Let's look at an aspect of fantasy football in which an owner has no control over...random H2H schedules....and how it impacts the NFFC
Stats for the 50 NFFC teams that have faced the MOST points against through 12 weeks:
avg weekly points against = 130
# of teams with a winning record = 8 out of 50 = 16%
# of teams that have 9 or more wins = ZERO = 0%
avg # of wins = 4.5
avg # of losses = 7.5
Stats for the 50 NFFC teams that have faced the LEAST points against through 12 weeks
avg weekly points against = 111
# of teams with a winning record = 33 out of 50 = 66%
# of teams that have 9 or more wins = 13 = 26%
avg # of wins = 7.5
avg # of losses = 4.5
Simply amazing how random H2H scheduling gives teams a beatdown. these are facts that can't be disputed.
anyone think H2H brings out the best team?
seems to say: get lucky with your schedule or don't even think about winning your league. thanks.
[ December 03, 2004, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Gordon Gekko ]
H2H Imbalance
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
H2H Imbalance
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
H2H Imbalance
Agreed. I think the WSOP should institute wild cards so I can get lucky and maybe win some cash.
How about if we raise everyone's entry fee by $50 and buy lottery tickets with it and randomly award any winnings. I'm recommending 50% scratchoffs and 50% big money Powerball type contests. The winner should be drawn out of a hat by Greg's kid
Dyv
How about if we raise everyone's entry fee by $50 and buy lottery tickets with it and randomly award any winnings. I'm recommending 50% scratchoffs and 50% big money Powerball type contests. The winner should be drawn out of a hat by Greg's kid
Dyv
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
H2H Imbalance
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko:
Let's look at an aspect of fantasy football in which an owner has no control over...random H2H schedules....and how it impacts the NFFC
Stats for the 50 NFFC teams that have faced the MOST points against through 12 weeks:
avg weekly points against = 130
# of teams with a winning record = 8 out of 50 = 16%
# of teams that have 9 or more wins = ZERO = 0%
avg # of wins = 4.5
avg # of losses = 7.5
Stats for the 50 NFFC teams that have faced the LEAST points against through 12 weeks
avg weekly points against = 111
# of teams with a winning record = 33 out of 50 = 66%
# of teams that have 9 or more wins = 13 = 26%
avg # of wins = 7.5
avg # of losses = 4.5
Simply amazing how random H2H scheduling gives teams a beatdown. these are facts that can't be disputed.
anyone think H2H brings out the best team?
seems to say: get lucky with your schedule or don't even think about winning your league. thanks. Not totally buying all this. If a guy drafts a bad team, or just has a bad team, then his opponents have BETTER teams, and thus will score more points, giving him a higher pts against. Add a few more real bad teams in the same league, and it looks even worse. That has nothing to do with scheduling.
H2H does certainly have a luck factor. From watching the same lifetime leagues since 1990, I'd say on average within a 5 year span, you'll get one luck year, and one unlucky year.
More of an imblance, and totally luck is the BYE week factor. In LV2, I did not play one opponent this year that had a star player on bye. I have the 3rd highest PA, IMO, mostly due to that. It's all part of the game though. Deal with it the best you can.
Let's look at an aspect of fantasy football in which an owner has no control over...random H2H schedules....and how it impacts the NFFC
Stats for the 50 NFFC teams that have faced the MOST points against through 12 weeks:
avg weekly points against = 130
# of teams with a winning record = 8 out of 50 = 16%
# of teams that have 9 or more wins = ZERO = 0%
avg # of wins = 4.5
avg # of losses = 7.5
Stats for the 50 NFFC teams that have faced the LEAST points against through 12 weeks
avg weekly points against = 111
# of teams with a winning record = 33 out of 50 = 66%
# of teams that have 9 or more wins = 13 = 26%
avg # of wins = 7.5
avg # of losses = 4.5
Simply amazing how random H2H scheduling gives teams a beatdown. these are facts that can't be disputed.
anyone think H2H brings out the best team?
seems to say: get lucky with your schedule or don't even think about winning your league. thanks. Not totally buying all this. If a guy drafts a bad team, or just has a bad team, then his opponents have BETTER teams, and thus will score more points, giving him a higher pts against. Add a few more real bad teams in the same league, and it looks even worse. That has nothing to do with scheduling.
