Monday, March 12, 2007
Two for Eighteen, BABY!
In the summer of 1997, I played in my first two leagues - DC "competitive" league and DC "corporate" league. The corporate league playoffs were first, and my team (Bethesda-Chevy Chase Alumni, a high school that I didn't attend) won the championship. One league, one championship. This stuff is easy! My team was eliminated in the quarterfinals of the 20-team competitive league the next weekend, but still, one for two wasn't bad. (Coincidentally, these were the last two league teams I played on for which I wasn't good enough to be a starter. At least, I'd like to think that's a coincidence.)
Fast forward to yesterday. I was working on a 0-16 streak of winning league titles, dating back to 1997, and stretching across leagues all over this great nation of ours. My team was the sixth seed of eight teams in Denver's winter outdoor league. The league was played at night on fieldturf under the lights, but for the tournament we were blessed with a calm, sunny Denver spring day. In the first game, we threw zone on the three seed and jumped out to a 4-0 lead before our opponent's captain (a former IU and Union Crew guy) showed up. His handling along with that of the other club vets (including the only Johnny Bravo player in the league) proved to be too much for our zone, and we ended up giving up the lead by halftime, 7-6. But we switched to man and went on another run to take the game by two at the cap.
Semifinals pitted our heroes against the two seed, another team with a pair of talented players - this time, the only two male players that Bad Larry had added to their roster in fall 2006. Again, we got a quick 4-0 lead with the zone, but this time, we were wise enough to switch to man as soon as the other team called time out to collect themselves. They tried a zone of their own, but only a fool thinks they can trap me on the line. We coasted with the lead and ended up winning by two after allowing a late mini-run.
Finals were against the four seed, which had ousted the hated top seed in the semifinals. (I say "hated" because the top seed was a bunch of fast but lesser-skilled players who played huck-and-zone all the time, and I would have found it galling if that style had won the league.) Once again, our opponents had a pair of extremely talented male players - probably the best high school player in the city, and fellow Brown alum (and O-team player for the 2005 champs) Reid Hopkins. They also had the high school player's twin sister, who was one of the top women in the league. Unlike the rest of the league games, the finals were played on a full width field, which we discovered made our zone fairly useless. We discovered this by spotting our opponents a 5-2 lead. We embraced the wide-open spaces and big throws (not much of a stretch for me) and quickly climbed back, taking half 8-7. From there out it was a tight game with its share of crowd-pleasing big plays, and the bad guys had a lead as late as 10-9, but we managed to make a few more big throws work and won by two.
Championship! Two for eighteen, baby.
Although my overall record in league play is well over 500, championships have eluded me. What made this one different? Well, a couple things. The most obvious is that I had two really top notch teammates: Dan "Pokey" Hunt, a Mamabird vet who plays on Boulder's Boomslang, and Jesse Burnette, a 6'6" former Midwest college player who has played club in the area as well. As I mentioned, those other teams had pairs of club-level men, but we always had a mismatch at at least one spot when we put our best lines out. Throw in one other tall club vet and we had the top matchups on our side.
On the other end of the roster, our captain (Jesse) had used his lower picks on a bunch of athletic guys he knew who had basically never played ultimate before. While none of them learned a good flick by season's end, all had learned to catch and dump and how to play a couple positions in a zone. Even if their skills didn't dramatically improve, their decision making did, and that made all the difference.
All the teams we played probably had at least one woman who could beat the coverage of any of our women, but the (not unfortunate for us, but unfortunate in general) fact of the matter is that at the league level, particularly in a 5-2 gender ratio league, having the best women is a luxury, not a necessity. (This is why I think Denver's spring league has made a great choice by including a men's league. Not only could the men's league be great, but the diversion of male players will probably allow the mixed divisions to both use a 4/3 ratio, which makes the women matter a lot more.) When the chips were down, our long game overcame our shortcomings.
To a degree, how successful a league team is depends on how clear-eyed that team is at evaluating its talents and picking the best strategy. The team that had the best regular season record (the fast but lower skilled huck-and-zone team) may have been annoying to play against, but the fact is, they were probably the most strategically optimal team in the league, and this nearly overcame their lack of club players.
