TIEBREAKER QUESTION (1 Viewer)

[Synthesizer]

We try to keep our tiebreaker rules as similar to the NFL as we can....... head to head, then division record, then total points. That also allows us to use the NFL tiebreaker rules for 3 or 4-way ties.

 

[AB in DC]

Isn't having a tiebreaker about determining the most deserving team, the team that had the best performance? Since fantasy teams don't affect their opponents in any way, head to head games isn't as true a measure of those two teams performance like it is in real sports.

Nuff said.

 

[videoguy505]

Isn't having a tiebreaker about determining the most deserving team, the team that had the best performance? Since fantasy teams don't affect their opponents in any way, head to head games isn't as true a measure of those two teams performance like it is in real sports.

Nuff said.

But I'll say it again, sometimes the best coached team is the one that positions itself to win when it matters--and forgos points at some points in the season in favor of scoring them later--perhaps by rejecting trades where the player they're getting has worse playoff matchups than the guy they're giving up. They may lose out on 50 points from weeks 8-12 but gain 30 points of advantage in the postseason when it counts. Same way the best coached team may decide to do "just enough to win" some weeks when they have a weak opponent, and hang onto that 3rd RB or QB instead of dropping them to pick up a better WR off free agency when they know they'll pound the opponent anyway.In NFL terms, it's like when the Colts played down to their weak opponents last season, forgoing the big plays and not pulling out all the stops, instead saving those as surprises for when they faced New England. The NFL, unlike the NCAA, doesn't value margin-of-victory numbers as highly.

 

[shuke]

Gotcha - I just don't see it as anymore fair than simple H2H.

I agree the H2H breakdown removes the one-week luck factor, but why is that desirable? You are heading into a lose and you are out playoff anyway, right?

BTW, I don't play in any CBS leagues anymore b/c they are too expensive for league management software, but if I saw that stat every day whle I was tied with another team for playoff positioning, I might change my mind.

Isn't having a tiebreaker about determining the most deserving team, the team that had the best performance? Since fantasy teams don't affect their opponents in any way, head to head games isn't as true a measure of those two teams performance like it is in real sports.

THEN WHY PLAY IN A HEAD-TO-HEAD LEAGUE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

 

[GregR_2]

Gotcha - I just don't see it as anymore fair than simple H2H.

I agree the H2H breakdown removes the one-week luck factor, but why is that desirable? You are heading into a lose and you are out playoff anyway, right?

BTW, I don't play in any CBS leagues anymore b/c they are too expensive for league management software, but if I saw that stat every day whle I was tied with another team for playoff positioning, I might change my mind.

Isn't having a tiebreaker about determining the most deserving team, the team that had the best performance? Since fantasy teams don't affect their opponents in any way, head to head games isn't as true a measure of those two teams performance like it is in real sports.

THEN WHY PLAY IN A HEAD-TO-HEAD LEAGUE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

For the same reason that is the best argument for head to head as a tiebreaker. Because it's closer to what the NFL does.Most of us want our leagues to be similar to the NFL when it makes sense, but everyone draws the line somewhere differently. Total points league or head to head? Straight record champ or playoffs? 4 pt or 6 pt passing TDs? Creating a home field advantage or not, etc.

I've got no problem if someone wants their league to use head to head because they want to stay closer in line with that part of the NFL. Where I disagree is when someone is claiming it's a better or more appropriate measure of what a tiebreaker is supposed to be deciding, which team is more deserving. Not having your defense affect your opponent lessens how valid a measure it is of which team is more deserving.

Got no problem if someone is ok with that inequity for purposes of simulating the NFL, but let's call a spade a spade and be accurate in why it's being used. It's being used because it's like the NFL, not because it's a better measure.

 

[One]

Isn't having a tiebreaker about determining the most deserving team, the team that had the best performance? Since fantasy teams don't affect their opponents in any way, head to head games isn't as true a measure of those two teams performance like it is in real sports.

Nuff said.

