Teams with a positive W-L season

Lytro Illum Light Field Digital

07/28/2015 10:49:26 AM · #30

Originally posted by hahn23:

I rest my case.

On what, vapor?! Again, I restate your offensive assertion...

Maybe some restriction was applied in a previous DPL or TPL, but I think DPL3 allowed the powerful and popular members to coalesce. It's self evident. So what!

However, if the eventual top teams were a fait accompli, then it is only fair to open up the playoffs to other teams that had a successful season in spite of the inbalance.

Your statement is completely accusatory. It states, unequivocally, that the first place teams were simply a matter of putting together high scoring and popular photographers, and that the playoffs might as well have started from week one with the top ranked teams. As the captain of the #2 ranked team in our division I take that very personally, and I will once again tell you why.

We entered the DPL trying to re-form "The Number 2's" from last year's TPL (something we did not come close to winning). 4 players returned while 2 had chosen to go to other teams. Two players were added from free agent invites (we had 4 turn us down). The remaining 3 players were added based on prior collaborative experience, either in past leagues or elsewhere. So 7 of our 9 had worked together previously, and it showed during the league. Do you want evidence? Take the bottom 1/2 of our team and look at their average during DPL as compared to their seeded average - all of them are outperforming their prior averages, and 3 of them by double-digits. Those 4 people had a combined Seed Average of 57.95, but a 69.7 average during DPL. I challenge you to look at the other first place teams and find anything close to that kind of improvement across the team. That's not deck stacking, that's effective teamwork. Ribbons were won because players were talked into submitting one image when they wanted to submit another.

I speak for no one but us. We've won each of our first 4 matches in what is statistically the toughest division, including a first week win against the #1 seed during a week when they averaged over 92%. So yeah, I'm offended by your accusations, both for myself and for my teammates.

Message edited by author 2015-07-28 10:55:32.

yakatme

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

07/28/2015 11:15:36 AM · #31

Originally posted by Melethia:

The maximum average for a team was 80%. That average referred to the last challenges entered, and I think that number was the last three challenges. I'm sure it was 80% but I'm not sure about it being the last three challenges, but it was something like that.

07/28/2015 11:17:44 AM · #32

Originally posted by yakatme:

Originally posted by Melethia:

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by hahn23:
After all, there were no restrictions on which members could form a team.

actually there were. the initial team percentage had to be under a certain number.

What was that number? I don't recall seeing that anywhere, that's why I'm asking.

The maximum average for a team was 80%. That average referred to the last challenges entered, and I think that number was the last three challenges. I'm sure it was 80% but I'm not sure about it being the last three challenges, but it was something like that.

I'm fairly certain the seeding was based on the last 7 challenges. No idea if the max was based on fewer.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS II USM Lens

07/28/2015 11:19:28 AM · #33

Good thing it was only "fairly certain". From the Seeded Teams link on the DPL Overview page, "Seed averages were calculated by averaging each teammate's average of their last 10 challenge entries. If a teammate has never entered 10 challenges, as many challenges as were available were used. If a teammate never submitted, they were excluded and a zero was not factored in."

Message edited by author 2015-07-28 11:23:40.

hahn23

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

07/28/2015 11:30:48 AM · #34

Originally posted by backdoorhippie:

Originally posted by hahn23:
I rest my case.

On what, vapor?! Again, I restate your offensive assertion...

Maybe some restriction was applied in a previous DPL or TPL, but I think DPL3 allowed the powerful and popular members to coalesce. It's self evident. So what!

However, if the eventual top teams were a fait accompli, then it is only fair to open up the playoffs to other teams that had a successful season in spite of the inbalance.

Your statement is completely accusatory. It states, unequivocally, that the first place teams were simply a matter of putting together high scoring and popular photographers, and that the playoffs might as well have started from week one with the top ranked teams. As the captain of the #2 ranked team in our division I take that very personally, and I will once again tell you why.

