Correct to Incorrect Ratio?

JHauck · Post by **JHauck** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:22 pm

Considering misses to be wrong answers that interrupt the question - what range of ratios of correct answers to misses do you consider to be in the optimum range? I have over the years considered anything from 4:1 to 10:1 to be ideal (It may sound strange but I don't think most of my players with better than 9 or 10 to one are fast enough or taking enough chances). Right now I preach a 7 or 8 to one ratio (though we don't always achieve that).

Jim Hauck
Heritage High School

insaneindian · Post by **insaneindian** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:22 pm

well, i guess this is the same thing as a TU/-5 ratio in NAQT.
I'd say anywhere from 4-10 like you said is good, although i think 5-8 would be ideal.

Observation: If you look at last years HSNCT, the range of TU/-5 of the top 5 individual scorers is 4.4 to 6.8

DrakeRQB · Post by **DrakeRQB** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:56 pm

My high school coach always said 6:1. I tell my team the same.

cvdwightw · Post by **cvdwightw** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:56 pm

It depends on the style of the team and its players. There will be some very aggresive players who will rack up 20 negs but get 60 to 80 tossups over a 10-game tournament. This is fine. I don't consider there to be an ideal tossup to miss/neg ratio for players averaging over 50 points a game, because if a player is negging a lot, he/she's also getting a boatload of tossups, and the bonus points gained on an aggressive buzz that's right is worth the risked loss on an aggressively wrong buzz.

For the 3rd or 4th scorers on the team (assuming you don't have a team where all 4 players are averaging quite a bit), you probably want a ratio over 6 or 8. If a player's scoring well by being aggressive, even if the tossup/neg ratio is below 4, I wouldn't do anything to try to decrease the aggressiveness leading to those negs.

insaneindian · Post by **insaneindian** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:01 pm

cvdwightw wrote:It depends on the style of the team and its players. There will be some very aggresive players who will rack up 20 negs but get 60 to 80 tossups over a 10-game tournament. This is fine. I don't consider there to be an ideal tossup to miss/neg ratio for players averaging over 50 points a game, because if a player is negging a lot, he/she's also getting a boatload of tossups, and the bonus points gained on an aggressive buzz that's right is worth the risked loss on an aggressively wrong buzz.

For the 3rd or 4th scorers on the team (assuming you don't have a team where all 4 players are averaging quite a bit), you probably want a ratio over 6 or 8. If a player's scoring well by being aggressive, even if the tossup/neg ratio is below 4, I wouldn't do anything to try to decrease the aggressiveness leading to those negs.

i was actually going to say this, but i had to go back upstairs to watch football

Tegan · Post by **Tegan** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 1:14 pm

I do things a bit differently, but I think I agree with what others are saying here about top players being at about 7:1 or better.

I count any miss (even if it is not an interrupt) as a miss. My #1 player this year is at about .730, but that includes a small number of misses after the question. My guess would be that he is closer to .750 or .760 if you throw those out.

My number 5 player is around.830, but that is with only about 40 total toss-ups in about that many matches this year. Again, if you throw out the "misses after the question", she is likely around .835-.840.

In terms of percents, that is probably about what it should be, though again, it means nothing without considering net production.

Howard · Post by **Howard** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:17 pm

I think this percentage can run even lower. If you have a very knowledgeable team, 3:2 should be enough to win as long as you get nearly all the initial buzzes. And I'm figuring at 3:2, you're being aggressive enough that you'll get the initial buzz in most cases.

Trevkeeper · Post by **Trevkeeper** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 4:58 pm

One thing I don't understand is when people count guesses after the question as "misses".

It's considered good strategy for someone to throw out a guess way after the question is over, because there is no penalty (at least at everything played in Illinois excluding Ultima). So, why then "penalize" the player by making their stats worse? Ideally, it wouldn't matter to the player because stats count for nothing, but all of us are a little interested in our stats. Anyways, why do it then? Why not just count negs/interrupts as the misses? This seems like a more fair/true way to evaluate a player, at least to me.

insaneindian · Post by **insaneindian** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 5:03 pm

Trevkeeper wrote:It's considered good strategy for someone to throw out a guess way after the question is over, because there is no penalty (at least at everything played in Illinois excluding Ultima). So, why then "penalize" the player by making their stats worse? Ideally, it wouldn't matter to the player because stats count for nothing, but all of us are a little interested in our stats. Anyways, why do it then? Why not just count negs/interrupts as the misses? This seems like a more fair/true way to evaluate a player, at least to me.

