congratulations to the 2013 player of the year,

[magratheazaphod]

David Gibson.

the current formula is not very good.

Comments

[nigelbo]

He played a tougher field, right? That makes at least a little bit of sense...

[magratheazaphod]

Naw, credit where credit is due - Gibson had a great tournament. My issue is that no matter what happens the rest of the year no one has any hope of catching him - see Kenji this year.

[sr_orangepants]

Yeah. At the very least have NSC be the last tournament for player of the year, but other tourneys should get more significant weight.

[crosstables]

Agreed. The field is wide open for a newer, better formula, and NOW's the time to do it! :-)

I like the current formula's method of counting only your 5 best tourneys. I like that it considers strength of field and margin of victory. It just seems a little too... exponential?

Gibson's PR was 2260 vs. Nigel's 2213, and that is a reasonable difference.

[bbstenniz]

you should get player of the year for the 2012 calendar year.

[magratheazaphod]

how about if robin finished top 10 or top 5?

[bbstenniz]

robin won two tourneys and got a second. you've won more (and got a second hehe).

[wordslinger_eh]

What is the formula?

[crosstables]

This is the gist of it:

http://meezerman.livejournal.com/2007/06/27/

[crosstables]

And again: SUGGESTIONS WELCOME. This is not a formula that anybody is absolutely wedded to.

[backhoeing]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I assumed that Gibson is ranked at the top for the same reason I assumed that Kenji was at the top after last year's Nationals. Both of them had the same win-loss performance as Nigel, but they played Nigel while he played them. So his higher rating helped them and their (relatively) lower ratings hurt him. It seems to me that a person's own rating ought to come into play, not just the ratings of his/her opponents.