Schedule matchups Idea

[The BBKL Insider]

Do it for a year. If it doesn't work then we go back. No biggie

[kyuss]

Do it for a year. If it doesn't work then we go back. No biggie

do what is the point.

and it's not like it is something that may or may not work per se.

It depends on what you want to achieve. For me it's obvious we should pursue entertainment, interest and fairness.

[CAM]

Do it for a year. If it doesn't work then we go back. No biggie

do what is the point.

and it's not like it is something that may or may not work per se.

It depends on what you want to achieve. For me it's obvious we should pursue entertainment, interest and fairness.

Break it down to two decisions to be made.

1. Implement adding 3 additional opponents per week. YES/NO?
2. If option 1 is answered YES: Does scoring value remain the same(ie points for cats regardless of individual value) or do we go to WLT system?

[kyuss]

2. If option 1 is answered YES: Does scoring value remain the same(ie points for cats regardless of individual value) or do we go to WLT system?

or do we take into account both cats and WLT, this way taking care of the flaws each system alone brings, maximizing in-week interest as well, as a side effect?

[CAM]

2. If option 1 is answered YES: Does scoring value remain the same(ie points for cats regardless of individual value) or do we go to WLT system?

or do we take into account both cats and WLT, this way taking care of the flaws each system alone brings, maximizing in-week interest as well as a side effect?

Can you put that into an example? How do use both? What would our standings look like? Does one hold more value than the other?

[kyuss]

2. If option 1 is answered YES: Does scoring value remain the same(ie points for cats regardless of individual value) or do we go to WLT system?

or do we take into account both cats and WLT, this way taking care of the flaws each system alone brings, maximizing in-week interest as well as a side effect?

Can you put that into an example? How do use both? What would our standings look like? Does one hold more value than the other?

that's all up to us to decide, depending on how much we want the matchup W or T to weigh.

2? 10?

suppose the majority wants to give more weight to the matchup win and vote for 10 (5 for a tie):
NSH-BOS= 8-8
NSH-COL=9-5
NSH-DAL=13-2
NSH-SJ=7-9

NSH pts on the week:
16+5=21 -> 21/21= 1
18+10=28 -> 28/21= 1.333
26+10=36 -> 36/21= 1.714
14+0=14 -> 14/21= 0.667

=> 4.714 out of four games (2W,1T,1L)

the division by 21 is there to make the number added to the standings likeable by those people who seem to have troubles with big numbers.

I guess you could round down the outcoming number to make it cleaner, but that would be choosing aesthetics over substance, so personally i'd rather not.

[Nick]

The premise being our standings compare all 30 teams ?

It isn't a drastic change

it is, not sure how anyone advocating for a straight change from our current scoring system to a simple W-L-T could maintain it isn't a drastic change.

it decreases the error in the measure

it doesn't.

It only decreases the error in the measure IF ALL you want to measure is who wins the matchup.
A pure matchupW-L-T system is the one that takes into account the less data and as such is an even less accurate measure of teams performance than the others unless you only care about the matchup W-L-T outcome. Which is what you want to do.
Showing that a scoring system provides a more accurate measure of what you want to measure is completely different from proving it is a more accurate measure of teams' performances.

If you want a reliable measure of teams' performances (and NOT of direct matchups outcomes only, which is the only thing YOU want to matter, something that doesn't make it any closer to reliable per se) you should push for a rotisserie system, certainly not for matchupsW-L-T.

I've explained this is detail enough times that it's just annoying,

it's annoying mainly because your explanations are based on a wrong premise.

[dave1959]

......

[kyuss]

nope, it says you should provide the access for me to able to see it

[dave1959]

ok...now i just have to figure out how to do that...lol

[dave1959]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

try this

[kyuss]

yup, can see it. But what's the purpose when fantrax already provides those data?

[LeanMachine]

10-3-1

Snot bad

[dave1959]

where does fantrax show this?

[kyuss]

actually, i can't find it, so maybe it doesn't and it was CBS providing that basic info?

[dave1959]

must have been....i couldn't find it anywhere

[kyuss]

That's simply not true. I've been in and am in other fantasy leagues with proper scoring and the majority of matchup are very interesting.

'proper scoring' being a pure WLT system?
and the fact the in-week interest would drop is obviously true for most matchups, especially in a league like BBKL where there is a lot of disparity between the best and the worst teams.

It's so much better having those close weeks worth something, rather then having the blowouts impact the entire season standings.

blowouts don't happen for free, are gained pts. And yes the close weeks should be made more interesting awarding a bonus to the team that actually wins the week, i've always agreed on that one. But not at the expens of taking away the fun of competing for pts in all those weeks where the winner is obvious since the beginning or at least clear days before the end.

Mik - the first point, you're talking non sense. Our teams don't actually compete, but at least we should compare the stats our players do, not the current comparison of winning stats versus one team, compared to categories won by another team all together - wtf is that measuring my fairly? It's insanity!!!

again, if you're concerned about accuracy of the teams' performances measure and about measuring fairly, then you should advocate for rotisserie to keep count of teams' true production, not for a pure WLT system when the teams actually don't face each other on the ice (and the schedule determines your fate as much as in our current system)

this defence of the status quo scoring without actually looking at how much interest exists in the scoring if done properly.

As you should know if you read my previous posts, I am not in favour of the status quo (unless the alternative is a change for the worse like a pure WLT system).

In fact I am in favour of making weeks a 4 matchups affair with a bonus awarded to the winning team of each matchup.

[dave1959]

bump


yeah...just the multi game per week schedule was my idea.

[Nick]

MMW + Category win scoring is my least preferred option.

[KapG]

Let's hope your preferred one isn't implemented . Would be a shame to see interest dwindle.