Very important tied breaker question for a Commissioner

[stevegrab]

Yes this is a custom league. The intent was to have head to head schedules matter first then total points. Unfortunately, ESPN has other ideas. I wrote our league rules so I know the intent. I have put it to a league vote because that is what the rules state can be done.

 

Sounds like you've got it under control and intended for the playoffs to be set differently than what ESPN did. So long as you can get agreement and have the ability to override what ESPN did with setting the playoffs that is all that matters.

 

Many will tell you there is only one way or a best way to handle the tiebreakers. But your league, your rules, unfortunate that ESPN didn't handle them as expected.

[Big Country]

Based on how ESPN broke the ties, I am going to assume that ESPN is going by the standard that in order for the head to head to cause a tiebreak, a team must have swept all other tied teams - a setting that is relatively common. Because there was no clean sweep, the H2H setting is ignored and the second tiebreak is applied, putting Team C in the playoffs.

 

There are obviously multiple ways to interpret what is meant by H2H. One other way would be to look at the combined records, and in this case Tea mA and B tied with 2-1 records, thus Team C is eliminated. We then revert back to tiebreaker one for Team A and b, in which case both teams were 1-1 and go to the second tiebreaker. You have listed two different 2nd tiebreakers - in your first post, it says it is total points, in post #11, you say it is Total Points scored from head to head record, in which case we would need to know the scores of the two head to head games.

[Big Country]

 

 

Head to head should always be the 1st tiebreaker IMO. In my league we do Head to head, then division record, then points scored

 

 

Head to head is a horrible tiebreaker. Really it makes no sense at all to use it in fantasy football as a tiebreaker, unless you are more interested in adding even more luck to the game and who makes playoffs than is already involved.

 

Simple example - Team A over the course of the season scores 1800 points. Team B scores 1300 over the course of the season, In their one game against each other, Team B wins barely, say 100-96 or something, Every other week Team A outscored team B.

 

You really think that the one random week should have bearing on which team makes the playoff? Or should we look at the elements that are more indicative of the better team, like points scored?

[Finn5033]

Head to head is a horrible tiebreaker. Really it makes no sense at all to use it in fantasy football as a tiebreaker, unless you are more interested in adding even more luck to the game and who makes playoffs than is already involved.

 

Simple example - Team A over the course of the season scores 1800 points. Team B scores 1300 over the course of the season, In their one game against each other, Team B wins barely, say 100-96 or something, Every other week Team A outscored team B.

 

You really think that the one random week should have bearing on which team makes the playoff? Or should we look at the elements that are more indicative of the better team, like points scored?

 

In the example you have given I feel the exact opposite way. If the league is a head to head set up than the team with the head to head victory should make it. We can go round and round on this all day but I will say again, what is the purpose of the head to head match ups then? If you want the teams that score the most points to make the playoffs than just set it up that way. Have all teams set a line up every week and at the end of the season have the highest scoring teams make the playoffs. IMO unless that is how the league is set up, points scored should be the last tie breaker.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Finn5033

[Gopher]

First, I agree with Zooty. I hate saying that, after he just beat me by 100+ in FDSB (and I have to play him again this week in the playoffs), but he's pretty much right on.

 

Two, people commonly mis-use the term "head-to-head" when referring to ties between 3+ teams, when they really mean "record against each other" or "record against the other teams in the tie." That's more of an observation than a criticism, but it can lead to chaos when people can't agree on what the tie-breakers really mean (because they aren't worded properly, or are ambiguous in nature). It's also different than the "common opponent" tie-breaker (which includes all common opponents, not just those involved in the tie).

 

Lastly, I think many fantasy football players enjoy the combination of HTH and total points. Leagues based on total points alone (with no HTH matchups) can quickly get out of hand, if one team runs away with it. Having HTH weekly matchups keeps things interesting, especially between friends, family, co-workers, etc. And, let's face it, a lot of leagues are just as much about having fun (and winning the "right" to rib your buddy, brother, or the guy in the office next to you, even if it's just for one week, as they are about money or anything else). At the same time, many of us (at least those with some common sense) understand that the proper gauge of which team is better shouldn't be based on the outcome of one week (or even two weeks), but rather the sum of the 13- or 14-week season (hence the total points tie-breaker being most popular tie-breaker). My experience is that HTH is common in "novice" fantasy leagues, but not as much in more competitive leagues.