 

[fromunda cheesehead]

those of you in yahoo h2h leagues, where can i find tiebreaker rules

 

[Marc Levin]

Gotcha - I just don't see it as anymore fair than simple H2H.I agree the H2H breakdown removes the one-week luck factor, but why is that desirable? You are heading into a lose and you are out playoff anyway, right?BTW, I don't play in any CBS leagues anymore b/c they are too expensive for league management software, but if I saw that stat every day whle I was tied with another team for playoff positioning, I might change my mind.

Isn't having a tiebreaker about determining the most deserving team, the team that had the best performance?

Stopped reading after that b/c my answer is The only purpose of a tiebreaker is to determine which of two teams with tied records is the most deserving between those two teams - not the one that perfomed the best all year long or has the "better players."That's not how the NFL has their tiebreakers set up, and there is no "fair" reason for it to be set up any different in fantasy.Every year, there are NFL playoff teams that are "in" over more "deserving" teams. Sucks that your "better" FF team is outside looking in just b/c you lost to me in week 4. Know what the answer to that problem is?That is fantasy football - sometimes the better team loses out on what they "deserve."

 

[Marc Levin]

Look - in a tiebreaker between me and you (as an example) my skill/luck beat yours on the day in question in a H2H league - and that shoudlbe all that matters.

If you and I are tied H2H, we go to something else, right? So, you had your shot at my team - maybe twice - my skill/luck won out on that day (days) - you getting another bunch of bites at the apple is NOT FAIR TO ME.

People advocating H2H breakdown over straight H2H are asking folks to for them. And they are couching that sitch in a "it's not fair you beat me that day b/c my team is better than yours" complaint.

Which, sorry to say, falls squarely in

 

[Marc Levin]

Isn't having a tiebreaker about determining the most deserving team, the team that had the best performance? Since fantasy teams don't affect their opponents in any way, head to head games isn't as true a measure of those two teams performance like it is in real sports.

Nuff said.

Then why is H2H breakdown fair?You all are really missing the point of having H2H leagues, IMO.My luck and my skill got me to my record - and if my luck and my skill beat you on that specific day, and your supposedly superior team couldnot manage a better record than my team, then it sucks for you that it comes down to H2H.Why do YOU get a bunch more shots at me just b/c our records tied at the end of the year? If you were really better than me, you'd have ended with a better record.

 

[Marc Levin]

Gotcha - I just don't see it as anymore fair than simple H2H.

I agree the H2H breakdown removes the one-week luck factor, but why is that desirable? You are heading into a lose and you are out playoff anyway, right?

BTW, I don't play in any CBS leagues anymore b/c they are too expensive for league management software, but if I saw that stat every day whle I was tied with another team for playoff positioning, I might change my mind.

Isn't having a tiebreaker about determining the most deserving team, the team that had the best performance? Since fantasy teams don't affect their opponents in any way, head to head games isn't as true a measure of those two teams performance like it is in real sports.

THEN WHY PLAY IN A HEAD-TO-HEAD LEAGUE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Exactly.GregR is looking for "fairness" and the "better team" in the playoffs - that is fine, but why bother with H2H leagues at all if that is the goal? Just play in a points based league, then the tiebreaker is simple as two plus two - whoever has more points gets the playoff spot.

 

[Marc Levin]

BTW, with a 2 to 1 H2H over Points advantage in voting, I think the Pool's answer to this question is clear.

Another poll on whether H2H versus H2H breakdown is better might yield some interesting numbers, too, from the silent majority.

 

[Marc Levin]

Where I disagree is when someone is claiming it's a better or more appropriate measure of what a tiebreaker is supposed to be deciding, which team is more deserving.

See, and here is where you lose me.A tiebreaker is not to decide "who is more deserving" in the sense of who has a better team. It is simply "a" method for deciding two teams who got the same RECORD at the end of the year.Your record is what is deciding who is more deserving in the sense of a better team - you have a better record at 7-5 than someone who is at 6-6, but the 6-6 team had bad luck, and has outscored you by more than 10 points a game every week, including the week it played you. There is a great chance THAT team is more deserving of a playoff spot in the sense of having a better team then yours.The tiebreaker does not determine who is more "deserving because they have a better team" it just determines which team is more "deserving between those teams based on the outcome of their season"One of those outcomes is that I beat you once and you never beat me - that is the only thing that matter in an H2h "deserves a playoff spot" argument. Not whether your team might have beaten mine on a different week of the year.

