The Game Show Forum
The Game Show Forum => The Big Board => Topic started by: Bryce L. on February 08, 2011, 06:50:38 PM
-
I have been trying, without success, to find a listing of the top 10 money winners from the Trebek run of Jeopardy (career winnings). I know that Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings hold ranks #1 and #2, but I am unsure of who would be further down the list. Any help would be appreciated.
FYI the reason I would like this info is so I can look up their stats on the J! archive and try to see how one champion would compare to another in terms of game performances.
-
I'm sure someone will be able to help you on Sony's Jeopardy discussion board (http://\"http://boards.sonypictures.com/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=11\"). Thing is, while it's an interesting statistic (especially for the individuals who actually won that very real money), money winnings are a poor way to compare top players. Early players played for lower stakes, not only in their regular games but also in the annual tournaments. ($100,000 for champs in the early years, and I believe $250,000 now). Plus some people have simply had more opportunities to play by virtue of having been invited to more of the special tournaments. Still, somebody will definitely know it to the penny over there.
-
The official Jeopardy! website keeps similar stats like these and others in its "Hall of Fame (http://\"http://jeopardy.com/showguide/halloffame/50kplus/\")" section, but this particular stat is kept without including special tournaments, just main game winnings. Still might be of some help to you.
-
How many Tournament of Champions winners have won the $250,000 prize, anyway? You have Ken-Brad-Jerome Vered, David Madden, Larissa Kelly, Roger and Tom from this year, and then the remainder of the list would fill out with TOC winners after the increase in prize money.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'256704\' date=\'Feb 8 2011, 09:23 PM\']How many Tournament of Champions winners have won the $250,000 prize, anyway? You have Ken-Brad-Jerome Vered, David Madden, Larissa Kelly, Roger and Tom from this year, and then the remainder of the list would fill out with TOC winners after the increase in prize money.[/quote]
I don't think I understand your question, since Brad is the only ToC WINNER in the group you named. Only 4 players have won the ToC since it was bumped up to $250K (Michael Falk, Celeste DiNucci, Dan Pawson, Vijay Balse)
As far as people who won $250K+ in regular gameplay, only David Madden and Ken Jennings have done that.
People who have won $250,000 or more period? Well, we'd have to go back to Bruce Seymour, Frank Spangenberg, then Robin Carroll (if you count her 5-time champion car- if not, she misses the mark by $900), Bob Verini, and the people you already mentioned. I'm sure there's a few I missed, but whatever- you get the point.
I'm hoping one of those factoids answers your question.
/yayy carpet bombing.
-
[quote name=\'Jeremy Nelson\' post=\'256708\' date=\'Feb 8 2011, 08:31 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'256704\' date=\'Feb 8 2011, 09:23 PM\']How many Tournament of Champions winners have won the $250,000 prize, anyway? You have Ken-Brad-Jerome Vered, David Madden, Larissa Kelly, Roger and Tom from this year, and then the remainder of the list would fill out with TOC winners after the increase in prize money.[/quote]I don't think I understand your question, [/quote]I probably could have put some space between the people who have won more than the yearly top prize, and my asking of "how many people have won a Tournament of Champions worth $250,000?" which as you said, is four.
Mark Dawson's win in 2003 brings that to five, but that's still a Tournament of Champions every other year since the money amounts were doubled. Can it be so?
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'256709\' date=\'Feb 8 2011, 10:48 PM\'][quote name=\'Jeremy Nelson\' post=\'256708\' date=\'Feb 8 2011, 08:31 PM\'][quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'256704\' date=\'Feb 8 2011, 09:23 PM\']How many Tournament of Champions winners have won the $250,000 prize, anyway? You have Ken-Brad-Jerome Vered, David Madden, Larissa Kelly, Roger and Tom from this year, and then the remainder of the list would fill out with TOC winners after the increase in prize money.[/quote]I don't think I understand your question, [/quote]I probably could have put some space between the people who have won more than the yearly top prize, and my asking of "how many people have won a Tournament of Champions worth $250,000?" which as you said, is four.
Mark Dawson's win in 2003 brings that to five, but that's still a Tournament of Champions every other year since the money amounts were doubled. Can it be so?
[/quote]
Actually, then you corrected me. There have been five winners of the ToC since the top prize was upped- I thought Michael Falk was the first, not Mark Dawson. My bad.
There probably won't be a ToC this season, since they still have the Teachers tournament, which would add another competitor to the final fifteen.
