Understanding WFTDA’s Total Points % and Effects on Gameplay
How Weights, Time, Score and So Much More Effect Style of Play
The WFTDA ranking algorithm came into effect in February 2013 with the first release of WFTDA rankings. Although that algorithm may not survive into a full worldwide return to play, it was a significant upgrade on a regional voting system that had some very serious deficiencies.
The current algorithm has captured growth from 149 ranked leagues to 367 before the shut down, with massive growth coming from outside of the US. That first release saw just 14 leagues outside of the US; 7 in Europe, 6 in Canada and 1 in Australia. By comparison, the current “European” division within WFTDA includes 69 ranked member leagues. Asia/Pacific includes 17.
We have seen adjustments to the algorithm over that time (removing tournament weights, adding strength factor challenges), adjustments to scoring (removing the jammer lap point) and a handful of different post season configurations. However, the algorithm has consistently opened up room for broad growth by using a weight system which allows for teams to play opponents and see progress beyond a simple win/loss system. I’ve argued that growth has potentially reached its limit in terms of positive effect, but any change is likely to hold onto the core element of an algorithm and total points % scoring because of the positive elements it had already unlocked. It allows for a larger pool of teams to play than a simple win/loss system would.
Although the current algorithm is so central to WFTDA, it is not commonly understood either in terms of what predated it, its legacy or how it has shaped game play. The algorithm has always been publicly available on WFTDA’s site, but how that translates into gameplay or comfort level with the algorithm is team by team or even year by year in some cases. There is a need to increase literacy on the algorithm though, as playing to the algorithm also increases the effectiveness of the ranking system to properly rank teams.
I’ve written some basic attempts at simplifying the algorithm and how it impacts gameplay, especially when teams find themselves in situations when they are down big. Although awareness of this kind of situation seems more widespread than it was in 2016, there are still lots of examples of teams still defaulting instead to “hit and quit” strategies instead. The 2019 post season, which represents the top 60 teams in terms of skill, will still provide lots of examples of this.
I’ve had a piece on total points in my drafts for a long time, but Boop’s post on Twitter the other day was the motivation for a deeper dive. Even if the algorithm doesn’t survive in its current form, I think there is a big benefit to understanding how a total points % algorithm impacts gameplay. Understanding it and implementing it can make your team smarter, more versatile and more resilient.
Hit and Quit The “Gotham Effect”
Although “hit and quit,” the strategy of getting lead and calling a jam before your opponent can score, predates the algorithm; I still chart its widespread acceptance as a default strategy to the historic 5 year, 67 sanctioned game, Gotham All Stars win streak that surrounded the algorithms release (November 7 2010— November 7 2015). Gotham was remarkably dominant over this stretch, capturing 1st place in the initial February 2013 ranking and holding it until April 2017.
Bonnie Thunders and OMG WTF, then with Gotham, were part of the committee which created the current algorithm and Gotham was elite at maximizing it, holding onto the top spot for a year and a half after their win streak was ended.
Playing the most popular games, broadcast around the world, it’s not surprising that leagues all over the world would try and replicate that success. The problem with replicating Gotham’s gameplay strategies is there may never be another Gotham. Over this stretch they had no rival.
Even Rose City, who currently look unbeatable and I think would have comfortably won a third straight Hydra in 2020, had only won 12 straight sanctioned games coming into this year. If Rose’s current trajectory matched, or even surpasses that Gotham run, the point remains the same — your team is not 2010–2015 Gotham or 2018-Current Rose. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a wealth of knowledge to pull from these teams, it just means that how they relate to total points % and game play strategy is different for them than any other team. The further you are from them in the rankings, the more that is the case.
Luckily there are other simple ways to break down and understand how total points % can effect gameplay.
The Basics of the 33/66 Rule
I have always believed that the simplest breakdown of total points % to gameplay is to break up gameplay into three separate categories — Below 33%, Between 33% and 66% and Above 66%. Although I will add filters to this later, this is the base level of understanding that could be widespread and it is still largely applicable even pre weights/time/score, etc. The % are easily identifiable — does the other team have double the amount of points as us (Below 33%), do we have double the amount of points as the other team (Above 66%), does neither team have double the amount of point as the other (Between 33% and 66%). Although it can vary, as you will see below, the longest you would want to wait to apply this would be 15 minutes into the game. Adjust as the game progresses.
Below 33%
If you are below 33% total points, then you need to maximize any lead you grab and the lower your number of total points %, the longer you need to run your jams. If your opposition is controlling leads and total points, hitting and quitting you to death, then there is no benefit to calling a jam in which you obtain lead. The likelihood is that time will otherwise roll off the clock without you scoring at all.
This is what I would call “scoring potential.” It can feel counter intuitive to run a jam 2 minutes if you are losing that jam 12–20, but if you are sub 15% leads and sub 20% scoring, then you need to maximize your scoring potential and that score above will almost certainly increase your game score. Even if this gamble doesn’t pay off, you need to maximize your ability to score before the clock simply runs out.
