Freezing Saddles 2018

[LhasaCM]

@Emm 167690 wrote:

This is my thought exactly. I’d rather be on a team with my friends who I like riding with vs people who ride the most (although there is definitely some overlap between the two groups), but then again I see FS more as a friendship building/encouragement to ride when it sucks out/advocacy tool than a cutthroat competition. Honestly, FS was a big motivator for me while healing from surgery last year, and most of what I loved about it was how I made a great group of friends, and received alot of encouragement to keep riding from the people I did group rides and happy hours with. Sure I didn’t ride every day because I still hurt, but it got me out riding 100% more than I would have ridden otherwise. And although I participated in the forum for a year or two before Freezing Saddles, I did not become a regular attendee at coffee clubs, group rides and happy hours until the competition.

What I would like to know is how prevalent is it that people sign up, and really don’t participate? Can someone run the numbers from a few of the prior years and show how many people per year were below a certain threshold (maybe however many points would equate to 3 shortish rides a week average or something?). If we’re just debating kicking off 5 out of 250 people a year, this doesn’t seem like a big enough issue to debate even if it’s something emotions run high over. But if it’s 20-30 people, I can see a reason to institute some minimum threshold.

I think one idea tossed out was averaging 75 points/week (the every day sleazer, or thrice a week 15 miler, or weekly metric century rider). 2017’s FS was just over 11 weeks, so the cutoff in that scenario would be 836 points. From the current leaderboard still online, it looks like 29 people were under that cutoff at the end of the competition. That’s not to say that more folks didn’t dip under that earlier in the winter, but it’s at least a data point to consider.

[vern]

@Emm 167690 wrote:

This is my thought exactly. I’d rather be on a team with my friends who I like riding with vs people who ride the most (although there is definitely some overlap between the two groups), but then again I see FS more as a friendship building/encouragement to ride when it sucks out/advocacy tool than a cutthroat competition. Honestly, FS was a big motivator for me while healing from surgery last year, and most of what I loved about it was how I made a great group of friends, and received alot of encouragement to keep riding from the people I did group rides and happy hours with. Sure I didn’t ride every day because I still hurt, but it got me out riding 100% more than I would have ridden otherwise. And although I participated in the forum for a year or two before Freezing Saddles, I did not become a regular attendee at coffee clubs, group rides and happy hours until the competition.

What I would like to know is how prevalent is it that people sign up, and really don’t participate? Can someone run the numbers from a few of the prior years and show how many people per year were below a certain threshold (maybe however many points would equate to 3 shortish rides a week average or something?). If we’re just debating kicking off 5 out of 250 people a year, this doesn’t seem like a big enough issue to debate even if it’s something emotions run high over. But if it’s 20-30 people, I can see a reason to institute some minimum threshold.

go to the website. last year’s data is still there.

[Emm]

@LhasaCM 167694 wrote:

I think one idea tossed out was averaging 75 points/week (the every day sleazer, or thrice a week 15 miler, or weekly metric century rider). 2017’s FS was just over 11 weeks, so the cutoff in that scenario would be 836 points. From the current leaderboard still online, it looks like 29 people were under that cutoff at the end of the competition. That’s not to say that more folks didn’t dip under that earlier in the winter, but it’s at least a data point to consider.

So ~12%. Not good, and probably worth some type of cut off. Maybe a cutoff that achieves something around that stat (bottom 5-10% taken out based on non-participation) based on prior year’s data. I took off pretty much every rainy or icy day last year (sorry team 13…), and I still scored well above that threshold so I don’t think it’s too tough a line to draw. Especially if the scoring and cut offs are done on a monthly or 6-week basis like other people have proposed, since that allows for people to catch up after bad weeks.

[lordofthemark]

two points

1. Last winter was relatively mild. Any given cuttoff will likely eliminate more people in a normal winter (assuming we do have normal winters again)

2. Re bottom two riders per team.

It wouldn’t be terribly hard coding to show both team rankings with all riders, AND with bottom two excluded? So the competitive folks who are demotivated by their bottom two not riding much could still feel motivated? Just to note I don’t think I have ever been on a team close to winning, so while there was some motivation to say, finish 8th instead of 9th, I usually looked to individual rankings for motivation (though of course I was not near the front in those either). I also looked at my own placement relative people in the same rank on other teams – IE if I was 6th on my team, I compared myself to the 6th place rider on other teams.

