Tie Breaker for Fantasy Playoffs (1 Viewer)

[kutta]

One of my leagues is 14 teams, which makes scheduling perfect - everyone plays everyone once in the regular season (13 weeks). I am having a disagreement with the commissioner about tiebreakers to determine playoff seeding. I won't tell you what side I'm on because I don't want the results skewed.

Option 1 - Total Points: The supporter of this says that if two teams are tied, then the team that had the best regular season and scored the most points should be seeded higher than the lower scoring team. This is the only real method we have in fantasy to determine the "better" team, and the better team should make the playoffs.

Option 2 - Head-to-Head: The supporter of this says that if a team beats another team head-to-head, then they should be in. In just about every sport this is the first tie breaker. It's not right that a team that loses to another team with the same record makes the playoffs while the other one doesn't. And multiple teams tied doesn't confuse the issue much - if one team has beaten all the tied teams, he goes.

Obviously this wouldn't change for this year but we are having the discussion for next year.

What say ye?

 

[John 14:6]

Personally,I prefer head to head. IMO it makes each and every game more important and more fun.

If the first tie breaker (record) is based on wins and losses instead of points, why not the next? I like having separate awards for points.

 

[Sabertooth]

I like total points as that is a measure of a truly superior team. If you have a bad week against somebody you are already punished with the loss. Why the double whammy of the loss plus losing any tiebreakers to that team?

 

[Grimace59]

I would usually say total points, but since everybody plays everybody once, head to head to seems right on the money.

 

[Limp Ditka]

H2H is a ridiculous way to do tie-breakers. Why set up the possibility of the way bye-weeks fall determining a playoff seed?

 

[Joe Summer]

Personally I think Total Points should always be the #1 tiebreaker.

The Head-To-Head winner already got an advantage by virtue of winning the H2H matchup. There's no good reason to give him a second advantage as well.

 

[NJ]

How is All-Play not an option for this poll???

I hate H2H, in real sports it makes sense because you get to put a defense on the field and try to stop your opponent so if you lose, you have nobody to blame but yourself. In FF, you have no control over how many points your opponent scores on a given week. If I outscore someone 10 out of 13 weeks but happen to play them on one of the 3 weeks they outscore me, do they really deserve the tiebreaker?

Total points is better than H2H, but I prefer All-Play record over Total Points. I think All Play is the better true measure of how each team did each week vs. every opponent. Total Points can get skewed if an average team has a couple of monster scoring weeks.

 

[Don Quixote]

I'd go for H2H. It's consistent with random, scheduling luck determining playoffs.

If going by an objective measure, I think All-Play record is better than total points.

 

[Bamac]

Why set up the possibility of the way bye-weeks fall determining a playoff seed?

I'd be for total points (or -- even better -- all play) regardless, but this is the clincher.

***Unless your league has come up with a way to play defense in a head-to-head matchup. In that case, H2H is the way to go.

 

[Cyclones]

Points is the way to go here.

 

[Interseptopus]

Total points. Hands down. To compare H2H being used in professional sports is a poor comparison.

In fantasy, you don't have your full team every week the entire season. You have bye weeks. In professional sports, your individual players are not on bye.

Why punish my team because I had a couple important guys on bye week and lost to an inferior team, and we end up tied but I have out scored him by 200 points? That's ridiculous.

IMO H2H should be done away with completely and leagues should go on total points.

Total points are the only indicator of team strength. We've all known someone or had seasons where we are top 3 in scoring but a losing record and out of the playoffs. The schedule is all by chance. You could score the second most points each week and still lose. It's awful luck. Likewise, you could score the second lowest points each week and be undefeated. So H2H is very flawed in fantasy football.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Points is the way to go here.

here.... only because there are only 2 options. All-Play is really the right thing to do

 

[Bamac]

How is All-Play not an option for this poll???

I'm going to assume kutta favors total points over H2H, and if he included all play in the poll, he'd face a spoiler problem.

 

[Max Power]

total points without question. one week head-to-head has too many variables.

And what happens in a 3-way tie where A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A? Total points is easier.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Head to head record is a terrible tiebreaker in fantasy football. If your goal is to get the "best" teams into the playoffs then something like total points or all-play record is much better.

 

[Go DC Yourself]

Total points if the teams only played once, because of the potential that the way the NFL byes broke that week played a part in the result, but H2H if the teams played twice and one swept the other.

