Quick convo-> what if tie, specifically in SCF

[Nick]

Stop with the insults and please conduct yourself like something approaching an adult.

The formula you listed above is pretty basic

I did not intend to imply otherwise, a z-score is the simplest normalization, but is accurate when all population parameters are know, which is true in this case.

But this is H2H. A win is a win.

Shiv, TIE BREAK.

How can you use a system to determine the outcome of a tie if that same system picks a different winner than our scoring system in certain circumstances?

Concept of a tie breaker, trying to be super duper polite here; think about real-life tie breakers -> regulation wins for example as used by the NHL ->they pick a different team then just points, actually the purpose of a tie breaker. If you'd like further elaboration on the topic I'll come on MSN tomorrow.

Are you sure you teach stats?

I shouldn't dignify this with a response, however to be accurate -> I taught stats, as required for the 'minor' portion of my PhD, which is in stats. I'm currently teaching 400 level business policy, but really just focusing on my own work.

[Robin Hood]

Stop with the insults and please conduct yourself like something approaching an adult.

The formula you listed above is pretty basic

I did not intend to imply otherwise, a z-score is the simplest normalization, but is accurate when all population parameters are know, which is true in this case.

But this is H2H. A win is a win.

Shiv, TIE BREAK.

How can you use a system to determine the outcome of a tie if that same system picks a different winner than our scoring system in certain circumstances?

Concept of a tie breaker, trying to be super duper polite here; think about real-life tie breakers -> regulation wins for example as used by the NHL ->they pick a different team then just points, actually the purpose of a tie breaker. If you'd like further elaboration on the topic I'll come on MSN tomorrow.

Are you sure you teach stats?

I shouldn't dignify this with a response, however to be accurate -> I taught stats, as required for the 'minor' portion of my PhD, which is in stats. I'm currently teaching 400 level business policy, but really just focusing on my own work.

But this is H2H. A win is a win.

Shiv, TIE BREAK.

When i say a win is a win nick, in H2H if you win the goals category -> that is a win. i'm not talking about the whole week. We can split the wins in categories.

The system you are proposing suggests that a Win is not a Win by comparing the magnitudes by which each team won their respective categories. ---> that is not H2H.

And btw your analogy of what the NHL does is for STANDINGS not for games.

And all of this avoids the fact that a team can lose the week 6-8-2 yet still be proclaimed the better team by standardizing. now obviously you want to use standardizing for only tie breaks. BUT You cannot have a way of breaking a tie break that would change the score of the game if applied to ALL match ups. I.e. Overtime and Shootouts do not change the score in regulation. Standardizing does.

What Standardization really is is a different form of fantasy hockey that we PURPOSELY did not choose ---> points system fantasy hockey i.e. on sporting news. Where each type of stat earns a certain amount of points.

[Robin Hood]

Stop with the insults and please conduct yourself like something approaching an adult.

"NIAFR"

[Nick]

When i say a win is a win nick, in H2H if you win the goals category -> that is a win. i'm not talking about the whole week. We can split the wins in categories.

I think you lost me here.

The system you are proposing suggests that a Win is not a Win by comparing the magnitudes by which each team won their respective categories. ---> that is not H2H.

I dunno what your saying here, cannot tell if its an understand difference or a disagreement. I'm proposing (well, Kareem did):
1) Normal h2h week 16 scoring categories, winning each category is worth 1 win.
2) If that results in a tie, the magnitude of of scores are compared, wherein winning 1 category by a fair margin is worth more then barely winning (and each category will be normalized, so the mean and standard deviations between categories same so that they can be fairly compared.

And all of this avoids the fact that a team can lose the week 6-8-2 yet still be proclaimed the better team by standardizing. now obviously you want to use standardizing for only tie breaks . BUT [You cannot have a way of breaking a tie break that would change the score of the game if applied to ALL match ups. I.e. Overtime and Shootouts do not change the score in regulation. Standardizing does.

I'm really not sure here... if your just using goals it would change the winner, if your just using home-ice advantage it would change the winner...

So ? (this is only for playoffs).... this method makes a comparison within the matchup, relevant to how each team played.I'm really not sure if you're grasping tie breakers or just arguing because its me.

