Tie Breaker Idea - Add "Points Against" to "Points For"

[TurboCowboy]

Problem: Many teams miss the playoffs to a team that simply played an easier schedule but had a few more total points on the season.

 

This is a Tie Breaker Idea at end of season to determine the final order after regular season. Add "points for" to "points against". The higher total among two tied teams wins the tie breaker.

 

Example. Two playoff bubble teams.

 

6th place Team A: 6-7 record. 1435 points for. 1320 points against. Total = 2755

7th place Team B: 6-7 record. 1405 points for. 1480 points against. Total = 2885

 

Team A would go from 6th to 7th and Team B who had a more difficult schedule, would make the playoffs in 6th place.

 

Note: The standard tie breaker format is simply "points for".

 

Solution: This idea weights half the tie breaker value to strength of schedule and alleviates the concerns of "getting screwed" because your schedule was so difficult. Using this plan, nobody could bitch and moan anymore about having a rough schedule, and it would break ties in a more fair way, according to the designer of this idea in our league and others who have heard it.

 

Thoughts?

[delusions of grandeur]

I think this overthinking it, and don't think it should be equally weighted with something you can't control (points against) against with the one thing you can control (points for).

 

I see what you're getting at that more points against could cause you more losses, but what if it doesn't? What if the weeks you got blown out were your worst weeks where you wouldn't have won with even a low score against you.... And that's jsut one example of why it's not a good idea to put your playoff chances at the mercy of the schedule.

 

We do head-to-head, not because it's more fair (it's not), but because it's fun to match up and face off against one another.... But while this allows for more random outcomes, it does not make points against a good measure of the strongest teams, IMO. Points for is exactly that best measure, when records are equal otherwise.

 

In short, I just don't think this will reward the most-deserving teams like most points for clearly does.

Edited November 8, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[TurboCowboy]

I think this overthinking it, and don't think it should be equally weighted with something you can't control (points against) against with the one thing you can control (points for).

 

I see what you're getting at that more points against could cause you more losses, but what if it doesn't? What if the weeks you got blown out were your worst weeks where you wouldn't have won with even a low score against you.... And that's jsut one example of why it's not a good idea to put your playoff chances at the mercy of the schedule.

 

We do head-to-head, not because it's more fair (it's not), but because it's fun to match up and face off against one another.... But while this allows for more random outcomes, I do not think points against is a good measure of the strongest teams. Points for is exactly that best measure, when records are equal otherwise.

 

In short, I just don't think this will reward the most-deserving teams like most points for clearly does.

 

 

Excellent thinking. Thanks. I have a feeling we'll give this a try next year, but I am going to take your opinion on it to the guys and see what they think. Who else has thoughts on this one?

[delusions of grandeur]

Just to add one more thing, your example has the team with less points and equal wins is rewarded the playoff spot.

 

I think that's problematic, when there's no telling that the more points against created this tie in records. It might not necessarily be the case. But the 1 thing we can say for certain is that one team scored more than the other (which again, is the one thing you can control, and is the basis of the game, to score the most points. You can't control what the other team does).

[stevegrab]

Agree with DOG on this, points against are completely unrelated to anything about your team. The guys who got "screwed by the tougher schedule" may feel is is more fair, but what about everybody else.

 

This happens all the time and we all see it in our H2H leagues. I'm 2-7 (1-2 in division), while another guy is 5-4 (2-1 in div), I've scored about 25 points more than he has, while having about 50 more points against. He has had a much easier schedule, and if we look at an all play result my team is better than him.

 

I don't feel that if we were tied in records that my higher points against should be used to award me a playoff spot.

 

I understand what your rule is trying to address but I don't think it is a good idea or adds any amount of fairness.

[TurboCowboy]

Agree with DOG on this, points against are completely unrelated to anything about your team. The guys who got "screwed by the tougher schedule" may feel is is more fair, but what about everybody else.

 

This happens all the time and we all see it in our H2H leagues. I'm 2-7 (1-2 in division), while another guy is 5-4 (2-1 in div), I've scored about 25 points more than he has, while having about 50 more points against. He has had a much easier schedule, and if we look at an all play result my team is better than him.

 

I don't feel that if we were tied in records that my higher points against should be used to award me a playoff spot.

 

I understand what your rule is trying to address but I don't think it is a good idea or adds any amount of fairness.

 

 

Thanks for your input and I'll report it to our group. But, I need to be clear about this. It would NOT improve your record. It would only leapfrog you over someone at the end of the season who had the same record as you. Head to head record remains the primary goal for everyone. This just adds a little bit of weight to strength of schedule.

[Big Country]

Thanks for your input and I'll report it to our group. But, I need to be clear about this. It would NOT improve your record. It would only leapfrog you over someone at the end of the season who had the same record as you. Head to head record remains the primary goal for everyone. This just adds a little bit of weight to strength of schedule.

 

 

Not neccessarily. What if his points against are the result of 2-3 teams having enormous weeks against him, while the rest of the weeks the other guy actually had more points scored against him, just the sum total was not higher.

