I'm gonna take a shot at this.

Call them "Hall of Fame" points, or "Uber" points, or whatever.

Here's my plan for what is gonna be a rather ambitious project and one for which I make no guarantees that I'm gonna complete:

First, I'm going to categorize each of the fantasy games we've played since Baseball 2003.

I don't know how many categories there will be until I'm done, but I'll look at factors such as the importance of the sport itself; the length of the season; and whether it requires daily or weekly participation, or if it's a "one-shot" game.

So games like Salary Cap Baseball and Basketball (and I'll include Yahoo Football; even though it's not a daily game, we all consider it one of our "majors") will be the highest rated, something like Salary Cap Football or the NBA, NFL and College Football Pick 'Em games might be second level games, something like a weekly golf game might be rated lower since golf isn't considered as important as football or basketball, then stuff like Bass Fishing and NASCAR, since those sports are even less important than golf, and the lowest rankings might be for those one-shot games like the NFL and NBA Draft games.

Then, if there are say 6 categories, the most important games will be rated a "6", and the least important a "1", with everything else in between.

Then, the importance of each individual game (like 2003 Sal Cap baseball vs. 2004 Sal Cap Baseball) will be dermined by multiplying the game's "level" by the number of participants.

So if we had 12 particpants in 2003 Sal Cap Baseball, that game would be rated a 72 (12 x 6), but if we only had 8 particpants in Sal Cap Baseball in 2004, then that year's Sal Cap Baseball Game would only be worth a 48 (8 x 6).

Then, I will award 3 points for finishing first, 2 points for second, and 1 point for finishing third.

So the winner of 2003 Sal Cap Baseball would get 216 points (6 x 12 x 3).

And if something like Bass Fishing winds up as the second lowest level rated game, worth a "2", and we had a game with 5 participants, then the wimner of that game would get 30 points (2 x 5 x 3).

The only thing I'm not sure of is how to treat the ESPN Salary Cap Baseball & Basketball games, and all of the others which are divided into segments.

I would say give half as many points to the winner of each segment, but what happens when someone wins the overall championship without winning either segment, which is gonna happen one of these days.

I expect feedback from JG, DM, and possibly DB on this......

Plaw for segment games you should do them individually. My reasoning behind it is that there are not always the same amount of players in the first and second half. Also something to look at for Fastbreak Basketball is do you cound Patrick as a participant even though he hardly ever changed his line up.

I do like your reasoning for how point will be determined though.

I thought of that - different number of participants for each segment. amybe we should average both segments to get the number of participants.

I've always maintained, that "segment" stuff is ab artificial device used by ESPN to get new people interested and keep old people in the game by wiping everyone's slate clean.

It hasn't happened yet, but someday it will - Someone will finish 1st, 2nd, or 3rd overall w/o having finished in the top three in either segment.

For him to get nothing while, say the guy who finishes third in the first segment and last in the second segment and with fewer total points for the whole season gets something doesn't seem fair.

But on the third hand, someone can do well in one segment and not play in the other, so he should get something for the segment he did well in.

Maybe we need to divide the points into thirds.

I don't understand what you mean by splitting points into thirds.

The one thing I was thinking about is that what if we did it like a super bowl pool. Where there is a 1,2,3 for the first half, 1,2,3 for the second half and 1,2,3 for overall. With the half not being as many points as the overall

Another thing I am wondering about, should the person who wins fastbreak against 5 other people be given the same points as someone who wins baseball against 9 other people

If we make each segment and then the overall winner equal in value, we'd be giving these "segment games" too much weight.

Her's an example:

Suppose in this year's Sal Cap Basketball the following happens:

It's a game from the highest rated category, so it's worth 6 points (if that's how many categories we end up with).

The first segment we had 9 players, and
DM finished 1st
JL finished 2nd
JG finished 3rd.

So...
DM gets 6 x 9 x 3, or 162 points, 1/3 of which is 54
JL gets 6 x 9 x 2, or 108 points, 1/3 of which is 36
JG gets 6 x 9 x 1, or 54 points, 1/3 of which is 18

----------

The second segment we have 6 players, and let's say
PL finishes 1st
JL finishes 2nd
DM finishes 3rd

So...
PL gets 6 x 6 x 3, or 108 points, 1/3 of which is 36
JL gets 6 x 6 x 2, or 72 points, 1/3 of which is 24
DM gets 6 x 6 x 1, or 36 points, 1/2 of which is 12

----------

For the overall, we averaged 7.5 players per segment, and if
DM finishes 1st overall
JL finishes 2nd overall
JG finishes 3rd ovwerall

Then
DM gets 6 x 7.5 x 3, or 135 points, 1/3 of which is 45
JL gets 6 x 7.5 x 2, or 90 points, 1/3 of which is 30
JG gets 6 x 7.5 x 1, or 45 points, 1/3 of which is 15

----------

So the total number of points for the entire game would be distributed as follows;

DM: 111
JL: 90
JG: 33
PL: 36

So the total game was worth 270 points.

