Just so you guys can kinda visualize what the points would be like:
Player A can spar 3000 times in a season, with a 45% win rate, against an average opponent ratio of 2:1 and end the season with 2700 points.
Player B can spar 2600 times in a season, with a 52% win rate, against an average opponent ratio of 1:1 and end the season with 1352 points.
Player C can spar 2800 times in a season, with a 40% win rate, against an average opponent ratio of 2.5:1 and end the season with 2800 points.
Player D can spar 2500 times in a season, with a 60% win rate, against an average opponent ratio of 2:1 and end the season with 3000 points.
|
So their positioning on a 4-man leaderboard would be:
- Player D (2500/60%/2:1) 3000
- Player C (2800/40%/2.5:1) 2800
- Player A (3000/45%/2:1) 2700
- Player B (2600/52%/1:1) 1352
So, just a few random points to help you understand why this leaderboard style is kind of cool:
- Player D managed to come in first place mainly because of their high win percentage. They sparred the least number of times, but won against an average 2:1 ratio significantly more than the rest of the field.
- Player C came in second place with only a 40% win rate. This is because Player C sparred a high number of times, 2800, against players who are better (on average) than the rest of the field. This proves that even "bad" sparrers have a decent chance at placing high as long as they are brave enough to spar good sparrers and remain active.
- Player A sparred 200 more times than Player C and has a higher win percentage, but still placed below them. This is because they sparred players with a worse overall ratio when compared to Player C.
- Player B came in last. They sparred more times than Player D, who came in first. Their win percentage is also higher than Player C and Player A. However, Player B only sparred against players with an average 1:1 ratio, which are (at best) players who are half as good as who the three other players were sparring against. This is an example of selective sparring (and bad sparring) not being rewarded. If this guy continued sparring the same players and maintained this same win percentage, he'd have to spar nearly 5800 times to reach first place. If he can do that, he deserves it (IMO at least).
If I was to look at those numbers, without any knowledge of what their "points" would be, I'd personally say that Player D is the best sparrer in that group. And that's good, because with the points in consideration, he'd place first.
There's a lot of possibilities for who could win out the season. It could be someone who just spars an insane number of times. It could be someone who has a poor win percentage but consistently spars the best sparrers. It could be a sparrer with a very high win percentage who spars less than most. In any situation, I feel like this system would award a first-place win to the person who probably deserves it. I wouldn't be mad if any of those types of people won.