Originally posted by KJ Duke:
I wouldn't characterize my proposal as spreading the wealth John, its not spreading anything, rather it is "may the best man (or woman) win".
As opposed to your "I'm too tired to go on after 13 weeks, just pay me already" theory! Sorry, never said the league should end after 13 weeks unless one team wins all cats in the rules.
No problem with a playoff system. Played in one last year, hopefully will do so gain this year.
You want 3rd place crappy teams, teams that are way more often closer to 5th/6th place teams than top scoring team to have a shot a luck jobbing $5k from someone that clearly could be vastly better. How is that not spreading the wealth?
You say that is fair? How is it fair to Jules the year she beat EVERY team by 10%+ in points? She earned the right not to face anyone, just like all the guys Greg just posted in the new thread.
[ November 06, 2008, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: JohnZ ]
H2H Exposed Part 1
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
H2H Exposed Part 1
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
H2H Exposed Part 1
Originally posted by JohnZ:
You want 3rd place crappy teams, teams that are way more often closer to 5th/6th place teams than top scoring team to have a shot a luck jobbing $5k from someone that clearly could be vastly better. How is that not spreading the wealth?
You say that is fair? How is it fair to Jules the year she beat EVERY team by 10%+ in points? She earned the right not to face anyone, just like all the guys Greg just posted in the new thread. John, two things. When Jules had a huge point advantage it would be fair to allow a second or third participant into a playoff with her because her lead was only over the first 80% of the season; but I'd also give her a greater point advantage for those great 13-weeks.
If she outscored the #2 team by 180 points that would be a 15 point advantage, not much, over a 3-week playoff. But at 3x it would be a 45 point advantage - not easy to overcome. And if someone could overcome it they would be deserving of the title because they were good enough to be close and they clearly outperformed at crunch time, kinda like the Giants knocking off the Pats last season.
You want 3rd place crappy teams, teams that are way more often closer to 5th/6th place teams than top scoring team to have a shot a luck jobbing $5k from someone that clearly could be vastly better. How is that not spreading the wealth?
You say that is fair? How is it fair to Jules the year she beat EVERY team by 10%+ in points? She earned the right not to face anyone, just like all the guys Greg just posted in the new thread. John, two things. When Jules had a huge point advantage it would be fair to allow a second or third participant into a playoff with her because her lead was only over the first 80% of the season; but I'd also give her a greater point advantage for those great 13-weeks.
If she outscored the #2 team by 180 points that would be a 15 point advantage, not much, over a 3-week playoff. But at 3x it would be a 45 point advantage - not easy to overcome. And if someone could overcome it they would be deserving of the title because they were good enough to be close and they clearly outperformed at crunch time, kinda like the Giants knocking off the Pats last season.
-
ultimatefs
- Posts: 2393
- Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:00 pm
H2H Exposed Part 1
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:
You want 3rd place crappy teams, teams that are way more often closer to 5th/6th place teams than top scoring team to have a shot a luck jobbing $5k from someone that clearly could be vastly better. How is that not spreading the wealth?
You say that is fair? How is it fair to Jules the year she beat EVERY team by 10%+ in points? She earned the right not to face anyone, just like all the guys Greg just posted in the new thread. John, two things. When Jules had a huge point advantage it would be fair to allow a second or third participant into a playoff with her because her lead was only over the first 80% of the season; but I'd also give her a greater point advantage for those great 13-weeks.
If she outscored the #2 team by 180 points that would be a 15 point advantage, not much, over a 3-week playoff. But at 3x it would be a 45 point advantage - not easy to overcome. And if someone could overcome it they would be deserving of the title because they were good enough to be close and they clearly outperformed at crunch time, kinda like the Giants knocking off the Pats last season. [/QUOTE]and all because she had massive injuries for three weeks, thus ruining 3-4 months of hard work/prep due to three fluky weeks.
Oh wait, that actually happened and under your plan, she gets zip for being so good during the stated regular season.
You've now dodged TWICE my questions on why 3? Why not 4? 5? 6? 8?
37% means we should have five under your theory of keeping it the same. You posted 37%, not me. Why aren't you arguing for 5?
The best of the best play for $100K. Can you imagine if team #66, the worst 3rd place team that would probably have a 113 average won the $100K?
Doesn't sound like a National Championship to me.
Thankfully, Greg understands why it has to be around 10%. It has to be something very difficult to win. That's what draws the best players in the long run and will grow the event. Or do you want this to become a lotto event also?
[ November 06, 2008, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: JohnZ ]
quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:
You want 3rd place crappy teams, teams that are way more often closer to 5th/6th place teams than top scoring team to have a shot a luck jobbing $5k from someone that clearly could be vastly better. How is that not spreading the wealth?
You say that is fair? How is it fair to Jules the year she beat EVERY team by 10%+ in points? She earned the right not to face anyone, just like all the guys Greg just posted in the new thread. John, two things. When Jules had a huge point advantage it would be fair to allow a second or third participant into a playoff with her because her lead was only over the first 80% of the season; but I'd also give her a greater point advantage for those great 13-weeks.