We entered the DPL trying to re-form "The Number 2's" from last year's TPL (something we did not come close to winning). 4 players returned while 2 had chosen to go to other teams. Two players were added from free agent invites (we had 4 turn us down). The remaining 3 players were added based on prior collaborative experience, either in past leagues or elsewhere. So 7 of our 9 had worked together previously, and it showed during the league. Do you want evidence? Take the bottom 1/2 of our team and look at their average during DPL as compared to their seeded average - all of them are outperforming their prior averages, and 3 of them by double-digits. Those 4 people had a combined Seed Average of 57.95, but a 69.7 average during DPL. I challenge you to look at the other first place teams and find anything close to that kind of improvement across the team. That's not deck stacking, that's effective teamwork. Ribbons were won because players were talked into submitting one image when they wanted to submit another.

I speak for no one but us. We've won each of our first 4 matches in what is statistically the toughest division, including a first week win against the #1 seed during a week when they averaged over 92%. So yeah, I'm offended by your accusations, both for myself and for my teammates.

It was Will Rogers who said, If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Are you saying you didn't assemble a strong team? And, your team was very successful. I find it interesting that you are defending your success with such vigor and vehemence. I never mentioned, nor looked at, your team.
My only purpose in starting this thread was to open up the playoffs to successful, but less well-endowed teams.

MAK

Leica M Monochrom

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

07/28/2015 11:36:42 AM · #35

I personally think the top 2 from each division go into a 1/4 final play off with semi's and finals to follow. that way it does give the teams below the top slot a fighting interest..

I do not understand why there is only the one place from each division, seems a bit tight if you ask me.. I strongly recommend they allow 2 teams from each division through.. it would only mean an extra 1 game per season but would bring a lot more fun and interest to those in 2nd/3rd or even 4th place to fight it out for the 2nd slot...

Can we?
SC?
Langdon?

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/28/2015 11:50:59 AM · #36

Originally posted by hahn23:

exactly.

stop digging. please explain how you didn't insinuate that teams stacked themselves. you mentioned it.

the defense is coming from the idea that the accomplishment of those who did make the playoffs should be diminished because some teams weren't good enough and now they should be allowed to play.

if you want to see the teams who didn't fare as well keep playing, setup a loser bracket for them and let the rest of the teams continue the competition as it was intended.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

07/28/2015 11:55:58 AM · #37

Originally posted by hahn23:

The only "hole" I'm in is this logic void. The fact that you never looked at my team (the one currently leading both the division and the league) before making your assertions proves that point.

Did I assemble a strong team? If by "strong" you mean a group of people who have worked well together in the past, and shown that they are more than capable of working as a team, then yes. Simply putting together a team of strong individuals seems fine on the surface, but one only need to look to the '92 New York Mets to know that great players need to play great together.

My vigor is due to a team that went out shooting while dealing with nagging personal injury and/or an absolute lack of enthusiasm for the topic. Sometimes it was because I prodded them, but mostly it was because no one wanted to let anyone else down, often coming back with an image that would count for that week. Folks spent significant time, and sometimes significant money learning something new so they could execute an idea for a challenge. Some even forfeited marital harmony when feathers were needed and only existed in a favorite pillow. We talked constantly, often right up until challenge submission.

So when you imply that wins were simply a matter of a team showing up you can be darn sure that I'm going to call you on it. My team is strong because our sum is greater than the individual parts. If we didn't have to actually play the games Peyton Manning would have more rings.

tate

Apple iPhone 15 Pro

07/28/2015 11:58:28 AM · #38

should we move this to the trash talk thread?

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

07/28/2015 12:10:07 PM · #39

Originally posted by tate:

should we move this to the trash talk thread?

Why bother - no one has talked trash for 4 weeks!! Just delete that one and rename this one. ;)

And just so I say it, I don't consider this trash talk. No one is chest thumping here. I'm simply defending my team's performance against ridiculous accusations from those born of the participation era.

