Need help with a 3 way tie for 2 spots in the playoffs.

[Boy Named Suh]

It's amazing to be that A) something so important come playoff time is so overlooked when setting league rules, and that so many veterans of FF are so split as to the best method. To me, that means that the best way is what ever your league agrees on, and the only truth everyone (everyone rational, anyway) agrees on is no changing horses in the middle of the race.

Great debate, though.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Boy Named Suh

[Gopher]

Like a lot of other things that are discussed on these boards, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. It's a matter of preference. Just like PPR versus non, rolling waivers vs blind bidding, and IDP versus team defense. And, there is certainly nothing "wrong" with playing HTH (weekly), and still using total points as the primary tie-breaker for the playoffs (over HTH). Just like there's nothing wrong with using HTH as the top tie-breaker (even though I personally feel that total points is a better "measurement" of which is the better team).

 

The most important thing is that the rules are spelled out VERY clearly. Even when they seemingly are crystal clear, I've seen questions/debates pop up (in terms of who should get into the playoffs) more times than I care to count. It happens almost every year, in one of my leagues or another. Particularly when it comes down to HTH between more than two teams (and especially when those teams didn't play each other an even number of times, or at all).

 

Is HTH the same as "group winning percentage"? Likewise, in a 3-way tie, do you go back to the first tie-breaker after the first tie is broken? I don't think that is something that should just be assumed (just because "the NFL does it that way"). The more clarity, the better. Spell each tie-breaker out as clearly as possible, and leave NOTHING to be assumed.

[Grits and Shins]

In my local league there was a chance I was going to end up in a tie for the last playoff spot with another team.

 

I defeated him H2H and have 1659.52 points for the year

Had he managed to pull of fa win week 13 our records would have been tied and he would have 1680.76 points

 

Why the heck should the 21.24 more points he scored over the course of 13 weeks trump the fact that I actually defeated him H2H?

Edited December 9, 2015 by Grits and Shins

[Def.]

 

H2H play matters because it is what determines your overall (and division if used/relevant) record. I don't get how not using it for a tie breaker trivializes something that is still a huge part of the standings. It just doesn't let it be an even bigger part of determining who is best.

 

We kind of like to emulate the NFL when possible, and that is why we originally included H2H. But as others have pointed out, that isn't relavent in fantasy like it is in the NFL.

 

In the end, whatever works for your league is all that matters. Almost everybody here gets that

 

See thats just my point, if you beat the team your tied with in H2H you are better. Losing out to a team you beat trivializes the win(s).

 

 

we use total season points as a tiebreaker because H2H just involves too much luck sometimes. There has simply got to be some reward for consistency in putting up points during the regular season. That's why we prefer total points over H2H for tiebreaks. It gives the team who played better season-long that last opportunity over another team that couldn't score as much for the season.

 

If you are consistently scoring well should you not be winning with some consistency then too? Again, bad and good luck happens as I've mentioned in my previous post about fantasy football.

 

Again no right or wrong, just see it differently. Good discussion.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

In my local league there was a chance I was going to end up in a tie for the last playoff spot with another team.

 

I defeated him H2H and have

1659.52

points for the year

Had he managed to pull of fa win week 13 our records would have been tied and he would have 1680.76 points

 

Why the heck should the 21.24 more points he scored over the course of 13 weeks trump the fact that I actually defeated him H2H?

what if he had his first 3 picks on bye the week he played you?

[Shaft]

In my local league there was a chance I was going to end up in a tie for the last playoff spot with another team.

 

I defeated him H2H and have 1659.52 points for the year

Had he managed to pull of fa win week 13 our records would have been tied and he would have 1680.76 points

 

Why the heck should the 21.24 more points he scored over the course of 13 weeks trump the fact that I actually defeated him H2H?

It's a matter of preference, as it has been clearly stated during this thread. And what if you beat the crappy teams and he/she beat the better teams? They can make an argument that their team is better. No matter what, it can be like threading a needle and very difficult to decide. But the fact they scored 21 more points would indicate they had a better season in reference to points and can arguably be considered the better team.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Shaft

[Gopher]

In my local league there was a chance I was going to end up in a tie for the last playoff spot with another team.

