Interesting take on top competitors of each era

[tns8597]

Don't know if you've seen this but I thought this was interesting. I'm not sure what the points mean exactly; if you have an idea could you tell me? Also, what do you think of the rankings?

[hoseasasuke]

Jan 16, 2021 5:53:56 GMT -5 tns8597 said:

Don't know if you've seen this but I thought this was interesting. I'm not sure what the points mean exactly; if you have an idea could you tell me? Also, what do you think of the rankings?

So, that video is about the top 10 SASUKE competitors from 1997-2021. It ranks the top 10 based off points accumulated from each tournament and in the offseason as well. Based on that video, Yuuji is the greatest pound-for-pound SASUKE competitor of all time. Yusuke comes in 2nd, while Nagano comes in 3rd.

[tns8597]

Yeah I got that.

The only reason I want to see how it works specifically is that the system seems to have the following nuances:
- competitors seem to lose points if they go into a decline or just stop competing
- a competitor seems to be able to break the top 10 from one good performance alone (e.g. Daisuke Miyazaki after making Stage 3 once)
- competitors seem to increase or decrease in points during the off-season but I don't know how you'd determine that given that they're not competing or displaying anything during those times?

Across the entire board, I generally agree with the top 3-5 but the rest I find questionable because as mentioned beforehand I don't think a competitor should necessarily break into the top 10 if they made Stage 2 or 3 once and went out really early. There were also other weird things like Darvish going up to 6th just before Sasuke 37 (and even overtaking Yuuji), while Tada nor Ryo didn't make the top 10 at all even though they went way further than him in Sasuke 36. I could go on with more examples but yeah.... I'd just be interested to see how these scores actually work, I'm a statistician by trade that's why I want to pick it apart lol

[Ninja Relaxer]

I don't know what this is or how it works either, but it gives me an idea... Fantasy Sasuke, like Fantasy Football. The Sasuke Guessing Game is pretty close to how it would work, but maybe there's a way to make it more interactive... Could add wagering into the mix. 

[tns8597]

How does that work? I'm not a football fan so I need some context hahah

[Kane-Not-Kosugi]

Points are gained and lost for whatever stats they gather. For example, a linebacker gets points for tackles and extra points for sacks. A quarterback, on the other hand, can get points for completed passes and yards run, with bonuses given for touchdowns. The quarterback could also lose points for throwing an interception.

Fantasy SASUKE could be where players earn points for clearing obstacles, with bonuses for clearing stages/courses, LMS, or for the fastest time on a course.

Points could be taken away for fails (tho I'm not sure how I'd feel about that since the course has only been beaten in japan 6 times in 38 tournaments). I would say maybe negative points for DQs or for like, failing the first obstacle or something.

There's an ANW fantasy league, they've got their own website. I don't think SASUKE could do it tho because it doesn't happen frequent enough/on a week-to-week basis. If the guessing game is anything to go by, people will suck and put what they WANT to happen instead of what is more realistic lol

[tns8597]

There definitely needs to be a degree of relativity integrated into whatever score one would come up with. The reason I'm saying this is

1) people will undeniably make the argument that the course was easier in the older days, but that needs to be offset by the less specific training (i.e. not making entire stage replicas) done by those competitors; I've seen some people try and come up with a score and they basically allocate fewer points to competitors who clear a stage in an earlier era, which I just don't think is fair. Nagano could've easily done well in this era if he was still in his prime and he adhered to the high level of training that competitors do these days.

2) For a given era (hence where the former point doesn't really apply), I'd argue that e.g. someone being only one of three competitors to make Stage 2 is more impressive than a competitor being one of 10 to reach Stage 3, even if the course was basically exactly the same. A key example being Sasuke 19-20 vs 23-24. Clearing Stage 1 in the former was really impressive because no one was used to those obstacles and to clear Stage 1 alone put that competitor ahead of 97-98% of the rest of the field; comparatively in Sasuke 23 people were more used to Shin-Sasuke and started training much more towards those obstacles, so to make Stage 3 was obvs impressive but didn't stand out as much as the former example. This degree of relativity weighing up performance vs perceived difficulty at the time of the tournament, both as a function of how well the competitor did relative to others, is really important.

In terms of additional perks for a points system, I have a few ideas (feel free to add, I'll probs edit this post anyway):
- Deduction in points if you fail earlier than beforehand while additional bonus if you do better; these perks will be more pronounced if the course is the exact same perceived difficulty as before while much less so if the course has been revamped. That way we don't penalise a competitor too much for failing Stage 1 in a complete renewal which is completely fair enough.
- Additional bonus points if you pass a new obstacle on your first attempt; the degree of the bonus will depend on the clear rate of that obstacle e.g. minimal bonus points for passing the Silk Slider, while much more for passing the Rolling Escargot in Sasuke 26.
- Additional bonus points for consistency; exponentially higher points for reaching Stages 2 or 3 multiple tournaments in a row, while a deduction if you reached Stage 3 once and then failed Stage 1 again. Other factors still apply such that e.g. Jun Sato will get bonus points for reaching Stage 3 constantly, but will also experience a deduction for lack of progression as well.
- Further deductions for consecutive Stage 1 failures, however comeback will result in an award dependent on the consistency and degree of the comeback; e.g. Ryo's comeback in 36 won't get anywhere near the points that Yuuji's does as he maintained this over 3 tournaments.

