So, in order to simplify, clarify and move forward, I'm attempting to boil down the major arguments from this thread regarding a proposed aggregate ranking system:  (great discussion from passionate peeps!)

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/1854/Debate:_Board_Championship_and_Global_Ranking

It started three years ago, with essentially all the same arguments. 

I'll post all the supporting arguments first, and then take the summary out for those of you who don't want to read it all again.  I apologize if any of your are feeling misrepresented by my summaries, just clear things up and it'll all be okay!

Better yet, I'll just make a wiki page of the supporting arguments, and post the summary here. 

Wiki:  http://www.wargear.net/wiki/doku.php?id=aggregate_stat

General arguments about using an aggregate stat

Summary: An aggregate stat could reflect the sum total of a players abilities and give a better “whole picture” of the player. However, it is combining stats that are totally different – and unrelated, and would necessarily create different values for the stats. This may or may not become the most sought after stat on the site.

General arguments about using an aggregate stat

Summary: An aggregate stat could reflect the sum total of a players abilities and give a better “whole picture” of the player. However, it is combining stats that are totally different – and unrelated, and would necessarily create different values for the stats. This may or may not become the most sought after stat on the site.

About the construction of the aggregate score

Summary: There are two big topics here. The inclusion of team, tournament, trophy and H-rating stats in an aggregate, and how much each of the included stats should be weighted.

The problems are centered around: what is most important to encourage in players on the site, how easy the stat will be to game, and whether or not team inclusion still reflects an individuals’ skills levels.  It has also become important to ensure the stat cannot be dominated by one particular skill, but still rewards someone for having that skill. 

About Inclusion of Team Games:

Summary: The debate is centered on whether or not an individual’s skill is reflected by team play, or if it is a different and desirable skillset. There is also some worry about “super teams” being exclusive in order to get points, but the point system works with diminishing returns, so that team would be forced to diversify eventually. 

About including Tournament stats

Summary: Tournament stat inclusion is argued for by the aggregate being an inclusion of all stats, and against by Tournaments being a coveted practice ground, and being a narrow subset of all games.

Argument for h rating inclusion:

H-rating inclusion is argued for by it being a stable and decent indicator, and should be included for completeness, which would balance out the other more volatile stats. It is argued against because of it’s complexity and it measuring a completely different thing than the other stats, in a different way – so how to include it? 

Moving forward action:

First, put forth a vote/tally on what scores should be included in the composite, If more than two options are offered then I suggest a voting system where the lowest vote getting option is dropped and another vote is taken on the remaining options - rinse and repeat.

Second, based on the winner from above. I/we can present formulaic options for the composite which will then be voted upon.

Proposed Systems for the Aggregate:

Summary: The proposed systems all fall into one of the following categories:

No aggregate

Combination of GR and CP – with equal weighting

Combination of all stats with equal weighting – based either on their normalized scores, or their ranking positions

Combination of all stats with simple ratios for weighting

Some mathy ones I don’t get, because I do people, not math.

Alternatives

I thought of a good analogy for the debate on including/not including Teamplay. For reference my opinion is that it's a desirable but wholly different skill set that should be incentivized some other way vs. being included in the aggregate.
Let's take Lebron James as an example. There are all kinds of individual stats/skills that show he is an amazing player. Points, rebounds, vertical jump, etc. there is also his "Team score" that looks at overall team win record. During his time with the Cavs, would anybody say that Lebron was less of a player because his team lost? Similarly, would anybody say that he was a great player because his team was winning? Now let's assume that instead of the Heat Lebron signed with 10 different teams and each one had a losing record.
(Continued below)

Does it really make sense to judge him as an individual based on his team's record? While I think his individual skill contributes to the overall success of the team, I don't think it's as important a reflection on him overall. You could make the argument that with small teams of 2 or 3 this gets minimized, but I still think that it's assessing the TEAM, not the players. And since there is already a Team score that stands alone, I don't think it fits with a lot of other stats that essentially track individual performance.

I can speak definitively that when playing a team game success is bread by thinking the game completely differently and by employing new individual team strategies to fit the circumstances.  The more teammates who reciprocate this way of thinking, the more successful the team.  Of course this works best with teammates who are on the same page as you, but, regardless, new individual skills are tested when it comes to playing team games.  I have watched histories of some truly great individual players that just don't get team game strategy.  They lack individual team play skills and play team games as individuals on the same team.