 

I defeated him H2H and have 1659.52 points for the year

Had he managed to pull of fa win week 13 our records would have been tied and he would have 1680.76 points

 

Why the heck should the 21.24 more points he scored over the course of 13 weeks trump the fact that I actually defeated him H2H?

That would suck, no doubt. But, in my opinion, it sucks MORE when (hypothetically) I lose out to a team that beat me HTH, even though I outscored them by 400 points during the year. And, to make matters worse, I had half of my team on a bye the week I played that team. In that scenario, it's clear who has the overall better team, but that team simply becomes a victim of bad timing, in terms of how the schedule played out.

 

Again, it's a matter of preference, and I don't think you can say that one is right, any more than the other is.

[Gopher]

I also think the type of league makes a difference. If it's a local league between a bunch of family/friends, I can understand using HTH as a tie-breaker, because you remember the heart-breaker you lost to Uncle Bob in Week 5, or the blowout win against your best friend in Week 10.

 

In leagues where we're playing with a bunch of online FF junkies, I honestly pay very little attention to who my opponent is on a weekly basis. I'm not sure I could name a single opponent of mine from Week 13, other than in my local keeper league (where I beat my 17YO nephew to take the division). He was texting me with excuses ("worst year ever for injuries", etc.) two days before the week started.

[Dcat]

 

So in the end my H2H win over you is irrelevant if we are tied and the fact that you have 2 more points on the season than I do trumps my H2H victory.

 

that is correct. Your H2H victory could have been far more luck-based (injuries, bye weeks, etc.) whereas total points is much more revealing of overall season performance. People tend to forget that H2H is really just a scheduling list and luck of the draw on scheduling can create wins that should have been losses and losses that should have been wins. We have all seen the two highest scoring teams for a given week play each other only to have the 2nd highest scoring team in a 12-team league lose that game. Vice-versa as well. A pair of low scoring teams in a game will produce a victor, but meanwhile 10 other teams could have scored more than him and lost to higher scoring teams. At least with season long points as a tiebreaker, the better overall team wis more likely to prevail.

[Dolphin_Akie]

Certainly like the idea of the all-play record being used as a tiebreaker though.

[Shaft]

 

that is correct. Your H2H victory could have been far more luck-based (injuries, bye weeks, etc.) whereas total points is much more revealing of overall season performance. People tend to forget that H2H is really just a scheduling list and luck of the draw on scheduling can create wins that should have been losses and losses that should have been wins. We have all seen the two highest scoring teams for a given week play each other only to have the 2nd highest scoring team in a 12-team league lose that game. Vice-versa as well. A pair of low scoring teams in a game will produce a victor, but meanwhile 10 other teams could have scored more than him and lost to higher scoring teams. At least with season long points as a tiebreaker, the better overall team wis more likely to prevail.

This happens way too often. LOL

[Grits and Shins]

That would suck, no doubt. But, in my opinion, it sucks MORE when (hypothetically) I lose out to a team that beat me HTH, even though I outscored them by 400 points during the year. And, to make matters worse, I had half of my team on a bye the week I played that team. In that scenario, it's clear who has the overall better team, but that team simply becomes a victim of bad timing, in terms of how the schedule played out.

 

Again, it's a matter of preference, and I don't think you can say that one is right, any more than the other is.

 

Obviously we can all choose to play by the rules we want ... but it seems to me that you invalidate the whole H2H aspect of the regular season when you choose to CHANGE FORMATS for tie-breakers. But you only change the format for the tie-breakers, for the playoffs you change formats again and go back to H2H.

 

If your goal is to get the best teams into the playoffs and you think that total points are the best indicator of the best teams then you should play total points.

 

if your goal is to compete H2H each week, then your tie-breakers should reflect the H2H format that you chose to play.

 

In my local the 2nd highest scoring team had a 4 week run where he was the highest scoring team in the league. The rest of the year his scores are around average. So you total points tie-breakers don't reward him for his mostly average weekly scores, but because he had a 4 week run of very good scores. The team with the 4th most points scored is only 39.84 points behind the best team over the course of 13 weeks that is an average of just over 3 points per game. So, not relevant that the team with the 4th highest score defeated the one with the 1st highest score, just relevant that the highest scoring team averaged 3 points more per week?