Sometimes league presents me with a moral quandary: do I throw underneath to a player who might drop the disc, makes bad throwing choices, and doesn't dump very well? Or do I just put the disc in the endzone and hope for the best? The second is the maximum-likelihood scoring choice, but if you make that choice every time, you will not be very popular (unless your team is unusually rational about these things). Of course, sometimes you have the better "wait for one of the top players to get open" choice, but not always. On this team I generally slanted toward throwing underneath during the regular season and switched a bit toward the more selfish/rational choices yesterday. Things seemed to work out fine.
Fast forward to yesterday. I was working on a 0-16 streak of winning league titles, dating back to 1997, and stretching across leagues all over this great nation of ours. My team was the sixth seed of eight teams in Denver's winter outdoor league. The league was played at night on fieldturf under the lights, but for the tournament we were blessed with a calm, sunny Denver spring day. In the first game, we threw zone on the three seed and jumped out to a 4-0 lead before our opponent's captain (a former IU and Union Crew guy) showed up. His handling along with that of the other club vets (including the only Johnny Bravo player in the league) proved to be too much for our zone, and we ended up giving up the lead by halftime, 7-6. But we switched to man and went on another run to take the game by two at the cap.
Semifinals pitted our heroes against the two seed, another team with a pair of talented players - this time, the only two male players that Bad Larry had added to their roster in fall 2006. Again, we got a quick 4-0 lead with the zone, but this time, we were wise enough to switch to man as soon as the other team called time out to collect themselves. They tried a zone of their own, but only a fool thinks they can trap me on the line. We coasted with the lead and ended up winning by two after allowing a late mini-run.
Finals were against the four seed, which had ousted the hated top seed in the semifinals. (I say "hated" because the top seed was a bunch of fast but lesser-skilled players who played huck-and-zone all the time, and I would have found it galling if that style had won the league.) Once again, our opponents had a pair of extremely talented male players - probably the best high school player in the city, and fellow Brown alum (and O-team player for the 2005 champs) Reid Hopkins. They also had the high school player's twin sister, who was one of the top women in the league. Unlike the rest of the league games, the finals were played on a full width field, which we discovered made our zone fairly useless. We discovered this by spotting our opponents a 5-2 lead. We embraced the wide-open spaces and big throws (not much of a stretch for me) and quickly climbed back, taking half 8-7. From there out it was a tight game with its share of crowd-pleasing big plays, and the bad guys had a lead as late as 10-9, but we managed to make a few more big throws work and won by two.
Championship! Two for eighteen, baby.
Although my overall record in league play is well over 500, championships have eluded me. What made this one different? Well, a couple things. The most obvious is that I had two really top notch teammates: Dan "Pokey" Hunt, a Mamabird vet who plays on Boulder's Boomslang, and Jesse Burnette, a 6'6" former Midwest college player who has played club in the area as well. As I mentioned, those other teams had pairs of club-level men, but we always had a mismatch at at least one spot when we put our best lines out. Throw in one other tall club vet and we had the top matchups on our side.
On the other end of the roster, our captain (Jesse) had used his lower picks on a bunch of athletic guys he knew who had basically never played ultimate before. While none of them learned a good flick by season's end, all had learned to catch and dump and how to play a couple positions in a zone. Even if their skills didn't dramatically improve, their decision making did, and that made all the difference.
All the teams we played probably had at least one woman who could beat the coverage of any of our women, but the (not unfortunate for us, but unfortunate in general) fact of the matter is that at the league level, particularly in a 5-2 gender ratio league, having the best women is a luxury, not a necessity. (This is why I think Denver's spring league has made a great choice by including a men's league. Not only could the men's league be great, but the diversion of male players will probably allow the mixed divisions to both use a 4/3 ratio, which makes the women matter a lot more.) When the chips were down, our long game overcame our shortcomings.
To a degree, how successful a league team is depends on how clear-eyed that team is at evaluating its talents and picking the best strategy. The team that had the best regular season record (the fast but lower skilled huck-and-zone team) may have been annoying to play against, but the fact is, they were probably the most strategically optimal team in the league, and this nearly overcame their lack of club players.
Sometimes league presents me with a moral quandary: do I throw underneath to a player who might drop the disc, makes bad throwing choices, and doesn't dump very well? Or do I just put the disc in the endzone and hope for the best? The second is the maximum-likelihood scoring choice, but if you make that choice every time, you will not be very popular (unless your team is unusually rational about these things). Of course, sometimes you have the better "wait for one of the top players to get open" choice, but not always. On this team I generally slanted toward throwing underneath during the regular season and switched a bit toward the more selfish/rational choices yesterday. Things seemed to work out fine.