[LhasaCM]

Not terribly hard. I didn’t check my work, but, the top 10 with everyone counting:

1. TENacious Decimators – Team 10 BAFS 2017
2. Totally Spoked – BAFS’17 Team 15
3. Podium! Team 7 Freezing Saddles 2017
4. BAFS17 Team 18: Merry Band of Idiots
5. Fourmidable Snow Flakes – BAFS17 Team4
6. Casual Six – BAFS 2017
7. 5 and Dime
8. Team 11 – BAFS 2017. “Up to Eleven”
9. Squadra Quattordici BAFS2017
10. 2Fast, 2Frozen

The top 10 counting only 8 riders per team:

1. TENacious Decimators – Team 10 BAFS 2017
2. Totally Spoked – BAFS’17 Team 15
3. Podium! Team 7 Freezing Saddles 2017
4. BAFS17 Team 18: Merry Band of Idiots
5. Fourmidable Snow Flakes – BAFS17 Team4
6. Casual Six – BAFS 2017
7. 5 and Dime
8. 2Fast, 2Frozen
9. Can’t Catch 22
10. Team 11 – BAFS 2017. “Up to Eleven”

Not terribly different at the top.

[jrenaut]

No wonder I like this idea, my team jumped from 12th to 9th if you only count 8…

Actually, though, I don’t really like dropping the two lowest scores. They could still be solid competitors who happened onto a really good team.

I think Best Bottom Two could make a cool side bet, though

[Steve O]

If we decide to implement a policy to drop non-participants and replace them with waiting-list riders, then I don’t think we also want to drop the bottom riders’s score from each team. One or the other.

---

Each year I have made new friends and acquaintances among the people I never knew before who were placed on my team. That is one of the great things about FS, IMO. Even more so for the newbies who are placed on a team with fun and active veteran players. If everyone who already knows each other all ride together on the same team, then that dampens these attributes.

[komorebi]

@jrenaut 167619 wrote:

I’d love to go back and see how many active forum members we’ve picked up who never posted before their first BAFS and now contribute, or at least attend forum gatherings.

At least one. Freezing Saddles was what got me to stop lurking, attend my first CC, attend my first HH, and generally start participating in the forum.

@LhasaCM 167694 wrote:

I think one idea tossed out was averaging 75 points/week (the every day sleazer, or thrice a week 15 miler, or weekly metric century rider). 2017’s FS was just over 11 weeks, so the cutoff in that scenario would be 836 points. From the current leaderboard still online, it looks like 29 people were under that cutoff at the end of the competition. That’s not to say that more folks didn’t dip under that earlier in the winter, but it’s at least a data point to consider.

The scoreboards for 2015 and 2016 are also online, thanks to the Wayback Machine. A 75 points/week cutoff would have eliminated the bottom 32 out of 138 riders in 2015 (23%), and the bottom 63 out of 264 riders in 2016 (also 23%). Another data point: of the riders who would have been eliminated in 2015-2017, 19 of them rode at least 39 days — i.e., for at least half of Freezing Saddles. If there’s going to be a cutoff, I suggest that it be lower than 75 points/week.

@jrenaut 167486 wrote:

I could maybe get on board with this if the extra points kicked in after more than a mile. 1 mile is 11, 2 is 22, 3 is 33, then it’s a point per mile after? My only concern is that, if you look at the team rankings by mileage vs by points, they don’t really change much. This might be incentive for individuals to ride more (which is good, of course) but I don’t know that it would change the scoring significantly. Maybe that’s a good thing, too. I certainly don’t want to penalize people who ride a ton.

If the point is to encourage more people to get out on their bikes during the winter, extra points for the first few miles would be my preferred approach. What about making it a descending pyramid — i.e., 30 extra points for the first mile, 20 extra points for the second mile, 10 extra points for the third mile, then a point per mile after? Does one of the data gurus have time to see whether this system would change the scoring?

[LhasaCM]

@komorebi 167722 wrote:

If the point is to encourage more people to get out on their bikes during the winter, extra points for the first few miles would be my preferred approach. What about making it a descending pyramid — i.e., 30 extra points for the first mile, 20 extra points for the second mile, 10 extra points for the third mile, then a point per mile after? Does one of the data gurus have time to see whether this system would change the scoring?

