Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Tie Breaker is Pts Against Def. No Def started. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gcoast3
- Start date
Guy who did not start a def loses (though nothing wrong with a tie).
fruity pebbles
Footballguy
guy who didn't start a defense technically had zero points against
Captain Hook
Footballguy
Not really he didn't have a defense - it's like infinity for ERA
Loss to the team without a DST
Gawain
Footballguy
That reads like the team with the most points from the D wins. Not points against the defense.
ETA: D on bye is 0 points against. Seattle isn't going to have "Undefined" points against after week 4. They will have the same number of points against as after week 3.
Last edited by a moderator:
Spin
Footballguy
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
why should the lineup by illegal? I am in a pretty deep league and I did not want to drop Cincy, nor did I think that any of the available defense was worth the risk of giving up any other player this week (which was fortunate, as I considered ATL). It was a strategy, especially since DEF is relatively easy to get into negative points.If you couldn't outright beat a team that didn't start a defense, you deserve to lose the tiebreak to the zero points that player's defense allowed.
If you don't have a rule that forfeits an illegal lineup, any other ruling is complete BS.
Long Ball Larry
Footballguy
And points score by defense seems like a bit of a weird tiebreaker to me. What is the rationale?
irish eyes
Footballguy
Why is this even a question, the idiot didn't start a def therefore didn't qualify to even be in the tie breaker. Not that difficult.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
This is one of those situations where I think the Commish needs to step in and not reward a team/owner for "shifty" behavior. I'd count the non-starting D as "infinite" and reward the win to the guy who fielded a legal lineup.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
some nutty people have various random rules and become very zealous in their conviction that the rest of the world must follow suit.why should the lineup by illegal? I am in a pretty deep league and I did not want to drop Cincy, nor did I think that any of the available defense was worth the risk of giving up any other player this week (which was fortunate, as I considered ATL). It was a strategy, especially since DEF is relatively easy to get into negative points.If you couldn't outright beat a team that didn't start a defense, you deserve to lose the tiebreak to the zero points that player's defense allowed.
If you don't have a rule that forfeits an illegal lineup, any other ruling is complete BS.
pretty much like religious ppl -- if you can convince everybody else to think just like you then you must be correct in your thinking because everybody else has the same view.
if the line up was actually illegal in this guy's league I doubt he'd be on here asking the question.
Last edited by a moderator:
The guy played a D on bye knowing full well what the tiebreaker was, which essentially gave him a 1 point advantage (barring a shutout, he wins any tie). If I'm commish, I'm ruling it as a loss for the guy who started the bye week D if it ends up being a tie. Willfully skirting the rules like this usually doesn't go over well in my league, but that's our particular culture. You shouldn't reward somebody starting an auto-zero, either.
MrJimiT
Footballguy
Carolina has gotten me negative scores the past two weeks, so that is a very valid potential. If rules don't specify, then it should be allowed if not otherwise stated in the rules. However, I do believe it should disqualify the team that did not start an active player/team from winning a tie breaker situation. Part of the gamble.
GregR
Footballguy
I'll point out that "zero" and the absence of a value, e.g. a null value, are not necessarily the same thing.
I think CBS handled it correctly. For a category of best points against, any number should probably trump the null result returned by the defense that didn't have a game.
I think CBS handled it correctly. For a category of best points against, any number should probably trump the null result returned by the defense that didn't have a game.
Last edited by a moderator:
Is the tiebreaker "points against the Defense (lower)" or "team with better category points Defense (higher)"? Those two things aren't remotely the same.
Re: "illegal" lineups, a lineup submitted with a player on bye is clearly not illegal unless league rules/bylaws state so, as the league site allowed the player to submit such a lineup.
Re: "illegal" lineups, a lineup submitted with a player on bye is clearly not illegal unless league rules/bylaws state so, as the league site allowed the player to submit such a lineup.
Insein
Footballguy
Gawain
Footballguy
So, Seattle's points against after this week will be what? Undefined? 66+Null value? Seattle had 0 points scored against them this week. Now, the obvious rebuttal is, "if Seattle had 0 points scored against them, shouldn't the defense score (assuming the scoring system gives points for points against)?"
And I don't really have an answer for that, so I guess I changed my own mind. ties go to the guy that started any defense.
Zow
Footballguy
Yeah, I think it's silly that some leagues require that a team MUST start someone at every position, but for this scenario tie-breaker the lack of any defense is the lack of any value to be considered for the tie-break.
Zow
Footballguy
I don't read that it's an aggregate score. Here, they didn't even have a defense so it's impossible for the points against to be zero.
GregR
Footballguy
Assuming 66 is the right value... Seattle gave up 66 points total in weeks 1-3 and didn't play in week 4 so they have a null for their points given up in week 4.