[Gopher]

 

Obviously we can all choose to play by the rules we want ... but it seems to me that you invalidate the whole H2H aspect of the regular season when you choose to CHANGE FORMATS for tie-breakers. But you only change the format for the tie-breakers, for the playoffs you change formats again and go back to H2H.

 

If your goal is to get the best teams into the playoffs and you think that total points are the best indicator of the best teams then you should play total points.

 

if your goal is to compete H2H each week, then your tie-breakers should reflect the H2H format that you chose to play.

 

In my local the 2nd highest scoring team had a 4 week run where he was the highest scoring team in the league. The rest of the year his scores are around average. So you total points tie-breakers don't reward him for his mostly average weekly scores, but because he had a 4 week run of very good scores. The team with the 4th most points scored is only 39.84 points behind the best team over the course of 13 weeks that is an average of just over 3 points per game. So, not relevant that the team with the 4th highest score defeated the one with the 1st highest score, just relevant that the highest scoring team averaged 3 points more per week?

Like I said earlier, in my opinion, it's far more of an "injustice" to lose out to the team that scored 400 points less than you did, than to lose out to the team that you beat HTH. Both stink, but total points is a more accurate measurement of which team is better (and more deserving of a playoff spot), not which team was better in Week 3, 6, or 10.

[Gopher]

And I don't look at it as "changing formats." It's a hybrid of the two, and from what I've seen, the hybrid is more popular than either one is exclusively. No different than leagues using "partial" PPR... It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

[Dolphin_Akie]

 

Obviously we can all choose to play by the rules we want ... but it seems to me that you invalidate the whole H2H aspect of the regular season when you choose to CHANGE FORMATS for tie-breakers. But you only change the format for the tie-breakers, for the playoffs you change formats again and go back to H2H.

 

If your goal is to get the best teams into the playoffs and you think that total points are the best indicator of the best teams then you should play total points.

 

if your goal is to compete H2H each week, then your tie-breakers should reflect the H2H format that you chose to play.

 

In my local the 2nd highest scoring team had a 4 week run where he was the highest scoring team in the league. The rest of the year his scores are around average. So you total points tie-breakers don't reward him for his mostly average weekly scores, but because he had a 4 week run of very good scores. The team with the 4th most points scored is only 39.84 points behind the best team over the course of 13 weeks that is an average of just over 3 points per game. So, not relevant that the team with the 4th highest score defeated the one with the 1st highest score, just relevant that the highest scoring team averaged 3 points more per week?

 

I'd speak to the many different sports out there that use things like points scored or points difference as a tiebreaker over head to head record then about this invalidating of the format.

 

Either that or its clear that both methods have their flaws, both sides can present scenarios that suit their argument.

[Big Country]

 

Obviously we can all choose to play by the rules we want ... but it seems to me that you invalidate the whole H2H aspect of the regular season when you choose to CHANGE FORMATS for tie-breakers. But you only change the format for the tie-breakers, for the playoffs you change formats again and go back to H2H.

 

If your goal is to get the best teams into the playoffs and you think that total points are the best indicator of the best teams then you should play total points.

 

if your goal is to compete H2H each week, then your tie-breakers should reflect the H2H format that you chose to play.

 

In my local the 2nd highest scoring team had a 4 week run where he was the highest scoring team in the league. The rest of the year his scores are around average. So you total points tie-breakers don't reward him for his mostly average weekly scores, but because he had a 4 week run of very good scores. The team with the 4th most points scored is only 39.84 points behind the best team over the course of 13 weeks that is an average of just over 3 points per game. So, not relevant that the team with the 4th highest score defeated the one with the 1st highest score, just relevant that the highest scoring team averaged 3 points more per week?

 

 

No matter the format - H2H, total points, all play - whether redraft or keeper, whether draft or auction, etc., the goal is to score the most points possible. Your entire schtick is predicated on this overarching truth within our hobby/game. If that is the overarching goal, then the logical argument is that scoring points is a key factor in determining the better teams.

 

Now, H2H is fun, you have a particular opponent to focus on in a given week, yet the goal is still the same, to try and score the most points. H2H is also incredibly luck based and exacerbates this element of our hobby/game.

 

Most of us like both elements - the added fun of a particular opponent each week despite the added luck element, and the idea that what level of skill is involved (measured by the points over a larger sample size) is rewarded.

