BoB Power Rankings

[BLeonard]

As I said in the other thread, this DOES NOT TAKE INTO EFFECT the "hotness factor" of the girls. Since "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," I'd need to have multiple people rank each card from best to worst to get a fair "hotness factor."

The score is calculated based on a weighted formula. The following factors go into the formula:

1: How many total cards the player has
2: How much of the player's $200,000 salary cap is remaining
3. The average cost per card won by the player (EX: 2 cards totaling $70k would average $35k)

Each player is "ranked" in the 3 categories... 1 is the highest rank, where 31 is currently the lowest rank (since 31 players have at least 1 card)

The 3 rankings are then added together... The sum is divided by 3 to come up with the score you see. Like golf, you want the lowest score.

Since I'm still experimenting with this, any constructive criticism is welcome. The current formula I'm working with is:

((CardRank x 2.25) + CapRank + AvgRank)/3 = Score

For non-nerds...

CardRank:
You are ranked based on how many cards you have... Currently, the highest amount of cards any one player has is 4 (4 players have 4 cards). Those players get a "1" for CardRank. anyone with 3 cards gets a "5" for CardRank and so on. That ranking is multiplied by 2.25.

CapRank:
You are ranked based on how much cap space you have left. The Jokeman currently has the most cap space left among card owners... So, he gets a 1 in CapRank. Ranking goes down from there. In this category, TacklingDummy would be 31st with $69 ZB left under the cap.

AvgRank:
You are ranked based on your average cost per card. The less you spend per card won, the better.

The above three rankings are added together and then divided by 3. Whoever has the lowest score at that point is #1 in the Power Ranking.

Questions, comments, suggestions?

-Bill

[jamze132]

Seems logical.

[TacklingDummy]

One problem I see is take for example BLen..

He is ranked 4th overall having Hope Solo and Jamie Chung as cards. Out of the 65 women who have been auctioned off so far those 2 probably are not in the top 45.

Yet BLen is ranked higher than someone who has Kristen Bell, Rosie, Christina, and Jill Wagner in their stable.

I just can't see how people with dogs are ranked higher than people with hotties.

[BLeonard]

As I said in the other thread, this DOES NOT TAKE INTO EFFECT the "hotness factor" of the girls. Since "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," I'd need to have multiple people rank each card from best to worst to get a fair "hotness factor."

This didn't explain it to you, TD?

I didn't take "hotness" into account, because I don't have a fair, unbiased way to judge "hotness." If that changes, we can certainly find a way to include it.

-Bill

[TacklingDummy]

