2015 BallOfSpray Pro Men Skier Ranking List

[Horton]

Rank	Skier	Event %	Score %	Combined %
1	Smith Nate	100.00	96.55	98.28
2	Winter Frederick	96.55	93.10	94.83
3	Parrish Chris	86.21	100.00	93.10
4	Asher William	93.10	89.66	91.38
5	Howley Joel	89.66	86.21	87.93
6	Degasperi Thomas	82.76	79.31	81.03
7	McClintock Jason	79.31	79.31	79.31
8	Travers Jonathan	75.86	79.31	77.59
9	Vaughn Corey	62.07	82.76	72.41
10	Bartalsky Martin	68.97	62.07	65.52
10	Wilson K.C.	65.52	65.52	65.52
12	Odvarko Daniel	58.62	68.97	63.79
13	Sedlmajer Adam	72.41	51.72	62.07
14	Detrick Brian	51.72	62.07	56.90
15	Allais Carlo	55.17	41.38	48.28
16	Stadlbaur Benjamin	48.28	44.83	46.55
16	Neveu Stephen	44.83	48.28	46.55
18	Winter Terry	24.14	55.17	39.66
19	Adams Nicholas	34.48	41.38	37.93
20	Napolitano Davide	31.03	41.38	36.21
21	Ambrosi Sandro	41.38	17.24	29.31
21	Pigozzi Robert	37.93	20.69	29.31
23	Finlayson Trent	13.79	41.38	27.59
23	Luzzeri Matteo	27.59	27.59	27.59
25	Brantley Tom	20.69	24.14	22.41
26	Kolman Martin	17.24	10.34	13.79
27	Yager Tyler	3.45	17.24	10.34
28	Efverstrom Johan	6.90	6.90	6.90
28	Parsons Nick	10.34	3.45	6.90

 

---

 

The task of creating this list is mostly about filtering and sorting Event Placements and Event Scores. The source data is the IWWF World Rankings list and the results from any Pro Events during the same period of time.

Process:

1) Find all Pro Events during the IWWF October Ranking List Calendar Year. Men's Events need 12 or more entrees and Women's Events need 10 or more entrees to make the list. The US Masters is the only exception. The World Championships is the only amateur event used.

2) Find all skiers who skied in 3 or more of the Pro events. The result is 29 skiers for the men.

3) For each event assign each skier a Placement Score based on the skiers placement. See notes for formula*.

4) Find the 3 highest Placement Scores per skier and add them together for a Cumulative Placement Score. Sort the skiers by Cumulative Placement Score to create the ranking. This is the first half of the data set.

5) Find the 3 highest buoy count scores per skier from all L/R tournaments. Only the highest round per skier per tournament is taken.

6) Add the 3 scores together to create a Cumulative Buoy Count Score. Sort the skiers by Cumulative Buoy Count Score to create the ranking.

7) Once the two lists are sorted by their respective scores the supporting data is set aside. What remains are two ranking lists. One list created by the sum of 3 tournament scores and another created by the sum of the 3 best placement scores.

8) The same formula* used to create the Placement list is applied to both the tournament scores and placement scores ranking lists.

9) The average of Tournament Scores and Placement Scores Rankings is the skier's final ranking score.

10) The skiers are sorted once again based on this score and given their final placement.

Notes:

*Ranking Score Formula per event

=100-(100*(placement-1)/number of skiers in event) = Ranking Percentile

Events Used

Moomba Masters
US Masters

Swiss Pro

Malibu Cup

SanG ProAm

Mailbu Open

Cali ProAm

US Open

World Champ

 

[Horton]

For the record @MattP did 99.99% of the hard work to make this happen again this year. If you think this is cool thank him.

[Than_Bogan]

Boy does that produce a satisfying list.

 

Great work @MattP (and @Horton)!

[Wish]

Will there be one for then ladies? Nice work!

[Horton]

@wish Yes the ladies list will come out in a week.

 

 

[Horton]

Fun part of doing these lists is really looking at all the data. Freak'n Parrish ran 1.5 at 43 off 4 different times last year and Smith did it only once but Smith won every event he entered. Who is really the better skier? In imperfect tournament conditions Smith is king but in terms of pure ball count Parrish was the winner last year.

 

Also.... "Winter is coming"

 

[Horton]

The reason we started this list last year is that I personally believe the Elite list is a flawed model. I hope the skiers look at this method as a possible alternative to the current method.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Thanks Matt!

 

I know there is lots of data and many ways to slice it. However, one thing that isn't clear is how the % relate to actual scores or actual performances. i.e. is the #29 skier 3 buoys (on average) behind the leader or 2 passes?

 

Maybe add a column for sum of placement at 3 events (perfect score of 3) low score is better?

 

Just trying to find more work for you!

[Horton]

@Bruce_Butterfield It is all placement/ranking. For CP as an example - we took his 3 scores of 1.5 @ 43 (73.5 balls I think) and added them up. The sum of his 3 best scores gave him the highest 3 score average earned him a 100.

 

So we used =100-(100*(placement-1)/number of skiers in event) = Ranking Percentile for both sub lists.

[MattP]

@Bruce_Butterfield we created the percentile system because buoy scores from event to event are not comparable directly due to conditions ect. So the percentile is given for each event based on the number of skiers in attendance at each event. Coming in third at the San Gervasio ProAm (12 skiers) was a percentile of 83.33 compared to coming in third at Worlds was worth 96.77 (62 skiers) and third at Masters( 8 skiers) was worth 75. The more skiers in attendance created more competition thus weighting events with more skiers worth more. Just using placement of 3rd place for each event would allow the events with less skiers/ competition to be equally weighted across the board.

 

Does that help at all?