One big adjustment in this range is pace. You need to make the opposing team’s points available and again that may mean a counterintuitive move to set up in back. If you try and “pull away” or skate the pack, you are shooting yourself in the foot and negating your scoring potential. It’s more important that you keep points available for your team. Set up in back and play a slower game i.e. “Points Back.”
You also need to increase your level of contact, and take more risks to secure leads, because without leads you are in danger girl!
Between 33% and 66%
This is the space where the majority of sanctioned WFTDA games are played, largely because it is advantageous to schedule against opponents of a similar rank and strength. Your gameplay in this range has to be driven by your ability to a) know your team, and b) know your opponent. Teams that consistently win games or over perform in this range do so because they are better at capitalizing on mistakes and maximizing opportunities. In order to do that, you need to know the team you are playing.
Match up derby is about taking away opponents’ strengths and stressing weakness. A shifting gameplay strategy can help you do this by being unpredictable. Running specific jams long, ones in which you feel you have a distinct advantage, can be the difference maker in a close game — especially if the opposing team continues to default to “hit and quit.” Increasing and decreasing your level of contact, adjusting to officials, will also make it harder for your opponent to adjust. Deeper and more versatile teams thrive in this range because they simply have more options to go to and can match a larger and more varied style of play.
Above 66%
Look at you, you are killing it! This is where watching all of those old Gotham games can come in handy. It’s time to be positional, disciplined and hit and quit your opponent to death. Adjust your contact levels to a lower number, take fewer risks and limit your opponent’s scoring potential. This is the range derby is most accustomed to, so it is the one that needs the least amount of explanation. If the other team does get lead, encourage them to skate with you i.e. “points forward.” If they take the bait, you may end up negating their lead anyways.
The 33/66 Rule + Weights
Although the majority of WFTDA sanctioned games occur within a fairly normal range in terms of weights, there are scenarios where a massive weight disparity can significantly shift your game play.
The High Weight Opponent
Although also not unheard of in the regular season, the WFTDA post season used to present massive weight disparities in tournament play. For a low weight team playing a high weight team, the important thing to grasp is that every point you score is simply worth more. This is how the algorithm adjusts, for fairness, to allow you to play a team that it would not make sense to play in win/loss or any other scenario.
For example, if my 2.7 weight team plays a 4 weight team, below are the scores I would need to pull a larger score off of the algorithm than my opponent.
100v148 — 483.87/ 483.38.
That remains constant, so if I score 200v296 or 300v444, the result is the same even though the margin has grown. In a game against a more skilled opponent, where I am unlikely to control the majority of leads, the algorithm incentivizes that I maximize my scoring. For this reason, I’d extend my 33 and below range to 50% and below and shrink my match up range to just 50% to 66%. The more drastic the weight disparity, the greater the focus on running leads long and scoring, and the earlier I’d start running my leads.
Some great post season examples of this include
2x4 v Rose in 2017
Charlottesville v Montreal 2017
Queen City v Arch Rival 2017
Minnesota v Rat City 2019
In all of the examples above a long jam strategy netted these teams a better game score than if they would have called their leads in a traditional hit and quit way. C-Ville increased their total points from 18.05% to 22.85% and a game score from 261.67 to 331.2 (+69.53 increase). 2x4 increased their total points from 12.62% to 18.18% and a game score from 292 to 420.54 (+128.5).
The most extreme example I’ve ever seen of this was Twin City’s 703–166 loss to Houston in 2018. With a weight disparity of 1.06 to 3.68, Twin City focused almost exclusively on offense and did not call leads. Although it is admittedly hard to watch, Twin City salvaged a 177game score, only 34 below their incoming average, in a game which could have been a bloodbath in the rankings.
The Low Weight
Against a much lower weighted opponent my team needs to extend that point denial range, focus on clean play and keep our points forward. Our points are worth significantly less than our opponent’s, so we need to control leads, not give up power jams and negate our opponent’s scoring ability. Because my points are worth less, I may actually call jams with the opposing jammer on initial if it will set up lead control in the following jam. Lead control negates their scoring potential, and to some degree becomes more important than my scoring as I push higher in total points.
This is a style of gameplay which is less developed because a) games with this kind of disparity are rare and b) the majority of low weight teams just end up playing hit and quit to their own detriment. There is lots of room to experiment here — calling any lead when you have pack advantage, a lead jammer returning to the pack in order to keep opposing blockers busy, playing 5 D with lead to run down clock once we have the total points % we want, etc. It’s hard to want to risk experimenting when you already have a high % of total points, but the goal is also always to shut your opponent out completely (100% total points!). Even with an absolutely massive skill disparity, you will have to take some risks to do that.
