|
|
Post by Sam (Rays & Commish) on Sept 27, 2012 17:15:39 GMT -5
The rules state that the winner of the regular season in event of a tie is the team who scored the most points in the H2H matchups versus the team(s) they were tied with. Therefore, to resolve the 4-way tie, I calculated the scores of every matchup where 2 of the tied teams played each other. The results were as follows:
Rockies 8 vs Twins 4
Red Sox 1 vs Twins 11
Blue Jays 7 vs Twins 5
Blue Jays 9 vs Red Sox 3
Rockies 4.5 vs Red Sox 7.5
All teams played each other once except Jays and Rockies, who never played each other. Therefore I calculated the average score of each team in their matchups versus the other teams. The results:
Red Sox: 3.833
Rockies average: 6.25
Twins: 6.667
Jays: 8
This is a far from ideal method, but with the current rules in place it seems like the only possible method. This means that Jays are regular season champion and Twins are regular season runner-up. Prize money will be allocated accordingly unless anyone has any objections with this method.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh (Twins) on Sept 27, 2012 17:35:59 GMT -5
The only thing I see wrong with this is this is using data from three of the twins and red sox matchups and only two from the blue jays and Rockies. I think the idea of a tiebreak system is pretty good, but to do this you new to calculate what each team scored against the other three teams who finished 18-4. However only using two matchups for two teams, and three matchups for the other two is a fault in the system. Whether the difference it matchup numbers makes it harder or easier to bring your avg up or down, the plain fact is that the number of games beig compared and averaged needs to be the same for all four teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh (Twins) on Sept 27, 2012 17:37:58 GMT -5
This is the exact reason I believe this type of tiebreak system is flawed (for the purposes of our league) because the scheduling was all over the place. So either I think the four tied teams needs to be compared on a equal basis, two matchups vs 18-4 teams or overall fantasy points the entire year.
Not saying its your fault Sam, more that the scheduling creates an error when trying to compare teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh (Twins) on Sept 27, 2012 17:42:14 GMT -5
Pretty much the missing Jays/Rockies matchup is an error in the scheduling and in turn in this scoring system. That matchup could have huge differential effects on these standings.
Need a better comparison. And like you first mentioned Sam, I dot see how TOTAL REGULAR SEASON FANTASY POINTS for these four teams isn't the best way to determine who the regular season champ is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sam (Rays & Commish) on Sept 27, 2012 17:48:34 GMT -5
I agree that it isn't really fair that two of the teams didn't play each other, but this is the best interpretation of the rule as it was to start this season, and I can't justify changing the rules at this point in the season. For next year I strongly support changing the tiebreaker to overall fantasy points but I don't see any way where it would be fair to change it for this season. Also even if the Jays and Rockies had played each other, there was no possible score where you would've moved up to first: if Jays won they would stay in first, if Rockies won they would pass you into first.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh (Twins) on Sept 27, 2012 21:07:47 GMT -5
And that's fine. I'm not arguing to be in first. I'm arguing for a fair tie break system. And the scenario you just explained is why this system is flawed. If the proper matchups were there - outcomes could easily be different. And you're wrong actually because if the Rockies beat the Jays say 7-5 if a matchup would've taken place. I would be bumped out of champ and runner up altogether.
All these reasons just show how trying to manipulate the tiebreak system that referenced head to head matchup to fit our four team tie is not at all the best or most fair way to go about this.
If you, the commisioner agree that total fantasy points is the best determinant to regular season champ and runner up, then that's what should be used. Nowhere in the rules does it address tiebreaks with >2 teams. So what the commish needs to do is create the most fair system that we can rely on going forward.
|
|