 

Edit: HTH is more common in leagues with divisions, but in leagues where you play everybody once, I just think HTH is a really bad tie-breaker, when you consider byes and everything else that could affect that one week.

Edited December 2, 2014 by Gopher

[Gopher]

In the example you have given I feel the exact opposite way. If the league is a head to head set up than the team with the head to head victory should make it. We can go round and round on this all day but I will say again, what is the purpose of the head to head match ups then? If you want the teams that score the most points to make the playoffs than just set it up that way. Have all teams set a line up every week and at the end of the season have the highest scoring teams make the playoffs. IMO unless that is how the league is set up, points scored should be the last tie breaker.

Read my previous post. While we enjoy the weekly matchup side of HTH, it's really a poor way of determining what breaks a tie. It certainly doesn't determine which team was better. So, if you want your playoffs determined by flukish things that happened in Week 4, use HTH. But, if the ultimate goal is to put the best teams in the playoffs, there's no question which is a better tie-breaker (and it's total points).

 

Another way of looking at it is simply this. The NFL uses HTH because on that given week, Team A beat Team B. So, they've already proven that they are (or at least were, the only time they played) the better team. Fantasy football is played on paper (or in today's world, through various types of media). Just because you scored more points than Joe in Week 7, doesn't mean you have the better team. In other words, you didn't really play each other, in the same way that a real team beats another real team. So, HTH (on paper) just means a lot less than HTH means in real life. Does that make sense?

[Finn5033]

First, I agree with Zooty. I hate saying that, after he just beat me by 100+ in FDSB (and I have to play him again this week in the playoffs), but he's pretty much right on.

 

Two, people commonly mis-use the term "head-to-head" when referring to ties between 3+ teams, when they really mean "record against each other" or "record against the other teams in the tie." That's more of an observation than a criticism, but it can lead to chaos when people can't agree on what the tie-breakers really mean (because they aren't worded properly, or are ambiguous in nature). It's also different than the "common opponent" tie-breaker (which includes all common opponents, not just those involved in the tie).

 

Lastly, I think many fantasy football players enjoy the combination of HTH and total points. Leagues based on total points alone (with no HTH matchups) can quickly get out of hand, if one team runs away with it. Having HTH weekly matchups keeps things interesting, especially between friends, family, co-workers, etc. And, let's face it, a lot of leagues are just as much about having fun (and winning the "right" to rib your buddy, brother, or the guy in the office next to you, even if it's just for one week, as they are about money or anything else). At the same time, many of us (at least those with some common sense) understand that the proper gauge of which team is better shouldn't be based on the outcome of one week (or even two weeks), but rather the sum of the 13- or 14-week season (hence the total points tie-breaker being most popular tie-breaker). My experience is that HTH is common in "novice" fantasy leagues, but not as much in more competitive leagues.

 

Edit: HTH is more common in leagues with divisions, but in leagues where you play everybody once, I just think HTH is a really bad tie-breaker, when you consider byes and everything else that could affect that one week.

 

Your last sentence there is a great point. In my leagues with divisions we play each division foe twice and the head to head tie breaker only comes into play within the division. But I still think if the head to head can be used between 2 teams as a tie breaker it is the best option.

[Finn5033]

Read my previous post. While we enjoy the weekly matchup side of HTH, it's really a poor way of determining what breaks a tie. It certainly doesn't determine which team was better. So, if you want your playoffs determined by flukish things that happened in Week 4, use HTH. But, if the ultimate goal is to put the best teams in the playoffs, there's no question which is a better tie-breaker (and it's total points).

 

Another way of looking at it is simply this. The NFL uses HTH because on that given week, Team A beat Team B. So, they've already proven that they are (or at least were, the only time they played) the better team. Fantasy football is played on paper (or in today's world, through various types of media). Just because you scored more points than Joe in Week 7, doesn't mean you have the better team. In other words, you didn't really play each other, in the same way that a real team beats another real team. So, HTH (on paper) just means a lot less than HTH means in real life. Does that make sense?

 

Lets use BigCountry example again. In his example he uses Team A as having a significantly more amount of points scored in the season than Team B and in that example I agree it is likely that Team A has a much better team. But what if Team A only has scored 25 more points over the season than team B? That doesn't mean his team is better but you would give him the edge because of that even though Team B beat Team A head to head? That's where the argument doesn't work. Majority of the time teams with the same record are going to have similar points scored. I understand there are cases where that's not true, but it is not as likely

[Gopher]

Like I've said a million times, there is no right/wrong answer. It's a matter of preference. I just think points is a better evaluator of which team is better. But, there can be flaws with total points as well, particularly if a team limps into the playoffs after starting hot. Or, if a team has a few huge weeks, combined with a bunch of below-average weeks.

