SO, IF SOMEONE IS GOOD AT EXPLOSIVENESS DEFENSE, THEY WOULD BE GOOD AT PREVENTING OTHER PEOPLE FROM GOOD AND GREAT SCORES?
Very astute, alter ego. By definition, someone who prevents explosive scores (AKA good Explosiveness Defense) would cause games to be less likely to result in said scores. To get you grounded, let’s take a look at a typical season of WCW Diplomacy in terms of explosiveness.
# Boards: 34.6
# Good scores (percent): 19.14 (54.5%)
# Great scores (percent): 9.29 (26.4%)
AGGREGATE WEASEL WOULD BE A GREAT BAND NAME.
Sure would. Auditions next week.
OKAY, SO HOW DOES THIS (explosiveness) DEFENSE THING WORK?
So glad you asked. To answer this, we bring back our old friends, Toppy (Projected Royale 1 seed) and Caboosey (Projected Royale 7 seed) Weasel. We calculated Explosiveness D by calculating the number of good or great games that were had by opponents that Toppy or Caboosey played on.
# Boards: 19.38
#Good Scores Allowed (percent): 5.63 (30.2%)
# Great Scores Allowed (percent): 2.38 (21.2%)
# Boards: 10.42
#Good Scores Allowed (percent): 1.86 (17.76%)
# Great Scores Allowed (percent): 3.43 (32.17%)
I SEE THAT THOSE ARE NUMBERS. I DO NOT SEE WHAT THEY MEAN.
Oh, stop. You’re too hard on yourself, alter-ego. It’s apparent that the other 6 players on Toppy or Caboosey’s board are less likely to explode (relative to the rest of the season). They’re about equally likely to surrender an explosive game (51% vs 50%), but Toppy’s won’t let you have a great game.
CAN’T THAT BE EXPLAINED AWAY BY OTHER FACTORS?
Honestly, yes. Diplomacy is a seven player, zero sum game that is very different from football. One player winning or being in the hunt or even not dying makes it less likely for any other player to break out. When you factor in that Five Factors evaluates not just games, but seasons… well, it is important to keep any defense stat in context with other defense stats.
DAMMIT KID ANSWER THE QUESTION- DOES IT MATTER?
Yes, but we don’t know how much. It’s possible that I could create a rating system for top players based on the Five Factors when I’m done with them that would be able to work around all of the exclusivity problems of a seven-player game. Maybe before I die I’ll do that.
SO WE REALLY DIDN’T LEARN ANYTHING FROM THIS ONE?
Rude! Here’s what we learned:
- Explosiveness Defense matters. If you want to make Royale or win, you need to lose big less often. You won’t win the league with just Explosiveness Defense, but it is difficult to get to Royale without it. This may be a warning to boom-bust types.
- League winners do prevent ‘explosive’ scores at similar rates. How or why or how much it matters is very TBD.
- Defense may need to be viewed holistically to really make sense. I’ll check back on this idea as we move through the Five Factors.
SEEMS PRETTY OBVIOUS.
HONESTLY, I’M PROUD YOU HAVEN’T MADE AN “E.D.” JOKE ABOUT EXPLOSIVENESS DEFENSE YET.
I know, right! Plus we just have to share the best in class defenses then the article is over.
BY THAT, YOU MEAN THE WEASELS WHO WON’T LET YOU GET IT UP?
Booooooooooo. Anyways, here are the best Explosive Defenses among our toppies.
- FOGEL 2017. 5 explosive games allowed in 21 games (23.8%)
- TROTTA 2017. 7 explosive games allowed in 18 games (38.9%)
- O’KELLEY 2012. 6 explosive games allowed in 14 games (42.9%)
SO THE BTOAB IS ACTUALLY THE BIGGEST THREAT TO HAVING AN EXPLOSIVE GAME ON ANY BOARD?
Gotta love it when the data fits your narrative!
I MEAN… YOU DID FINISH SECOND TO HIM IN YET ANOTHER THING.
I’m done with you and your dumb jokes.