hostrauser Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 I honestly don't know why you'd compute the scores like this. Here's where I (and thousands of others) get the scores. I like it much better. http://www.facebook.com/drumcorpsscoresandrankings Much like college football has the AP, ESPN, and BCS polls, you're free to choose which drum corps rankings you like best. The flaw I've found with most other drum corps rankings is they don't take into account regional spikes and dips, and particular judging tendencies. An example for the former: If Corps X and Corps Y meet at Show A, but then Corps X increases 0.5 at Show B and Corps Y increases 3.0 at Show C on the same day, further investigation is needed. Did the other corps at Show C experience such huge score bumps? Too many ranking just take the scores at face value, leading to the argument that you can't compare scores from show to show. My argument is that you CAN (too many constants: same corps, same performers, usually a large number of same judges from the DCI pool), you just have to be careful with it. An example for the latter: different judges use different spreads. Marie Czapinski and Debbie Torchia come to mind as DCI judges that can be very critical and have very large spreads. This is not a claim that their judging ability is any better or worse than anyone else's. Merely that if "John Smith" scored corps 16.0/15.0/14.0 in a particular caption, Marie or Debbie might score those corps 16.0/13.0/10.0 in that same caption. Same order but bigger spreads. If Corps X and Corps Y have been within 0.5 of each other in a caption for four straight shows, then at the fifth show they're 2.3 apart... well, look deeper. While I appreciate and applaud the effort, this formula you used is like someone " estimating " how much work we'd have done and accomplished today had we gone to work on the 4th of July... and baseing it on what we did at work last Thursday or Friday. I see your point, but I think that's oversimplifying it a little. It's more like watching seven people work together last Thursday and Friday, then watching only six of them work today and estimating what the seventh person would have contributed. There's always got to be the baseline of actual scores/work, then estimating the pieces/corps that are missing. That said, its fun and cool, and so it's not worth getting worked up over. Definitely agreed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I for one really appreciate that you do these. It is especially nice during this time of scores being all over the place. I'm sure there are plenty of people that get something out of it, and anyone who doesn't is not being harmed by their existence in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 An example for the latter: different judges use different spreads. Marie Czapinski and Debbie Torchia come to mind as DCI judges that can be very critical and have very large spreads. This is not a claim that their judging ability is any better or worse than anyone else's. Merely that if "John Smith" scored corps 16.0/15.0/14.0 in a particular caption, Marie or Debbie might score those corps 16.0/13.0/10.0 in that same caption. Same order but bigger spreads. This is interesting because it seems to me the spread is what matters as far as how the judges influence the final score. As such, intentionally applying a larger spread would be a back door way of making their category more significant than DCI intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) The flaw I've found with most other drum corps rankings is they don't take into account regional spikes and dips, and particular judging tendencies. We can " estimate"... and " predict " who might beat whom in a head to head match up. For example, one could " predict" that the Blue Knights will beat ( say ) the Boston Crusaders in a future head to head matchup. This is called naturally a " prediction ". However, here are the ACTUAL last 3 scores of the Blue Knights and the Boston Crusaders. Boston : 72.500 75.00 77.00 BK : 73.00 74.40 76.50. Boston did not compete last nite, while BK did ( to get that 76.50 score ) Now,... under any logical " RANKING " ( not estimates, predictions ) based upon actual scores, its impossible to" rank " BK ahead of Boston right now using any rational and logical methodology. It just is. But no big deal Hoff. People can rank Corps anyway they want and use any criteria they want, whether its imaginary scores they will " estimate " from a " day off " or actual scores or whatever. Its all cool, imo. Edited July 4, 2011 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 We can " estimate"... and " predict " who might beat whom in a head to head match up. For example, one could " predict" that the Blue Knights will beat ( say ) the Boston Crusaders in a future head to head matchup. This is called naturally a " prediction ". .... Now,... under any logical " RANKING " ( not estimates, predictions ) based upon actual scores, its impossible to" rank " BK ahead of Boston right now using any rational and logical methodology. It just is. But no big deal Hoff. People can rank Corps anyway they want and use any criteria they want, whether its imaginary scores they will " estimate " from a " day off " or actual scores or whatever. Its all cool, imo. I think what you're missing here is that his rankings are for the *WEEK*, not the "latest score". It's a different approach and he makes it pretty clear that it is backward-looking not forward-looking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) I think what you're missing here is that his rankings are for the *WEEK*, not the "latest score". It's a different approach and he makes it pretty clear that it is backward-looking not forward-looking. Fine, no problem. Go back a week. Go as "backward looking", as one wants. Do a " ranking " and give any imaginary score one wants to a non performance on a day off... or days off... and factor that into the " ranking " calculation. I just think it's silly for anyone to give an imaginary score(s) to a non performance on a day off... or days off... for a Corps " ranking " system. It brings a chuckle with the notion of such a criteria utilized in the methodology " ranking ". But its cool... really. Its all for shirts and giggles anyway, and so from that perspective, it fits the bill well, imo. Edited July 4, 2011 by BRASSO 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musicman1084 Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 THANK YOU for doing this, and SORRY for the pages of bitter posters to follow who can't just take it for what it's worth and passively give you crap for your rankings because you didn't rank their corps in as favorable a manner as they had hoped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Fine, no problem. Go back a week. Go as "backward looking", as one wants. Do a " ranking " and give any imaginary score one wants to a non performance on a day off... or days off... and factor that into the " ranking " calculation. I just think it's silly for anyone to give an imaginary score(s) to a non performance on a day off... or days off... for a Corps " ranking " system. It brings a chuckle with the notion of such a criteria utilized in the methodology " ranking ". But its cool... really. Its all for shirts and giggles anyway, and so from that perspective, it fits the bill well, imo. If he had posted: 1 The Cavaliers 0 2 The Cadets -0.6 3 Carolina Crown -0.4 4 Blue Devils -0.4 5 Phantom Regiment -1.75 6 Santa Clara Vanguard -0.55 7 Bluecoats -0.15 8 Madison Scouts -0.1 9 Blue Stars -2.1 10 Blue Knights -0.5 11 Boston Crusaders -0.1 12 Spirit of Atlanta -1.75 would that be better? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebirdy Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Thank you for always doing these outstanding rankings! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) THANK YOU for doing this, and SORRY for the pages of bitter posters to follow who can't just take it for what it's worth and passively give you crap for your rankings because you didn't rank their corps in as favorable a manner as they had hoped. I scrolled back on this thread, but havn't seen any " bitter posters" that gave Hostrauser " crap " for this. Some ( like me ) think it's a silly methodology used, but said it's fine and cool, and even cautioned others about not beating him up for his " rankings ". What posters on this thread appeared " bitter " because " their Corps wasn't ranked in a favorable manner" ? Poster " CQuinn " ? His post wasn't all that " bitter " or " obnoxious " in my opinion. Maybe there's a history with this poster I should know about ? Thats because his post.. and link above.. seemed rather tame to me. What am I missing ? Edited July 4, 2011 by BRASSO 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.