There was some talk of having a league but not a huge amount of enthusiasm, probably because we’ve established a pretty firm order of ability so the league would be a lot of effort for something highly predictable that would probably end up with league rankings identical to the current ladder rankings. We’ve got to a point where those that have been on the ladder for a while have reached equilibrium positions and equilibrium ability controlling for amount played (i.e. ceteris paribus the more you play the higher your equilibrium, like s in the Solow model).
So to get around the current high predictability, lack of close games and lack of excitement, a couple of suggestions for a side competition would be:
(a) some form of handicap matches where in any match the lesser players start with a head start. This would be a lot of fun with the handicaps set at the right levels but it’s very hard to achieve this having not kept any data on average match scores. As a crude starting point you could get 1 point head start per game (in normal best-of-5s to 11) for every 1 difference in ladder position between the players and cap it at some arbitrary level, e.g. about 5, or;
(b) some kind of singles “team” event where we form into 2 balanced teams then record singles results by team instead of individually. This might be especially good if we record the points scored in individual games so e.g. even if you’re losing 10-0 in a game to 11 it’s still potentially worth playing for goal difference.
Any thoughts/interest?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
For info, I only thought of the handicap system while joylessly beating Nick 3-0 at lunchtime in a friendly that seemed to take about 5 minutes. It would have been much more challenging if there was some mechanism for Nick having a head-start but if I'd have offered before the match he'd have probably said no on the basis that he'd get no satisfaction winning a one-off handicap game and it was just a friendly.
However, having some kind of formal system and competition for the handicaps would make them socially acceptable and give some kind of reward for winning, i.e. climbing the ladder (and reducing the handicap for subsequent matches), so could be the basis for more close matches.
I like both suggestions. I think we should start with the second plan and have two teams (maybe of around 5 each?)where each team member plays everyone on the other team. You then add up the points difference (so an 11-0, 11-0, 11-0 victory counts for 33 points whereas an 11-9, 9-11, 11-9, 9-11, 11-9 victory would count for 2 points).
If we recorded all the scores, we could use them to set the handicaps for the other plan subsequently.
Yeah, I'm up for this, sounds like a practical way of doing it from Gump there.
I like The Gump Plan.
League-style formats require enthusiasm so maybe go for 2 teams of 4 (to keep the number of games down) and give some careful thought to the balancing beforehand to the point where on average if we had to bet on which team would win then equal money would be wagered on each.
It's not simply a case of creating 2 teams where the sums of the rankings are identical (e.g. 1/8/3/6 vs. 2/7/4/5) if (say) our top-ranked player is going to give out so many sound thrashings that he's not counter-balanced by having the worst player on his team and needs the 2nd worst as well to make it fair.
Basically, the more even the 2 teams, the more fun it will be and the more every point will count.
We could include our left handed players as well. They would obviously have to be on the same as the right handed version though.
I think the goofies should stay out of this, because that'll mess it all up and overweight the amount of games to ppl with split-personalities.
Generally I am against this move to left-handed goofterism...it just seems..unnatural.
I'm also against including the lefties.
Back on the subject of number of players per team, it's n^2 games so 4 players on a team is over a third less games than 5 (16 vs. 25), and also by only involving 8 of us we'll have more average enthusiasm than with 10 on the assumption that each marginal player is less enthusiastic than the last. We could start with invites to the top 8 non-lefties on the list excluding The Cat (who has too many meetings for a regular commitment and is too much of an unknown quantity for team balancing), which is pretty much a team of the usual suspects plus Paul/Jonathan.
All of these sound good. I agree with restricting numbers, at least initially because some people are apparently not tuned in to the Table Tennis Spirit (ask Eagle)!
Will also be good to inject some team ethic into what is normally an individual sport.
Any suggestions on implementing The Serve's complicated seeding suggestion?
A possible line-up of teams would be:
1/4/5/8 vs. 2/3/6/7, both of which add up to 18 as total rankings (and is based on the principle of team picks with the first team getting #1, then the second team gets the next 2, then the first team gets the next 2 and so on).
This would work out as:
Gump/Knuckles/Paul Miller/Spread Eagle
vs.
Topspin/No Thumbs/Flip Flop/The Bat
Does that look balanced to anyone else?
Another alternative would be to do the same thing with Gump & Topspin as team captains and Topspin gets first pick.
Post a Comment