 

[glock]

1-Division record

2-Head to head

3-Total points

 

[steveski]

Points is the way to go here.

I have the perfect example to back this up. In one of my "just for fun" 12 man leagues, I have the 2nd highest points, but I'm 5-8. I have the highest points against by a long shot. I have almost 400 more points (30 PPG) more than another guy that is 5-8, yet he is ranked better than me because he beat me in the one game we played against each other. On top of this, there are 5 total teams that are 5-8. I happened to lose to all of them. I beat all the good teams and all the bad teams got lucky and beat me. If it were total points, I'd be in 7th place. Due to H2H, I'm in 11th place. I have the 2nd highest points overall in the entire league.

Anybody that thinks a team with 2nd highest overall points should be ranked worse than a team with the least overall points with identical records is out of their mind. He beat me the one time we played by 3 points in his best game ever and it was one of my worst games ever.

 

[Interseptopus]

Curious, what's all play?

I assume it's total record if you played all teams every week?

 

[John 14:6]

For those advocating total points over H2H, why not use total points as the first indicator to determine playoff seedings as opposed to record? Just advance the top scoring teams into the playoffs with the highest scorer playing the lowest scoring play off team, the 2nd highest scorer playing the 2nd lowest scoring playoff team, etc...

 

[Interseptopus]

For those advocating total points over H2H, why not use total points as the first indicator to determine playoff seedings as opposed to record?

I am in full support of thisIf you want the best teams... Well the best teams typically have the highest points. More so than the best record

 

[Bamac]

1-Division record

2-Head to head

3-Total points

1. All play

2. Total points

3. Oragami folding contest judged by a blind, elderly chimpanzee

4. Head to head

5. Rock paper scissors

6. Division record

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

For those advocating total points over H2H, why not use total points as the first indicator to determine playoff seedings as opposed to record? Just advance the top scoring teams into the playoffs with the highest scorer playing the lowest scoring play off team, the 2nd highest scorer playing the 2nd lowest scoring playoff team, etc...

Probably for the same reason that you prefer H2H as a tiebreaker:

IMO it makes each and every game more important and more fun.

A total points league would be kind of boring. But total points makes for a good tiebreaker.

 

[John 14:6]

For those advocating total points over H2H, why not use total points as the first indicator to determine playoff seedings as opposed to record?

I am in full support of this

Why then even have a schedule and playoffs? Why not just make it fully a total points league?

 

[Interseptopus]

For those advocating total points over H2H, why not use total points as the first indicator to determine playoff seedings as opposed to record?

I am in full support of this

Why then even have a schedule and playoffs? Why not just make it fully a total points league?

Read my post on the previous page. I am completely supportive of a complete points league.Only problem is that it's not as fun as head to head with rivalries and trash talk and such. By other than that, the best teams are typically the highest scoring

However, it's not as fun as a head to head league where you play someone and you do have a shot at the playoffs even if your team is not doing as well. And once you're in the playoffs you just need to pull off 2 wins to get to the championship and have a shot.

 

[John 14:6]

For those advocating total points over H2H, why not use total points as the first indicator to determine playoff seedings as opposed to record?

I am in full support of this

Why then even have a schedule and playoffs? Why not just make it fully a total points league?

Read my post on the previous page. I am completely supportive of a complete points league.Only problem is that it's not as fun as head to head with rivalries and trash talk and such. By other than that, the best teams are typically the highest scoring

Yeah, that's why I like using H2H and division records for tie-breakers. It turns up the heat even more for divisional rivalries.

And that's why I like giving awards to the higher scoring teams at the end of the year. If I was in charge of awards for a league, I'd give the same amount, maybe more, to the highest scoring team as to the league champion.

 

[Interseptopus]

For those advocating total points over H2H, why not use total points as the first indicator to determine playoff seedings as opposed to record?

I am in full support of this

Why then even have a schedule and playoffs? Why not just make it fully a total points league?

Read my post on the previous page. I am completely supportive of a complete points league.Only problem is that it's not as fun as head to head with rivalries and trash talk and such. By other than that, the best teams are typically the highest scoring

Yeah, that's why I like using H2H and division records for tie-breakers. It turns up the heat even more for divisional rivalries.And that's why I like giving awards to the higher scoring teams at the end of the year. If I was in charge of awards for a league, I'd give the same amount, maybe more, to the highest scoring team as to the league champion.