H2H does certainly have a luck factor. From watching the same lifetime leagues since 1990, I'd say on average within a 5 year span, you'll get one luck year, and one unlucky year.
More of an imblance, and totally luck is the BYE week factor. In LV2, I did not play one opponent this year that had a star player on bye. I have the 3rd highest PA, IMO, mostly due to that. It's all part of the game though. Deal with it the best you can.
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
-
Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 7222
- Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 6:00 pm
H2H Imbalance
Originally posted by UFS:
Not totally buying all this. facts, john. can't be disputed.
Originally posted by UFS:
If a guy drafts a bad team, or just has a bad team, then his opponents have BETTER teams, and thus will score more points, giving him a higher pts against. Add a few more real bad teams in the same league, and it looks even worse. That has nothing to do with scheduling.i was waiting for this opportunity...
stat for the 50 NFFC teams that have faced the MOST points against through 12 weeks:
Avg pts scored per week: 118
stat for the 50 NFFC teams that have faced the LEAST points against through 12 weeks:
Avg pts scored per week: 123
so, the "BETTER" teams you are talking about have a big 5pt advantage over the "beatdown due to random scheduling" teams. should that account for such an imbalance of wins/losses? answer = no. the reason is random scheduling.
in summary here's the splits...
Beatdown Team 118 pts/week and 130 PA/week = 4.5 wins 7.5 losses
Better/Lucky Team 123 pts/week and 111 PA/week = 7.5 wins 4.5 losses
Originally posted by UFS:
It's all part of the game though. Deal with it the best you can. i agree with this.
Not totally buying all this. facts, john. can't be disputed.
Originally posted by UFS:
If a guy drafts a bad team, or just has a bad team, then his opponents have BETTER teams, and thus will score more points, giving him a higher pts against. Add a few more real bad teams in the same league, and it looks even worse. That has nothing to do with scheduling.i was waiting for this opportunity...
stat for the 50 NFFC teams that have faced the MOST points against through 12 weeks:
Avg pts scored per week: 118
stat for the 50 NFFC teams that have faced the LEAST points against through 12 weeks:
Avg pts scored per week: 123
so, the "BETTER" teams you are talking about have a big 5pt advantage over the "beatdown due to random scheduling" teams. should that account for such an imbalance of wins/losses? answer = no. the reason is random scheduling.
in summary here's the splits...
Beatdown Team 118 pts/week and 130 PA/week = 4.5 wins 7.5 losses
Better/Lucky Team 123 pts/week and 111 PA/week = 7.5 wins 4.5 losses
Originally posted by UFS:
It's all part of the game though. Deal with it the best you can. i agree with this.
Is my "weekend warrior" prep better than your prep?
H2H Imbalance
Thx Gekko, excellent stat work.
All of which suggests to me the #1 priority should be to eliminate random scheduling without eliminating the "winning the week" component which is critical for familiarity. Out-score more teams than out-score you sounds like a winning week to me.
All of which suggests to me the #1 priority should be to eliminate random scheduling without eliminating the "winning the week" component which is critical for familiarity. Out-score more teams than out-score you sounds like a winning week to me.
-
Route Collectors
- Posts: 3525
- Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:00 pm
H2H Imbalance
Duke
This might sound stupid but I'm trying to brainstorm with you a little.
Is it possible to maintain a weekly H2H that recognizes record as it's currently set up and a seperate column for bonus pts. based on record vs. all teams for the week? Maybe the H2H would count as 1 and the other wins at .5 or something.
I'm not suggesting a traditional Record/Pts./Breakdown to get a power rating.
I don't propose to have the perfect answer, but I do recognize there are some creative minds at work here. The ultimate solution will probably be achieved through our collective thought process.