And yeah agreed; the last thing I'd want is to see a score just designed so the All-Stars come out top 5. It has to have some degree of objectivity to actually be considered legitimate.

[GlobalNinjaFan]

Honestly, that vid is pretty incoherent, mainly because I don't believe in subtracting points based on bad results in later tournaments.

[Kane-Not-Kosugi]

Jan 17, 2021 5:53:57 GMT -5 tns8597 said:

There definitely needs to be a degree of relativity integrated into whatever score one would come up with. The reason I'm saying this is

1) people will undeniably make the argument that the course was easier in the older days, but that needs to be offset by the less specific training (i.e. not making entire stage replicas) done by those competitors; I've seen some people try and come up with a score and they basically allocate fewer points to competitors who clear a stage in an earlier era, which I just don't think is fair. Nagano could've easily done well in this era if he was still in his prime and he adhered to the high level of training that competitors do these days.

2) For a given era (hence where the former point doesn't really apply), I'd argue that e.g. someone being only one of three competitors to make Stage 2 is more impressive than a competitor being one of 10 to reach Stage 3, even if the course was basically exactly the same. A key example being Sasuke 19-20 vs 23-24. Clearing Stage 1 in the former was really impressive because no one was used to those obstacles and to clear Stage 1 alone put that competitor ahead of 97-98% of the rest of the field; comparatively in Sasuke 23 people were more used to Shin-Sasuke and started training much more towards those obstacles, so to make Stage 3 was obvs impressive but didn't stand out as much as the former example. This degree of relativity weighing up performance vs perceived difficulty at the time of the tournament, both as a function of how well the competitor did relative to others, is really important.

In terms of additional perks for a points system, I have a few ideas (feel free to add, I'll probs edit this post anyway):
- Deduction in points if you fail earlier than beforehand while additional bonus if you do better; these perks will be more pronounced if the course is the exact same perceived difficulty as before while much less so if the course has been revamped. That way we don't penalise a competitor too much for failing Stage 1 in a complete renewal which is completely fair enough.
- Additional bonus points if you pass a new obstacle on your first attempt; the degree of the bonus will depend on the clear rate of that obstacle e.g. minimal bonus points for passing the Silk Slider, while much more for passing the Rolling Escargot in Sasuke 26.
- Additional bonus points for consistency; exponentially higher points for reaching Stages 2 or 3 multiple tournaments in a row, while a deduction if you reached Stage 3 once and then failed Stage 1 again. Other factors still apply such that e.g. Jun Sato will get bonus points for reaching Stage 3 constantly, but will also experience a deduction for lack of progression as well.
- Further deductions for consecutive Stage 1 failures, however comeback will result in an award dependent on the consistency and degree of the comeback; e.g. Ryo's comeback in 36 won't get anywhere near the points that Yuuji's does as he maintained this over 3 tournaments.

And yeah agreed; the last thing I'd want is to see a score just designed so the All-Stars come out top 5. It has to have some degree of objectivity to actually be considered legitimate.

For your first point, I think making the scoring relative would just make the hypotheticals you used (because that's what they are) would make the system worse. A hardened system where you get the cold, hard stats (obstacles cleared, stages cleared, times LMS, etc.) is the only way to see both the true evolution of the competitors and the course. This is the same for every other fantasy sport: athletes get older, new rules are implemented, players switch teams, etc. So many different variables come into play that the scoring has to remain objective or the entire idea of a fantasy league is the same exact thing as stupidly arguing with someone about the sport. It's one thing to weigh things out with bias and discussing conditions and hypotheticals. It's another to take what is ACTUALLY happening and make it the basis of the scoring. Only one of those systems is worth making a fantasy league around.

The same argument is applied to both the scoring system I brought up earlier and your 2nd point. Scoring could just be about the results of an individual, since SASUKE is man vs course. Whether they're 1 of 20 Stage 1 clears or 1 of 3 Stage 3 clears doesn't matter; all that matters is they cleared. The only time anyone is really compared to anyone else in SASUKE is when it comes to LMS. This is why I have a problem with your "relativity" and your scoring suggestions in your 3rd point: If we followed what you're saying, we'd practically be handing out participation awards.

The All Stars, Sin Shedai, and anyone else who actually is good deserves to be in the top 5 if they're consistently putting out the best results. None of this "He was the first person to clear the quintuple steps by single-bounding in their 30s and wearing red shoes on their first try" stuff (exaggeration, yes, but still basically what you'd be proposing).