 |
|
|
|
|
|
sPliTin sKulZ
Football Freak
3322 posts
|
|
|
 |
Posted - 11/13/2002 2:46:09 PM |
 |
 |
counting Ties
|
|
|
|
It's time to resolve how we are going to handle ties, in regards to how they affect playoff determinations and seeding.
Our current approach has a 7-6-1 record beating out a 7-7 record. This makes sense to everyone. But let's take a few moments to think about WHY it makes sense, and how we will then approach the possibilities of teams having more than one tie in a season.
There are two ways of looking at it, as I see it: ties count as a "half win" or "half point", or they don't. If they don't, then what exactly is the justification for the above assertion that a 7-6-1 record is "better" than a 7-7 record? In this light, it seems clear that a tie must count for something in our analysis.
Here's what I think the policy needs to be: a tie counts as half a win (and half a loss). In analytical terms, for the purposes of playoff seeding, this would be equivalent to giving "1 point" for a win and a "half point" for a tie.
Yes, by extending this idea, you'll arrive at the conclusion that an 8-6 record (8 wins = "8 points") is the same as a 7-5-2 record (7 wins = "7 points", + 2 ties = "1 full point", for a total of "8 points").
To do otherwise would effectively make a tie the same thing as a loss, as far as it's actual application. That is simply not fair or accurate.
Most sports consider a tie a "half win," for purposes of comparing W-L-T records, and there are good reasons for this. We need to do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roving Gamblers
Football Freak
747 posts
 |
Fu: 101.89 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/13/2002 4:19:18 PM |
|
|
wins> ties> losses
|
|
|
|
i have to disagree a bit on this, Keith. i think if you're comparing two teams, the first thing to look at is number of wins, then look at number of losses. for example, comparing a 7-7 team to a 7-6-1 team, the seven wins make them equal, but 6 losses is better than 7, thus the 7-6-1 team has the better record. comparing an 8-6 team to a 7-5-2 team, 8 wins is better and there is no need to compare any further.
this is reminscent of some sports where you get 3 points for a win and 1 for a tie. clearly, a tie is better than a loss. but it's not worth half a win. this accentuates winning as the goal of the contest, instead of not losing. see what i mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/13/2002 5:21:46 PM |
|
|
W-L-T should be cellectively examined
|
|
|
|
If Erik would have tied Matt for his second tie of the season, then in the "only wins count" system his 2 ties would effectively be equal to losses, as ties/losses aren't even examined unless there is a "tie" with the number of Wins.
That's not very fair, and here's why:
***********************
Can we all agree with the maxim that a tie is better than a loss, from a strictly isolated examination?
If so, how can it be justified that a tie equals a loss, which is the effective result if the primary determinant only considers wins and no other values?
***********************
Why can't we look at the W-L-T record as a whole, and do so at one moment? It seems inconsistent to say that we only look at wins, unless two teams happen to have the same number of wins.
For an extreme example, what if we are looking at one team that is 7-7-0, while another team is 6-0-8. The second team is effectively UNBEATEN after 14 games, yet they would be cast aside for the team that suffered 7 losses. Does this seem fair? Don't losses mean anything?
I have waffled on this issue for the last month, but I'm now back to believing that wins, losses, and ties should be wholistically examined. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/14/2002 10:21:53 AM |
|
|
i have to agree...
|
|
|
|
| with the gamblers.wins come first then losses,then ties,just as the record of a team is written out.no points,the nhl dose that shit,giving teams a point for a tie.it only makes overtime interresting,because both teams already have a point,if the lose in o.t. it's no big deal,right?good for the fan,good for the leauge.but there is no o.t. in ragnarok,and wins mean everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coach Knoll Cowher
Football Freak
997 posts
|
Fu: 100.96 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/14/2002 10:59:23 AM |
|
|
I think it is fairly simple
|
|
|
|
A Win= 1 point
A Tie= .5 point
I don't see why this is so controversial. Either a tie has value or not. It cannot be as good as a win, and it cannot be as bad as a loss.
If you get two ties then yes that is the equivilent of one win. There is no other sensible way to handle this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/14/2002 12:28:25 PM |
|
|
I must agree...
|
|
|
|
that a tie is better than a loss, worse than a win.
.5=tie
1.0=win
0=loss
so fresh and so clean. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUNCH
Assistant Coach
135 posts
|
Fu: 0.00 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/14/2002 5:02:36 PM |
|
|
.5 for ties and wins is the tiebreaker for same points at end of year.
|
|
|
|
i have to disagree a bit on this, Keith. i think if you're comparing two teams, the first thing to look at is number of wins, then look at number of losses. for example, comparing a 7-7 team to a 7-6-1 team, the seven wins make them equal, but 6 losses is better than 7, thus the 7-6-1 team has the better record. comparing an 8-6 team to a 7-5-2 team, 8 wins is better and there is no need to compare any further.
this is reminscent of some sports where you get 3 points for a win and 1 for a tie. clearly, a tie is better than a loss. but it's not worth half a win. this accentuates winning as the goal of the contest, instead of not losing. see what i mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bass Master
General Manager
393 posts
 |
Fu: 97.18 |
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/14/2002 8:25:27 PM |
|
|
1 for wins, 0 for losses, .5 for ties
|
|
|
|
i have to disagree a bit on this, Keith. i think if you're comparing two teams, the first thing to look at is number of wins, then look at number of losses. for example, comparing a 7-7 team to a 7-6-1 team, the seven wins make them equal, but 6 losses is better than 7, thus the 7-6-1 team has the better record. comparing an 8-6 team to a 7-5-2 team, 8 wins is better and there is no need to compare any further.
this is reminscent of some sports where you get 3 points for a win and 1 for a tie. clearly, a tie is better than a loss. but it's not worth half a win. this accentuates winning as the goal of the contest, instead of not losing. see what i mean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted - 11/16/2002 7:35:29 AM |
|
|
Decision on "ties" will be determined before Sunday's games
|
|
|
|
The Star Chamber is currently leaning towards evaluating W-L-T as a whole, with 1 point for a win and 1/2 point for a tie. The more points a team has, the "better" they are. An official decision will be made before kickoff in Week 11.
While it is an interesting notion to have W vs. W be the second tier playoff determinant, it will remain with total YTD points. Total points are still the most accurate measurement of a team's power (we do W-L-T for other reasons), and thus we'll stick with that for the main tie-breaker.
Maybe W vs. W should be used for the next level of tie-breaker (if YTD points are identical), instead of divisional records. Btw, how can we use divisional records as a comparison, if the two teams in question are in different divisions? I can see comparing divisional records within a division, as teams did a round-robin. But if we're comparing who gets the #6 slot in the playoffs, and the two teams are in different divisions, that doesn't seem to make sense to me (to use divisional records as a tie-breaker). |
|
|
|
|
|