 

[GregR_2]

Where I disagree is when someone is claiming it's a better or more appropriate measure of what a tiebreaker is supposed to be deciding, which team is more deserving.

See, and here is where you lose me.A tiebreaker is not to decide "who is more deserving" in the sense of who has a better team. It is simply "a" method for deciding two teams who got the same RECORD at the end of the year.Your record is what is deciding who is more deserving in the sense of a better team - you have a better record at 7-5 than someone who is at 6-6, but the 6-6 team had bad luck, and has outscored you by more than 10 points a game every week, including the week it played you. There is a great chance THAT team is more deserving of a playoff spot in the sense of having a better team then yours.The tiebreaker does not determine who is more "deserving because they have a better team" it just determines which team is more "deserving between those teams based on the outcome of their season"One of those outcomes is that I beat you once and you never beat me - that is the only thing that matter in an H2h "deserves a playoff spot" argument. Not whether your team might have beaten mine on a different week of the year.

And you really think a fantasy game is the best measure of whether a team is better than another, when compared to real football where the teams actually play each other and get to affect the other's peformance?

 

[Marc Levin]

Where I disagree is when someone is claiming it's a better or more appropriate measure of what a tiebreaker is supposed to be deciding, which team is more deserving.

See, and here is where you lose me.A tiebreaker is not to decide "who is more deserving" in the sense of who has a better team. It is simply "a" method for deciding two teams who got the same RECORD at the end of the year.Your record is what is deciding who is more deserving in the sense of a better team - you have a better record at 7-5 than someone who is at 6-6, but the 6-6 team had bad luck, and has outscored you by more than 10 points a game every week, including the week it played you. There is a great chance THAT team is more deserving of a playoff spot in the sense of having a better team then yours.The tiebreaker does not determine who is more "deserving because they have a better team" it just determines which team is more "deserving between those teams based on the outcome of their season"One of those outcomes is that I beat you once and you never beat me - that is the only thing that matter in an H2h "deserves a playoff spot" argument. Not whether your team might have beaten mine on a different week of the year.

And you really think a fantasy game is the best measure of whether a team is better than another, when compared to real football where the teams actually play each other and get to affect the other's peformance?

No, but it is probably a measure of who has more SKILL as a fantasy OWNER.And you are almost completely removing that factor when two teams are tied in record. If you had a better team and you were a better fantasy player than me, then you would NOT have ended with the same record. Simple as that.I did a better job as a fantasy owner if I took a "worse" team and tied you at the end of the year in record. You have completely removed rewarding my job all year long that from the equation by using breakdown as a tiebreaker.

 

[Marc Levin]

What do you do when 2 teams end up tied record-wise, points-wise, and head-to-head, assuming there are no divisions? What's next? Can't do record against common opponents because everyone should have played everyone. Is it record if you had played the other team's schedule?

No matter what you should always have a coin-flip type thing in your tiebreak rules as the last option. But other things you can put in your list would include points at a given position (don't include positions that have a flex), or total TDs scored, or highest score in the last week of the season or just about anything else you want.

Or, what I see in a lot of leagues, is to go to bench scoring as the tiebreaker when points for is tied.The other (and easiest) thing to do to avoid passing the PF tiebreaker is to go to decimal scoring - if you got to 1/100th scoring, it is highly unlikely you will have two teams tied.

 

[Marc Levin]

It's not a valid statement to say because you accepted luck up to this point, you always have to accept it at every point down the tiebreaker list. There's nothing philosophicaly wrong with saying the first tiebreaker should be the truest measure of a team's achievements compared to the other tied teams just because we accepted weekly games as what led up to the tie.

