before the earliest start of the tournament.

Basic scoring system (amendments probably necessary and welcome):
Points will be divided between team performance and individual performance:

Team performance:
3 point for each 10 percentage points over .000 (up to maximum of 30)
1 points for each 10 points per game (up to a reasonable maximum of 50)

Individual performance:
5 points for every 10 points per game individually (up to a reasonable maximum of 60)
2 points for every spot below 10th finished in individual scoring (up to a maximum of 20 points for leading a tournament in scoring).

I believe this is a relatively easy scoring system to work with, and that effective niche players on good teams will score roughly similarly to the more unpredictable generalists. Of course, what everyone wants is the generalist who is consistently going to lead a team to victory, but there aren't that many of those people out there.

The team with the most points after all statistics have been reported and converted to fantasy points wins the head-to-head matchup.

Trades: Trades are allowed and encouraged, although the league manager must approve any trade.

"Waiver wire": Teams may waive any player at any time. Teams may pick up any player not yet on any team in their league. These need not be approved by the league manager.

Standings: After a complete round robin schedule, the top 2 teams as determined by record will face off in a one-game playoff decided by Chicago Open. Ties for the top 2 spots will be broken by total points, then head-to-head.

Is there anything I'm missing? Something that needs to be amended? Please, jump in and let's create this quiz bowl fantasy league.

Brian Ulrich
Wakka
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:22 pm
Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Fantasy Quiz Bowl

Post by Brian Ulrich » Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:27 pm

There was an attempt at fantasy quiz bowl around NAQT SCT or ICT in 2001 or 2002. You can probably find details at the yahoogroup from about that time to see how it worked.

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Fri Apr 20, 2007 8:07 am

I have three polls so far. Other people should do these.

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:40 am

Alright. I have four of these. It would really help me out if I could get a few more in the next two days. Thanks.

User avatar
Ditzy Blonde
Lulu
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:50 pm
Location: Scottsboro, AL

Post by Ditzy Blonde » Tue Apr 24, 2007 7:59 am

Although polls are great and give something to work with, I believe we need to develop an actual database of stats from ALL tournaments that would put a ranking on actual teams and individuals. Yes, this would require someone to actually receive and enter the data as well as track down data not given. I might be willing to do this if I were given some direction on what people want for the STATS. Possibly the SQBS program would be a start and eventually develop our own program from there.

The biggest problem I see with this is that there are a lot of tournaments, at least in ALABAMA, that don't always keep individual stats. We must convince all powers to be that even if there is no individual awards given at a tournament, that stats still need to be kept.

Here's to a good day for each of you...Ditzy Blonde!

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2840
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:43 pm

Uhm... this is for college players, I think, my blonde friend. Almost every college tournament keeps complete stats.

MaS

User avatar
Ditzy Blonde
Lulu
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:50 pm
Location: Scottsboro, AL

Post by Ditzy Blonde » Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:22 pm

Ooops...Sorry. I forgot which board I was on.

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15273
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:04 pm

Sup person posting from IP address shared with Matthew D

User avatar
Matthew D
Yuna
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Scenic Grant Alabama

Post by Matthew D » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:30 pm

yes this happens to be my wife, who is very very new to this board posting and I didn't catch where she had posted till it was too late...

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15273
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE » Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:44 pm

Ah. Without knowing better, it seemed like a mailed-in attempt at a gimmick account. No offense.

Carry on.

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2840
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:50 pm

Welcome to our board, Mrs. D.

MaS

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:29 am

Today is the last call for individual ranking polls to come in. I have 5 so far. Please take ten minutes to do one because it will help me tremendously in formulating a quizbowl stat.

User avatar
No Rules Westbrook
Auron
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:04 pm
Contact:

Post by No Rules Westbrook » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:38 am

Welcome to our board, Mrs. D.
That's offensive. Stop being so salacious and filthy, Sorice.


Really, you're just taking advantage of women being dumb sluts who can't tell the difference.

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:40 am

Ryan...please...
theMoMA wrote:Today is the last call for individual ranking polls to come in. I have 5 so far. Please take ten minutes to do one because it will help me tremendously in formulating a quizbowl stat.
I must again point out the flaw in any purported uberstat that self-defines as matching the aggregate of an unscientific, subjective poll, rather than seeks to show why people's opinions are wrong. I don't think anyone took a poll of ESPN employees to see if WARP3 was putting out the correct numbers.

User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Re: Fantasy Quiz Bowl

Post by cvdwightw » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:10 am

Brian Ulrich wrote:There was an attempt at fantasy quiz bowl around NAQT SCT or ICT in 2001 or 2002. You can probably find details at the yahoogroup from about that time to see how it worked.
Thanks, Brian. I've looked and from what I can discern the only true fantasy quiz bowl that ran completely was a fantasy quiz bowl tournament Dr. Chuck ran for ACF Regionals 2000 (subsequent attempts at ICT and TRASHionals seemed to have disbanded). Dr. Chuck apparently took into account winning percentage, tossups converted, and interrupts, and then used some kind of mathematical formula to determine a winner.