Girl Rankings..,

65. 08/01/2011 - Jodie Sweetin - 45,025 Forward Lateral
64. 06/29/11 America Ferrera - 30,000 Forward Lateral
63. 08/08/2011 - Jennie Garth - 27,551 northernbillfan
62. 08/05/2011 - Soleil Moon Frye - 47,222 CuseJetsFan83
61. 08/22/2011 - Lucy Lawless - 34,000 methos4ever
60. Flash - Hope Solo - 28,500 BLeonard
59. 07/29/11 - Coco - 34,257 Jokeman
58. 07/19/11 - Anna Paquin - 82,500 Stewie
57. 06/23/11 - Julie Benz - 40,000 Ebenezer
56. 07/07/11 - Rosario Dawson - 68,695 Dujek
55. Flash - Julie Bowen - 50,001 northerbillfan
54. 07/09/11 - Tina Fey - 107,000 Historian
53.08/03/2011 - Sarah Palin - 69,269 CuseJetsFan83
52. 07/15/11 - Gwen Stefani - 43,000 Dujek
51. 07/27/11 - Kat Von D - 35,001 Static
50. 08/17/2011 - Christina Hendricks - 53,000 BlackMetalNinja
49. 07/07/11 - Rosario Dawson - 68,695 Dujek
48. 07/14/11 - Danni Boatwright - 43,000 DraftBoy
47. 07/28/11 - Marisa Tomei -50,001 methos4ever
46. 08/04/2011 - Michelle Rodriguez - 75,000 bf1
45. 07/21/11 - Rihanna - 78,243 Stewie
44. Flash - Jaime Pressly - 41,600 chernobylwraiths
43. 08/16/2011 - Pam Anderson - 37,716 Mski
42. 06/30/11 - Danica McKellar - $165,000 clumping platelets
41. 07/01/11 - Lindsay Lohan -50,000 X-Era
40. Flash - Christina Aguilera - 16,690 TacklingDummy Would be higher if lost weight
39. 08/15/2011 - Hilary Duff - 52,000 DraftBoy
38. 07/05/11 - Daisy Fuentes - 80,001 SabreEleven
37. 07/04/11 - Beth Ostrosky - 80,000 SabreEleven
36. 06/27/11 - Kelly Ripa - 55,069 Stewie(sold to Historian for $501,000)
35. 07/22/11 - Jamie Chung - 41,500 BLeonard
34. 06/20/11 - Kate Mara - $25,000 DraftBoy
33. 08/10/2011 - Lauren Graham - 35,009 jamze132
32. 06/24/11 - Laura Prepon - 45,000 Forward Lateral
31. 06/14/11 - Hether Graham - $14,345 Mr. Miyagi
30. 06/22/11 - Christina Applegate - 25,069 Stewie
29. 06/16/11 - Cameron Diaz - $11,000 SabreEleven (sold to Historian for $500,000)
28. 07/04/11- Drew Barrymore - 45,752 Michael82 (sold to northernbillfan for 200,000)
27. 07/20/11 - Gwyneth Paltrow - 51,000 EricStratton
26. 08/11/2011 - Tiffani Amber Thiessen - 82,799 TMu11
25. 06/17/11 - Rhona Mitra - $26,500 Forward Lateral
24. 06/21/11 - Gina Carano - $50,000 BlackMetalNinja
23. 07/13/11 - Cristina Scabbia - 47,000 BlackMetalNinja, Free Agency sold to Novacane for 47,000
22. 07/13/11 - Eliza Dusku - 81,000Forward Lateral, Free Agency sold to methos4ever for 49,700
21. 07/11/11 - Kari Byron - 80,003 Mr. Miyagi
20. 07/06/11- Amy Adams - 58,999 Mr.Miyagi
19. Flash - Camila Alves - 27,500utmhead (sold to northernbillfan for 55,000)
18. 06/13/11 - Kate Upton - $27,599 thelastbuffalofan
17. 07/04/11 - Amy Smart - 36,000 FunTimesYay!
16. 08/23/2011 - Danica Patrick - 61,000 Novacane
15. 06/15/11 - Pippa Middleton - $19,000 SabreEleven, Free Agency sold to Eric Stratton for 87,500
14. 07/18/11 - Kristen Bell - 69,690 TacklingDummy
13. 08/09/2011 - Sophia Bush - 70,082 Michael82
12. Flash - Rosie Huntington-Whiteley - 69,690 TacklingDummy
11. 08/02/2011 - Kaley Cuoco - 70,000 DraftBoy
10. 07/25/11 - Kim Kardashian - 104,000 X-Era sold to syd1364 for 18,000
9. Flash - Jill Wagner - 43,861 TacklingDummy
8. 08/12/2011 - Rebecca Herbst - 41,120 Novacane
7. 07/12/11 - Miranda Kerr - 110,201 SabreEleven
6. 07/26/11 - Kristin Cavallari - 69,699 jamze132
5. 06/28/11 - Olivia Munn - 75,000 Static
4. 08/17/2011 - January Jones - 51,204 YardRat
3. 08/24/2011 - Jennifer Connelly - 54,700 chernobylwraiths
2. 07/13/11 - Lucy Pinder - 80,000 hydro
1. Flash - Penelope Cruz - 53,000 Eric Stratton

[YardRat]

Why is the card rank multiplied by 2.25? That seems to skew the rankings in favor of those with multiple cards.

[BLeonard]

Why is the card rank multiplied by 2.25? That seems to skew the rankings in favor of those with multiple cards.

Initially I had it set where they were all weighted equally.... I noticed that it tended to favor the people with a lower amount of cards, as long as they didn't spend so much on the card, it canceled out.

Since the idea was to have the "better stable," I felt there should be a bit of an advantage to one who holds multiple cards... As I would think someone with multiple cards has a better chance of winning than someone with one card. The 2.25 is low enough that it can still be trumped if you spend too much on a card.


TD: Your list is fine. But, at the same time, it's one opinion. To make it more objective, we'd need multiple opinions... And they'd have to be willing to do a list like that once a week.

I am brainstorming about another possible idea that people would be willing to do, without making them make an entire list of every card weekly.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

My thought on the "hotness ranking" would be rating each players' card(s) as a collective group? That way, anyone willing to participate wouldn't have to rate every girl every week, just comprise a ranking of 1-31 (as of now) of best to worst current stables?

Kinda like a coaches poll in college sports?

-Bill

[YardRat]

Initially I had it set where they were all weighted equally.... I noticed that it tended to favor the people with a lower amount of cards, as long as they didn't spend so much on the card, it canceled out.

Since the idea was to have the "better stable," I felt there should be a bit of an advantage to one who holds multiple cards... As I would think someone with multiple cards has a better chance of winning than someone with one card. The 2.25 is low enough that it can still be trumped if you spend too much on a card.