But H2H breakdown takes the H2H factor you are trying to reject and takes it to the extreme.I have no problem rejecting H2H as the first, or as any, tiebreaker - but to go from H2H to H2H breakdown is, IMO, one of the least fair ways to decide a tiebreaker in an H2H league. (well, less fair than straight H2H, anyway).

 

[Marc Levin]

Where I disagree is when someone is claiming it's a better or more appropriate measure of what a tiebreaker is supposed to be deciding, which team is more deserving.

See, and here is where you lose me.A tiebreaker is not to decide "who is more deserving" in the sense of who has a better team. It is simply "a" method for deciding two teams who got the same RECORD at the end of the year.Your record is what is deciding who is more deserving in the sense of a better team - you have a better record at 7-5 than someone who is at 6-6, but the 6-6 team had bad luck, and has outscored you by more than 10 points a game every week, including the week it played you. There is a great chance THAT team is more deserving of a playoff spot in the sense of having a better team then yours.The tiebreaker does not determine who is more "deserving because they have a better team" it just determines which team is more "deserving between those teams based on the outcome of their season"One of those outcomes is that I beat you once and you never beat me - that is the only thing that matter in an H2h "deserves a playoff spot" argument. Not whether your team might have beaten mine on a different week of the year.

And you really think a fantasy game is the best measure of whether a team is better than another, when compared to real football where the teams actually play each other and get to affect the other's peformance?

Oh - and the counter to this argument is "do you think the Miami Dolphins have a better team than the Chicago Bears?"

 

[GregR_2]

....No, but it is probably a measure of who has more SKILL as a fantasy OWNER.And you are almost completely removing that factor when two teams are tied in record. If you had a better team and you were a better fantasyt player than me, then you woudl NOPT have ended with the same record. Simple as that.I did a better job as a fantasy owner if I took a "worse" team and tied you at the end of the year in record. You have completely removed rewarding my job all year long that from the equation by using breakdown as a tiebreaker.

You've put together an argument that makes so little sense I don't even know how to argue it, so I give up. Single games are a better indication of fantasy skill than multiple games. Got it, thanks.

 

[Marc Levin]

....No, but it is probably a measure of who has more SKILL as a fantasy OWNER.And you are almost completely removing that factor when two teams are tied in record. If you had a better team and you were a better fantasyt player than me, then you woudl NOPT have ended with the same record. Simple as that.I did a better job as a fantasy owner if I took a "worse" team and tied you at the end of the year in record. You have completely removed rewarding my job all year long that from the equation by using breakdown as a tiebreaker.

You've put together an argument that makes so little sense I don't even know how to argue it, so I give up. Single games are a better indication of fantasy skill than multiple games. Got it, thanks.

But, we did not PLAY multiple games - we played only ONE game.I might have made different decisions all year long if I played ONLY YOU every week.You are exalting numbers and trying to eliminate luck over my individual skill as a fantasy owner, plus a little luck - try to dispute it, I need to see a counter argument that makes sense beyond this:"I deserve it b/c I have a team that would beat yours more often if you and I were the only teams in the league."

 

[Marc Levin]

Note, Greg, when two intelligent people have a dispute, neither side is making "no" sense - one side's mind is not open enough to see the other argument.

Now, we can debate whether I am intelligent or not, but I can at least understand your position - I just don't like it, nor do I see it as fair.

In fact, I see a LOT of contradictions in your arguments when you reject a one game H2H as a proper tiebreaker, but advocate a multiple "imaginary games" H2H as a "fair" tiebreaker.

 

[Marc Levin]

You've put together an argument that makes so little sense I don't even know how to argue it,

Umm, this says it all:

But H2H breakdown takes the H2H factor you are trying to reject and takes it to the extreme.I have no problem rejecting H2H as the first, or as any, tiebreaker - but to go from H2H to H2H breakdown is, IMO, one of the least fair ways to decide a tiebreaker in an H2H league. (well, less fair than straight H2H, anyway).

