If you missed the comments from the first player performance post you missed some interesting thoughts including some suggested categories for real honest-to-goodness stats. More on those in a minute.
With regards the recent blogging difficulties I've resolved my particular problems but some of you may still find it annoyingly difficult to post comments. In the near term I will be experimenting with different commenting options. If one or another seems to improve the situation please let me know what your experience is. Thanks.
In the category of not-quite-actual-stats all of the suggestions were reasonable and generally made good sense in a paintball context. Evaluation of baseline skill set(s); apples to apples comparison by position--for example, snake player vs. snake player; relational comparisons, ie; a good snake players is a "better" player than an average back player; and player measurements against a list of standards or criteria. If player A meets most of the standards and player B meets only half then A can be considered the better player. (It's not time--yet--to begin tearing down these various ideas. We'll get to that later.)
In the category of actual stats most of the better ideas were ratios which could be expressed a couple of different ways. For example, eliminations OTB could be a fraction or a percentage but would always represent X number of points or breakouts the player participated in against how many times the player eliminated someone during the breakout. Similar ratios could be done for being shot OTB or alive at the end of a point or eliminations per point played, etc. As a practical matter all of those stat ideas are largely impractical in our current environment and even when the PSP was tracking results in the pro division they didn't have the resources to try an accumulate and collate that level of player data. Unfortunately for those of a statistical bent competitive paintball doesn't lend itself to being broken down by the numbers.
So we find ourselves with some good ideas and even some possible stats but gathering those stats is currently beyond our general capability and even the most rigorous standards we can apply in attempting to differentiate players remain stubbornly subjective.
On one level going by the numbers helps make (some) distinctions between players but this is largely the pastime of Monday morning quarterbacks and sports fans. It is also [on another level] the province of talent scouts, coaches, personnel directors and general managers evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of their teams and players and making determinations about possible future players.
But do the numbers alone give us the whole story? With all the stats available is there still debate over who is better; Kobe or LeBron? Peyton Manning or Tom Brady? The fact is the numbers can only tell us so much and even if the numbers told the whole story we are left trying to decide which numbers are the most important. Imagine there's two snake players and we have every conceivable statistic. One of them makes the snake 97% of the time and the other has a higher kill ratio when playing the snake. Which one is better? Well, you might ask, how often does the one with the better kill ratio make the snake? If it's close then he's the better player--by the numbers. But how close or far apart does he have to be before you start weighing the two stats slightly differently--and will that balance be the same for everyone considering the question? The answer of course is even that is subjective to a certain degree and you're unlikely to find anything like universal agreement.
Next time I'll weigh in on the how and why the numbers let us down whether we're talking actual stats or we're talking standards or criteria for evaluation.
Showing posts with label standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standards. Show all posts
Monday, October 3, 2011
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Measuring Skill Revisited: Movement vs. ROF
No worries. The last post, Skill is not enough, is still coming but in looking over the other "skill" posts the measuring skill post left out a fuller review of the movement vs. ROF debate that helped inspire these posts in the first place. (I was gonna address it in the next mailbag.) Instead I'ma revisit that discussion here and now and see if I can't explain the dynamic in such a way that y'all will go "D'oh!", slap yourself upside the head and quietly promise yourself you'll never disagree with me again. A tall order, I know.
First thing we must recognize is that movement versus ROF is not an isolated equation but it is the governing equation. All that means is that other factors play a role, too. Like the number of props on the field and the dimensions of that field. Imagine standing out in the open on an xball or 7-man field shooting at your opponents while they do the same back at you. With that many guns blazing away at such relatively close distances moving around may keep you alive for a bit but not for long. Not what you had in mind, is it? Expand the dimensions of that imaginary field a few acres and suddenly things have changed rather dramatically. Now you can wander about and if you're still or squat down or even lie down on occasion you may spot an opponent before they spot you but once the shooting begins--assuming you are within range--the ROF still quickly overwhelms the ability to move. So add some bunkers, perhaps something near 100, to your imaginary field. Spread them about. At a few acres though it's still an enormous field and the bunkers have quite a distance between them for the most part even though there are more than twice what you're used to. To our ability to move and shoot we've added cover. It's utility is admittedly limited because once a player gains cover on this big field there's not a lot of reasons to keep moving. Maybe it's time to shrink the imaginary field a bit. Is one acre still too big? How about the size of a football field? That field can be (mostly) covered from anywhere allowing for shooting paint like it's coming out of a mortar. On this field long range shooting really is like rain coming down. Back in the day we kept the paint coming and while we were aiming long range shooting was still mighty random. Of course the ROF was slower and less consistent, too.