Speaking of which, this may sound a little dumb, but considering that this type of tournament still involves regular adults, would they get any sort of specialized categories? For example, were the categories in the Seniors Tournament tilted any way to give those players a better grasp of the game, or was it just regular Jeopardy with older players?
-
[quote name=\'Jeremy Nelson\' post=\'256712\' date=\'Feb 8 2011, 10:37 PM\']Speaking of which, this may sound a little dumb, but considering that this type of tournament still involves regular adults, would they get any sort of specialized categories? For example, were the categories in the Seniors Tournament tilted any way to give those players a better grasp of the game, or was it just regular Jeopardy with older players?[/quote]Not dumb at all, but the Seniors Tournament was heavy on the nostalgia and history and "good old days" stuff, in the same way that Teen Tournament and Kids Week piles on the pop culture material. Not sure how you'd have specialized material for a Teachers Tournament, since teachers usually teach one or two disciplines, and not everything. I would say to expect something between your standard episode of Jeopardy! and the Tournament of Champions. Hard but not impenetrable.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'256702\' date=\'Feb 8 2011, 09:47 PM\']money winnings are a poor way to compare top players.[/quote]
Very true. That is why, in my comparison, I would also take into account:
--Average number of correct answers in each round
--Average Coryat score (including adjustments for pre-2001 players)
--How gutsy a player was on a Daily Double or Final Jeopardy (what % they wagered, on average)
--How often they had lock matches (matches that couldn't be lost, assuming they held to Clavin's Rule)
Any ideas how else to measure performances?
-
[quote name=\'Bryce L.\' post=\'256714\' date=\'Feb 9 2011, 01:44 AM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'256702\' date=\'Feb 8 2011, 09:47 PM\']money winnings are a poor way to compare top players.[/quote]
Very true. That is why, in my comparison, I would also take into account:
--Average number of correct answers in each round
--Average Coryat score (including adjustments for pre-2001 players)
--How gutsy a player was on a Daily Double or Final Jeopardy (what % they wagered, on average)
--How often they had lock matches (matches that couldn't be lost, assuming they held to Clavin's Rule)
Any ideas how else to measure performances?[/quote]
Those are all interesting, but my point was different. From your original post, it appears that the way you're deciding what your sample set will be is by money winnings. In other words (if I'm right), you plan to take the top ten money winners of all time, and THEN compare those ten people based on all those other factors. And I'm saying that's a poor way to create a Jeopardy Top Ten of all-time. Too many rule changes and value changes make that measure just about meaningless. (Except, as I said, for the people who won that very real money.)
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'256735\' date=\'Feb 9 2011, 10:03 AM\'][quote name=\'Bryce L.\' post=\'256714\' date=\'Feb 9 2011, 01:44 AM\'][quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'256702\' date=\'Feb 8 2011, 09:47 PM\']money winnings are a poor way to compare top players.[/quote]
Very true. That is why, in my comparison, I would also take into account:
--Average number of correct answers in each round
--Average Coryat score (including adjustments for pre-2001 players)
--How gutsy a player was on a Daily Double or Final Jeopardy (what % they wagered, on average)
--How often they had lock matches (matches that couldn't be lost, assuming they held to Clavin's Rule)
Any ideas how else to measure performances?[/quote]
Those are all interesting, but my point was different. From your original post, it appears that the way you're deciding what your sample set will be is by money winnings. In other words (if I'm right), you plan to take the top ten money winners of all time, and THEN compare those ten people based on all those other factors. And I'm saying that's a poor way to create a Jeopardy Top Ten of all-time. Too many rule changes and value changes make that measure just about meaningless. (Except, as I said, for the people who won that very real money.)
[/quote]
OK, in all seriousness, how would YOU rank the best of the best?
-
[quote name=\'Bryce L.\' post=\'256744\' date=\'Feb 9 2011, 12:15 PM\']OK, in all seriousness, how would YOU rank the best of the best?[/quote]
I'd start with Ken Jennings, Brad Rutter and Jerome Vered right out of the box. No one has come remotely close to whan Ken accomplished, and Brad and Jerome ran the gauntlet of other five-time winners in the Ultimate Tournament.