 

[GregR_2]

Note, Greg, when two intelligent people have a dispute, neither side is making "no" sense - one side's mind is not open enough to see the other argument.Now, we can debate whether I am intelligent or not, but I can at least understand your position - I just don't like it, nor do I see it as fair.In fact, I see a LOT of contradictions in your arguments when you reject a one game H2H as a proper tiebreaker, but advocate a multiple "imaginary games" H2H as a "fair" tiebreaker.

I never questioned your intelligence. The post made no sense. It said:

I did a better job as a fantasy owner if I took a "worse" team and tied you at the end of the year in record.

I don't think you really believe putting together a worse team and getting the same record is a better indication of skill. I'm sure you know what the results of a poll would be on the topic. If you're more skillful, then you wouldn't have put together a worse team. This isn't a real coaching job where Charlie Weis can come in and turn a losing team into a ranked team. We built the team. We don't have much control over how the player is going to do that week. The best we can do is to pick the player who we want to start, and if we get the right guy more than 66% of the time from anything other than an easy decision, we're probably way ahead of the curve. Whether you like H2H or not, I don't see how you can argue with that.Sorry if you felt insulted, it wasn't my intent. Anyway, we're seriously to the point I don't even know if it's a horse or a cow.

 

[AB in DC]

But, we did not PLAY multiple games - we played only ONE game.

That's silly -- you both played an entire season's worth of games, just not against each other. I really don't understand the prevaling argument here. Yall use H2H records for playoff seeding, so why use H2H again for tiebreakers? The whole point is that H2H records aren't enough to break the tie, so you should use another method (total points) when the first method isn't sufficient.

 

[shuke]

But, we did not PLAY multiple games - we played only ONE game.

That's silly -- you both played an entire season's worth of games, just not against each other. I really don't understand the prevaling argument here. Yall use H2H records for playoff seeding, so why use H2H again for tiebreakers? The whole point is that H2H records aren't enough to break the tie, so you should use another method (total points) when the first method isn't sufficient.

 

[Marc Levin]

But, we did not PLAY multiple games - we played only ONE game.

That's silly -- you both played an entire season's worth of games, just not against each other. I really don't understand the prevaling argument here. Yall use H2H records for playoff seeding, so why use H2H again for tiebreakers? The whole point is that H2H records aren't enough to break the tie, so you should use another method (total points) when the first method isn't sufficient.

That is fine - but that is not the argument.GregR and I are discussing using strauight up H2H (m,e versus you with the same record) versus an H2H breakdown where we figure out what "woulda happened" if we played each other every week of the year. That breakdown method is, IMO, unfair.

I have NO PROBLEM with using straight up PF as the first or primnary tiebreaker, though H2H seems just as "fair" a method.

 

[Marc Levin]

I don't think you really believe putting together a worse team and getting the same record is a better indication of skill. I'm sure you know what the results of a poll would be on the topic. If you're more skillful, then you wouldn't have put together a worse team.

Ummm, injuries down? PTTS things like choosing Edge in the first down? Grabbing fillers for a few weeks b/c I play the WW well down?I can think of a THOUSAND reasons why my team may look worse than yours, would lose to yours most weeks of the year, yet I used my skill to win against you in a given week and/or used that same skill to take a "worse" team and get as good a record as a "better" team.Let's assume you "lucked" into a draft where NONE of your players got injured and every one played up to their draft spot - why should you get the playoffs over me with identical records when I built my team with shoestrings and gum, yet managed an identical record - PLUS I beat you H2H on that given week we playedYour team probably beats mine "most" weeks of the year - so what? Why does that mean you "deserve" a playoff spot over me?Like I said over and over - you are exalting the numbers generated by a team over the skill displayed by the fantasy owners. Yes, it took superior SKILL, as much as superior luck, to beat you in that one week that you and I played each other and I won.You are assuming that the only way I could have beat you that one week was due to luck since you would have beaten me most OTHER weeks of the year. That you fail to see that side of the argument makes me wonder whether I am not explaining it well enough.

 

[GregR_2]

...

That is fine - but that is not the argument.