Are we there yet? There was a time in the competitive game's development when the fields were around that size though 100 bunkers is too many. In fact, in 2001 at World Cup there were less than half that number of bunkers on any of the fields, including the hyperball fields. Bunker numbers were ballpark with current layouts only with more space between most of them than on the current field layout. Stay with your imaginary field just a little longer and imagine moving between bunkers in a game situation against guns ramping at 12.5 bps. Depending on the range of (and the number of) the shooter(s) it's manageable. Just. Some of the time. But as soon as the players are too close to each other the gaps between bunkers become almost insurmountable. And there aren't many, if any, blocking bunkers. Making a move on this field is a run out in the open. (Oh, yeah. These were 10-man fields. When you start trying to figure the ability of those guns to counter movement with their reduced ROF remember how many of them are on the field.)
Enough with the imaginary. The real debate, if such actually exists except in the minds of the stubbornly deluded, is if there are different combinations of the relevant factors; movement, ROF, #s of bunkers & field size that result in something like identical degrees of difficulty in playing the game. My position is that ROF is the controlling factor.
One last thing. A different approach. Why is movement considered a skill in paintball? [This is where you actually answer the question for yourself. Go on.] If you answered something like because there's really quite a lot involved like sliding, diving, running while gunning, crawling, timing and so on I have another question for you. Why does movement in the game entail all those variations? [Yes, answer this one, too.] Being a lazy slacker you might also have answered simply because it's difficult to do. And in answering why is it difficult we get to the crux of the issue. It's difficult because people are shooting at you. The more shooters and/or more paint flying about increases the risk of being hit and eliminated. Therefore the skill required to move is directly related to the degree of hazard posed by the opponents--and a significant part of the the risk is posed by the ROF. The less the risk the less the skill involved in making any move.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Measuring Up
In 'A Measuring Stick' I left off at standards. In order for standards to exist, in a meaningful sense, they need to be clearly defined and consistently maintained. In the context of competitive paintball the next question is; how?
Traditionally teams self-selected and it seldom created gaping disparities because serious teams wanted to move up and the occasional teams frequently fell comfortably into the middle of their regular division. Teams determined their fitness to move up by having some degree of consistent success and with little reward at stake teams played for pride and recognition. (Which could eventually lead to the real reward; sponsorship.) [That state was not universal but it was sufficiently the norm that things worked fine for years.]
(Btw, my context is national series events, not local, where so-called sandbagging is a major bugaboo. And a red herring. And ultimately was caused by the general response to the national series largely unintentional rape & pillage of local / regional tourney scenes. But that's a different topic.)
Between then and the introduction of the UCP concept more divisions were introduced, larger prize packages were assigned to those divisions and new rules were implemented to "fix" the problems created by–you guessed it–the new divisions, the prizes and some of those rules.
Conceptually, the UCP is a very good idea in that it seeks to integrate every level of play from the local to the national under a consistent and progressive standard. In practice there are two significant issues; the progression from local to national that looks so good on paper retains, in the overlapping of divisions, the same tensions that had the locals in competition with the national for teams and the current UCP classification rules do not measure up. For the moment it's the classification rules that are important. The league has decided it has an interest in trying to engineer the content of divisions beyond the boundary of competition. (One of the consequences of that has been to drive players up the ranks artificially with the result it has driven some number out of the game, probably prematurely.) The other consequences are the current fuzzy dividing lines between divisions and a programmatic dumbing down of the competition itself across multiple divisions that will, at some point, affect all the levels of competition. In moving too many players (teams) up the rules undermine the core of each division, particularly the lower divisions, so that new teams moving up are competing against a fluctuating standard year by year. And just like teams and players improve by playing better players and teams in practice divisions should provide a consistent standard of play. When they don't the new D3 teams, for example, are competing against a standard that the year before was maybe a top 20 team. Do that year after year and you are doing the opposite of encouraging excellence, you're assuring mediocrity is seen as improvement. And then you move it up the ranks when you pack D2 teams into a floundering D1 division year after year. Does anybody really think the end result is superior play?
Adding further contradictions is a league policy that ignores the idea of merit in that any team at any time is allowed to enter any division they want--with the possible exception of the Pro division. Along similar lines is the pricing policy of entry fees in some circumstances. (Mentioned in this week's MLP Held Hostage Weekly Update.) Is the idea to push teams to favor one bracket over another or participation on one day over another? Or both? Or does D3 pay more simply because the expectation is there's more D3 teams than anything else? Regardless it demonstrates that there is more going on than simply organizing an event, series or system to promote excellence in competitive paintball.