[Robin Hood]

When i say a win is a win nick, in H2H if you win the goals category -> that is a win. i'm not talking about the whole week. We can split the wins in categories.

I think you lost me here.

The system you are proposing suggests that a Win is not a Win by comparing the magnitudes by which each team won their respective categories. ---> that is not H2H.

I dunno what your saying here, cannot tell if its an understand difference or a disagreement. I'm proposing (well, Kareem did):
1) Normal h2h week 16 scoring categories, winning each category is worth 1 win.
2) If that results in a tie, the magnitude of of scores are compared, wherein winning 1 category by a fair margin is worth more then barely winning (and each category will be normalized, so the mean and standard deviations between categories same so that they can be fairly compared.

And all of this avoids the fact that a team can lose the week 6-8-2 yet still be proclaimed the better team by standardizing. now obviously you want to use standardizing for only tie breaks . BUT [You cannot have a way of breaking a tie break that would change the score of the game if applied to ALL match ups. I.e. Overtime and Shootouts do not change the score in regulation. Standardizing does.

I'm really not sure here... if your just using goals it would change the winner, if your just using home-ice advantage it would change the winner...

So ? (this is only for playoffs).... this method makes a comparison within the matchup, relevant to how each team played.I'm really not sure if you're grasping tie breakers or just arguing because its me.

I'll try to rephrase:

I'm proposing (well, Kareem did):
1) Normal h2h week 16 scoring categories, winning each category is worth 1 win.
2) If that results in a tie, the magnitude of of scores are compared, wherein winning 1 category by a fair margin is worth more then barely winning (and each category will be normalized, so the mean and standard deviations between categories same so that they can be fairly compared.

The best way I can do it is with an example:

Imagine an H2H League with 4 scoring categories: G, A, PTS, FOW:

1. Every category you beat the other person in, is a win and vice versa for a loss (we agree till here). Hence "winning a week" involves going 1-0-3 or 2-1-1/2-0-2 etc etc.
2. Now logically what you are saying makes sense. I.e. If there is a tie and Team A has: 25G, 25A, 50PTS, 50FOW and Team B has: 30G, 15A, 45PTS, 60FOW, then we standardize each category, see who won their respective categories by a bigger margin.
3. The issue is that this system fails to account for the following factors:
A. In H2H, beating the opposing team in a category is a win. Magnitude does not change a damn thing. If a team beats another me by one goal or 10, its the same thing just like in the NHL. A win is a win.
B. And this is the bigger issue: If let us say we implement your system and the stats are as follows:

Team A: 25G, 25A, 50PTS, 10 FOW
Team B: 24G, 25A, 49 PTS, 100 FOW

Then, Team A has a record of 2-1-1 according to H2H rules.

BUT IF YOU STANDARDIZE the stats, Team B will be the winner because Team B is FAR better in FOW than Team A is better in Goals and Points.
Now you can argue that that makes sense. Team B is indeed almost equal offensively and far better in FOW.

BUT according to H2H rules, Team A is the winner.

So my point is that if in times where one team wins (in this example Team A wins according to H2H), standardizing the scores gives the victory to the opposing team. so HOW can you use that to break a tie? That undermines the concept of H2H altogether.

In fact, I bet you if you take the weeks from this year where teams went 6-8-2 or scores similar to that, there will be MANY instances where the winning team would become the losing team if you standardize the scores.

The system is just as flawed as using Goals to decide the winner was my point. Both are flawed.

[Shep]

[Nick]

Hmm... I fully understand that (normalized) sum of stats difference is not the same as h2h category comparison, and we're only talking about using it in the case of a tie... and in the event of an h2h categorial tie, we go deeper into the stats and look at magnitude of the categories. It's so logical, fair and meaningful I cannot believe we didn't think of it before.

I don't think your point regarding it changing the winner of the weak if it was the #1 deciding factor is a valid one, no one is saying make it the #1, and every categorial win will will be working towards a net magnitude-difference win.

So any 8-6-2 is a win (both currently and in the proposed system); if our tie-breaker is goals the team with 6 could easily have had more goals, could have been the home team, could have had less GP -> So if any of those were the #1 determining factor(s) it would be different, but it's not, because we are talking about a tie breaker.