As for your sports example, good team play is an individual skill there too.  Look at someone like Wayne Gretzky, amazing individual team skills and an assist machine.  He would take players around him who were normally 15-20 goal scorers and suddenly they are 30-40 goal scorers.  The trickle down effect was that he could make poor teams good and good teams elite!  Of course with the Edmonton Oilers his teammates were also of a very high caliber and they have the Stanley Cups to prove it, but, what he did in Los Angeles was nothing to snuff at either.  Upsetting the Edmonton Oilers in the playoffs his first year there and taking them to their first ever division title shortly thereafter.  Good individual team skills elevate the team in sports just as they do here, and some players do it better then others!  And yes, a good team play player can be held mildly to largely accountable for the team record as reflected by how the team does with and without.  Gretzky is an excellent example of this as teams he is on just perform better then when he's not.  I think Michael Jordan perhaps too, but, never much liked following Basketball.  For the same reason I can not say much about Lebron James, but, if he has great individual skills only, then those don't always bring up those around him and his team may suffer despite his excellence.  But, if he has great individual team skills, like Gretzky, then you should expect the team he is on to do better, even much better, with him then without him.  Again, I don't follow Basketball, but maybe Lebron wasn't a good example if he doesn't elevate his teammates around him and consequently his team by some measure.

I agree with you ATH, the team score is not a really a reflection of the individuals players skills, but their skill on a team - which is sometimes sabotaged by exploding innards. 

But that's not the point.  It actually missed the point.  If an aggregate is indeed something more than its parts and is supposed to reflect your all-round game play, then team games are part of the ways you can play here.

And were all handicapped the same way when it comes to this score. Those of us that are better team players will have higher team scores, those of us that are not, will not.  It's part of the all round player.

Those that do not play team games will have a base team score, those that win lots will have a higher score.  Again, if the Aggregate is supposed to show a picture of all things put together, than your team play is a part of it. 

I'm pretty sure that anyone who's reading this thread is also reading the Ranks thread, but I figure it's appropriate to mention it here as well, because the proposed system for determining a player's Rank can also be used to determine an aggregate..

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/3546/What_should_our_ranks_be_based_on#39963

starting at post #6

If my proposed system was to be used (or any similar system), i'd be tempted to base the CP score on GR and NOT normalize the TM and TN scores.  I think this follows the tradition of highly valuing the CP, but still gives the TM and TN scores the opportunity to normalize themselves.  Over time, those non-normalized max scores could in theory rise above that of the top GR and then we'll be debating whether or not the CP should be tied to the new top score. If it gets to that point, I'd see it as a healthy sign.

Let the market speak, if the site turns in to a Team oriented Clanish bunch, so be it.  Otherwise, let the GR and CP reign supreme.  No need to force the issue by normalizing the scales.  It's just an aggregate.

AttilaTheHun wrote: Does it really make sense to judge him as an individual based on his team's record? While I think his individual skill contributes to the overall success of the team, I don't think it's as important a reflection on him overall. You could make the argument that with small teams of 2 or 3 this gets minimized, but I still think that it's assessing the TEAM, not the players. And since there is already a Team score that stands alone, I don't think it fits with a lot of other stats that essentially track individual performance.

This analogy breaks down when we consider that the NBA doesn't have the equivalent of non-team play.

We may all agree that a given player is the best player on his team, but even that is subjective because there's no W/L data to prove it. Yes, that player may not be as good a team player given his skills.  But there's no way to know this either because NBA b-ball doesn't have games that let 5 people play against each other in a single game, much less heads up 1v1 play.

berickf wrote in a different thread:

So to recap, team CP - yes, tourney CP - yes, team-tourney CP - yes.  Then they could all be normalized through that process that you described to its counterpart so that the team CP would max out the same as team GR, the tourney CP would max out at the same as the tourney GR, etc.  Add up the eight, take the average, bingo bango bongo... Very nice aggregate we'd have there!

+1 The idea here is to generate separate CPs for each category.  In theory this should prevent players from gaming the aggregate by for instance specializing in playing just one board in tournament play.

Right off the bat, there are a few ways I can think of to accomplish this (in no particular order of preference):

1. Use berickf's straight-ahead approach described above
2. Derive the means of all the CPs and GRs separately, then normalize/convert the AGCP with the AGGR and take the mean.
3. Normalize/convert the CPs to their respective GRs, then derive the aggregate of the revised CP scores ONLY. This would weight the category that has the highest GR. (again, let market forces determine weighting).
4. Stir and serve up another way to mess with the distributive property.