[MattP]

@Horton small correction in your previous statement. Smith did not win EVERY event he entered. He did get 3rd at the Swiss Pro behind Freddy & Parrish, but besides that yes he won lots.

[Stathis Ventouris]

Very interesting. As with Nate's 2015 top 3 scores being lower than Chris ones, I am a bit puzzled as if not mistaken Nate in his last tournament of the season tied his world record 2,5@43.

[Horton]

@Stathis Ventouris Nate as one score of 1.5 at 43 and a bunch of scores of 1. We took his top 3 scores. CP had more than 4 scores of 1.5 so his 3 score average is higher.

 

I think that socre of Nate's was after the cut off for the current year IWSF data set (@MattP please confirm this point)

[MattP]

@Horton @Stathis Ventouris

Nate's 2.5@43 took place on 11-7-15. That is after the cut off for the October IWWF List. Nate actually did not have a great year when it came to scores. He only got past 1@43 twice in the past year or longer. CP did it around 6 times.

[ToddL]

So, when you view the BOS list, it just looks right. No drama. High validity. The guys on top are on top. The guys who are close in rank are, well, close. That's a testament to the methodology used.

[B_S]

BOS List - I know BS, and this is NO BS!!!

[Horton]

@B_S thanks. Last year Matt and I spend a LOT of time thinking about how to do this. I have a sneaking suspicion that some Baller gave us the idea for the solution but I do not exactly recall so I will take credit :smile:

 

This year it was pretty easy. Matt complied the data and I checked it and made a tweak or two and then he found my mistakes (repeat a few times) and we were done. Luckily the IWSF data is a lot cleaner than it was just a year ago.

 

I think the athletes need a better official ranking. Even if this is not the ultimate solution I firmly believe it is better than the Elite list.

[Adam Caldwell]

@Horton, am I reading it right that you have to actually ski tournaments to make the list?

[Chef23]

Thanks for the work I would say the list passes the sniff test the top guys seem to be the right guys and in the right order.

[Garn]

No Rossi?

[markchilcutt]

@Garn Rossi retired from pro skiing last year.

[chris55]

Great work, really accurate and "real". Thank you to @MattP and @Horton

[Horton]

	BallOfSpray			Elite
1	Smith Nate		1	Smith Nate
2	Winter Frederick		2	Winter Frederick
3	Parrish Chris		3	Asher William
4	Asher William		4	Degasperi Thomas
5	Howley Joel		5	Howley Joel
6	Degasperi Thomas		6	Parrish Chirs
7	McClintock Jason		7	Odvarko Daniel
8	Travers Jonathan		8	McClintock Jason
9	Vaughn Corey		9	Travers Jonathan
10	Bartalsky Martin		10	Detrick Brian
10	Wilson K.C.		11	Sedlmajer Adam
12	Odvarko Daniel		12	Vaughn Corey
13	Sedlmajer Adam		13	Allais Carlo
14	Detrick Brian		14	Wilson K.C.
15	Allais Carlo		15	Bartalsky Martin
16	Stadlbaur Benjamin		16	Ronkko Pietari
16	Neveu Stephen		17	Pigozzi Robert
18	Winter Terry		18	Stadlbaur Benjamin
19	Adams Nicholas		19	Adams Nicholas
20	Napolitano Davide		20	Burdick Cale
21	Ambrosi Sandro		21	Neveu Stephen
21	Pigozzi Robert		22	Napolitano Davide
23	Finlayson Trent		23	Luzzeri Matteo
23	Luzzeri Matteo		24	Ambrosi Sandro
25	Brantley Tom		25	Caruso Brando
26	Kolman Martin		26	Julio Javier
27	Yager Tyler		27	Brantley Tom
28	Efverstrom Johan		28	Winter Terry
28	Parsons Nick		29	Campbell Glenn
			30	Hayden Diehl
			31	Finlayson Trent
			32	Miranda Felipe
			33	Collot Jeremie
			34	Efverstrom Johan
			35	Koleman Martin
			36	Garcia Taylor
			37	Correa Santiago
			37	Morros Peyri IVan
			37	Parsons Nick
			40	Mapple Andy
			41	Spinelli Luca
			42	Schultz-Soren Victor
			43	Dailland Thibaut
			44	Wing Joel
			45	Yager Tyler
			46	Morgan Mike
			47	Wingerter Dave
			48	Nathanail Yiannis
			49	Dailland Tanguy

[Horton]

The above post shows a comparison between the IWSF Elite list and the Baller list. I understand that that the idea of the Elite list was a good one when it was designed. The fact that there are no longer any World Cup stops kills about 90% of my original objection to the Elite method but I still question the weighting based on prize money.

 

Why do we care? First of all the Elite is list defines most of the entries to the Masters. Since the Masters is the most exclusive event every year this is a big deal.

 

In some countries an athlete may get funds depending on the Elite list. In years past this was true - I am not sure if this is still the case.

 

 

[Than_Bogan]

Huh. This year's elite list seems less wrong than I remember from the past.

[Horton]

@Than_Bogan as the World Cup has failed the method for the Elite list is less wrong. It is too bad that the World Cup was such a cluster but it for sure skewed the Elite list.

[Freddie Winter]

Weighting on prize money does seem kind of ridiculous. One big money event out in the middle of nowhere with shocking skiing conditions and a winning score at 35off would totally skew the whole list. An equal weighting would make much more sense to me, as in Formula 1. If some tournaments really do need to be more heavily weighted in terms of points it should be based on how distinguished the tournament is (Masters, Worlds) or how long it has been running.

[MattP]

@FWinter when we were originally designing the system last year I know @Horton and I tossed around the idea of weighting a tournament like Masters more but moved away from that idea in the end to make all things equal. If you have any suggestions or ideas to improve our current systems I would be all ears.