In my league (not commish) regular season champ gets nothing. In leagues I've run typically they get some pay out. I also like the idea of weekly high scorer pay outs- like $10 a week for the highest scoring teams.

If I beat you, yet you out score me every other week of the season, and we are tied at the end for the last spot, do I deserve to be in the playoffs over you?

 

[sdp1226]

12 team league, 3 divisions - we play each team in our division twice

1st tie break - division record

2nd tie break - total points for

Wasn't a huge fan of this at first but it ended up creating a lot of rivalries with in the divisions, which made it fun. Week 12 and 13 also were divisional matchups so there was a lot of movement with in the divisions in these last two weeks.

 

[blake]

I like total points as that is a measure of a truly superior team. If you have a bad week against somebody you are already punished with the loss. Why the double whammy of the loss plus losing any tiebreakers to that team?

Personally I think Total Points should always be the #1 tiebreaker.

The Head-To-Head winner already got an advantage by virtue of winning the H2H matchup. There's no good reason to give him a second advantage as well.

I like both of these answers a lot. Total points is an accurate indicator of a good team. H2H has already brought the teams to a tie. For a well-rounded picture, total points is the next indicator. There definitely should not be a double-whammy involved (losing once to a team, then later it being held against you a second time as a tiebreaker). That should be lower on the list for tiebreakers, if anything - not the first tiebreaker.

 

[Interseptopus]

When do we hear what position the OP has?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I like total points as that is a measure of a truly superior team. If you have a bad week against somebody you are already punished with the loss. Why the double whammy of the loss plus losing any tiebreakers to that team?

Personally I think Total Points should always be the #1 tiebreaker.

The Head-To-Head winner already got an advantage by virtue of winning the H2H matchup. There's no good reason to give him a second advantage as well.

I like both of these answers a lot. Total points is an accurate indicator of a good team. H2H has already brought the teams to a tie. For a well-rounded picture, total points is the next indicator. There definitely should not be a double-whammy involved (losing once to a team, then later it being held against you a second time as a tiebreaker). That should be lower on the list for tiebreakers, if anything - not the first tiebreaker.

This is an excellent point. To flesh it out even further for OP, consider Teams A and B who are tied after the regular season with a record of 8-5, and A beat B when they matched up earlier in the year. What this implies is that, other than their H2H matchup, A went 7-5 against the rest of the league and B went 8-4 against the rest of the league. In other words, B has the better record vs. all of their common opponents. Why shouldn't B be rewarded for that?

 

[ebsteelers]

Total points. Hands down. To compare H2H being used in professional sports is a poor comparison.

In fantasy, you don't have your full team every week the entire season. You have bye weeks. In professional sports, your individual players are not on bye.

Why punish my team because I had a couple important guys on bye week and lost to an inferior team, and we end up tied but I have out scored him by 200 points? That's ridiculous.

IMO H2H should be done away with completely and leagues should go on total points.

Total points are the only indicator of team strength. We've all known someone or had seasons where we are top 3 in scoring but a losing record and out of the playoffs. The schedule is all by chance. You could score the second most points each week and still lose. It's awful luck. Likewise, you could score the second lowest points each week and be undefeated. So H2H is very flawed in fantasy football.

true but you could also have a lot of people lose interest by week 10 if you have a player that has a 200+ point lead.

i like the head to head factor first then total points as a tie breaker or as in one league im in.

best record was first team in the week 12 title game followed by total points leader

all-play wouldnt be a bad idea either but the problem with that is people who kept vereen or harvin would be at a disadvantage with their bench position from my understanding.. or would i be wrong in thinking that?

 

[Interseptopus]

Total points. Hands down. To compare H2H being used in professional sports is a poor comparison.

In fantasy, you don't have your full team every week the entire season. You have bye weeks. In professional sports, your individual players are not on bye.

Why punish my team because I had a couple important guys on bye week and lost to an inferior team, and we end up tied but I have out scored him by 200 points? That's ridiculous.

IMO H2H should be done away with completely and leagues should go on total points.

Total points are the only indicator of team strength. We've all known someone or had seasons where we are top 3 in scoring but a losing record and out of the playoffs. The schedule is all by chance. You could score the second most points each week and still lose. It's awful luck. Likewise, you could score the second lowest points each week and be undefeated. So H2H is very flawed in fantasy football.

true but you could also have a lot of people lose interest by week 10 if you have a player that has a 200+ point lead.

i like the head to head factor first then total points as a tie breaker or as in one league im in.

best record was first team in the week 12 title game followed by total points leader

all-play wouldnt be a bad idea either but the problem with that is people who kept vereen or harvin would be at a disadvantage with their bench position from my understanding.. or would i be wrong in thinking that?