The awesomest part of the this method for a tie-breaker is that it's completely depedent on the week (an h2h trait) compares you and your opponent in a equal and unbiased manner (doesn't favour one type of team over another) and the team with the better week wins!!!!

There are real downsides to every other tie-breaker scenario that's been suggested, in fact I believe they all have the issue you've identified as 'fatal' for the magnitude method, and virtually none of the upside/accuracy.

[Robin Hood]

Hmm... I fully understand that (normalized) sum of stats difference is not the same as h2h category comparison, and we're only talking about using it in the case of a tie... and in the event of an h2h categorial tie, we go deeper into the stats and look at magnitude of the categories. It's so logical, fair and meaningful I cannot believe we didn't think of it before.

I don't think your point regarding it changing the winner of the weak if it was the #1 deciding factor is a valid one, no one is saying make it the #1, and every categorial win will will be working towards a net magnitude-difference win.

So any 8-6-2 is a win (both currently and in the proposed system); if our tie-breaker is goals the team with 6 could easily have had more goals, could have been the home team, could have had less GP -> So if any of those were the #1 determining factor(s) it would be different, but it's not, because we are talking about a tie breaker.


The awesomest part of the this method for a tie-breaker is that it's completely depedent on the week (an h2h trait) compares you and your opponent in a equal and unbiased manner (doesn't favour one type of team over another) and the team with the better week wins!!!!

There are real downsides to every other tie-breaker scenario that's been suggested, in fact I believe they all have the issue you've identified as 'fatal' for the magnitude method, and virtually none of the upside/accuracy.

nick consider the following example:

H2H League, 4 Categories: G, A, PTS, FOW

Team A wins G and PTS.
Team B wins A and FOW.

You cannot use standardization to calculate who had the better week. ACCORDING TO H2H THEY BOTH WON TWO CATEGORIES AND THAT IS THAT.

The minute you look at magnitude you create a paradox in H2H.

The BEST WAY I can explain this is to put it this way: If after game 6 of the SCF, the series is tied 3-3, what would you say if the NHL tabulated all goals scored and the team with more GF in the series wins the cup.

that is what you are trying to do. not only that you are taking home-ice advantage in the smallest form that we have here in this league when it is well deserved.

anyways if you want to talk on msn i think it will be a better forum. when you are on we can talk.

[MSP4LYFE]

So it's not ok to use state differential (that is based on the actual matchup) when two teams tie, because it does not give us an accurate representation of the matchup, but it is ok to use seeding to determine the tie break?

Shiv, you are arguing the same thing over and over, it wasn't correct the first time, it isn't correct now. No one has suggested that we use net differential to determine the winner in every instance, merely in a tie break, and to this point there hasn't been a better suggestion. You can argue how much you think net differential contradicts the H2H format till you are blue in the face, but it is still superior to our current tie break.

Let me give you an example, you seem to like them...

Team A finishes with 100 points in the East, but finishes second due to the strength of competition in the East. (also greater record vs the league, and against team B)

Team B finishes with 99 points in the West, but finishes first due to the weakness of the competition in the West.

Team A & B tie in the finals, Team B wins on our current tie break. This method is neither realistic, accurate or indicative of the strength of the team. Nor is any such method employed in real life. I find it humorous that you can reject the standardized method, but support seeding which suffers from the same flaws you stated above, and then some.

[bills09]

couldnt you just use the cbs breakdown vs the other team to regulate ties...

[MSP4LYFE]

couldnt you just use the cbs breakdown vs the other team to regulate ties...

I don't mind this suggestion at all, still prefer the standardized method since it draws on the actual match-up, but Billy's proposal is a solid backup plan.

[Robin Hood]

So it's not ok to use state differential (that is based on the actual matchup) when two teams tie, because it does not give us an accurate representation of the matchup, but it is ok to use seeding to determine the tie break?

Shiv, you are arguing the same thing over and over, it wasn't correct the first time, it isn't correct now. No one has suggested that we use net differential to determine the winner in every instance, merely in a tie break, and to this point there hasn't been a better suggestion. You can argue how much you think net differential contradicts the H2H format till you are blue in the face, but it is still superior to our current tie break.

Let me give you an example, you seem to like them...

Team A finishes with 100 points in the East, but finishes second due to the strength of competition in the East. (also greater record vs the league, and against team B)

Team B finishes with 99 points in the West, but finishes first due to the weakness of the competition in the West.