So what to do about it?
Find out next time as short attention span blogging presents; 'Measure of the Game.' (Seeing a pattern yet?)
Traditionally teams self-selected and it seldom created gaping disparities because serious teams wanted to move up and the occasional teams frequently fell comfortably into the middle of their regular division. Teams determined their fitness to move up by having some degree of consistent success and with little reward at stake teams played for pride and recognition. (Which could eventually lead to the real reward; sponsorship.) [That state was not universal but it was sufficiently the norm that things worked fine for years.]
(Btw, my context is national series events, not local, where so-called sandbagging is a major bugaboo. And a red herring. And ultimately was caused by the general response to the national series largely unintentional rape & pillage of local / regional tourney scenes. But that's a different topic.)
Between then and the introduction of the UCP concept more divisions were introduced, larger prize packages were assigned to those divisions and new rules were implemented to "fix" the problems created by–you guessed it–the new divisions, the prizes and some of those rules.
Conceptually, the UCP is a very good idea in that it seeks to integrate every level of play from the local to the national under a consistent and progressive standard. In practice there are two significant issues; the progression from local to national that looks so good on paper retains, in the overlapping of divisions, the same tensions that had the locals in competition with the national for teams and the current UCP classification rules do not measure up. For the moment it's the classification rules that are important. The league has decided it has an interest in trying to engineer the content of divisions beyond the boundary of competition. (One of the consequences of that has been to drive players up the ranks artificially with the result it has driven some number out of the game, probably prematurely.) The other consequences are the current fuzzy dividing lines between divisions and a programmatic dumbing down of the competition itself across multiple divisions that will, at some point, affect all the levels of competition. In moving too many players (teams) up the rules undermine the core of each division, particularly the lower divisions, so that new teams moving up are competing against a fluctuating standard year by year. And just like teams and players improve by playing better players and teams in practice divisions should provide a consistent standard of play. When they don't the new D3 teams, for example, are competing against a standard that the year before was maybe a top 20 team. Do that year after year and you are doing the opposite of encouraging excellence, you're assuring mediocrity is seen as improvement. And then you move it up the ranks when you pack D2 teams into a floundering D1 division year after year. Does anybody really think the end result is superior play?
Adding further contradictions is a league policy that ignores the idea of merit in that any team at any time is allowed to enter any division they want--with the possible exception of the Pro division. Along similar lines is the pricing policy of entry fees in some circumstances. (Mentioned in this week's MLP Held Hostage Weekly Update.) Is the idea to push teams to favor one bracket over another or participation on one day over another? Or both? Or does D3 pay more simply because the expectation is there's more D3 teams than anything else? Regardless it demonstrates that there is more going on than simply organizing an event, series or system to promote excellence in competitive paintball.
So what to do about it?
Find out next time as short attention span blogging presents; 'Measure of the Game.' (Seeing a pattern yet?)
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A Measuring Stick
I spent some time this past weekend with the Rangers, a paintball team from Guatemala. They came up to the States for some trigger time against my guys on Saturday and ended up competing in the largest of our statewide tournament series on Sunday. (A good bunch of guys, btw.) I suspect they are representative of many new teams in the developing paintball world; energetic, eager and perhaps not so overtly competitive as American ballers tend to be. (Or at least they make an effort to be friendly too and certainly minus the obnoxious punk posturing.)
The point of their excursion north was to learn and improve. And they looked to do so in the traditional paintball way; by scrimmaging better players and competing against better teams. Makes perfectly good sense, doesn't it? Pretty much the way you and I did it, too. (And/or the way you're still doing it.)
This was particularly useful for the Rangers because those basic training methods don't really exist in Central America. In part because competitive paintball is so young there, there is only other up-and-coming to butt heads against. They simply don't have available the crucial components of experienced players and established teams. As a consequence I think their weekend up here was (hopefully) very instructive and a bit of an eye-opener as their experience acted as a measuring stick. A way of judging just where they are and an indicator of how much better they need to get in order to measure up to a world standard. (Of course that still leaves them, and teams like them, with the task of finding ways to make-up for the opportunities that still don't exist.)
