Want to know what's going on across the derby world? Check out our new calendar.
login | register
Enter your Derby News Network username.
Enter the password that accompanies your username.

you forgot it?!?

#16 Detroit Overtakes #24 Steel City, 158-157

Steel City's Steel Hurtin' ventured to Detroit on Saturday, and in a wild finish, the Detroit Derby Girls came from behind in the game's final jam to take a 158-157 victory.

Detroit had a 24-13 edge in lead jammers out of the game's 40 jams, but what very nearly did Detroit in was the fact they lost their jammer to the box nine times to only three times for Steel City. Steel City outscored Detroit 116-24 in the 11 jams in which a Detroit jammer spent at least part of a jam in the box; Detroit outscored Steel City 40-14 in the four jams in which an SC jammer spent some time in the box. In the other jams in which both teams had their jammer on the track for the entire jam, Detroit held the scoring edge 110-41.

After Racer McChaseHer skated Detroit into a 4-0 lead in the game's opening jam, Steel City's Hard Times came back with a 20-0 power jam in jam two. After that, Detroit's defense pretty much held the visitors in check, blanking the Steel Hurtin' in 13 of the final 20 jams of the half. Detroit held an 82-37 lead, but then in the final jam before the intermission SC's Leannibal Lecter outscored Detroit's Roxanna Hardplace 14-5 in a jam in which both jammers spent time in the penalty box. At the half, Detroit led 87-51.

Detroit's Ally Sin Shoverland opened the 2nd half with a 15-0 power jam with Steel City jammer Leannibal Lecter starting the jam in the box. Detroit then began jammer penalty trouble in jams four and five with their jammers Ally Sin Shoverland and aNOMaly getting whistled off, and SCDD's River Kyx and 'Snot Rocket Science took advantage with 5-0 and 20-0 jams, respectively, to cut the Detroit lead to 104-76.

The Steel Hurtin's 'Snot Rocket Science contributed a 14-9 jam 9 win over Detroit's Roxanna Hardplace, and then in jams 12 and 13 Steel City's Leannibal Lecter and 'Snot Rocket Science skated to 15-0 and 12-0 power jam wins to swing the Hurtin' into the lead at 132-126. Detroit's Racer McChaseHer struck back with a 15-2 win in jam 15 to put Detroit back on top 141-137. Then Leannibal Lecter took advantage of Detroit's jammer, Feta Sleeze, getting boxed in jam 16 to win the jam by a 16-4 count, so SC again led, 153-145.

Detroit started jam 17 with 2 blockers in the box, but their on-track blockers, boo d. livers and Roxanna Hardplace, held back SC's jammer 'Snot Rocket Science long enough for Detroit's jammer Ally Sin Shoverland to get lead and score a 3-0 jam win before calling off the jam. SC still led 153-148.

Detroit then lined up Racer McChaseHer against Hard Times for the game's final jam. Detroit had blocker Bruisie Siouxxx in the box, but their on-track blockers Spanish Ass'assin, Feta Sleeze, and Fatal Femme did an outstanding job of trapping Hard Times in the pack. Racer McChaseHer got through the pack but didn't have lead, then went on to 4-0 and 5-0 scoring passes to put Detroit in the lead. Hard Times eventually got through the pack but also did not get lead, so the jam went a full two minutes. Detroit's Bruisie Siouxxx returned to the track, but they then lost Fatal Femme to the box. Steel City also had Ally McKill sent off.

Finally, SC's Hard Times made it through the pack for four points as time expired, and it looked as if the game was tied at 157-157, but Racer McChaseHer also earned a single point on her third scoring pass, thus giving the victory to Detroit by a 158-157 margin. The game was held up while the scorekeepers furiously counted and recounted the points totals for the 2nd half while the zebras huddled to make sure that all points in that last jam were reported properly. Both teams put lineups on the track while waiting to see if there was going to be an overtime jam or not, but after about 10 minutes the game was declared a victory for Detroit.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

One More Stat

To punctuate this recap, here's what my Game Points calculator says the 'real' score was:
Detroit: 257
Steel City: 277

Target Ranking Points?

And where do they come from?