 

This is part of the reason that many high stakes league use both to seed their playoffs:

#1 seed goes to the best record (for FFPC, total points is the first tiebreak, H2H win/loss record is 2nd, Starting QB points is 3rd, coin toss is 4th)

#2 seed goes to the team (that is not the #1 seed) with the most points scored

#3 seed goes to remaining team with best win loss record (with same tiebreakers applied as for the #1 seed)

#4 goes to the remaining team with the most points scored

 

 

 

It's a lot like poker - you might beat me on one hand, but if over the course of the game taking many hands into account I have accumulated more chips than you, I would be recognized as the better poker player. Using your logic, you would state you were the better poker player because you won that particular hand.

[Grits and Shins]

 

 

No matter the format - H2H, total points, all play - whether redraft or keeper, whether draft or auction, etc., the goal is to score the most points possible. Your entire schtick is predicated on this overarching truth within our hobby/game. If that is the overarching goal, then the logical argument is that scoring points is a key factor in determining the better teams.

 

Now, H2H is fun, you have a particular opponent to focus on in a given week, yet the goal is still the same, to try and score the most points. H2H is also incredibly luck based and exacerbates this element of our hobby/game.

 

Most of us like both elements - the added fun of a particular opponent each week despite the added luck element, and the idea that what level of skill is involved (measured by the points over a larger sample size) is rewarded.

 

This is part of the reason that many high stakes league use both to seed their playoffs:

#1 seed goes to the best record (for FFPC, total points is the first tiebreak, H2H win/loss record is 2nd, Starting QB points is 3rd, coin toss is 4th)

#2 seed goes to the team (that is not the #1 seed) with the most points scored

#3 seed goes to remaining team with best win loss record (with same tiebreakers applied as for the #1 seed)

#4 goes to the remaining team with the most points scored

 

 

 

It's a lot like poker - you might beat me on one hand, but if over the course of the game taking many hands into account I have accumulated more chips than you, I would be recognized as the better poker player. Using your logic, you would state you were the better poker player because you won that particular hand.

 

Using your poker analogy ... What if over the course of the night you accumulated more chips than I did, but I won more hands than you did. And the reason that you have more chips is because in a couple hands you went all in and scored big. Who would you declare the better player? You are the better player because you got lucky on the river a couple of times and took down some big pots?

 

I think it is humorous that you want to play H2H in the regular season but when playoffs come you want to change formats to total points.

[Shaft]

 

Using your poker analogy ... What if over the course of the night you accumulated more chips than I did, but I won more hands than you did. And the reason that you have more chips is because in a couple hands you went all in and scored big. Who would you declare the better player? You are the better player because you got lucky on the river a couple of times and took down some big pots?

 

I think it is humorous that you want to play H2H in the regular season but when playoffs come you want to change formats to total points.

Yeah, he is the better player if he won more money. Isn't that the point of poker? I'm just saying....

[Boy Named Suh]

 

Using your poker analogy ... What if over the course of the night you accumulated more chips than I did, but I won more hands than you did. And the reason that you have more chips is because in a couple hands you went all in and scored big. Who would you declare the better player? You are the better player because you got lucky on the river a couple of times and took down some big pots?

 

I think it is humorous that you want to play H2H in the regular season but when playoffs come you want to change formats to total points.

 

Not a great analogy. I have played casino poker for 18 years, and the best players I know play the least amount of hands. The trick is to stay patient and wait for the right situation, and win as much as possible or lose as little as possible in the few hands you do get tied up in. You can win a whole lot of hands and then lose one big one and be back into your pocket like the last three or four hours of winning never happened.

[stevegrab]

That would suck, no doubt. But, in my opinion, it sucks MORE when (hypothetically) I lose out to a team that beat me HTH, even though I outscored them by 400 points during the year. And, to make matters worse, I had half of my team on a bye the week I played that team. In that scenario, it's clear who has the overall better team, but that team simply becomes a victim of bad timing, in terms of how the schedule played out.

 

Again, it's a matter of preference, and I don't think you can say that one is right, any more than the other is.

 

Nonsense he is Grits of course he can decide what is right for every fantasy league on the planet.

 

[Dolphin_Akie]

Yeah, he is the better player if he won more money. Isn't that the point of poker? I'm just saying....

 

Grits is the guy that claims he's the best fantasy player not because he won the league but because he beat the league champion H2H.