GregR and I are discussing using strauight up H2H (m,e versus you with the same record) versus an H2H breakdown where we figure out what "woulda happened" if we played each other every week of the year. That breakdown method is, IMO, unfair.

I have NO PROBLEM with using straight up PF as the first or primnary tiebreaker, though H2H seems just as "fair" a method.

Aroo? What you said isn't the argument either. I've never said anything of the sort of what you said is my argument?I've advocated using the all-play record. Your net record against every team every week of the season. You know, this thing, the last 3 columns of the MFL Power rank:

All-Play Record

Franchise W L T Pct

GregR -------------------99 33 0 .750

BostonFred --------------81 51 0 .614

Maurile Tremblay -------88 44 0 .667

BLOOM -------------------77 55 0 .583

BassNBrew -------------71 61 0 .538

Cobalt Cruisin' -----------68 64 0 .515

aaronr28 --------------63 69 0 .477

David Yudkin ---------------61 71 0 .462

Gatorman --------------55 77 0 .417

LHUCKS ---------------49 83 0 .371

Res Ipsa Loquitur ------44 88 0 .333

smlevin -------------------36 96 0 .273

For instance, bostonfred is the overall points leader right now over myself and MT. But his scores have been more erratic than MT and I, who have been more consistently near the top. If we had 11 games every week, one against each team, I'd have 99 wins and 33 losses, and MT would be 88-44, but Fred would have lost 7 more than MT and 18 more than me.

I never claimed anywhere to make a string of 13 games between two tied teams, so not sure where that came from.

 

[Marc Levin]

If we had 11 games every week, one against each team, I'd have 99 wins and 33 losses, and MT would be 88-44, but Fred would have lost 7 more than MT and 18 more than me.I never claimed anywhere to make a string of 13 games between two tied teams, so not sure where that came from.

H2H breakdown? Why the heck would you use that mathematical breakdown as a tiebreaker in an H2H league?And it STILL removes all my skill on that given week from the equation - and the numbers you talk about above are GREAT for our survivor league that is based on overall points and is a best starter league -- that is what we are trying to determine - the worst team each week.(BTW, shall I pull up last year's GSOSII standings since you pulled up this year's? )

 

[Marc Levin]

I've advocated using the all-play record. Your net record against every team every week of the season.

Why is THAT a good H2H tiebreaker? And how is that any BETTER than what I "thought" we were arguing about? We seem to be missing each other's point somewhere because you feel very strongly about this. I think your point is you want to try and figure out the better team regardless of fantasy player, I am trying to reward the more skillful fantasy player.You seem to advocate allowing the team in that would have a better record if a pair of monkeys were running the team. You are removing the owner's skill from the tiebreaker in favor of trying to figure out which is the "better" team - with "better team" being reduced to an objective standard removing all luck from the equation.

 

[GregR_2]

I've advocated using the all-play record. Your net record against every team every week of the season.

Why is THAT a good H2H tiebreaker? And how is that any BETTER than what I "thought" we were arguing about? We seem to be missing each other's point somewhere because you feel very strongly about this. I think your point is you want to try and figure out the better team regardless of fantasy player, I am trying to reward the more skillful fantasy player.You seem to advocate allowing the team in that would have a better record if a pair of monkeys were running the team. You are removing the owner's skill from the tiebreaker in favor of trying to figure out which is the "better" team - with "better team" being reduced to an objective standard removing all luck from the equation.

No Marc, not at all. I'm trying to get at the same thing, rewarding the best fantasy owner. The difference is you are relying on the output of a single game to indicate that as if it is the best measure. I think a single game is about the absolute worst indicator of owner skill you can get in fantasy football, because the role of luck is going to play a much greater role in a single game than over a stretch of games. The all-play record is even better than total points as a measure of how a team really did, because it has built into it for every week how you did in relation to everyone else in the league. I'm really surprised you keep talking about single games like you have. Even if skill is that important in the outcome of 1 week, I don't see how you would disagree that measuring their skill over the course of the season is not a better measure since it includes every lineup they used their skill on, and if luck tends to equalize over a larger number of trials, the result is going to be a truer measure of skill.In the NFL, head to head works great because teams actually have to play one another. Their scores are partially dependent on the other team. That is never the case in any kind of usual fantasy league setup. Your score and my score are independent values that do not relate to anywhere near a significant degree.