If you want the total points given up on the season you sum weeks 1-3 for Seattle. There is no value for week 4 to add. There are only 3 values, from weeks 1, 2 and 3. There is not a zero added in for week 4.
You know this intuitively because you correctly handle the null for the same result in other places like averages. You just aren't used to how nulls are handled in a direct "less than/greater than" scenario.
If I asked you the average points Seattle has given up you would say 22. Because without thinking about it you correctly treated their week 4 result as a null and you divided the 66 by 3 because they had 3 numbers contributing to the total. If instead the truth is they had a 0 in week 4, then there are 4 results and you would divide by 4 to get the average and would get 66/4 = 16.5. You don't do this because you intuitively understand a null does not have a value to contribute so it doesn't count towards the divisor when averaging.
The same sort of thing applies to trying to do a greater than less than. There is no value to contribute for the null results, so the real number is the only value in the tiebreaker.
Handling of nulls can be hugely important in the programming world. If database programmers didn't get handling of nulls correct in programs that affect your life, all sorts of little things would go wrong that you'd never expect.
Last edited by a moderator:
Insein
Footballguy
Alonzo Mosely
Footballguy
If this isn't intuitively obvious you have bigger problems.
blake
Footballguy
Don't love your response, as I don't think it is obvious (I'm part of the camp that feels if you have a good explanation for starting a player on a bye week, that is sufficient) but I do love your username.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I'm guessing the guy didn't fail to start a D because of the "advantage" it would give him in the extremely unlikely event of a tie.
CBS handled it correctly.
I would not choose that as a tie breaker.
All the of the "auto loss" or "auto forfeit" for an "Illegal lineup" stuff because you didn't start a lineup is equally silly IMO. Not starting a defense, or starting a DEF on bye, is something people do once in awhile. Come on guys...nobody gives a crap about team defenses in most scoring and will even go out of their way to call you out and make fun of you if you talk about having two defenses on your roster...maybe the guy wanted to keep his talented defenses without using two roster spots?
People also, as pointed out, might sit their DEF because they can't afford the risk that they lose points. I, and others, have been ahead by a very small margin going into a SNF or MNF game and chose to sit the DEF under the presumption that a stat correction to what already happened resulting in losing instead of winning is less likely than the DEF losing points.
Maybe he just didn't like any of the available DEF options enough to start them and risk the points loss or drop a player from his roster to make room?
I would not choose that as a tie breaker.
All the of the "auto loss" or "auto forfeit" for an "Illegal lineup" stuff because you didn't start a lineup is equally silly IMO. Not starting a defense, or starting a DEF on bye, is something people do once in awhile. Come on guys...nobody gives a crap about team defenses in most scoring and will even go out of their way to call you out and make fun of you if you talk about having two defenses on your roster...maybe the guy wanted to keep his talented defenses without using two roster spots?
People also, as pointed out, might sit their DEF because they can't afford the risk that they lose points. I, and others, have been ahead by a very small margin going into a SNF or MNF game and chose to sit the DEF under the presumption that a stat correction to what already happened resulting in losing instead of winning is less likely than the DEF losing points.
Maybe he just didn't like any of the available DEF options enough to start them and risk the points loss or drop a player from his roster to make room?
Last edited by a moderator:
Van Dyman
Footballguy
So the tie-breaker itself returned a null result. Comparison of null to anything is null. For tie-breaking purposes, it's no different than using "record against common opponents" when the teams haven't actually played ANY common opponenents. That tie-breaker is not applicable to every situation. Go to the next tie-breaker or record the game result as a tie.
The commish doesn't have to step in an choose a winner here. The rules did not define a tie-breaker that was applicable to every game. Unless there is a secondary tie-breaker, it's a tie. Easy.
GregR
Footballguy
You have a good point VandyMan, though I think good arguments can be made both for and against what you said.
Comparison of anything to a null is undefined, so generally null is what will be returned by most systems. But you can also argue that your method is incorrect if you actually perform the test with the null in there. In the same way that Seattle's points against is 20+16+30 = 66 rather than 20+16+30+null = null. You don't actually include a null in such an operation, so one could argue the tiebreak should result from picking the best points against from the 1 result available.
But I do agree you can make an argument the tiebreaker is invalid without both teams having a value to test. I really can't think of any guidance to look to on which argument should win out. If I was coding it, I would do it the way I said and not use the null, because the goal is to have it break the tie. But, your point is valid too and that's just something that would have to be decided how they want it handled.
So maybe calling it a tie is the fairest thing after all? I do think the only "correct" outcomes are either the team who started the D wins the tiebreak, or the tiebreak doesn't resolve it and it goes to the next tiebreak (or remains a tie if that's the last one). But I can't come up with an argument for the team with the inactive D winning that doesn't have some kind of flawed logic or improperly applied math involved that invalidates it.