All that was a rather oblique approach to a (sorta) related topic; competitiveness and the maintenance of a competitive standard. Which brings me back in a very roundabout way to how the PSP is using its classification system. (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!) Yeah, sorry about this (unless you're too new to be aware of all the other classification-related posts I've written) but at least this is a different argument.
Brief recap: my objection to the UCP, and its application in the PSP, is that it runs players up the ranks unnecessarily and frequently the result is to push many of those players out of competitive paintball. [And the move to add a semi-pro division acknowledges the issue if not the cause.] Most of my arguments have been tied to the effect on players. The system also blurs and/or breaks down the barriers between divisions to the detriment of the overall competition and the idea of excellence.
Here's how. Divisions exist in recognition of different levels of skill and ability that are sufficiently distinct to warrant those separate divisions of competition. And, realistically, to encourage teams of diverse ability to compete. For purposes of competition the divisions represent incremental steps rising to the top level of competition, currently call Pro. Conceptually we're on solid, easily understood ground. The questions I have is how do you maintain a clear distinction between the divisions created and how does that divisional process actually lead to excellence in the game? The answer to both those questions starts with a standard. Teams like the Rangers struggle to find their place in part because there is no consistent standard in their environment, no well defined target to aim for, at least in a practical sense that they can measure themselves against periodically.
I'll finish this in a day or two.
The point of their excursion north was to learn and improve. And they looked to do so in the traditional paintball way; by scrimmaging better players and competing against better teams. Makes perfectly good sense, doesn't it? Pretty much the way you and I did it, too. (And/or the way you're still doing it.)
This was particularly useful for the Rangers because those basic training methods don't really exist in Central America. In part because competitive paintball is so young there, there is only other up-and-coming to butt heads against. They simply don't have available the crucial components of experienced players and established teams. As a consequence I think their weekend up here was (hopefully) very instructive and a bit of an eye-opener as their experience acted as a measuring stick. A way of judging just where they are and an indicator of how much better they need to get in order to measure up to a world standard. (Of course that still leaves them, and teams like them, with the task of finding ways to make-up for the opportunities that still don't exist.)
All that was a rather oblique approach to a (sorta) related topic; competitiveness and the maintenance of a competitive standard. Which brings me back in a very roundabout way to how the PSP is using its classification system. (Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!) Yeah, sorry about this (unless you're too new to be aware of all the other classification-related posts I've written) but at least this is a different argument.
Brief recap: my objection to the UCP, and its application in the PSP, is that it runs players up the ranks unnecessarily and frequently the result is to push many of those players out of competitive paintball. [And the move to add a semi-pro division acknowledges the issue if not the cause.] Most of my arguments have been tied to the effect on players. The system also blurs and/or breaks down the barriers between divisions to the detriment of the overall competition and the idea of excellence.
Here's how. Divisions exist in recognition of different levels of skill and ability that are sufficiently distinct to warrant those separate divisions of competition. And, realistically, to encourage teams of diverse ability to compete. For purposes of competition the divisions represent incremental steps rising to the top level of competition, currently call Pro. Conceptually we're on solid, easily understood ground. The questions I have is how do you maintain a clear distinction between the divisions created and how does that divisional process actually lead to excellence in the game? The answer to both those questions starts with a standard. Teams like the Rangers struggle to find their place in part because there is no consistent standard in their environment, no well defined target to aim for, at least in a practical sense that they can measure themselves against periodically.
I'll finish this in a day or two.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The Econometric of the Commons: Sign Posts
Part Four of a four part series. Has a certain symmetry, doesn't it? And yes, I'm just filling some space. You see, there's plenty more to be said on this topic but I'm losing interest. Like the rest of you. Besides, PBIndustry(?) has got the PSTA up and, hmm, running? So there's a start.
Instead of doing a recap and an outline for laying a foundation–-which was the original plan–-I'm simply gonna suggest a few sign posts for PBI to consider keeping in mind as the process moves forward. What should happen and what should the development of the PSTA look like if it's on track? (And by 'on track' I'm taking some liberties since I mean on track as I think it ought to be. You may, of course, have a different opinion. Which is, as has already been established in the sidebar of this blog, a position you may want to reconsider.)
Signs Your Industry Trade Assoc. May Actually Serve Your Whole Industry
1. trade assoc. has a defined and enumerated mission statement and/or purpose
2. operation and function of the trade assoc. is transparent (and I don't mean invisible.)
3. open to all legitimate members of the industry
4. provides an opportunity and methodology to give voice to all the members
5. actions taken / choices made are consistent with the association's charter / mission / purpose
Right. That'll get the party started. And by all means, if you've got any additional ideas, feel free to post 'em up in comments.