Mouseover

The mouseover says the following:

"Points earned by tying a team with the same ranking as itself. Sort of an arbitrary over/under."

Well that's new ...

Well that's new since I made the post.

Re: Well that's new ...

Nope, the popup explanation has been there since I created the cell back in January. I did edit down the text slightly yesterday, but the it must've just been a hiccup in the cloud if it didn't show it to you.

Ranking points and scores...

Are two different things. I think what you're saying is that Steel City came out better from a ranking-point standpoint because they played above expectation in this game. Yep, which is exactly how the calculator is supposed to work. But let's not obscure the ranking system more by mixing our scores and ranking points.

Obscure ... by mixing?

Scores generate ranking points, ranking points determine who goes to a tournament and who doesn't, and what seating they get at that tournament. Scores and ranking points can not be separated.

Obscure...

by using the same word "score" for thee very different things - the game score, the ranking points earned, and the "game points" as generated by funneling the score through a relative strength calculation. I understand how they are related, but I think that the "game points generator" thing is (an interesting, fun and) confusing extrapolation of simple score. Score's a score, then there's other stuff. So we'll call other things by their own names, is all I'm saying.

Re: Ranking points and scores...

Muffin, I actually felt this way at first, when I saw folks bandying about Game Point 'scores' of specific games. But I've come to feel that comparing GPs this way is no more nonsensical than comparing the final scoreboard points. In certain senses, each is abstracted silliness, and in others, critical info.

Basically, after games like this, I think both teams should have the ammo to celebrate the 'win' at the afterparty. :-)

I like the idea for giggles,

I like the idea for giggles, but it assumes that the relative strength assigned by the calculator is as valid as the points scored in the game which actually took place, and that simply aint so. The calculator is flawed (as I'm sure Texas and many others would argue), in its first calibration cycle, and lacks context. There's a Score (a thing that actually happened) and the "game points" (the thing that actually happened fed through a porous, though not useless mathematical model). As long as that caveat is well understood, I'm all for nerd fodder at after-parties.

Quoting Southbay from below: "without knowing the team's current game point average we don't know what any game means."

We are missing big chunks of the information needed to make meaningful maths occur.

Speaking of this

Did WFTDA release the actual rating of each team (as in their point value) anywhere? Are they going to? The rankings on their website just show their ranking.

No, they have not

They have not. I have heard a rumour that it is planned, but have not been able to confirm it yet.

Confirmation

from https://www.facebook.com/wftda/posts/140011792840827?comment_id=195653

David Hayden: [...] I would also like to third the request that the RPAs be released. I think this is very important for transparency, and to allow folks to understand the impact of their wins and losses in advance of the next ranking release.

WFTDA: Hi! We will be adding the points to the rankings shortly.

Thanks!

This is most useful.

As has been pointed out above, the current point scores don't actually give useful context.

What we need for context is ALL the ranking and rating information for each of the past 12 months. We would also need the ranking / rating information to be released on a monthly basis; this is how it is calculated internally, but not how it's going to be published.

What we really know is nothing

Although the spreadsheet calculates the game points correctly, we lack the context to evaluate these game points. Ranking is determined by a moving 12 month average of game points, without that 12 month average we don't know if a team met their average, improved on it or fell below it.

Games have different worth depending on who plays in them, the higher the ranking the most valuable the game, the lower the ranking the less valuable. The results of a game may be an improvement to both teams or a detriment to both teams, the loser may gain and the winner may fail, or the more likely the winner gaining and the loser losing. But without knowing the team's current game point average we don't know what any game means.

That brings us to the bookkeeping area of the ranking, or what I like to call the 'aging out' of games. What games age out affect ranking just as much as the result of games just played. A good game aging out, good meaning more points than current average, will lower your average and the aging out of a poor game will improve your average, and the aging out of an average game will have no effect.

And what do we know about these past games? Well, we can go to FTS and look at teams past games and hope that FTS has the correct scores and whether the games it has listed are all of the team's sanctioned games. But there is no official source, so you can't be sure.

So when your team plays a game, or anybody else for that matter, you don't know whether that game helped the team or hurt it. And then there's the disappearing past that could be helping the team or hurting it at the same time. So what do we know? It's like having only half of someone's phone number, you can't make the call.