 

If you want to lessen the impact of a "weaker" schedule, a better (at least IMO) way to do this would be using the All Play record as the tiebreaker. This way, the team that consistently scored more than the other teams across the entire league is getting the boost, regardless of any luck quotient in the schedule. And, it is entirely feasible that the team with less points scored on the season would still advance if they were more consistent from week to week.

[Bronco Billy]

Not neccessarily. What if his points against are the result of 2-3 teams having enormous weeks against him, while the rest of the weeks the other guy actually had more points scored against him, just the sum total was not higher.

 

If you want to lessen the impact of a "weaker" schedule, a better (at least IMO) way to do this would be using the All Play record as the tiebreaker. This way, the team that consistently scored more than the other teams across the entire league is getting the boost, regardless of any luck quotient in the schedule. And, it is entirely feasible that the team with less points scored on the season would still advance if they were more consistent from week to week.

 

 

Wow. I was just going to type an answer matching this almost word for word.

[stevegrab]

Thanks for your input and I'll report it to our group. But, I need to be clear about this. It would NOT improve your record. It would only leapfrog you over someone at the end of the season who had the same record as you. Head to head record remains the primary goal for everyone. This just adds a little bit of weight to strength of schedule.

 

 

I understand that, but the reaosn you seem to be doing this is because people think that the team who is tied and has lower PF but higher PA got "screwed" and therefore their higher PA should be used to help move them past the other team in the standings.

 

BC & BB make a good point about using all play for the tie breaker, I was going to say that but thought it might get confused as being the same as using the highest PF.

[delusions of grandeur]

Not neccessarily. What if his points against are the result of 2-3 teams having enormous weeks against him, while the rest of the weeks the other guy actually had more points scored against him, just the sum total was not higher.

 

If you want to lessen the impact of a "weaker" schedule, a better (at least IMO) way to do this would be using the All Play record as the tiebreaker. This way, the team that consistently scored more than the other teams across the entire league is getting the boost, regardless of any luck quotient in the schedule. And, it is entirely feasible that the team with less points scored on the season would still advance if they were more consistent from week to week.

 

 

Yep, another one to consider is victory points. I forget how it works now, but is how they're doing it in DAD. Maybe Relish or WD or someone from that league can elaborate on how it's working out.

 

You essentially highlighted what I did earlier, that there are many examples where a team with more points scored against did not necessarily have a tougher schedule, just maybe a couple bigger losses. You just can't say that it would have made a difference in record or not, making it a very poor tie-breaker.

 

Conversely, points for will always be a solid predictor of team strength (since the point of the game is to score the most points on a weekly basis). You just can't say the same about points against, and it only adds schedule randomness more into the equation, rather than less of a factor if that's your prerogative.

[MikesVikes]

Not neccessarily. What if his points against are the result of 2-3 teams having enormous weeks against him, while the rest of the weeks the other guy actually had more points scored against him, just the sum total was not higher.

 

If you want to lessen the impact of a "weaker" schedule, a better (at least IMO) way to do this would be using the All Play record as the tiebreaker. This way, the team that consistently scored more than the other teams across the entire league is getting the boost, regardless of any luck quotient in the schedule. And, it is entirely feasible that the team with less points scored on the season would still advance if they were more consistent from week to week.

[MikesVikes]

Wow. I was just going to type an answer matching this almost word for word.

 

 

That's incredible! I just posted the exact same thing word for word.

[Bronco Billy]

That's incredible! I just posted the exact same thing word for word.

 

 

Thank you, Ward Churchill.

[Grogansghost]

What about creating an every week head-to-head record for just the two tied teams? See what the records would've been if the tied teams faced off every week.

 

It would be a bigger sample size than looking at only the 1 or 2 games the teams actually played against each other - but still keep the spirit of a head to head tie breaker.

[stevegrab]

What about creating an every week head-to-head record for just the two tied teams? See what the records would've been if the tied teams faced off every week.

 

It would be a bigger sample size than looking at only the 1 or 2 games the teams actually played against each other - but still keep the spirit of a head to head tie breaker.

 

 

Not a bad idea. Not sure if other sites do this, but on CBS there is a "breakdown" section on the standings that does this for every team, showing your record against every team in the league, and the total (the "all play" record as some would call it).

[TurboCowboy]

What about creating an every week head-to-head record for just the two tied teams? See what the records would've been if the tied teams faced off every week.

 

It would be a bigger sample size than looking at only the 1 or 2 games the teams actually played against each other - but still keep the spirit of a head to head tie breaker.

 

 

I gotta tell you, this sounds like a very acceptable idea. Going to propose it to the gang. Thanks grogans.

[Grogansghost]

I gotta tell you, this sounds like a very acceptable idea. Going to propose it to the gang. Thanks grogans.

 

 

Yay! Glad someone might use it. Proposed it in one of my leagues, but those owners reject every new idea as too complicated

[MikesVikes]

I would consider an All Play record before considering Points against in a system. Did you consistently score points every week or did you have blow up scores in only a few weeks. Myfantasyleague can track that.