Which works out, because if there were no segments and we had 7.5 players for the seasom and you multiply

6 x 7.5 x 3, you get 135 points for finishing 1st
6 x 7.5 x 2, you get 90 points for finishing 2nd
6 x 7.5 x 1, you get 45 points for finishing 3rd

Total: 270 points.

If we give out that many points for each segment, the game is worth three times what it's supposed to be, and in your case, for example, you're getting paid "twice" for finishing first.

No, as I think I explained in the first post.

Also, in the example above, the first segment was worth more than the second because there were 9 players instead of 6.

You get that last multiplier based on the number of players.

the more players there are the harder it is to win, so the more points the game is worth.

That would make it a 25% - 25% - 50% split of the 270 points, which is OK too.

Actually, I like yours better because it rewards someone more for doing well in both segments rather than only one.

So under that scenario

DM gets 117 instead of 111
JL gets the same 90
JG gets 36 instead of 33
PL gets 27 instead of 36

Hmmm.....Is JG's 3rd place finish in the 1st segment and 3rd place finish overall worth more than PL's 1st place finish in the 2nd segment, though?

No, as I think I explained in the first post.

Also, in the example above, the first segment was worth more than the second because there were 9 players instead of 6.

You get that last multiplier based on the number of players.

the more players there are the harder it is to win, so the more points the game is worth. [/b][/quote]oh yeah Sorry I'm very sick so my mind isn't working all that great. I'm going to get some sleep and respond to your other posts later though.

Yeah, because I wasn't some Super-duper Bigass ultra-megawuss scaredy-cat yellow lazy punk biatch pusillanimous chickenshit who just waited it out, Mister! :p

Is this assuming that the top-place finishers each half only play one half apiece, while the #4 winner for both halves could get more points overall?

Why do we need to even consider combined totals at all? If someone does well in both, it'll be reflected in the two scores for the two halves. If anything, maybe some bonus points for winning both halves, or being in the top 3 of both halves, but other than that, I don't think we need to even get that complicated....

Because it's quite possible for someone to finish first in total points without finishing in the top three in either segment and having playing out both segments in full for the entire season.

And if we have seven fairly evenly matched players - say JG, PL, DM, JL, LZ, SP, and DB, it's more than just a theoretical possibility if everyone plays every day, no one misses any days, and the luck factors more or less even out.

Here.....
In the example above, Player "D" has failed to finished in the Top Three in either segment, but has the most overall points.

Basing which of us gets how many points based on ESPN's arbitrary cutoff date seems silly.

If the segments had started or ended one week earlier or later, the entire standings for each segment could be completely different.

I've always said that overall points is the most important thing, because it's just a matter of luck, really, where you happen to be position-wise when the first segment ends and the second begins.

Why award points after the 17th week, or the 16th, or the 18th and then start up again?

Because that's when the NBA decides to have their All-Star break?

You wanna say that it's two separate games, OK, I'll give you that one, but to not count overall points at least equally with each of the first two segments makes no sense.

Did I not say that an "overall champ" could get bonus points or something?? Of course I did. :p

But who's putting importance on overall besides you, and your opinion? How hard is it to consider them 2 separate games -- do well in both, and you do well enough, no? If someone who's in 4th for both halves beats you, then, you didn't do well enough, did you?

What's the problem??

:p

The problem is that under the system I'm suggesting each game has a rank, or a level, which makes it relative in importance of all of the other games.

The total value of the game and the ponts to be distributed among its first three finishers is based on it's rank, and the number of participants that particular season.

If you start adding "bonus points", then you are weighting more heavily those games that have segments and, therefore, bonus points as well, and making them worth more than those which don't.

And if you consider them to be two separate games, then you're making each segment of, say, Sal Cap Baseball - half a baseball season - as important as a whole football season of, say, Yahoo Football.

BY JG: If someone who's in 4th for both halves beats you, then, you didn't do well enough, did you?

That I don't understand. "Well enough" for what? If we give nothing for overall, then it doesn't matter if a guy who finished 4th in each halves beats the individual winners of each half in overall, because he gets nothing.