# posted by Tarr : 3/12/2007 12:21:00 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Congrats on the league win. I don't know that I've ever won a league (0-8). I do know that I'm over .500 in league play (47-29-0 in Chicago league play).
I just posted an entry on my blog a few days back regarding the Chicago League moving to 4/3. Unlike the Denver league they aren't opening up a men's league, instead everyone signs up for the 4/3 league, and any overflow men get sent over to a men's league. It should be interesting to see how it plays out.
I just posted an entry on my blog a few days back regarding the Chicago League moving to 4/3. Unlike the Denver league they aren't opening up a men's league, instead everyone signs up for the 4/3 league, and any overflow men get sent over to a men's league. It should be interesting to see how it plays out.
you should check out the convoluted seniority rules at www.wudi.org (http://wudi.org/wudi/wsl/wsl_draftleague_split.cfm)
crazy stuff.
crazy stuff.
I think more leagues are going to go to the "4/3 with an open league as overflow" model. I think it just makes sense. Denver is still making both leages stand alone, side-by-side, but I would not be surprised to see them go this route in time.
5/2 is just an inferior version of mixed play. The women can easily be ignored and often are, which benefits neither the men nor (obviously) the women. Consider the following two options for a league:
1) 20 mixed teams, with about 12 guys and 3 women each, playing 5/2.
2) Two leagues: 10 mixed teams with 9 guys and 6 women each, playing 4/3, and 12 open teams with 12 or 13 guys each. Most men in the mixed league are baggage, with the rest decided by draft/lottery/whatever.
Which setup serves its membership better? Which setup encourages recruitment and retention of women? Of men? I think it's fairly clear.
5/2 is just an inferior version of mixed play. The women can easily be ignored and often are, which benefits neither the men nor (obviously) the women. Consider the following two options for a league:
1) 20 mixed teams, with about 12 guys and 3 women each, playing 5/2.
2) Two leagues: 10 mixed teams with 9 guys and 6 women each, playing 4/3, and 12 open teams with 12 or 13 guys each. Most men in the mixed league are baggage, with the rest decided by draft/lottery/whatever.
Which setup serves its membership better? Which setup encourages recruitment and retention of women? Of men? I think it's fairly clear.
Me: 6.5/16 (won the 5/2 one year but lost the unification game against the 4/3 champ). Record: approximately 190-80.
Yes, those are real numbers. Estimates for 1983-1986 and 1990-1991.
I've never played in a draft league, and there was never a choice between men's and coed play.
Oh, yeah, congrats. I agree with the general idea that the regular season is more for the league players and the tournament is more for the club players. Those tournaments with GE were among the most brutal I've had, and great training not just for conditioning but also skills. I owe a lot to summer league.
Yes, those are real numbers. Estimates for 1983-1986 and 1990-1991.
I've never played in a draft league, and there was never a choice between men's and coed play.
Oh, yeah, congrats. I agree with the general idea that the regular season is more for the league players and the tournament is more for the club players. Those tournaments with GE were among the most brutal I've had, and great training not just for conditioning but also skills. I owe a lot to summer league.
I agree that 4/3 (either way) is the preferred ratio for mixed ultimate. The issue that arises, of course, is how to chose men for one league and the other.
There has been some frustration with wudi concerning younger men who want to play coed being unable to do so because of the large number of returning men. Is that fair? Can it be? Should it be?
There has been some frustration with wudi concerning younger men who want to play coed being unable to do so because of the large number of returning men. Is that fair? Can it be? Should it be?
Well the Chicago league played out a little differently then anyone thought it would. We had a lot more women sign up then was initially expected, so there weren't enough people for to have a rollover league. It sucks for the people who got cut (they were refunded their money, and invited to come play pickup at the same time as league play), but I think the idea of letting everyone register for the Coed league and then any extra guys after the cap getting rolled over into an Open league is a good idea.
The way they did the caps was fair too, it wasn't based on the number of years you have played, but based completely on the date you registered. So a few really good players ended up getting capped out of the league, but really that seems like the only fair way to run this kind of thing and maintain growth.