After that, there are 21 others (http://\"http://jeopardy.com/showguide/halloffame/tournamentofchampions/\") who have won the more-or-less annual Tournament of Champions. I'd eliminate from that list anybody who lost before their fifth game in the regular season. That leaves you with players who were essentially undefeated except for special tournaments, and except for the players in the sky's-the-limit era, who had to lose sometime. That's a fair and equitable starting point, because the nature of the tournament has not changed in the entire run of the show.
If you have to reduce that number to ten, I'd consider only regular season winnings. Still, I'd limit that to the first five games for players from the sky's-the-limit era, and I'd double the pre-2001 totals. That's not perfect, but it's still relatively simple and monumentally better than choosing people solely based on how much money they won.
-
[quote name=\'Bryce L.\' post=\'256714\' date=\'Feb 8 2011, 10:44 PM\']--How gutsy a player was on a Daily Double or Final Jeopardy (what % they wagered, on average)[/quote] This makes no sense. Ken Jennings has played more Jeopardy! than anyone on the planet, and when he finds Daily Doubles (usually by virtue of being right all those other times) he didn't bet all that big. I would suggest that his conservative play on those three clues had a lot to do with...
--How often they had lock matches (matches that couldn't be lost, assuming they held to Clavin's Rule)
Chuck Forrest had four locks and a lock-tie. Robin Carroll had five lock wins. Both won their respective Tournament of Champions. But only one of them because so respected and feared among contemporaries that the remaining tournament contenders were all contemplating who would win second place. Not who would win, because that was obvious, but who would be the one thrown under the bus in the final.
No one has yet to match Frank Spangenberg's five-game total winnings but Frank wasn't able to get out of the semifinals in his Tournament. Tom Nissley had at one point, amassed a higher total than had Ken Jennings at that point in his reign, but Ken won only about seventy more times. Roger Craig was undistinguished in his non-record breaking games, but he won eight of 'em and had built up such a lead on day two that he was able to re-write history. When Ken won $75,000, he was six hundred dollars away from Brian Weikle's mark and had several thousand dollars more than Roger at that point. He could have bet forty grand if he was so inclined.
OK, in all seriousness, how would YOU rank the best of the best?
I wouldn't. There is so much flukey stuff that can happen during a game of Jeopardy! that I refuse to do this sort of thing. Could I pick a field of 27 to compete in a Super Double Secret Ultimate Challenge? Yeah, I could. But there's no way that you could say who's "best" except by money or victories and maintain objectivity.
-
OK kinda irked that I just lost my last attempt at a post due to my browser having an off-moment, but here goes:
To Travis Eberle, I appreciate your input, but I think I will go ahead with my listing. I admit random things can and do happen in the course of the game, but oh well.
Sort of off-topic, but one of the main reasons I am doing this project is my obsession with statistics. You see, I have a variant of Autism (I'm sort of like "Rain Man", only I am slightly better at conversing). I have always gotten into lists and rankings. I also love game shows, in particular Jeopardy. So, I decided to try to rank the best of the best. I'm sure I'll take some heat from those who disagree with my findings, but this is something I just spent the last 4 hours or so on, trying to research and classify.
Taking into account Matt Ottinger's advice (which I thank him for), I have ranked 15 players based on how well they did in their first five matches, with adjustments made to pre-2001 players' totals. Well, here goes:
1) Jerome Vered $193,602
2) Bob Blake $165,002
3) Ken Jennings $156,000
4) Dan Melia $151,200
5) Leszek Pawlowicz $150,800
6) Chuck Forrest $145,600
7) Dave Abbott $137,198
8) Michael Dupee $132,802
9) Tom Nosek $131,280
10) Robin Carroll $128,200
11) Brad Rutter $110,204
12) Dan Pawson $109,100
13) Mark Lowenthal $99,802
14) Jim Scott $98,600
15) Bob Verini $93,604
Any comments are welcome, and are encouraged
-
That's terrific, but to me the exercise seems like asking "Who would win at a game of H-O-R-S-E, Casey Keller or Edgar Martinez?"
I also have a hard time taking seriously a list that puts Ken Jennings lower than someone he beat in a tournament. And Brad Rutter, who cleaned both their clocks over three days, eleventh.
-
[quote name=\'Bryce L.\' post=\'256806\' date=\'Feb 9 2011, 09:30 PM\']Any comments are welcome, and are encouraged[/quote]
I am thrilled you enjoyed the process of putting this together, though I find your results to be utter hogwash.
But hey, if it was fun for you to do, that's what's important. I just wouldn't expect this to be taken as any sort of canon.