That exact math would require more data than are available on the website. One thing that can be done pretty quickly from the website data (just to give a flavor of what would happen) would be to stick with the point per mile but to change the math so that you get 30 points per ride plus 20 extra points if you do more than a sleaze ride. So a 1 mile ride would be worth 31, a 2 mile ride worth 52, a 3 mile ride worth 53, etc. (One can easily get the sleaze rides by team from that leaderboard to know how many rides went 2 miles or more; more access is needed to get the 3rd mile amounts.) Doing that:

1. TENacious Decimators – Team 10 BAFS 2017
2. Totally Spoked – BAFS’17 Team 15
3. Podium! Team 7 Freezing Saddles 2017
4. Fourmidable Snow Flakes – BAFS17 Team4
5. Casual Six – BAFS 2017
6. BAFS17 Team 18: Merry Band of Idiots
7. 5 and Dime
8. Team 11 – BAFS 2017. “Up to Eleven”
9. Squadra Quattordici BAFS2017
10. 2Fast, 2Frozen

Top 3 stay the same, with a little bit of shuffling after that.

[Judd]

@LhasaCM 167724 wrote:

That exact math would require more data than are available on the website. One thing that can be done pretty quickly from the website data (just to give a flavor of what would happen) would be to stick with the point per mile but to change the math so that you get 30 points per ride plus 20 extra points if you do more than a sleaze ride. So a 1 mile ride would be worth 31, a 2 mile ride worth 52, a 3 mile ride worth 53, etc. (One can easily get the sleaze rides by team from that leaderboard to know how many rides went 2 miles or more; more access is needed to get the 3rd mile amounts.) Doing that:

1. TENacious Decimators – Team 10 BAFS 2017
2. Totally Spoked – BAFS’17 Team 15
3. Podium! Team 7 Freezing Saddles 2017
4. Fourmidable Snow Flakes – BAFS17 Team4
5. Casual Six – BAFS 2017
6. BAFS17 Team 18: Merry Band of Idiots
7. 5 and Dime
8. Team 11 – BAFS 2017. “Up to Eleven”
9. Squadra Quattordici BAFS2017
10. 2Fast, 2Frozen

Top 3 stay the same, with a little bit of shuffling after that.

So basically, no matter what you do, the Tenacious Decimators are still the best Freezing Saddles team of all time.

[LhasaCM]

@Judd 167725 wrote:

So basically, no matter what you do, the Tenacious Decimators are still the best Freezing Saddles team of all time.

Not quite. If it became 25 points instead of 20 for going 2 miles or more per ride, the Tenacious Decimators fall to 2nd place. There’s a tipping point in this scoring setup where the Totally Spoked’s extra rides with fewer sleaze rides overcome the mileage deficit.

If we go with my earlier straw man (count the bottom 2 scores) – Casual Six wins. As we should with our depth.

[Judd]

@Emm 167690 wrote:

This is my thought exactly. I’d rather be on a team with my friends who I like riding with vs people who ride the most (although there is definitely some overlap between the two groups), but then again I see FS more as a friendship building/encouragement to ride when it sucks out/advocacy tool than a cutthroat competition.

Freezing Saddles Fantasy League (FSFL) discussions aside, this is how I view FS too and I’d be bummed if I ended up on a team that was mostly people that I already am friends with. If it weren’t for having Ian on my team the first year, I might not have talked to a single person at opening happy hour. (His stellar advice was, “Everyone here rides a bike, talk to them about bikes.”) I also wouldn’t have attended my first coffee club without him. Forever grateful, even though he’s forever banned from Team Lumberjack.

[Judd]

@LhasaCM 167726 wrote:

Not quite. If it became 25 points instead of 20 for going 2 miles or more per ride, the Tenacious Decimators fall to 2nd place. There’s a tipping point in this scoring setup where the Totally Spoked’s extra rides with fewer sleaze rides overcome the mileage deficit.

If we go with my earlier straw man (count the bottom 2 scores) – Casual Six wins. As we should with our depth.

Fake math.

[cvcalhoun]

@LhasaCM 167726 wrote:

If we go with my earlier straw man (count the bottom 2 scores) – Casual Six wins. As we should with our depth.

Well, dang, we obviously have to go with the system that makes Casual Six win! And I’m not even slightly influenced in that view by having been their captain.

[LhasaCM]

@Judd 167729 wrote:

Fake math.

I’m a budget analyst. Fake math is my job.

[Author]

Posts