I agree, but sometimes the strategy can backfire. At

they asked a question about a matchup between two 300 win pitchers, and my brother (I was sitting out...grrr) guessed two pitchers he had heard of (He doesn't follow sports that closely, so he said Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez). Time would have been up, but a player on the other team (Matt from Holland Hall) had enough time to think and buzzed in with Clemens and Maddux.

Tegan · Post by **Tegan** » Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:06 pm

Trevkeeper wrote:One thing I don't understand is when people count guesses after the question as "misses".
<sic>
Anyways, why do it then? Why not just count negs/interrupts as the misses? This seems like a more fair/true way to evaluate a player, at least to me.

Because I am the meanest

, nastiest

, baddest

coach this side of Bourbonnais!

Actually, it was something I started doing, and probably shouldn't have, and by the time I started realizing "maybe you should stop it", I was coaching for three years...making the official record book a bit messy.

Eh....maybe next year......see a spike in percentage stats.....

Irreligion in Bangladesh · Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:21 am

Not all non-interrupt incorrects are screwed up equally. There are differences between "the question just ended a microsecond ago, I'm gonna buzz in 'cause I think I know it," "the question has been dead for two seconds, and I'm gonna buzz in with a slightly educated guess," and "this sucka's sat for nine and a half seconds, and if I don't buzz in with an attempt at a guess, Egan's going to disembowel me with a pencil and electroshock my remains into rigor mortis with the buzzer wire." Stats can be represented accordingly for the anal-retentive statisticians, perhaps with an X for cause 1, checkmark for cause 2, and dash for cause three. Causes one and two could perhaps be combined somehow, or the like. I've personally "yelled" at teammates who keep stats for marking me off on dead-TU attempts. :)

brownboy79 · Post by **brownboy79** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:19 pm

I think the system is overrated. I tend to be one of the more agressive players on our team and I would give my average to be about 5:1 (IMO mediocre, as my teammates endlessly remind me). But, it's just as important to consider power:neg ratio. The better players at NAQT are all above 1:1 and some are above 3:1. You need to change your style if: 1)It doesn't fit with the rest of the team OR 2)It doesn't suit you*

*The highest scoring player is generally the most agressive on the team, and for that reason, should pick up the most negs. So, if I was the 3rd or 4th scorer on my team, my ratio would be far too low.

Along with the rest of the topic, in Kentucky we play 5 seconds for tossups. If the buzz is more than 2 seconds after the question (excluding math) it should not be counted as a neg. JMO

Tegan · Post by **Tegan** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:24 am

styxman wrote:Stats can be represented accordingly for the anal-retentive statisticians, perhaps with an X for cause 1, checkmark for cause 2, and dash for cause three.

Actually, I use the "X", red "X", scrathed through the paper "X", and for a player who rings in on a rebound before the question is done: the skull and crossbones.

Trevkeeper · Post by **Trevkeeper** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:10 pm

Tegan wrote:
styxman wrote:Stats can be represented accordingly for the anal-retentive statisticians, perhaps with an X for cause 1, checkmark for cause 2, and dash for cause three.
Actually, I use the "X", red "X", scrathed through the paper "X", and for a player who rings in on a rebound before the question is done: the skull and crossbones.

Maybe we should only allow 5 points for a correct answer during the question if the other team has already buzzed in incorrectly. That'll teach those sandbaggers!

suds1000 · Post by **suds1000** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 4:01 pm

Keeping track of misses after the completion of a question is useless, unless you're trying to determine a PPBz (points per buzz) figure for yourself. Missing a tossup at the end or on a vulture results in no penalty and obviously in no way affects the score (at least, not in most formats), and individual stats are really only important in determining top scorers, generalized team dynamic, and keeping track of the progress of the game score in conjunction with bonus conversion. Therefore, recording misses at the end is a waste of time and energy.

--Sudheer