 

If I'm 200 points better than another team, and I miss the playoffs because they flukishly beat me in Week 5, I'm pissed.

 

On the other hand, if I beat a team in Week 5, but they barely edge me in total points (and get into the playoffs as a result), I can live with that.

[Gopher]

Lets use BigCountry example again. In his example he uses Team A as having a significantly more amount of points scored in the season than Team B and in that example I agree it is likely that Team A has a much better team. But what if Team A only has scored 25 more points over the season than team B? That doesn't mean his team is better but you would give him the edge because of that even though Team B beat Team A head to head? That's where the argument doesn't work. Majority of the time teams with the same record are going to have similar points scored. I understand there are cases where that's not true, but it is not as likely

Which scenario has the potential to be more wrong? The team who lost HTH, but gets in because they barely had more total points? Or the team who won HTH, and gets in despite having 300 less total points? One scenario is debatable, in terms of who deserves the spot. The other one really isn't. So, to me, it has more to do with minimizing the flukish teams from benefiting, than anything else. Call it damage control, or whatever you want. There are flaws to each side. But, the flaws are potentially much greater with HTH.

[stevegrab]

Lets use BigCountry example again. In his example he uses Team A as having a significantly more amount of points scored in the season than Team B and in that example I agree it is likely that Team A has a much better team. But what if Team A only has scored 25 more points over the season than team B? That doesn't mean his team is better but you would give him the edge because of that even though Team B beat Team A head to head? That's where the argument doesn't work. Majority of the time teams with the same record are going to have similar points scored. I understand there are cases where that's not true, but it is not as likely

Depends what you consider similar points. Using your example here 1300 vs 1400 points is not similar, but 1300 vs 1325 is? What is the magic line (number or percentage)?

 

In my league, after 13 games

3 division winners (8,9,10 wins) - 1308, 1226, 1280 - 1/2/4 place in points (82 point spread)

3 teams at 7-6, points are 1099, 1105, 1086 - all within 20 points - these are our wild cards for playoffs

3 teams at 6-7, points are 1040, 1024, 1245 - (200 spread, 1245 is 3rd highest, better than wild cards)

3 worst teams (5 or fewer wins in order by record best to worst) - 1159, 1074, 947 (another 200 spread)

 

Yes better teams by record usually score more points. But I'm not sure I'd extrapolate that out to "teams with the same record are going to have similar points". I honestly never paid attention, but it didn;t sound right so I did a little quick check on my league.

 

I think most are just trying to point out that H2H as a tiebreaker is more random than points. Gophers has made some great points about not actually playing each other like NFL teams do and how using points eliminates more of the flukes from rewarding an undeserving team.

Edited December 2, 2014 by stevegrab

[Finn5033]

I respect your guys opinions but I disagree. good topic though

[trade_pro]

Another thing that happened in our league....The third place team has the 8th worst points. I have suggested making the league a cross between top 6 teams per week getting a point and the Head to Head weekly matchup winner getting a point. This makes the league less fluky. This was not met with lot of positives. So fluky is accepted.

[Big Country]

 

 

Lets use BigCountry example again. In his example he uses Team A as having a significantly more amount of points scored in the season than Team B and in that example I agree it is likely that Team A has a much better team. But what if Team A only has scored 25 more points over the season than team B? That doesn't mean his team is better but you would give him the edge because of that even though Team B beat Team A head to head? That's where the argument doesn't work. Majority of the time teams with the same record are going to have similar points scored. I understand there are cases where that's not true, but it is not as likely

 

 

I'd rather look at the performance of a team over a 13 week period (total points) rather than a one week period (H2H) if the goal for playoffs is that the better teams make it in.

 

Perhaps the truly best indicator of which team should get in would be more of an all-play record between the two teams where you look at what their record would have been had they played each other every week of the season - a kind of hybrid between total points and H2H - that way you eliminate the flukish nature of a H2H tiebreaker, and, in the case that total points is closer, give an edge to the likely more consistent team.