I'm not convinced we can invent the perfect mouse trap, but as long as we are willing to check our egos at the door, I do believe we can improve it.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
RC
This might sound stupid but I'm trying to brainstorm with you a little.
Is it possible to maintain a weekly H2H that recognizes record as it's currently set up and a seperate column for bonus pts. based on record vs. all teams for the week? Maybe the H2H would count as 1 and the other wins at .5 or something.
I'm not suggesting a traditional Record/Pts./Breakdown to get a power rating.
I don't propose to have the perfect answer, but I do recognize there are some creative minds at work here. The ultimate solution will probably be achieved through our collective thought process.
I'm not convinced we can invent the perfect mouse trap, but as long as we are willing to check our egos at the door, I do believe we can improve it.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
RC
H2H Imbalance
Originally posted by Route C:
Duke
This might sound stupid but I'm trying to brainstorm with you a little.
Is it possible to maintain a weekly H2H that recognizes record as it's currently set up and a seperate column for bonus pts. based on record vs. all teams for the week? Maybe the H2H would count as 1 and the other wins at .5 or something.
I'm not suggesting a traditional Record/Pts./Breakdown to get a power rating.
RC Even though I'm not Duke, I wonder if there isn't a compromise between the 'regular' single opponent weeks that are 'normal' and Zef's 'play everyone'
The problem is that you get an incredible amount of variance... 'Any Given Sunday' is the truth here, so what would happen if you played 2 teams each week. Call it crazy, call it stupid - fine, but if we just (basically) doubled the schedule so that this week you're playing "Bob" and "Mary" then what you do is take double the opportunities and over additional opportunities the freak variance should level out. So, every week, just play two?
Or is that too difficult for the average gamer to understand. Hate to throw the concept of 'two' at someone and confuse them
Dave
[ December 04, 2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Dyv ]
Duke
This might sound stupid but I'm trying to brainstorm with you a little.
Is it possible to maintain a weekly H2H that recognizes record as it's currently set up and a seperate column for bonus pts. based on record vs. all teams for the week? Maybe the H2H would count as 1 and the other wins at .5 or something.
I'm not suggesting a traditional Record/Pts./Breakdown to get a power rating.
RC Even though I'm not Duke, I wonder if there isn't a compromise between the 'regular' single opponent weeks that are 'normal' and Zef's 'play everyone'
The problem is that you get an incredible amount of variance... 'Any Given Sunday' is the truth here, so what would happen if you played 2 teams each week. Call it crazy, call it stupid - fine, but if we just (basically) doubled the schedule so that this week you're playing "Bob" and "Mary" then what you do is take double the opportunities and over additional opportunities the freak variance should level out. So, every week, just play two?
Or is that too difficult for the average gamer to understand. Hate to throw the concept of 'two' at someone and confuse them
Dave
[ December 04, 2004, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Dyv ]
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!
-
Route Collectors
- Posts: 3525
- Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:00 pm
H2H Imbalance
Dave
Couldn't that also double the luck of scheduling factor? Is it possible to use the weekly league avg. as the 2nd opponent?
One more question that relates to the H2H vs. total pts. theories. In the overall playoff, what are the pros and cons of accumulating pts. for the first 2 weeks and letting the top 2 teams face off H2H in week 16 for a bona fide championship game? 3rd - whatever could be determined by total pts or H2H. It seems that this is the one element we are missing if we are trying to mimic the NFL.
Couldn't that also double the luck of scheduling factor? Is it possible to use the weekly league avg. as the 2nd opponent?
One more question that relates to the H2H vs. total pts. theories. In the overall playoff, what are the pros and cons of accumulating pts. for the first 2 weeks and letting the top 2 teams face off H2H in week 16 for a bona fide championship game? 3rd - whatever could be determined by total pts or H2H. It seems that this is the one element we are missing if we are trying to mimic the NFL.