Comparison of anything to a null is undefined, so generally null is what will be returned by most systems. But you can also argue that your method is incorrect if you actually perform the test with the null in there. In the same way that Seattle's points against is 20+16+30 = 66 rather than 20+16+30+null = null. You don't actually include a null in such an operation, so one could argue the tiebreak should result from picking the best points against from the 1 result available.
But I do agree you can make an argument the tiebreaker is invalid without both teams having a value to test. I really can't think of any guidance to look to on which argument should win out. If I was coding it, I would do it the way I said and not use the null, because the goal is to have it break the tie. But, your point is valid too and that's just something that would have to be decided how they want it handled.
So maybe calling it a tie is the fairest thing after all? I do think the only "correct" outcomes are either the team who started the D wins the tiebreak, or the tiebreak doesn't resolve it and it goes to the next tiebreak (or remains a tie if that's the last one). But I can't come up with an argument for the team with the inactive D winning that doesn't have some kind of flawed logic or improperly applied math involved that invalidates it.
Last edited by a moderator:
This makes sense.
I think it's pretty much a consensus that the team that didn't start a DEF will not get a win
Johnny Blood
Footballguy
There was no shutout in the NFL this week so the idea of crediting this person with 0 points allowed is ludicrous for that reason alone.
I would award the win to the team that started a defense because the obvious intent of this rule is to reward the person who took a risk on the defense that gave up the fewest points. The person who started no defense took no risk of them giving up any points.
I would modify the rule for the future to stipulate that if you start no defense you lose the tiebreaker.
However, the much better solution is to leave regular season ties as ties. Using tiebreakers when it is avoidable only amplifies the role of luck.
I would award the win to the team that started a defense because the obvious intent of this rule is to reward the person who took a risk on the defense that gave up the fewest points. The person who started no defense took no risk of them giving up any points.
I would modify the rule for the future to stipulate that if you start no defense you lose the tiebreaker.
However, the much better solution is to leave regular season ties as ties. Using tiebreakers when it is avoidable only amplifies the role of luck.
Last edited by a moderator:
Van Dyman
Footballguy
The decision about which way is better is an arbitrary decision. For example, if the DEF in this league usually scores between 0 and -20 points, everyone would be fighting for whoever is on bye that week. In that case, you'd write the code to give PREFERENCE to the team with a null there, because that owner was trying harder to win. That's an absurd example, I know, but I use it to point out that the decision (which way is better) is an arbitrary decision.
I'm sure everyone in the league would accept either way if it had been clarified in advance. Since it wasn't, they should just award a tie (or go to the next tie-breaker) and fix this before it comes up again.
I'm sure everyone in the league would accept either way if it had been clarified in advance. Since it wasn't, they should just award a tie (or go to the next tie-breaker) and fix this before it comes up again.
I would give the win to the guy that didn't start a D. As the rule reads there were fewer points scored against his D. Any interpretation beyond this is overstepping.
At the end of the season change the rule for tiebreaks to something else or stipulate that not starting a D will forfeit the tie breaker.
At the end of the season change the rule for tiebreaks to something else or stipulate that not starting a D will forfeit the tie breaker.
daveR
Footballguy
First, it seems clear that this situation was not addressed in the rules. The commissioner needs to make a ruling. My advice is to award the loss to the owner starting the bye-week defense, on the basis of accepting "no positive outcome" for doing so, as with any other player.
Second, CBS is NOT doing what your rules say. This might need to be fixed in the future.
Finally, I am also in the camp of a tie being a tie. While it's not as big a deal in FF, why do we have to go to sudden-death when two teams just battled for 60 minutes and no one proved superior?
Second, CBS is NOT doing what your rules say. This might need to be fixed in the future.
Finally, I am also in the camp of a tie being a tie. While it's not as big a deal in FF, why do we have to go to sudden-death when two teams just battled for 60 minutes and no one proved superior?
17seconds
root of all aliai
That's silly. It's overstepping to assume that not starting a D is automatically a tie-break winner.
Rhythmdoctor
Footballguy
Not as the rule reads, it doesn't specify anything about not starting a D or having a D on bye. If you start adding to the rule you're overstepping.
"The team that didn't start a defense would lose because according to your settings the tie breaker is "team with better category (defense) wins. So if there is a tie the team that started a active defense will win."
Not having a defense isn't better than having a defense.
Not having a defense isn't better than having a defense.
massraider
Footballguy
defense was started, but it was on byeIf you don't start a defense you don't have 0 points against. You have a blank aka a null
You should read the thread.
You should....bahaha