Agree. I prefer H2H to keep things more fun, so I guess I misspoke when I said I think h2h should be done away with. I prefer h2h and points as a tie breaker

 

[John 14:6]

For those advocating total points over H2H, why not use total points as the first indicator to determine playoff seedings as opposed to record?

I am in full support of this

Why then even have a schedule and playoffs? Why not just make it fully a total points league?

Read my post on the previous page. I am completely supportive of a complete points league.Only problem is that it's not as fun as head to head with rivalries and trash talk and such. By other than that, the best teams are typically the highest scoring

Yeah, that's why I like using H2H and division records for tie-breakers. It turns up the heat even more for divisional rivalries.And that's why I like giving awards to the higher scoring teams at the end of the year. If I was in charge of awards for a league, I'd give the same amount, maybe more, to the highest scoring team as to the league champion.

In my league (not commish) regular season champ gets nothing. In leagues I've run typically they get some pay out. I also like the idea of weekly high scorer pay outs- like $10 a week for the highest scoring teams. If I beat you, yet you out score me every other week of the season, and we are tied at the end for the last spot, do I deserve to be in the playoffs over you?

one of my leagues has a 55 point pot.every team throws in money each week and the pot goes to any team that scores at least 55 that week.I understand your point with that question, but that's why I like to give big awards to high scorers and go h2h for tie breakers. That rewards the better teams while adding fun to rivalries and each and every individual game.

 

[Don Quixote]

I like total points as that is a measure of a truly superior team. If you have a bad week against somebody you are already punished with the loss. Why the double whammy of the loss plus losing any tiebreakers to that team?

Personally I think Total Points should always be the #1 tiebreaker.

The Head-To-Head winner already got an advantage by virtue of winning the H2H matchup. There's no good reason to give him a second advantage as well.

I like both of these answers a lot. Total points is an accurate indicator of a good team. H2H has already brought the teams to a tie. For a well-rounded picture, total points is the next indicator. There definitely should not be a double-whammy involved (losing once to a team, then later it being held against you a second time as a tiebreaker). That should be lower on the list for tiebreakers, if anything - not the first tiebreaker.This is an excellent point. To flesh it out even further for OP, consider Teams A and B who are tied after the regular season with a record of 8-5, and A beat B when they matched up earlier in the year. What this implies is that, other than their H2H matchup, A went 7-5 against the rest of the league and B went 8-4 against the rest of the league. In other words, B has the better record vs. all of their common opponents. Why shouldn't B be rewarded for that?

I'm not seeing the logic of this one. Why would you exclude facing each other in looking at common opponents? It seems the most "common" of all common opponents.

ETA: For example...

(1) Let's say A&B performed equal against other teams, but Team B beat Team Z in Week 4 while Team Z beat Team A in Week 10

(2) Team A beat Team B in Week 8.

You think (1) is better than (2) for measuring relative team strength?

 

[ebsteelers]

I've never played with all-play.. is that basically best ball were all your bench guys are in use also?

 

[NJ]

All-Play has nothing to do with bench points or bestball. Its simply what your record would be if you played every team in your league every week. I know both MFL and CBS track it as part of their power rankings, I would assume most other sites would as well. Example: 12 team league, you are high scorer for the week, you would be 11-0 that week, 2nd place is 10-1, etc. At the end of the year if you played a 13 week regular season you'd have a w/l total with 143 games. If you use MFL, you can go to Reports --> Standings --> Power Ranking and you'll see everyones all-play record on the right. You can also customize the regular standings on the home page to include it if you use it as a tiebreaker.

 

[elshagon]

It's got to be total points. Head to Head has not only the chance of multiple teams tied, but also has a lot to do with bye weeks etc determining that one game matchup. Total points is a much better way to decide the more deserving team to make the playoffs.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm not seeing the logic of this one. Why would you exclude facing each other in looking at common opponents? It seems the most "common" of all common opponents.

On the contrary, facing each other doesn't represent common opponents. A plays B, but B never gets to play B.

ETA: For example...

(1) Let's say A&B performed equal against other teams, but Team B beat Team Z in Week 4 while Team Z beat Team A in Week 10

(2) Team A beat Team B in Week 8.