The way they did the caps was fair too, it wasn't based on the number of years you have played, but based completely on the date you registered. So a few really good players ended up getting capped out of the league, but really that seems like the only fair way to run this kind of thing and maintain growth.
I think seniority is a really bad way to decide which guys get priority in the 4/3 league. Ideas that make sense to me:
1) Baggage - if your league allows people to play with one other person, then baggage guys get in the mixed league. This could actually cause some recruitment.
2) Earliest signup, like Whitey said.
3a) Random lottery.
3b) Semirandom lottery where the skill levels in each league are balanced.
4) Higher entry fee for men in the mixed league than men in the open league. Every guy who wants to play in the mixed league submits a monetary bid (on top of the standard league fee). The league sets up an auction - if there are, say, 100 non-baggage male spots, then the the 100 highest bidders pay as much extra as the 100th highest bidder was willing to pay.
5) Have the mixed draft first and the undrafted players go to the men's division. Obviously this results in a very unbalanced talent spread, unless a bunch of top guys only want to play in the men's division.
1) Baggage - if your league allows people to play with one other person, then baggage guys get in the mixed league. This could actually cause some recruitment.
2) Earliest signup, like Whitey said.
3a) Random lottery.
3b) Semirandom lottery where the skill levels in each league are balanced.
4) Higher entry fee for men in the mixed league than men in the open league. Every guy who wants to play in the mixed league submits a monetary bid (on top of the standard league fee). The league sets up an auction - if there are, say, 100 non-baggage male spots, then the the 100 highest bidders pay as much extra as the 100th highest bidder was willing to pay.
5) Have the mixed draft first and the undrafted players go to the men's division. Obviously this results in a very unbalanced talent spread, unless a bunch of top guys only want to play in the men's division.
Jim, it's a bit surprising to me that you have played fewer leagues than me. I guess only playing one, "clique" league each year has cut down your opportunities. I could easily end up playing six or seven leagues this year - I already played winter league, and I'm signed up for three spring leagues (open draft, mixed draft, mixed clique).
Interesting thing about wudi: No baggage unless you're the parents of a kid. Makes sense as all of the games occur at the same time and place.
Ideas 2-5 are pretty solid given that each has a fairly obvious caveat.
I'd say that my favorite (And least likely to be used) would easily be the auction. Raise more money for the league and keep the poor kids from mingling with the rich kids while making men pay a "flirting fee." In fact, I think this should be instituted at leagues around the country immediately. All of that joking aside, I still rather like this idea even though I'd probably end up playing open.
#3 would feel, I think, too, well, random to most players. It would feel like there was nothing they could do to improve their chances other than lie regarding their skill level.
#2 Makes the most sense to me.
Ideas 2-5 are pretty solid given that each has a fairly obvious caveat.
I'd say that my favorite (And least likely to be used) would easily be the auction. Raise more money for the league and keep the poor kids from mingling with the rich kids while making men pay a "flirting fee." In fact, I think this should be instituted at leagues around the country immediately. All of that joking aside, I still rather like this idea even though I'd probably end up playing open.
#3 would feel, I think, too, well, random to most players. It would feel like there was nothing they could do to improve their chances other than lie regarding their skill level.
#2 Makes the most sense to me.
To clarify the Chicago league actually does a combination of 1 and 2. You are allowed to buddy with one other person, and if your a guy and your buddy is female you automatically get in.
Then after that it's based on your date of registration (or if you have a buddy the later of the two registrations). It apparently did good things for the league, and we have a lot more women coming out this year. Now if we can just hook the new women and get them to come back.
Then after that it's based on your date of registration (or if you have a buddy the later of the two registrations). It apparently did good things for the league, and we have a lot more women coming out this year. Now if we can just hook the new women and get them to come back.
So, basically, baggage rules, plus pressure on guys to find a chick to guarantee them a spot, leads to guys recruiting ladies. Makes sense. It will be interesting to see how the system stabilizes. Maybe next season people won't recruit as hard because all the guys got in this season.
Yeah, one league per year max starting in 1983, skipping 1987-1989, and a few in the oughts.
I have played recreationally in the winter several years, indoors at MIT in the early '90s, and goaltimate since the first goaltimate tournament in 1998 or 1999.
Post a Comment
I have played recreationally in the winter several years, indoors at MIT in the early '90s, and goaltimate since the first goaltimate tournament in 1998 or 1999.
<< Home