TD: Your list is fine. But, at the same time, it's one opinion. To make it more objective, we'd need multiple opinions... And they'd have to be willing to do a list like that once a week.

I am brainstorming about another possible idea that people would be willing to do, without making them make an entire list of every card weekly.

-Bill

You could've just said 'I pulled it out of my ass' ...

[BLeonard]

You could've just said 'I pulled it out of my ass' ...

Well, to be honest, I didn't pull it out of my ass... As I said, I had them all even at first. But with 2 "Cash factors" in there (remaining cap & average card price) it seemed like there wasn't enough weight on actually having cards. The 2.25 basically gives players who have more cards a .25 advantage, since 2/3 of the scoring is money-based.

Think of it this way: Without that weight, you could buy the cheapest card in the game and be ranked #1 in salary cap and average card price, which would likely get you the #1 in the power ranking. No weight on number of cards held just gives too much weight to the cash aspect of the game.

If we get a way to include a "hotness ranking," should that not be weighted, considering the object is to have the "best overall stable?" I would think it should be weighted. That's why getting an unbiased "hotness ranking" is important... It would probably hold the most weight.

-Bill

[YardRat]

I was just bustin' on ya

[BLeonard]

I was just bustin' on ya

I figured, but wanna make sure any questions were addressed sufficiently.

-Bill

[YardRat]

"Hotness" should be determined by number of bids and value of average bid, throwing out any outliers.

[BLeonard]

"Hotness" should be determined by number of bids and value of average bid, throwing out any outliers.

Couple problems with that:

1: On the days where multiple women were up, but you could only bid on one, each girl those days obviously would get less bids than if only one girl were up.

2: Not a knock on Bedard, but there have been times when people's bids haven't been posted... Didn't you actually have that happen recently? In the grand scheme, they weren't winning bids, so didn't really matter, but it'd be inaccurate if you used that info to create a "hotness factor."

3: Not everybody is able to bid everyday, thus lowering the number of bids, without any relation to "hotness."

It's not a bad idea in theory, just wouldn't be accurate in application.

-Bill

[YardRat]

Good points.

[BLeonard]

OK, I think I have a fair, yet unbiased way to do a "Hotness Ranking" and incorporate it into the formula I currently have... The catch is, I would need the help of at least 4 people. If more people want to participate, that's fine, but I need at least 4, because I need 5 voters (4 others, plus myself).

The good news would be: Your first vote would likely be the most difficult/time consuming. People who play daily are ideal as voters, since they could adjust their rankings daily, following every auction. Obviously, if you think one players' team is hotter than another players' and neither have changes to their cards in a given week, I don't see why they would change in your "poll." After your first vote, the only changes you would have to make would be based on changes made throughout the week (additions by winning auctions, trades, free agents, etc).

Assuming we can get 4 others to agree to vote weekly, here's what I'm thinking:

Each week (I'm thinking Friday, following the day's auction), voters rank players from first to worst (right now, worst would be 31). First team gets 1 point, 2nd gets 2 and so on, based on team hotness.

After all votes are in, each team would have 5 scores. I'll remove the best and worst score for each player, to ensure fairness. Then, I'll add the remaining three scores for each player for a total.

The lowest total score would be ranked #1 for team hotness, 2nd would be #2 and so on.

This would fit in pretty easily with the formula I already have, as we'd then weigh the hotness rank, then add it to the other three ranks (CardRank, CapRank and AvgRank) and divide by 4 for a score.

The only question I have would be... How much weight should the Hotness Rank get? Since the ultimate goal of the game is to have the hottest team, obviously, it has to be higher than the 2.25 weight given to the number of cards...

Personally, I'm thinking the hotness weight should be 3. That would mean, everyone's score would be comprised of the following:

CapRank
AvgRank
CardRank (x2.25)
HottyRank (x3)

The first question, obviously is, how many are willing to participate weekly in voting?

If people aren't willing to vote, there's not really much sense in exploring this option further.

-Bill

[Forward_Lateral]

Hotness ratings are purely subjective. Sweeten last? Come on. I'd put her hotter than at least half the chicks.

[YardRat]

Theoretically speaking...

If I were to win the next auction for 48,000 how would that specifically affect my ranking? How many spots would I move up or down?

[TacklingDummy]

Hotness ratings are purely subjective. Sweeten last? Come on. I'd put her hotter than at least half the chicks.

The bottom 10 are interchangeable.

Same with the top 10.

Who's your Top and Bottom 10 from the list of 65?

[BLeonard]

Theoretically speaking...

If I were to win the next auction for 48,000 how would that specifically affect my ranking? How many spots would I move up or down?

As the formula stands now, you'd be 11th.

-Bill