Monday, April 30, 2:30 p.m.
I'm having an Internet outage at my home which is preventing you from accessing the roster system. It's also preventing me from updating the main website. But as always, you can find the latest information here at the FNFT Blog.
The guy at Time Warner says he's on it.
UPDATE: Well, it seems that my cable modem is fried. I have to take it in to Mayfair for a replacement. I'll try and do that tonight.
UPDATE 2: 6:30 p.m. New modem installed. Seems to be working like a charm.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
* * * CORRECTION * * *
On Saturday morning, unbeknownst to all of you, instead of doing the FNFT stats from the PC in my den - my normal place - I did them on my iPad by remote controlling my PC with it using a wonderful program called LogMeIn. (From the comfort of my morning throne, mind you. I know - you don't want to picture that.) I did this as a dry run in preparation for when I'm going to be at Indy in a few weeks. I wanted to see if I could do everything on the iPad and not have to bring a laptop computer along.
So what?
Well while the remote control software is very nice, it is still more cumbersome to control all of the highlighting of things with the mouse and all of the Ctrl-this and Alt-that functions I have to hit. And when I copied Friday's hitting stats to me spreadsheet, I unknowingly failed to copy about 25 rows of stats. About 7-8 of those players are in the league and so they were given credit for Saturday's game instead of Friday's game. John astutely noticed that I had two of his players wrong and pointed it out to me.
I fixed everything that needed to be fixed. So if you looked at the stats before 5:30 p.m. on Sunday, they were wrong and the new ones have been posted. John and Joe improve by one game. Joel and myself are one game worse. All of the player stats and playoff probability graph that I posted this morning have been corrected as well.
I will bring a laptop computer with me to Indy.
So what?
Well while the remote control software is very nice, it is still more cumbersome to control all of the highlighting of things with the mouse and all of the Ctrl-this and Alt-that functions I have to hit. And when I copied Friday's hitting stats to me spreadsheet, I unknowingly failed to copy about 25 rows of stats. About 7-8 of those players are in the league and so they were given credit for Saturday's game instead of Friday's game. John astutely noticed that I had two of his players wrong and pointed it out to me.
I fixed everything that needed to be fixed. So if you looked at the stats before 5:30 p.m. on Sunday, they were wrong and the new ones have been posted. John and Joe improve by one game. Joel and myself are one game worse. All of the player stats and playoff probability graph that I posted this morning have been corrected as well.
I will bring a laptop computer with me to Indy.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Playoff Probabilities
You'll notice that I've added a new column to the FNFT standings that appear on the website. This is a product of a new toy I created late last season and put the fishing touches on just last week. What it does is basically answers the question - if the rest of the season were to play out entirely at random, what are each team's chances right now of making the playoffs.
It starts with the current FNFT standings and generates random results for the rest of the season. Then it tallies which four teams would make the playoffs if the season went down that way. It repeats this process 10,000 times. A team's Playoff Probability as reported in the standings is the percentage of those 10,000 random iterations in which that team made the playoffs. In statistical speak, there are called Monte Carlo Projections.
Here are the standings right now:
As you can see only one team - me - has so far established a 50% chance of making the playoffs. That means that in roughly half of the random iterations my team was one of the playoff teams and in the other half it wasn't.
Also note that these percentages are not precise. Despite having identical records, Avery/Joel and Brett/Joe's percentage differ by 1%. That's just rounding and/or a random fluctuation. If I ran the simulation again they might be the same or they might be flipped the other way. It takes about two minutes to run 10,000 simulations. That's about how much time I'm willing to invest in this each week. If I ran more simulations, the percentages would be slightly more accurate but it wouldn't mean anything to anything.
Perhaps obviously, the better your record, the better chance you have of making the playoffs. The further ahead your are of the other teams in your division, the better your chance. My chance is helped by the two teams in my division that are off to very poor starts. The probabilities in the other two divisions are much more closely bunched.
If you have a good week, your playoff chances will go up. If you have a bad week they will go down. At the end season, four teams will be at 100% and all of the rest will be at 0%.
Take this for what it's worth. In 2004 I trailed Avery by 14 games after Game 23. I wound up winning the division by 11 games. I'm certain this system would have given me no chance to win. But that's why we play the games.
It starts with the current FNFT standings and generates random results for the rest of the season. Then it tallies which four teams would make the playoffs if the season went down that way. It repeats this process 10,000 times. A team's Playoff Probability as reported in the standings is the percentage of those 10,000 random iterations in which that team made the playoffs. In statistical speak, there are called Monte Carlo Projections.
Here are the standings right now:
| RED | W | L | Pct | GB | PL% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bill | 9 | 3 | .750 | -- | 38% |
| Connor | 8 | 4 | .667 | 1 | 34% |
| Jake | 7 | 5 | .583 | 2 | 31% |
| Tim | 6 | 6 | .500 | 3 | 26% |
| John | 4 | 8 | .333 | 5 | 20% |
| GREEN | W | L | Pct | GB | PL% |
| Avery | 8 | 4 | .667 | -- | 37% |
| Joel | 8 | 4 | .667 | -- | 38% |
| Brett | 6 | 6 | .500 | 2 | 29% |
| Joe | 6 | 6 | .500 | 2 | 30% |
| BLUE | W | L | Pct | GB | PL% |
| Tief | 9 | 3 | .750 | -- | 50% |
| Jacob | 5 | 7 | .417 | 4 | 32% |
| Max | 1 | 11 | .083 | 8 | 17% |
| Gerry | 1 | 11 | .083 | 8 | 17% |
As you can see only one team - me - has so far established a 50% chance of making the playoffs. That means that in roughly half of the random iterations my team was one of the playoff teams and in the other half it wasn't.
Also note that these percentages are not precise. Despite having identical records, Avery/Joel and Brett/Joe's percentage differ by 1%. That's just rounding and/or a random fluctuation. If I ran the simulation again they might be the same or they might be flipped the other way. It takes about two minutes to run 10,000 simulations. That's about how much time I'm willing to invest in this each week. If I ran more simulations, the percentages would be slightly more accurate but it wouldn't mean anything to anything.
Perhaps obviously, the better your record, the better chance you have of making the playoffs. The further ahead your are of the other teams in your division, the better your chance. My chance is helped by the two teams in my division that are off to very poor starts. The probabilities in the other two divisions are much more closely bunched.
If you have a good week, your playoff chances will go up. If you have a bad week they will go down. At the end season, four teams will be at 100% and all of the rest will be at 0%.
Take this for what it's worth. In 2004 I trailed Avery by 14 games after Game 23. I wound up winning the division by 11 games. I'm certain this system would have given me no chance to win. But that's why we play the games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