H2H Imbalance
Originally posted by Route C:
Dave
Couldn't that also double the luck of scheduling factor? Is it possible to use the weekly league avg. as the 2nd opponent?
One more question that relates to the H2H vs. total pts. theories. In the overall playoff, what are the pros and cons of accumulating pts. for the first 2 weeks and letting the top 2 teams face off H2H in week 16 for a bona fide championship game? 3rd - whatever could be determined by total pts or H2H. It seems that this is the one element we are missing if we are trying to mimic the NFL. Theoretically, luck is a factor of a small sample size... i.e. I could flip a coin and have heads 5 times in a row, but to get it 10 times in a row is exponentially more difficult. Yes, someone COULD double their luck, but statistically it would happen FAR less frequently. There would still be variance in this case, but there would be less and I'm hoping that the concept of 'two' is understandable by the unwashed masses
RC, I'm not clear on your other question(s) - can you rephrase?
Dave
Dave
Couldn't that also double the luck of scheduling factor? Is it possible to use the weekly league avg. as the 2nd opponent?
One more question that relates to the H2H vs. total pts. theories. In the overall playoff, what are the pros and cons of accumulating pts. for the first 2 weeks and letting the top 2 teams face off H2H in week 16 for a bona fide championship game? 3rd - whatever could be determined by total pts or H2H. It seems that this is the one element we are missing if we are trying to mimic the NFL. Theoretically, luck is a factor of a small sample size... i.e. I could flip a coin and have heads 5 times in a row, but to get it 10 times in a row is exponentially more difficult. Yes, someone COULD double their luck, but statistically it would happen FAR less frequently. There would still be variance in this case, but there would be less and I'm hoping that the concept of 'two' is understandable by the unwashed masses
RC, I'm not clear on your other question(s) - can you rephrase?
Dave
The Wonderful thing about Dyv's is I'm the only one!
H2H Imbalance
Originally posted by Route C:
Duke
This might sound stupid but I'm trying to brainstorm with you a little.
Is it possible to maintain a weekly H2H that recognizes record as it's currently set up and a seperate column for bonus pts. based on record vs. all teams for the week? Maybe the H2H would count as 1 and the other wins at .5 or something.
I'm not suggesting a traditional Record/Pts./Breakdown to get a power rating.
I don't propose to have the perfect answer, but I do recognize there are some creative minds at work here. The ultimate solution will probably be achieved through our collective thought process.
I'm not convinced we can invent the perfect mouse trap, but as long as we are willing to check our egos at the door, I do believe we can improve it.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
RC RC and Dyv -
Iteresting ideas. Combining RC's thoughts along with Dyv's play-two idea ... how about the opportunity to get 2 wins or losses per week. One is a pure h2h, one is an all-play h2h.
Its easy to understand and it keeps the weekly h2h opponent matchup that so many people enjoy, while reducing the impact of random scheduling which Gekko has shown to be very inequitable.
Points scored could remain tie-breaker and perhaps wildcard.
Duke
This might sound stupid but I'm trying to brainstorm with you a little.
Is it possible to maintain a weekly H2H that recognizes record as it's currently set up and a seperate column for bonus pts. based on record vs. all teams for the week? Maybe the H2H would count as 1 and the other wins at .5 or something.
I'm not suggesting a traditional Record/Pts./Breakdown to get a power rating.
I don't propose to have the perfect answer, but I do recognize there are some creative minds at work here. The ultimate solution will probably be achieved through our collective thought process.
I'm not convinced we can invent the perfect mouse trap, but as long as we are willing to check our egos at the door, I do believe we can improve it.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
RC RC and Dyv -
Iteresting ideas. Combining RC's thoughts along with Dyv's play-two idea ... how about the opportunity to get 2 wins or losses per week. One is a pure h2h, one is an all-play h2h.
Its easy to understand and it keeps the weekly h2h opponent matchup that so many people enjoy, while reducing the impact of random scheduling which Gekko has shown to be very inequitable.
Points scored could remain tie-breaker and perhaps wildcard.