I'm thinking more of a head-to-head league played over the course of the entire year, instead of a tournament in which everyone is competing against each other.

Reviewing my original post, I think most of my points-scoring system would work (team: 3 points for every .100 above .000 and 1 point for every 10 ppg; individual: 5 points for every 10 ppg); I'm not sure the 2 points for every spot below 10th individually would work though. I don't really like the idea of counting interrupts for or against points in the league, although I suppose a TU/Neg ratio could substitute.

One of the good issues brought up on the yahoogroups was the feasibility of running a snake draft. I think it might be possible to do that, especially if we made an off-topic thread for it and ran the snake draft over an extended period of time (I'm not at all advocating this, just saying it would be possible to do such a thing).

It seems we would have enough interest on this board to have such a league. I would be willing to be league manager, although given that my experience with actually participating in actual fantasy sports leagues is somewhere less than epsilon (where epsilon is an arbitrarily small positive number) I would probably need someone to make sure that whatever I'm doing isn't ludicrous/nonsensical.

User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:22 am

Why would such a complicated scoring mechanism be necessary?

Since you hint that you don't play fantasy sports online, usually head-to-head fantasy leagues use a very simple scoring mechanism whereby for every category that you have the better stats for in that week you get a single point.

For instance, let's say we have a league where the stats are PPG, Negs, and the Litvak Slope-Intercept statistic. Manager A's players average 15.25 PPG, have 20 negs between them, and have a Litvak Slope-Intercept of better than manager B's players (I forget what a good or bad Litvak Slope-Intercept is, since it's been over a year since that thread). Manager B's players average 17.33 PPG, have 21 negs between them, and have the worse slope-intercept.

For that week, Manager A defeated Manager B by a score of 2-1. The next week (or next tournament cycle), both face different managers, but the number of points you score keeps getting added up to determine the standings.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Post by cvdwightw » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:50 am

Yes, this seems much less complicated and easier to implement. How many categories would be reasonable and what should those categories be?

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Wed Apr 25, 2007 5:30 am

Matt Weiner wrote:Ryan...please...
theMoMA wrote:Today is the last call for individual ranking polls to come in. I have 5 so far. Please take ten minutes to do one because it will help me tremendously in formulating a quizbowl stat.
I must again point out the flaw in any purported uberstat that self-defines as matching the aggregate of an unscientific, subjective poll, rather than seeks to show why people's opinions are wrong. I don't think anyone took a poll of ESPN employees to see if WARP3 was putting out the correct numbers.
Who said anything about correlating to poll results? This isn't the BCS. I just want some kind of control so I'm not comparing results solely to of PPG, W/L, and my own flawed perceptions.

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:00 pm

In case anyone is wondering...after an extremely scientific poll of 6 ballots:

To alleviate the problem of not everyone ranking Andrew Yaphe, I showed the number of ballots each player was voted on, and the average place vote they received in the columns to the right.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to do this.

Image

For posterity, I have reconstructed this ranking seven years later. Thanks to Ray Luo, Eric Kwartler, Jerry Vinokurov, Chris Romer, Gabe Lyon, and Ryan Westbrook for voting.

Numbers in parentheses equal (total points; high ranking, low ranking)

1. Seth Teitler (137; 1, 6)
2. Matt Weiner (134; 1, 6)
3. Jerry Vinokurov (133; 2, 6)
4. Mike Sorice (132; 2, 7)
5. Matt Lafer (128; 2, 9)
6. Andrew Yaphe (100; 1, NR) (unranked on two ballots due to being semi-retired; ranked #1 on all 5 ballots on which he appeared)
6. Pat Hope (100; 4, 14)
8. Ryan Westbrook (96; 6, 20)
9. Will Turner (86; 7, 15)
10. Matt Keller (78; 9, 19)
11. Chris Romero (68; 6, NR) (unranked on two ballots, possibly due to eligibility confusion)
12. Leo Wolpert (65; 12, NR)
13. Peter Austin (64; 9, 19)
14. Eric Kwartler (54; 11, 24)
15. Susan Ferrari (53; 10, NR)
16. Jason Keller (46; 10, NR)
17. Charles Meigs (41; 8, NR) (unranked on three ballots, possibly due to eligibility confusion)
18. Ray Luo (36; 13, NR)
19. Vik Vaz (35; 11, NR) (unranked on three ballots, possibly due to eligibility confusion)
20. Susan Mitchell (28; 14, NR)
21. Ezra Lyon (27; 8, NR)
22. Seth Kendall (25; 11, NR)
23. Seth Samelson (22; 18, NR)
23. Dave Rappaport (22; 13, NR)
25. Gabriel Lyon (21; 13, NR)

Honorable mention: Paul Drube, Mike Wehrman, Eric Smith, Paul Lujan, Jason Loy, Kevin Costello, Kelly Tourdot, Jordan Boyd-Graber, Aaron Kashtan, Selene Koo, Jonathan Magin, Garrett Ryan, Chris Ray, Kyle Haddad-Fonda, Paul Gauthier, Frank Guan, Bruce Arthur, Candace Benefiel, Kevin Koai, Dan Passner, Trey Morris, Jim Baker

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker » Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:36 pm

Take that, Andrew Yaphe!

