Posted by willsauve on 2/22/2015 6:52:00 PM (view original):
I just spent an hour looking through worlds with openings and I'm not sure if there is a world with openings worth joining right now... 

That's not surprising.  "Good" worlds are filled before they roll. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/22/2015 6:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by frymaster99 on 2/22/2015 5:27:00 PM (view original):
Uecker.

Normally, in order to avoid a ******* match, I'd let this go.

You've got two teams racing to the bottom and one of them has won less than 40 in 2 of the last three seasons.

Clean that **** up before touting your world as "good". 

And if those owners fail to meet the MWR, they'll be replaced by an owner who can.

For the second straight season, (the two seasons since I took over as commish, after we ended up going public the season before), Cal Ripken will be starting within 24 hours of rollover.  We have a MWR and a friendly atmosphere among all owners.  Not sure if any of that qualifies us as a "good world" or not, but our owners definitely enjoy it and I consider it worth my time and effort to make sure we have almost no turnover time, for what that's worth.

Just started going through some of the worlds and using a formula ranking parity, turnover and wait time between seasons.
I guess I will try to post all of them once I finish, but it is very time consuming.
I was only able to get through 25 today. (I'd take volunteers to help with data gathering...)

Anyway, I found two worlds who were in the same ballpark as the few I mentioned earlier. These two were:

Big Sky Alumni
Lasorda

Thought I owed them a shout-out since they both ranked better than at least one of the 6 worlds I posted already.

What data do u need gathered?

FWIW, I don't see a little turnover as a bad thing.   If you constantly replace 5-6 owners, something is amiss.   But losing 1-2 isn't the end of the world.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2015 10:07:00 AM (view original):
FWIW, I don't see a little turnover as a bad thing.   If you constantly replace 5-6 owners, something is amiss.   But losing 1-2 isn't the end of the world.

The way I set up my formula was by taking the best at each category and using that world as a baseline for that category. All other worlds are given points based on their deviance from the baseline. In this system a low score is more desirable. Best case scenario if the world was the best in every category they would have a score of 0.

I am only looking at the last 4 seasons, because frankly anything beyond that is far less relevant.

Moonlight Graham and Cooperstown are 1-2 so far.

Moonlight Graham is amazing in that over the last 4 seasons 27 of the 32 franchises have made the post season. The next best so far is only 23 with most worlds hovering around 21-22 or so.

TheMLB is the baseline for "average wait time between seasons". They ran 4 seasons in 363 days. Hopkinsheel's other two worlds were both at 364. Moonlight and Cooperstown were both @ 365 IIRC.

I also take into account "extreme teams" getting a count on 100 win and loss teams. as well as most single season wins and losses during the 4 seasons.

MG or Coop, had a high loss mark of only 102. That means the #1 pick went to a 60 win team or better every season. Those kinds of numbers are what I think make for a competitve world as well as a well run world (as far as turnover and wait time).

Anyway I have a couple volunteers so hopefully I will be able to post the complete list fairly soon.

Looking forward to seeing the results

Me too

JACKIE ROBINSON.

Posted by a_ersberg on 2/23/2015 1:18:00 PM (view original):
JACKIE ROBINSON.

Wasn't he that black dude who played baseball or something?

Having a written world rule doesn't mean it's enforced. Or will still be there tomorrow.  Been there. WIS doesn't care in either case.

I like the data you're trying to gather.  Seems to be picking up many of the factors that can be measured that make for good HBD rules.

"Friendly / Active world chat" doesn't lend itself to much statistical analysis.  Some people would rather peace and mostly quiet in WC, even if an experienced GM is ripping off a new one in a deal. Better to let that happen than to have "drama". Some would rather a lot of activity, even if it's a stream of name calling and profanity.

An overall ranking is going to be arbitrary.  Someone might value a world where many different teams have made the playoffs the past 4-6 season. Someone might look for a world without any teams that have averaged 110+ wins for 10 seasons.  Someone might want a world where tankers are removed before they can benefit from it. Someone else just wants to play, so low turnover / quick rollover is most important.

Not sure you know the meaning of "arbitrary".    He's picking pretty specific categories, and spelling them out, and using that to form his rankings.

Now his rankings may not mean a lot to someone seeking a "Friendly/Active chat" but they aren't arbitrary.

They will be subjective, which I think he meant.

If you like worlds that have lively chat you can find that easy enough by looking on their chat page.

While I suppose any set of criteria would be "subjective" to some degree, I would welcome ideas on what sort of data I might be neglecting to include.

I mean if you're opinion of a great world is one that has had the same 4 teams meeting in the WS every season winning 120 while several other teams are "rebuilding" by winning less than 50 and you like to wait 4-6 months between seasons while you find replacements for 10-12 owners then the data I will present will still be useful in finding such a world.

In all honesty long wait times will drag a world down in my system because it is such a wide range between the baseline and some worlds out there who have had over 100 days down time over their last 4 seasons. Perhaps that's an example of why it won't be perfect by any means.

When it is all said and done I will present, in addition to my OVR rankings, individual rankings by category so that if you value rollover time over parity, for example, you may look at that list instead,