 

[GregR_2]

I've advocated using the all-play record. Your net record against every team every week of the season.

Why is THAT a good H2H tiebreaker? And how is that any BETTER than what I "thought" we were arguing about? We seem to be missing each other's point somewhere because you feel very strongly about this. I think your point is you want to try and figure out the better team regardless of fantasy player, I am trying to reward the more skillful fantasy player.

You seem to advocate allowing the team in that would have a better record if a pair of monkeys were running the team. You are removing the owner's skill from the tiebreaker in favor of trying to figure out which is the "better" team - with "better team" being reduced to an objective standard removing all luck from the equation.

BTW, this is another of those that just doesn't make sense to me. It's contradictory.First it says what I'm advocating chooses the team that would have a better record if monkeys ran the team, wihch I guess would have to mean this system is all about luck. Then you say I'm removing skill from it in to figure out the best team... then you say the better team is reduced to an objective standard that removed luck.

So which is it? I completely agree I am advocating an objective standard that limits luck (it doesn't remove it all, but it removes a lot more than head to head does). But if I have limited luck, then that means what is left is skill, so the pair of monkeys comment makes no sense?

Luck already played its full measure in the regular records and they ended up tied, leaving us to ask which team really had the better performance, which means that objective standard that now removes luck. The NFL does the same thing once head to head is done and starts looking at things like strength of victory (which I also would advocate but it doesn't work in fantasy since most leagues you play every team).

 

[Marc Levin]

This is long - feel free to skip to the bottom quote and read from there.

The all-play record is even better than total points as a measure of how a team really did, because it has built into it for every week how you did in relation to everyone else in the league.

Yeah - if it were some type of league where I played more than one game or more than one opponent each week, an all-play tiebreaker makes a heck of a lot of sense. But not if it were a straight one on one H2H league - if a tiebreaker is that I may have to go into a computer simulation that judges me versus every other team every single week, then that is how the league should run all year long - just pick your lineup and play versus everyone else every week. Wait - isn't that pretty much exactly how survivor/points for leagues work?So, I am back to shuke's comment - why bother playing in H2H leagues?

I am not objecting to the system - I am objecting to it as a system for determiinng a H2H tiebreaker in an H2H league - I would actually love playing in an all-play league as my league - I have been in plenty of leagues with a championship team that misses the playoffs because I had the worst luck ever every single week and my opponent had his high score for the year. I have been in many leagues where I am a top-3 scorer in overall points and a barely .500 record - and I miss the playoffs due to H2H tiebreakers. I am not b*tching because I played in an H2H league!

Making a tiebreaker "all-play games" removes my skill because I don't get to use my skill in all those games - I only get to use all my skill in the games I actually play. The rest is done by some computer simulation in case of a tie - I still don't understand how all-play is a better way of determining a tiebreaker in H2H leagues.

Like I said, in survivor leagues, and in leagues that are overall point leagues, how I play against everyone else is important - my overall points are important - but in an H2H league, the thing that matters each week is NOT how I do versus the rest of the leaguie - it is how I do against my opponent that week.

I fail to see how using an "against all" measure is a better way of deciding playoff seeding when I played H2H all year long.

As someone else pointed out, what I choose to do this week versus a poorer opponent may affect my overall points that week - and might make me look poor versus other teams - but is sufficient to beat a poor team. I may not always play to maximize the points in my starting lineup every week when you consider small rosters, bye issues, short term injury issues, etc. There was actually a week this year in one league where I deliberately went without a TE because I had to replace my TE, K and one WR and I didn't want to sacrifice a spot for a b/u TE one week - I coud have put more points in my starting lineup if I knew I wasn't playing just one guy.