You think (1) is better than (2) for measuring relative team strength?

Well your example makes no sense. If A & B performed equal against other teams, and A beat B in week 8, then A has one more win than B. So there's no tiebreaker needed, since they don't have the same record.

 

[Don Quixote]

I'm not seeing the logic of this one. Why would you exclude facing each other in looking at common opponents? It seems the most "common" of all common opponents.

On the contrary, facing each other doesn't represent common opponents. A plays B, but B never gets to play B.

ETA: For example...

(1) Let's say A&B performed equal against other teams, but Team B beat Team Z in Week 4 while Team Z beat Team A in Week 10

(2) Team A beat Team B in Week 8.

You think (1) is better than (2) for measuring relative team strength?

Well your example makes no sense. If A & B performed equal against other teams, and A beat B in week 8, then A has one more win than B. So there's no tiebreaker needed, since they don't have the same record.

The difference is how they performed against Team Z in completely different weeks.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Option 2 is horrible.

 

[ebsteelers]

All-Play has nothing to do with bench points or bestball. Its simply what your record would be if you played every team in your league every week. I know both MFL and CBS track it as part of their power rankings, I would assume most other sites would as well. Example: 12 team league, you are high scorer for the week, you would be 11-0 that week, 2nd place is 10-1, etc. At the end of the year if you played a 13 week regular season you'd have a w/l total with 143 games. If you use MFL, you can go to Reports --> Standings --> Power Ranking and you'll see everyones all-play record on the right. You can also customize the regular standings on the home page to include it if you use it as a tiebreaker.

yes now that i think of it I remember seeing it on MFL. thanks NJ

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm not seeing the logic of this one. Why would you exclude facing each other in looking at common opponents? It seems the most "common" of all common opponents.

On the contrary, facing each other doesn't represent common opponents. A plays B, but B never gets to play B.

ETA: For example...

(1) Let's say A&B performed equal against other teams, but Team B beat Team Z in Week 4 while Team Z beat Team A in Week 10

(2) Team A beat Team B in Week 8.

You think (1) is better than (2) for measuring relative team strength?

Well your example makes no sense. If A & B performed equal against other teams, and A beat B in week 8, then A has one more win than B. So there's no tiebreaker needed, since they don't have the same record.

The difference is how they performed against Team Z in completely different weeks.

I'm not sure I understand your point. You described a situation where teams A and B have different records. What is your example supposed to demonstrate?

 

[PrinceofDarkness]

I answered head-to-head should be the tie breaker. Here's why:

Total record is already the #1 determiner of playoff seeding. That is, in most leagues the best record gets the #1 seed. Ergo, wins and losses have already been established as the factor that matters the most. Why, then, revert to a different method when breaking the tie between two teams? And if outside factors like byes and injuries could affect wins and losses, why seed that way? And better yet, why even play head to head?

 

[Don Quixote]

I'm not seeing the logic of this one. Why would you exclude facing each other in looking at common opponents? It seems the most "common" of all common opponents.

On the contrary, facing each other doesn't represent common opponents. A plays B, but B never gets to play B.

ETA: For example...

(1) Let's say A&B performed equal against other teams, but Team B beat Team Z in Week 4 while Team Z beat Team A in Week 10

(2) Team A beat Team B in Week 8.

You think (1) is better than (2) for measuring relative team strength?

Well your example makes no sense. If A & B performed equal against other teams, and A beat B in week 8, then A has one more win than B. So there's no tiebreaker needed, since they don't have the same record.

The difference is how they performed against Team Z in completely different weeks.

I'm not sure I understand your point. You described a situation where teams A and B have different records. What is your example supposed to demonstrate?

They have the same record. Team A beats Teams B, and loses to Team Z. Team B beats Team Z, and loses to Team A. Each is a net zero in those matchups. A&B have the same wins/losses against all other common opponents, so they end up tied.

Your position is that you should toss out the H2H result, so Team B would go to the playoffs. I don't see how/why the fact that Team B beat Team Z, and Team A lost to Team Z, when they each faced Team Z in different weeks (with potentially the same bye issues affecting all of Teams A, B, and Z), is a better measure of relative team strength than when Team A and Team B faced each other H2H.