Why do I have the feeling that you are being deliberately argumentative? :rolleyes:

For Yahoo Football, BTW, I think we should divide up the points among the playoff winner, the person with the most points, and the person with the best regular season W-L record.

I'm thinking something like 50% - 25% - 25% for simplicity, or 50-33-17, which is more accurate for a 3-2-1 proportion.

It doesn't strike me as "right" that the person with the 6th best regular season record (because of the luck of the schedule), who finishes, say, 6th in total points, should get all the points for finishing first because he wins the playoffs.

If you want to argue that the playoffs winner is the true "winner" of the game, I'd say , OK, maybe, but we had an "Overall Points Champ" this year which theoretically was as important as the playoff winner, but I'd agree that winning the playoffs is the most important thing, and go with maybe 50% - 25% - 25%, or even 55-25-20 or 60-20-20.

Same in hockey, but with nothing for total points, since it's a roto-style game so you don't always field a lineup with the idea of getting the most points (but, rather, try to put a guy in, when you have the choice and the chance, who is the most efficient in the category in which you need the most help that week - or - you might bench all of your goalies as a strategic move when you have a big lead in the goalie "percentage categories" that you don't need to risk), so I'd go like 70% for the playoff winner and 30% for the regular season winner, or maybe 67-33 or something.

This is what I came up with for the values of the various games.

I couldn't come up with a mathematical formula that seemed to put everything in its right spot, so this is kind of subjective.

I considered mostly the "importance" of the sport and "importance" of the game, the length of the game or season, and the frequency required to play (daily, weekly, or one-shot).

I also have to go back and check; I know I left a few games out.

5 Point Games
Salary Cap Baseball
Salary Cap Basketball
Yahoo Hockey (first game ever in progress)
Yahoo Football
Yahoo Baseball (first game ever about to begin)
Yahoo Basketball (first game ever in progress)

4 Point Games
Salary Cap Football
NFL Pick 'Em (against the spread)
NFL Pick 'Em (straight up)
College Football Pick 'Em
NBA Pick 'Em (first game ever in progress)
Each of the various Golf Games
NCAA Basketball Brackets Game

3 Point Games
Thursday Night College Football
NBA Salary Cap Playoffs Game
NASCAR

2 Point Games
Bass Fishing
Poker
Horse racing
College FB Bowl Games Pick 'Em Game (where we rated our picks)
NBA Playoffs Brackets Game
NFL Survivor

1 Point Games
The two Olympics Games we've played
NBA Draft Day game
NFL Draft day game
Diamond Daily (1 point per month)
NFL Playoffs Salary Cap game
NFL Playoffs Pick 'Em
Super Bowl "Proposition Bets" Game

This conversation seems to have petered out.....

If no one wants to talk about this anymore, I'm gonna do it the way I said, with DM's suggestion of a 25-25-50% split in the "segment games, and a 50-35-15% split in Yahoo FB for Playoff Winner, Overall Points Winner, and Regular Season Winner.

Or, if no one cares if I even do this or not, I won't bother.

It figures to be several hours work and a pain in the ass.

Don't worry....I won't be insulted if no one gives a shit, but personally I'm more interested in my Gangster BB "Uber Points" than my Uber Points with a bunch of strangers.

I'll give my opinion once I see where I'd stand. :p

Question, JJ:

Who is "CB" who finished second in the 2004 ESPN Athens Olympics Game?

Maybe he's a kin of I'm a soldier .

You finished 3rd in that game. You don't remember who finished second?

Are you kidding? I don't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday, yet alone something that happened 2 years ago.

Some thoughts...

- For the segment games, I'd like to see a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 breakdown. As you know, I've always considered the overall points kind of made up and players shouldn't be overly penalized for not playing both segments.

- I'm fine with the Yahoo football splits.

- As for the categorizing of the games, the only one I had a real issue with is the March Madness game. Just because of the sheer magnitude of that game in the country, I think it should be rated a 4 or 5. I know it's a one-shot deal, but winning that game does bring a lot of bragging rights from year to year in office pools, etc. The Survivor game too should be rated higher (but not as high as the brackets game) for the same reason.

the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 vs. 25-25-50 is a close call.

My original idea was the 1/3 version, then DM suggested the latter version and I thought that seemed better because we've always said that those seasons are a marathon, some if someone doesn't play one segment, maybe they should be penalized a little for being a wuss :p .

Anyway, ultimately the difference isn't that great (see my 5th post).

Maybe JG will voice an opinion.

I agree with your assessment of the value of the NCAA March Madness game, and I'll change it, but I think it should only be a "4".

All the games that are a "5" are all season-long marathons that require hundreds of decisions to be made.