-
[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'256910\' date=\'Feb 10 2011, 11:37 PM\']I also have a hard time taking seriously a list that puts Ken Jennings lower than someone he beat in a tournament. And Brad Rutter, who cleaned both their clocks over three days, eleventh.[/quote]
It's an impossible exercise to be sure. Still, I didn't see that list as necessarily a ranking but as a grouping that he now wants to compare by several different factors, including money winnings in total. Jennings , Rutter and Vered are on the list where they belong, along with some other very impressive names. No matter what formula you apply, ultimately it's as arbitrary as naming the fifteen best baseball players in history. No one's going to agree. But I have to say that this list is much more inclusive of some of the recognized top players ever than what he was planning to do originally.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'256931\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 06:50 AM\']No one's going to agree.[/quote]
No one's going to agree, sure, but nobody is going to look at a list where Brad Rutter ranks no higher than eleventh and think that the metric used to produce that list is any sort of indicator of overall quality.
I think I'll publish a list of the Top 15 highest rated sitcoms of all time, ranked by letter frequency.
(Again, though, if he enjoyed computing that as a pure mathematical exercise, great. But it would be delusional to write anything but "Top 15 Jeopardy! Players Ranked Solely By The Adjusted Total Of Their First Five Regular Games" at the top of that page.)
-
[quote name=\'clemon79\' post=\'256941\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 01:01 PM\'](Again, though, if he enjoyed computing that as a pure mathematical exercise, great. But it would be delusional to write anything but "Top 15 Jeopardy! Players Ranked Solely By The Adjusted Total Of Their First Five Regular Games" at the top of that page.)[/quote]
I'm defending mostly because he's doing what I suggested he do. Where I'm cutting him some slack is on the word 'ranked'. I thought all he wanted was a way to come up with a pool of the ten (now fifteen) greatest Jeopardy players of all time. I offered him a way to do that using a system that's better than his original idea of all-time money winnings. He's done something like that and he's made a list. Rutter's on the list. Jennings is on the list. Vered is on the list. Pawlowicz, Verini, Forrest and Dupee are on the list. It's a pretty good list.
The fact that it's "ranked", as far as I'm concerned, is just him showing his work. At this point in his process, he could have said "I did X, Y and Z and here are the fifteen names I came up with, listed alphabetically." My understanding is that he plans to compare them by a lot of different variables, including the one used to generate the fifteen, some of which might be interesting and some of which might not. That list is just a starting point, and I think a very good one.
-
[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' post=\'256947\' date=\'Feb 11 2011, 11:39 AM\']The fact that it's "ranked", as far as I'm concerned, is just him showing his work. At this point in his process, he could have said "I did X, Y and Z and here are the fifteen names I came up with, listed alphabetically."[/quote]
That's fair. I was looking askance primarily at the ordinals. I agree that the right names are by and large on the list. (Though I question any metric that by rule excludes Frank Spangenberg.)
Mostly I was flashing back to members we have had around here who have said things like "Remember (emphasis mine), thus-and-so is the Nth greatest blah of all time," as if their completely arbitrary list was immediately entered into canon because they said so.
I agree that if his plans are to apply a number of different metrics to this list to see which ones might have some useful merit and which do not (for example, if Metric X puts Rutter 14th on the list where Metrics A-W (suddenly I crave root beer) put him in the top 3, that should tell you something about Metric X), I could see where for someone with an affinity for number crunching would find that to be an interesting exercise.
-
[quote name=\'Bryce L.\' post=\'256806\' date=\'Feb 10 2011, 12:30 AM\']1) Jerome Vered $193,602
2) Bob Blake $165,002
3) Ken Jennings $156,000
4) Dan Melia $151,200
5) Leszek Pawlowicz $150,800
6) Chuck Forrest $145,600
7) Dave Abbott $137,198
8) Michael Dupee $132,802
9) Tom Nosek $131,280
10) Robin Carroll $128,200
11) Brad Rutter $110,204
12) Dan Pawson $109,100
13) Mark Lowenthal $99,802
14) Jim Scott $98,600
15) Bob Verini $93,604[/quote]
Pretty sure Frank Spangenberg should be on that list somewhere.
-
Perhaps I made a mistake by not including non-tournament winners in there... I suppose I'll need to revise it, since I know with Spangenberg's original $102,597 (adj. $205,194), he WOULD beat out Vered by that ranking... is there someplace I could look to see overall top season winners, not necessarily ToC winners?