Everyone knew going in that one team from each division would go on to the playoffs. That meant you needed to win 4 or 5 weeks to move on and some teams didn't just show up but they put up each and every time. Those that skipped a week can feel bad for themselves, but they have no one else to blame.

You don't get to change the rules at the end of the game unless you think this is still 2nd Grade. There should be no Double Jeopardy. You want to set up a Consolation Bracket, do it yourself on the side. There's no reason the folks here should put in more work when they've already put in the time setting up a season. And there's no reason a team should have to play a rematch when that was never a part of the game.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

07/28/2015 12:15:57 PM · #40

How about "Rant"? Done.

And there aren't gonna be any changes in the playoffs for this season.

If anyone wants evidence that a "stacked team" doesn't mean bupkes, look at "Smite Council II": We have Me, Paul, Tanguera, Nikon Jeb, bspurgeon, and Tiberius on board, all 6 of us with at least a ten ribbons to our credit, and I think we're ending up with a 2-3 record...

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/28/2015 12:19:28 PM · #41

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

you should have deflated the footballs.

ETA, sorry, wrong Richard sore loser thread...

Message edited by author 2015-07-28 12:20:38.

MAK

Leica M Monochrom

Leica 18-56mm f/3.5-5.6 Vario Elmar-T ASPH

07/28/2015 12:22:54 PM · #42

Stacked teams are a myth.

This season is built and sorted so I do get the fact that it won't change.
My team have worked bloody hard against a lot of difficulties including one member moving half way around the world to relocate, yet still we have submitted to every challenge and find ourselves top of our division.

I do not consider there to be any team that is stacked, we are all where we are on effort.

I will stick by what I said that I feel a better system is to have top 2 teams go to play-off but also understand that will not be happening this time, maybe for the future reference

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

07/28/2015 12:24:40 PM · #43

We were the highest seeded team (not that it was planned to be so), but I guess we didn't work together as well as the Hit Squad and we didn't sacrifice as much of our time, so we didn't win as many rounds. Would we like to play on? Certainly. Do we expect the rules to be changed. Certainly not.

Congrats to The Hit Squad for leading the tournament. Well deserved.

bohemka

Nikon D700

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

07/28/2015 12:33:12 PM · #44

The Underground was poised to make a run but we were undercut early on by a doping scandal.

tate

Apple iPhone 15 Pro

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

07/28/2015 01:03:14 PM · #45

I just noticed an update to that thread ...

Originally posted by backdoorhippie:

Originally posted by tate:
should we move this to the trash talk thread?

Why bother - no one has talked trash for 4 weeks!! Just delete that one and rename this one. ;)

Message edited by author 2015-07-28 13:04:07.

07/28/2015 01:11:21 PM · #46

Thanks, Oliver. It was a great 1st week match against you all - we truly sweat it out.

And please, so everyone knows, I am by no means commenting on any specifics for any other team. If someone didn't show up, they're the only ones that really know it. I know my folks did and it showed, in their work and in their contribution to others. Heck, I even got my first ever Top 20 in a Free Study because my "final edit" got sent back by my teammates 3 times before I wound up starting from scratch again. There's very little I can claim I "did on my own" during this competition.

And can I start a Rant about this getting moved to the Rant forum?! If those reading this see my words as a rant and not as an impassioned defense of my teammates I can provide them with sufficient examples of what a rant really looks like. ;)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/28/2015 01:28:07 PM · #47

Originally posted by tate:

I just noticed an update to that thread ...

Well, look at that!! ;)

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

07/28/2015 01:31:24 PM · #48

Originally posted by backdoorhippie:

And can I start a Rant about this getting moved to the Rant forum?! If those reading this see my words as a rant and not as an impassioned defense of my teammates I can provide them with sufficient examples of what a rant really looks like. ;)

Don't bother -- I don't think your posts were the trigger ...