[Finn5033]

 

 

I'd rather look at the performance of a team over a 13 week period (total points) rather than a one week period (H2H) if the goal for playoffs is that the better teams make it in.

 

Perhaps the truly best indicator of which team should get in would be more of an all-play record between the two teams where you look at what their record would have been had they played each other every week of the season - a kind of hybrid between total points and H2H - that way you eliminate the flukish nature of a H2H tiebreaker, and, in the case that total points is closer, give an edge to the likely more consistent team.

 

 

I like that actually. Good idea

[BA Baracus]

Yeah...all play record is the best tie breaker IMO. In leagues I commish, that's how I set them up. Standings sort by record, all play, total points, and lastly H2H.

[Avernus]

I agree with most that total points is the best determination of the best team in a tie. There is no defense in FF so the random week matchup of Head to head is exactly that... random. The team that scores the most points is the better team and should be in the playoffs.

 

 

If h2h results don't matter then why have h2h games at all?

[InTomWeTrust]

the fix is in

[stevegrab]

If h2h results don't matter then why have h2h games at all?

 

Because playing total points leagues suck

[Big Country]

 

 

If h2h results don't matter then why have h2h games at all?

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying head to head results don't matter... in fact, in most leagues, they are the most critical factor in determining the standings and who advances to the playoffs, as most leagues are based on win-loss record as the first order for standings.

 

What most are saying is that H2H, when used as a tiebreaker, thus a 1 or maybe 2 game sample size, is not a good indicator of which team was better over the course of the season. I think most would agree that the idea is that the better teams make the playoffs, thus, using a tiebreaker that is a better indicator of season long performance is a more logical approach.

[Big Country]

 

Because playing total points leagues suck

 

 

This too in some situations.

 

 

H2H is largely luck based. The randomness of who you play in a given week is a large factor in H2H success. It is an extreme example, but it is possible that you score the second most points each week and are far and away the highest scoring team in the league. But, you happen to play the top scoring team each week, and thus have no wins. Hard to argue that you are not one of the best teams in the league even with a poor record.

[Gopher]

Weekly matchups are what makes FF fun. But, if I beat Zooty in Week 3, I'm happy because it's a "W" for my team (thus bettering my position in the standings). It shouldn't really matter any more than that. It's a win, plain and simple. So, at the end of season, if I'm 9-4, and he's 8-5, I can look back at that week as being the difference. But, if we're both 9-4, and he's got 200 more points than I do, he deserves the spot more than I do, regardless of who beat who in Week 3.

 

I can understand the HTH tie-breaker in leagues where you play teams twice (particularly within a division). If you sweep somebody, and you're trying to decide who wins the division, I don't have as much of a problem with HTH being a tie-breaker. But, if we're talking one game, in leagues where you play everybody (or most everybody) once, I just think HTH is too random, and shouldn't determine who makes the playoffs.

[Zooty]

Because playing total points leagues suck

 

not if you consistently draft good teams. Much like poker, the guys with bad luck seem to have it every year.

 

I used to be in a total points league and it was great, we used head to head to keep the guys that always drafted $hitty teams interested. LOL Otherwise it's just a fluky mess, not really proof of who has the better team.

[stevegrab]

not if you consistently draft good teams. Much like poker, the guys with bad luck seem to have it every year.

 

I used to be in a total points league and it was great, we used head to head to keep the guys that always drafted $hitty teams interested. LOL Otherwise it's just a fluky mess, not really proof of who has the better team.

 

I wasn't really serious, never played in one so I don't know. It was tongue in cheek and a play on the often used "free legues suck".

[Zooty]

Weekly matchups are what makes FF fun. But, if I beat Zooty in Week 3, I'm happy because it's a "W" for my team (thus bettering my position in the standings). It shouldn't really matter any more than that. It's a win, plain and simple. So, at the end of season, if I'm 9-4, and he's 8-5, I can look back at that week as being the difference. But, if we're both 9-4, and he's got 200 more points than I do, he deserves the spot more than I do, regardless of who beat who in Week 3.

 

I can understand the HTH tie-breaker in leagues where you play teams twice (particularly within a division). If you sweep somebody, and you're trying to decide who wins the division, I don't have as much of a problem with HTH being a tie-breaker. But, if we're talking one game, in leagues where you play everybody (or most everybody) once, I just think HTH is too random, and shouldn't determine who makes the playoffs.

 

 

why are you always talking about having to beat me?

 

Buck up, it will happen someday