The “We Are In Trouble Game” (Severely Under Ranked Opponent)
What happens when you are playing a significantly under ranked team? Adjusting your gameplay to their weight won’t always give you the best results because their weight is the problem. Two of the best examples of adjusting to this came in the same tournament — Rocky Mountain v Canberra and Tucson v Canberra at the NA West Continental Cup in 2018. #2 seed Canberra entered the tournament severely under ranked, playing much more like a mid 10’s Division 1 team than at a Continental Cup level, winning the Championship game by a huge 243–80 margin.
Tucson focused on playing 5 D off the line, looking to run down Canberra’s available scoring time. If the probability is that Canberra would dominate lead, ensuring they have significantly less time left in the jam to score is one way to restrict their scoring. Tucson’s veteran jammer Mystery Meat was the perfect jammer to pull this off and as a result Tucson held Canberra to 208 points and salvaged a 179.82.
Rocky Mountain focused on playing all O off the line, looking to grab as many leads as possible. With the strategy they managed to scored 80 points on Canberra and salvage a 250.4 game score.
If either team waited 15–20 minutes into the game to adjust their gameplay they would likely already be seriously out of the game. If they played to their opponent weight, they would still be stuck thinking about hit and quit or match up derby. Instead, because the skill gap was so extreme, they started the game with gameplay strategies that matched their opponent’s actual skill instead of their weight or game score.
Wildcards
Even though 33/66 can be a good basic rule, there are lots of other great examples of people using dynamic game play strategies to their advantage. Once you leave the cult of hit and quit, a world of possibilities opens up!
Make This End
One of the most common divergences from a 33/66 strategy, especially during the post season or elimination tournaments, is running second half leads long to take time off of the clock. Sometimes you just need to help make a game end. Playing down the clock can backfire, you are adjusting away from the things that brought you success, but it can still be a worthwhile strategy to end a close game.
Long to Start, Hit and Quit When We Say
The 2019 Montreal New Skids had amazing depth and they matched that depth with gameplay strategies that flexed their ability to run full 5 jammer / 10 blocker rotations. They would intentionally look to start the game running leads long, using the chaos to control pace and force opponents to field tired/more penalized skaters. After about 15–30 minutes, they would adjust to 33/66 strategies, shifting to hit and quit if they had their desired scoring ratio. Their depth allowed them to use advanced gameplay strategies that controlled the pace and forced opponents to be constantly adjusting to. It was a brilliant use of their strengths.
Sarah Hipel Says Keeping Going Jill Rookard
Detroit Roller Derby had a great 2019 season and a lot of that had to do with the level of team buy into a long jam/set up in back strategy. With one of the most dynamic jammers at the Continental Cup level, keeping Rookard on the track for 2 full minutes puts extreme stress on opposing defenses and all of Detroit’s jammer rotation knows to stay in bounds and push should they not grab a lead. A bit unconventional, but it played to their strengths — physical jammers who are hard to hit off of the track, an extended blocking zone for their defense, and a smart veteran team with a clear game plan. It was extremely difficult for teams to adjust.
It’s Me, Again
One great back and forth of the 2019 postseason was the NA West Championship game between Detroit and Sailor City. Finding themselves down and against a tournament MVP jammer in Jules, Detroit shifted to 5D off the line and looked to limit Jules’ track/scoring time, hoping to grab leads against other Sailor City jammers and run those leads long to close the gap. Instead, Jules used the opportunity to conserve energy and run time off of the clock. Who would be fielded in the following jam? Jules again. If Detroit wanted to see another jammer, they were going to have to play against their MVP jammer straight up. Someone had finally forced Detroit into an awkward adjustment after a season of them tormenting opposing teams.
How to Train Various Total Points Gameplay Strategies
In order to be able to successfully implement different gameplay strategies, beyond hit and quit, you need to incorporate them into practice. Whether it is with specific gameplay scenarios that you drill repeatedly, or by incorporating them into your scrimmages, you need to use these spaces to play with different strategies. Very few people will fully understand how to implement this stuff, simply by reading about it or by understanding the math and ultimately you will struggle to adjust your gameplay if half of your skaters understand what is happening and the other half are just trying to follow their lead or the bench.
One main suggestion from me is to start keeping score during your practice scrimmages (including B and league!) and work with either side, during stoppages, to talk about how we should adjust our gameplay given the score and opponent. One of my favourite moments this year, pre-pandemic break, was one of my jammers signalling off my call off, feeling like the match up was favourable given the time/score that they faced. They gambled and it paid off! Getting a team to the point where they feel comfortable making these decisions in real time is the ultimate goal, that’s when everyone truly understands total points %.
Also, the delivery is very important. New gameplay strategies can be FUN! Opening up a whole new world beyond hit and quit derby can fire new parts of your brain and body. It can breathe new life into a veteran’s skates and reinvigorate programs that feel stalled. It’s a challenge, but make sure it is a fun challenge!
Like what we do? Consider chipping in a few bucks.
