I found some other duplicates besides Steve / Steven Bowden: Nate and Nathan Hart; Fred and Frederick Richardson, Dan and Daniel Spolar.
2 Likes
Great work, thank you very much @Adam! Highly appreciate all the efforts to preserve historical tournament data.
I think I should qualify to the player data page, but couldn’t find my name there. I’m in in at least six tournaments. (7 if my slightly misspelled name with lowercase m on Pinball Expo 2019 data is included too)
1 Like
Clicking through on some of my past DTM, and recalling my first PAPA (PAPA 16)… just a shout-out again to @kdeangelo 's creation of DTM. While the #1 “Wow” moment of my first PAPA was walking into and around the building with all those pins, the #2 “Wow” was how cool and effective DTM was at managing standings, qualifying, and finals of such a large tourney.
7 Likes
Sorry about that Olli, I had an issue with hyphens in people’s name that I have corrected, so now you, Rob Wintler-Cox, and Amy Covell-Murthy have their Player Pages restored. W00t.
4 Likes
For those of us that played in a paper PAPA, the DTM wow is even wowier still.
3 Likes
100%. It was either PAPA16 or PAPA17 that was the last “hybrid” paper PAPA: the scores were still collected via paper (God bless you, all of you volunteers managing the clipboards with stacks of player scoreshees), but all the results were input into DTM and available on the DTM website.
2 Likes
Thanks, Bob. I’ve merged the four players you mentioned. If you notice any others, just let me know. I also standardized some tournament names so that they all appear alphabetically year-to-year.
4 Likes
Does anybody remember why a certain machine from the Pittsburgh Open in 2017 is listed as “Steel Man” on the site?
Maybe it had something to do with this Pittsburgh Pirates baseball team reskinned Iron Man game video?
1 Like
If so, not because we played that version; I’d definitely have remembered that alternate artwork if I’d played on it.
The machine was Iron Man, but they changed iron to steel because it was in Pittsburgh
3 Likes
OK, I just didn’t recall if there was more to it than the local economic connection, e.g. any mod made to the art.
Hello All! Adam has provided me with an extract of the unique games that were associated with the tournament and I’ve made a spreadsheet where we need everyone’s help to associate a game played in the tournament to the game name (or game version, if it’s known).
On the tab [Game List] you’ll find:
- Game Name from NeverDrains
- Link to Adam’s site with individual scores
- Num of Games Played
- Top Score
- Tournament Short Code (a.k.a. the original NeverDrains url)
- Num of Tournament Games Played
Where we need help:
- Column I: Machine Name
- Column J - Any notes or comments you want to add into the Spreadsheet (i.e. “NBA Fastbreak was played on Score Mode in PPO 2018”)
If you start typing a name, you’ll get a dropdown list with all the games currently in OPDB (which is Column A on the [OPDB] tab.
If it’s a game with only a single version, that will be the only version on the list (i.e. Centigrade 37)
If it’s a game with multiple versions (i.e. Centaur/Centaur II, or the Pro/LE/SE variations of modern games), you can either pick the OPDB Machine if you know it or just pick the Machine Group.
When we’re all done Adam can import this back into his dataset and we can map machines across tournaments.
5 Likes
I’ll work on this intermittently this weekend when not on Karl’s stream.
1 Like
I was curious about how players Finish vs. how they Qualify. I crunched a few things from Karl’s and Adam’s data plus IFPA results. I didn’t use all of a player’s events, I used the circuit-level ones I had handy; most were about 50 events per player, counting main and classics separately. Note that these don’t reflect how often a player failed to qualify for playoffs, just “do they live up to their seed?” when they do.
Adam L - Qualify 11.1, Finish 9.8
Keith - Qualify 4.5, Finish 5.4
Ray - Qualify 6.3, Finish 6.9
Trent - Qualify 10.0, Finish 10.6
Bob - Qualify 11.1, Finish 10.9
Jason - Qualify 11.3, Finish 10.9
Jeff T - Qualify 12.4, Finish 12.2
Robert G - Qualify 8.5, Finish 8.2
The bottom line is that players tend to finish close to where they qualify, on average; the deviations from event to event tend to even out. As one would expect, some people, like Keith and Ray, both qualify and finish higher than others (and also fail to qualify less often; see other post below).
3 Likes
That stat
is
awesome
3 Likes
Ray,
I ran one other thing, Events vs. Qualifieds. A few of the Intergalactics were blank in Adam’s data, which I omitted; I got the stats below. I added in some others who might be interested or interesting:
Eric - 36 of 37 or 97%
Keith - 49 of 51 or 96%
Raymond - 58 of 64 or 91%
Zach - 50 of 55 or 91%
Andy - 50 of 55 or 91%
Bowen - 34 of 40 or 85%
Trent - 78 of 98 or 80%
Jason - 57 of 73 or 78%
Escher - 41 of 54 or 76%
Bob - 80 of 107 or 75%
Karl - 34 of 46 or 74%
Levi - 31 of 43 or 72%
Adam - 40 of 56 or 71%
Josh - 29 of 41 or 71%
Steven - 59 of 84 or 70%
Jeff T - 46 of 67 or 69%
Jim - 31 of 46 or 67%
Greg P - 30 of 47 or 64%
Tim S - 21 of 42 or 50%
Sanjay - 28 of 66 or 42%
Gene X - 15 of 41 or 37%
3 Likes
An observation about qualifying scores on a given game over time; I just happened to notice this detail. Besides “what it takes” being dependent on Settings, there’s also the Learning Curve. When Metallica first came out in 2013, it was used at California Extreme. My 65M+ score (2 attempts) was #2 in qualifying that year. My almost-identical 65M+ score a few years later (also 2 attempts) was only #18. People had learned what to do and were doing it.
For Classic games, since there’s not much of a learning curve left at this point and no software updates, scores should be fairly stable over time and depend primarily on Settings (tilt, posts, rubbers, etc.).
For Moderns, scores will depend on all of Settings, Learning Curve, Software Version and Game Version (Pro, Premium, LE, etc.). That makes it harder to compare scores on Moderns across events.
2 Likes
In the very initial year+ of a game, code revisions could also make a big impact on the curve of qualifying scores over time.
3 Likes
Imagine how much time we can save skipping finals from now on. Can that be @pinwizj’s April 1st post this year?
5 Likes