If she outscored the #2 team by 180 points that would be a 15 point advantage, not much, over a 3-week playoff. But at 3x it would be a 45 point advantage - not easy to overcome. And if someone could overcome it they would be deserving of the title because they were good enough to be close and they clearly outperformed at crunch time, kinda like the Giants knocking off the Pats last season. [/QUOTE]and all because she had massive injuries for three weeks, thus ruining 3-4 months of hard work/prep due to three fluky weeks.
Oh wait, that actually happened and under your plan, she gets zip for being so good during the stated regular season.
You've now dodged TWICE my questions on why 3? Why not 4? 5? 6? 8?
37% means we should have five under your theory of keeping it the same. You posted 37%, not me. Why aren't you arguing for 5?
The best of the best play for $100K. Can you imagine if team #66, the worst 3rd place team that would probably have a 113 average won the $100K?
Doesn't sound like a National Championship to me.
Thankfully, Greg understands why it has to be around 10%. It has to be something very difficult to win. That's what draws the best players in the long run and will grow the event. Or do you want this to become a lotto event also?
[ November 06, 2008, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: JohnZ ]
Jules is a Dirt bag and makes my luck.
H2H Exposed Part 1
Originally posted by JohnZ:
Wow.. LV4...
you are 6-3 with 1052.7
Hammerheads are 5-4 with 1280.7.
I can see why you use the word "luck" so frequently today.
I would hope that most here would rather see the argument be more against teams with 1052.7 making the playoffs in any possible way than teams with 1280.7. John, the flaw in your logic is that you are using total points to determine team quality. Then you state that total points is a better discriminatory tool than H2H.
The point some of us are making is that total points MAY NOT BE the best discrimator. Maybe consistency has at least as much value.
Many posters (including Greg) have stated that "total points is obviously better". It is that point that may be short sighted. I think arguments against that statement have at least some statistical validity.
The most statistically "fair" method would be to assign weekly wins based on the weekly median score. Those above the median are scored as +1 and those below at -1.
The point against that style of play is that it isn't as much "fun" but it is the most statistically "fair".
Wow.. LV4...
you are 6-3 with 1052.7
Hammerheads are 5-4 with 1280.7.
I can see why you use the word "luck" so frequently today.
I would hope that most here would rather see the argument be more against teams with 1052.7 making the playoffs in any possible way than teams with 1280.7. John, the flaw in your logic is that you are using total points to determine team quality. Then you state that total points is a better discriminatory tool than H2H.
The point some of us are making is that total points MAY NOT BE the best discrimator. Maybe consistency has at least as much value.
Many posters (including Greg) have stated that "total points is obviously better". It is that point that may be short sighted. I think arguments against that statement have at least some statistical validity.
The most statistically "fair" method would be to assign weekly wins based on the weekly median score. Those above the median are scored as +1 and those below at -1.
The point against that style of play is that it isn't as much "fun" but it is the most statistically "fair".
H2H Exposed Part 1
John - I haven't dodged your question on why expand to 3 ... I have multiple times expressly answered this. Try reading more and posting less! For the last time (really), 3 is a compromise to me which is better than 2. My stated rationale for 5 has been laid out, and I think 5 is good too. So is 4. But since we are at 2 and there always is anti-change sentiment, I would support Lumpy's suggestion of paying 3.
And as much as you are trying to single-handedly dominate this discussion with volume of posts and irrelevant innuendo and opinions, I have seen only support for increasing the number of teams to 3 thus far (aside from you and capt), which leads me to believe my perception that the majority would favor 3 is true.
The primary concern in my mind in expanding playoff teams is such that the regular season success is not discounted; which is why I suggested that we increase the value of regular season scoring (to 3x the average) to equal the playoff average, which is 3 weeks so in effect also is 3x.
It is a very simple proposal and has nothing to do with any of my teams, which for some reason you seem to have a very hard time believing. If you still don't believe that PM me and we can debate it there rather than diluting the discussion here with a bunch of personal stuff. Thanks.
[ November 07, 2008, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
And as much as you are trying to single-handedly dominate this discussion with volume of posts and irrelevant innuendo and opinions, I have seen only support for increasing the number of teams to 3 thus far (aside from you and capt), which leads me to believe my perception that the majority would favor 3 is true.
The primary concern in my mind in expanding playoff teams is such that the regular season success is not discounted; which is why I suggested that we increase the value of regular season scoring (to 3x the average) to equal the playoff average, which is 3 weeks so in effect also is 3x.
It is a very simple proposal and has nothing to do with any of my teams, which for some reason you seem to have a very hard time believing. If you still don't believe that PM me and we can debate it there rather than diluting the discussion here with a bunch of personal stuff. Thanks.
[ November 07, 2008, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]