I may not alway be trying to maximize my points - I may be trying to just barely beat my opponent that week. I may not have wanted to drop Hasselbeck to pick up a player who went off on a tear for a few weeks and, instead, decided to weather the storm with someone like Charlie Frye - I wouldn't do that in a points league or in a survivor league.

As someone else said, once you've chosen H2H as your style of play, and once you have two teams tied with the same record, why is this all points thing the best way to split the tie to determine playoff seeding? And how does that show you had more skill than me if you win that tiebreak?

You also don't explain why taking the luck out from one week we went H2H (assuming I would lose the all-points tiebreaker) is important in a playoff tiebreaker between our two teams.

In your example above, with our current GSOSII league, do you really believe that because I am last in all-play this year that I have the least amount of skill? If so, then did I have the most amount of skill last year when I won it?? How did I lose all that skill this past summer?

Do you think that if eliminations in GSOSII were done based on all play rather than pure points for, would that be a truer measure of our drafting skill? I do not believe so - it may eliminate some week to week LUCK, but it is not a gauge of SKILL - nor does it eliminate the bad luck of INJURIES.

First it says what I'm advocating chooses the team that would have a better record if monkeys ran the team, wihch I guess would have to mean this system is all about luck. Then you say I'm removing skill from it in to figure out the best team... then you say the better team is reduced to an objective standard that removed luck.

No - it says a couple of monkeys because all play has nothing to do with skill or luck - it has to do with a cold, non-skillful, no-luck computer simulation of how I would have done versus every other team every other week of the year, right?Like I said above, if I wanted to play in a league where I just choose my starters each week and play the rest of the league, I'd have joined such a league. Even used only as a tiebreaker, it flies in the face of why you have an H2H league.

Simply put - due to skill or luck - if I started out in a H2H league, and I beat you during the season, and you didn't beat me during the season, and we ended with the same record, I should be in the playoffs over you (even if you think you have a "better" team).

We are now in because I can't see past that argument - regardless of any appeal of an all-points, H2H breakdown, or flipping a coin argument has on deciding who has a "better" team.

 

[Marc Levin]

Luck already played its full measure in the regular records and they ended up tied, leaving us to ask which team really had the better performance, which means that objective standard that now removes luck. The NFL does the same thing once head to head is done and starts looking at things like strength of victory (which I also would advocate but it doesn't work in fantasy since most leagues you play every team).

now i understand our disconnect - I am not trying to determine playoff seeding in a H2H league by determinng who had a better "performance" all year long - your performance was shown in your record.

I am just trying to decide, between me and you with equal records after playing H2H against one team all year long, who deserves the playoffs as between us. There is this assumption you have made thatm, as between two teams with equal records, I want to find out who is the better team "on paper." I do not.

In an H2H league, we are not trying to reward the team that is better "on paper" - all play or H2H breakdown are clearly the best methods for determinng which team is better "on paper." Heck, overall points is better than our H2H for determinng which team is better "on paper." But we are not playing H2H "on paper" - we decided it between you and I once this year - and I came out ahead.

If H2H is a wash, fine - go to whatever system you want.

But if I beat you in a H2H league and we are otherwise tied at the end of the year, why should I not be rewarded with the playoffs based on having beat you H2H in a H2H league?

(BTW, I understand your comment about "my FF team had no effect on your FF team the week we played" - in response, I have to say SO WHAT? As shuke said, if that is important to you - even just for tiebreakers - why bother playing in H2H leagues?)

 

[AB in DC]

But if I beat you in a H2H league and we are otherwise tied at the end of the year, why should I not be rewarded with the playoffs based on having beat you H2H in a H2H league?

Your reward for beating Team B is that you get a W and Team B does not. I don't see why you should get any more reward than that. You've already counted your win over Team B in the total record; you shouldn't count it again in the tiebreaker.

In other words, all matches should count equally: both the games against the team you're tied with and the games against other teams.

Hence my comment above -- if you're tied on H2H record, use another method for the tiebreaker (total points, all play record, or whatever).