Team A & B tie in the finals, Team B wins on our current tie break. This method is neither realistic, accurate or indicative of the strength of the team. Nor is any such method employed in real life. I find it humorous that you can reject the standardized method, but support seeding which suffers from the same flaws you stated above, and then some.

kareem, just because you say standardization works doesnt mean it does. rules cannot be paradoxical. standardization creates a paradox. if you have an issue with weaker teams having higher points, you should be dealing with scheduling not the tiebreak.

[Robin Hood]

couldnt you just use the cbs breakdown vs the other team to regulate ties...

this is the best idea i have heard so far.

[Robin Hood]

no kidding billy BEST idea so far. even better than the current higher team in the standings wins. it solves all problems:

1. better team gets home ice.
2. teams like scotts will get home ice anyways.
3. no paradox.
4. h2h integrity maintained.

[MSP4LYFE]

I am now convinced you are arguing for the sake of arguing...No disrespect, I do it all the time.

[MSP4LYFE]

kareem, just because you say standardization works doesnt mean it does. rules cannot be paradoxical. standardization creates a paradox.

Right back at ya.

if you have an issue with weaker teams having higher points, you should be dealing with scheduling not the tiebreak.

I did, it went nowhere, and even under ideal circumstances, there is no way to perfectly balance the schedule or conferences, ergo the tiebreak is flawed. Further to that, I just disagree with the general premise of using seeding as a tiebreak, higher seeds already get the advantage of facing lower seeds in the playoffs, giving them the tie break in addition to that is nonsensical, and unrealistic, as I have alluded to on several occasions, the NHL does not reward game 7 to the higher ranked team, the two teams battle it out for the right to move on.

[MSP4LYFE]

If I had my way, the tie break would be determined the following way:

1. Standardized method

if that is a tie..

2. Breakdown

if that is a tie..

3. Seeding

[Robin Hood]

If I had my way, the tie break would be determined the following way:

1. Standardized method

if that is a tie..

2. Breakdown

if that is a tie..

3. Seeding

Breakdown is the best method. Like i said above, if we go with Breakdown, I have no issues. Imo it should be 1. Breakdown 2. Seeding 3. Standardized.

If we can agree with breakdown, it is win-win.

[Nick]

Shiv... your argument is not logical. The breakdown brings with it the same 'fatal' error that you've identified in magnitude comparison, in that it would make a different winner then our h2h setup, however it has nothing to do with the current matchup (that week) which is the coolest thing about our setup.

I suggest shelving this for a while and revisiting it, if you're refusing to consider it, as->-> there is no paradox. It is not defying the concept of a tie-break. I believe you're changing the context in order to create the contradiction.


It may be a paradox in that it's surprising we've not thought of this yet.

[Robin Hood]

Shiv... your argument is not logical. The breakdown brings with it the same 'fatal' error that you've identified in magnitude comparison, in that it would make a different winner then our h2h setup, however it has nothing to do with the current matchup (that week) which is the coolest thing about our setup.

I suggest shelving this for a while and revisiting it, if you're refusing to consider it, as->-> there is no paradox. It is not defying the concept of a tie-break. I believe you're changing the context in order to create the contradiction.


It may be a paradox in that it's surprising we've not thought of this yet.

nick if we spoke/i could show you this on paper you would understand. there is a definite paradox. there's a gap between how i'm explaining it and how you're choosing to understand it.

billy's solution makes sense because:

1. Teams higher up in the standings receive home-ice advantage.
2. If a team like say Kareem's faces off against a lesser team from the west in the finals, Kareem can still get home-ice despite having a worse record.
3. The beauty of Billy's solution is that in most instances, home-ice would be given to the team higher in the standings ANYWAYS. It would be in those rare circumstances where the edge is given to the more deserving team, which is what you and Kareem want to accomplish.

you guys are not giving billys solution nearly enough credit.

but anyways i cant make posts for days on end again lol. you guys can decide what you want. but mathematically billy's solution is the only sensible one. standardization has a huge flaw which I don't understand how you of all people Nick don't see it.

shelve it, don't shelve it, make the tiebreak decided by a dick-measuring contest, i'm done with this topic. gl.