 

[MrJimiT]

I voted before I read kutta's post fully. For strictly seeding the playoffs, I'd use points. But if in fact it is to determine playoff teams, then for me at least, it's not so cut and dried. We obviously choose to play in head to head leagues for certain reasons...whether it's a true indicator of the best teams...is certainly up for major debate as we see here all the time. I think since the season is based upon head to head contests, at least some level of scheduling should factor into the determination of the playoff teams (i.e. head to head). If 6 of your teams make the playoffs, maybe the top 4 or 5 make the playoffs based on records...and using this philosophy....head to head as a tiebreaker. Then maybe allow the last team (or two) in based on most points scored not already qualifying on record or head to head alone. So you get your batch of playoff teams. The reason I voted for total points....it was due to playoff seeding. Once the playoff teams have been determined, then I would seed according to total points scored. Maybe it's a lesson in semantics....maybe not. Anyhow....for next year sounds like it will be a worthy discussion amongst your league mates.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Total points, since the team that scores the most points over the course of the season is the better team, and head to head matchups are totally random. Like, what if you played someone when their best players were on a bye? Unfair to let that dictate a playoff tiebreaker.

 

[lod01]

All-Play has nothing to do with bench points or bestball. Its simply what your record would be if you played every team in your league every week. I know both MFL and CBS track it as part of their power rankings, I would assume most other sites would as well. Example: 12 team league, you are high scorer for the week, you would be 11-0 that week, 2nd place is 10-1, etc. At the end of the year if you played a 13 week regular season you'd have a w/l total with 143 games. If you use MFL, you can go to Reports --> Standings --> Power Ranking and you'll see everyones all-play record on the right. You can also customize the regular standings on the home page to include it if you use it as a tiebreaker.

This is the best way to go. It waters down the effect of NFL bye weeks. How would you like to have Manning or Brees on a bye the week you play someone that factors into whether you make the playoffs or not.

It is pretty much the same as points because if you are scoring points, you are winning all-play for the most part.

I always win all-play but have missed the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years. This year on a brutal schedule and 2 years ago due to the H-H. It's the way we do it and it sucks but you can't get the weaker owners to agree because they have never felt the sting of being good and missing the playoffs due to one single game where one of your studs was out and the other guy had his whole team.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm not seeing the logic of this one. Why would you exclude facing each other in looking at common opponents? It seems the most "common" of all common opponents.

On the contrary, facing each other doesn't represent common opponents. A plays B, but B never gets to play B.

ETA: For example...

(1) Let's say A&B performed equal against other teams, but Team B beat Team Z in Week 4 while Team Z beat Team A in Week 10

(2) Team A beat Team B in Week 8.

You think (1) is better than (2) for measuring relative team strength?

Well your example makes no sense. If A & B performed equal against other teams, and A beat B in week 8, then A has one more win than B. So there's no tiebreaker needed, since they don't have the same record.

The difference is how they performed against Team Z in completely different weeks.

I'm not sure I understand your point. You described a situation where teams A and B have different records. What is your example supposed to demonstrate?

They have the same record. Team A beats Teams B, and loses to Team Z. Team B beats Team Z, and loses to Team A. Each is a net zero in those matchups. A&B have the same wins/losses against all other common opponents, so they end up tied.

Your position is that you should toss out the H2H result, so Team B would go to the playoffs. I don't see how/why the fact that Team B beat Team Z, and Team A lost to Team Z, when they each faced Team Z in different weeks (with potentially the same bye issues affecting all of Teams A, B, and Z), is a better measure of relative team strength than when Team A and Team B faced each other H2H.

Their record against Team Z isn't a better measure of relative team strength than their record against each other. Their combined record against all their common opponents, on the other hand, is a better measure.

The problem with head to head as a tiebreaker is that it arbitrarily picks 1 week out of the season to determine which team is better. Unlike the NFL there's no "defense" in fantasy football, so A's record against B is no more indicative of their relative strengths than A and B's record vs. Z. If you're going to use wins and losses as a tiebreaker, you should probably use the largest comparable sample possible.

The common opponents thing is just a corollary to the earlier point that using H2H as a tiebreaker double-weights that week. The fact that the teams are tied at the end of the year already accounts for A's win over B - there's no reason to use that game again as the tiebreaker. You may as well just make your league's tiebreaker, "Whichever team scored the most points in week 6."

 

[John 14:6]

Total points, since the team that scores the most points over the course of the season is the better team, and head to head matchups are totally random. Like, what if you played someone when their best players were on a bye? Unfair to let that dictate a playoff tiebreaker.