Seriously, this poll is kind of silly. I think this kind of poll is harder to do than a team poll because players very rarely play many matches by themselves against quality opposition. Matt Weiner and I are probably the only players to do so regularly for any extended length of time (not counting Andrew). On the other hand, I don't remember the last time Seth played without a full Chicago complement; this makes it difficult to compare players directly.

Hopefully, come Chicago Open 2008, we can settle this in the only proper fashion: with another all-out singles tournament.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
Birdofredum Sawin
Rikku
Posts: 400
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:25 pm
Location: Mountain View

Post by Birdofredum Sawin » Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:09 pm

I know that Seth is too proud to point this out, but: His last name is spelled S-A-M-E-L-S-O-N. There's no "u."

Show some respect, people!

User avatar
Leo Wolpert
Rikku
Posts: 309
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:37 pm
Location: Henderson, NV
Contact:

Post by Leo Wolpert » Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:54 pm

There's pretty much no way I'm better than at least 3 or 4 players ranked below me. Seriously, I blow.

User avatar
No Rules Westbrook
Auron
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:04 pm
Contact:

Post by No Rules Westbrook » Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:58 pm

Hopefully, come Chicago Open 2008, we can settle this in the only proper fashion: with another all-out singles tournament.
Singles tournaments suck for ascertaining player ability. Of course, this is a pretty self-serving statement, since I in turn suck at singles tournaments.

It should probably noted that the certain aberrations in the poll are Romero/Kendall/Meigs/Vaz/Yaphe, since there were conflicitng ideas of whether or not they were "eligible."

User avatar
ecks
Wakka
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:03 am
Location: Springfield, IL / Kirksville, MO

Post by ecks » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:21 pm

grapesmoker wrote:Seriously, this poll is kind of silly.
True, but it's still fun for stats whores such as myself. Or maybe my unhealthy obsession with lists isn't nearly as common as I'd like to believe it is...
Christopher Stone
Truman State University '09

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:41 pm

Ryan Westbrook wrote:
Hopefully, come Chicago Open 2008, we can settle this in the only proper fashion: with another all-out singles tournament.
Singles tournaments suck for ascertaining player ability. Of course, this is a pretty self-serving statement, since I in turn suck at singles tournaments.

It should probably noted that the certain aberrations in the poll are Romero/Kendall/Meigs/Vaz/Yaphe, since there were conflicitng ideas of whether or not they were "eligible."
Hopefully those inconsistencies are shown in the other columns, which show (for example) that Yaphe was #1 on every ballot he appeared on.

User avatar
MLafer
Tidus
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 7:00 pm

Post by MLafer » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:59 pm

i would be amused to see the bottom end of this list.

Rothlover
Yuna
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:41 pm
Contact:

Post by Rothlover » Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:47 pm

Who submitted anyway?

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:27 pm

I received polls from: Ryan Westbrook, Eric Kwartler, Ray Luo, Jerry Vinokurov, Gabriel Lyon, and Chris Romero.

This is the order of the bottom of the list:
Mike Wehrman
Paul Drube
Jason Loy
Eric Smith
Paul Lujan
Kevin Costello
David Farris
Kelly Tourdot
Jordan Boyd-Graber
Aaron Kashtan
Paul Litvak
Selene Koo
Jonathan Magin
Garrett Ryan
Kyle Haddad-Fonda
Paul Gauthier
Bruce Arthur
Candace Benefiel
Dwight Wynne
Billy Beyer
Dan Passner
Jim Baker
Julia Schlosser
Kevin Koai
Chris Ray
Trey Morris

I decided to remove votes for Kemezis, Zeke, Hoppes, and Sudheer, given that they are all pretty much retired. There might be some more retired folks in the above list that I'm unaware of.

vandyhawk
Tidus
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:42 am
Location: Seattle

Post by vandyhawk » Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:54 pm

Leo Wolpert wrote:There's pretty much no way I'm better than at least 3 or 4 players ranked below me.
Me too. I think I have Paul's absence from ICT to thank for that.

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6365
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker » Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:23 am

I made a mistake on Julia's last name; it's Scholzman (or some spelling variant thereof)
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:11 am

Sorry for the various spelling mistakes.

User avatar
No Rules Westbrook
Auron
Posts: 1223
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:04 pm
Contact:

Post by No Rules Westbrook » Fri Apr 27, 2007 6:41 pm

Guess that means we'll have to perform a Schlosser Modification. Where's my rim shot?

User avatar
Auks Ran Ova
Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
Posts: 4052
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Post by Auks Ran Ova » Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:15 pm

badum-tsss
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??
Member, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT

Locked