Instead of doing a recap and an outline for laying a foundation–-which was the original plan–-I'm simply gonna suggest a few sign posts for PBI to consider keeping in mind as the process moves forward. What should happen and what should the development of the PSTA look like if it's on track? (And by 'on track' I'm taking some liberties since I mean on track as I think it ought to be. You may, of course, have a different opinion. Which is, as has already been established in the sidebar of this blog, a position you may want to reconsider.)
Signs Your Industry Trade Assoc. May Actually Serve Your Whole Industry
1. trade assoc. has a defined and enumerated mission statement and/or purpose
2. operation and function of the trade assoc. is transparent (and I don't mean invisible.)
3. open to all legitimate members of the industry
4. provides an opportunity and methodology to give voice to all the members
5. actions taken / choices made are consistent with the association's charter / mission / purpose
Right. That'll get the party started. And by all means, if you've got any additional ideas, feel free to post 'em up in comments.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Divided We Fall
Aight, here's some late night (or early morning) ramblings after an evening of reviewing the continuing crisis over the bubbles and the bailout I'm ratcheting things down to the level of paintball where the supreme stupidity and cupidity of the Keynesians and the criminals isn't going to cause a global "correction." (The only "good" thing is that a lot of that grostesquely leveraged debt along with billions upon billions of increasingly worthless greenbacks sit in foreign banks and was institutionalized by foreign governments which will mitigate the short term pain some.) Enough of that.
The likely effect of this economic upheaveal on competitive paintball isn't a net positive. (That's the sort of linguistic spin that when offered in a British accent [non-Cockney] implies massive understatement.) The tourney marketplace as a whole is going to experience decline pretty much across the board as may every other aspect of paintball. It begins to close the window on Pacific Paintball sooner than I previously expected and force some crucial decisions on them for '09. PSP will see around a 30% drop (at worst I hope) next year over the course of the season if it remains a national multi-divisional series. Now would be the time to buckle down and at least get the classification rules in order to make the league as user friendly as possible. If you thought sponsorship sucked this year just wait. If NASCAR sponsorship is suffering the environment is tightening. (That's a scary thing if you're hoping for a piece of that pie but it may also signal an opportunity if you know how to go get it.) The current business model standard is going to take a beating in '09 too. Even Eclipse. It's coming.
I'm beginning to think this would be a very propitious time to start making serious moves. Paintball needs to be positioned to deal with the short term and to take advantage of the long haul. I think all of us with no say in the matter support PBIndustry Standards & Practices as do some of PBIndustry. It's gotta happen and stick if paintball is going to get anywhere.
The other thing I'd like to see change is the fragmentation of paintball; tourney, rec, scenario, etc. Clearly everybody has different interests and reasons for playing their type of paintball and I'm not advocating a Hands Across the Speedball Field moment but as I'm in the mood for unifying around common purposes why not the players too?
I'm working on some ideas but if you've got an idea or three let's hear it.
The likely effect of this economic upheaveal on competitive paintball isn't a net positive. (That's the sort of linguistic spin that when offered in a British accent [non-Cockney] implies massive understatement.) The tourney marketplace as a whole is going to experience decline pretty much across the board as may every other aspect of paintball. It begins to close the window on Pacific Paintball sooner than I previously expected and force some crucial decisions on them for '09. PSP will see around a 30% drop (at worst I hope) next year over the course of the season if it remains a national multi-divisional series. Now would be the time to buckle down and at least get the classification rules in order to make the league as user friendly as possible. If you thought sponsorship sucked this year just wait. If NASCAR sponsorship is suffering the environment is tightening. (That's a scary thing if you're hoping for a piece of that pie but it may also signal an opportunity if you know how to go get it.) The current business model standard is going to take a beating in '09 too. Even Eclipse. It's coming.
I'm beginning to think this would be a very propitious time to start making serious moves. Paintball needs to be positioned to deal with the short term and to take advantage of the long haul. I think all of us with no say in the matter support PBIndustry Standards & Practices as do some of PBIndustry. It's gotta happen and stick if paintball is going to get anywhere.
The other thing I'd like to see change is the fragmentation of paintball; tourney, rec, scenario, etc. Clearly everybody has different interests and reasons for playing their type of paintball and I'm not advocating a Hands Across the Speedball Field moment but as I'm in the mood for unifying around common purposes why not the players too?
I'm working on some ideas but if you've got an idea or three let's hear it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
