Schedule matchups Idea

[LeanMachine]

just cause Mik said interest will dwindle doesn't mean it is going to happen for all.

[dave1959]

I like the new Av Eric

[KapG]

just cause Mik said interest will dwindle doesn't mean it is going to happen for all.

Im in agreement with Mik so I do not agree with your statement.

[Shoalzie]

I like the new Av Eric

Me too.

[LeanMachine]

I like the new Av Eric

Me too.

lol thanks guys

[Nick]

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

f*$#ing un-earned point comparisons and irrelevant data being added to our scoring is among the dumbest things this league has going for it. It's such an incredibly false belief/allocation of value in our 32 point system it's hard to understand why it's taken us 7 years to move away from what was originally an error in setup.


totally unfounded 'interest' being reported on " I may steal 2 points on blocked shots, and 2 points is better then zero" when in reality you just did so so so much more then a categorical loss, and the impact on the league was so so so much more then a normal week outcome. I hate that I keep letting myself get drawn into this.


The MMW would result in 4 matchups most weeks (2 weeks with 3), surely at least one of those matchups would be worth following for everyone...that's the middle gournd found...& that's miles and miles better then 1 category of interest; it would actually have a bigger impact on standings, and would be an accurate/fair/valid comparison.

MMW + 32 points per matchup would result in insanely skewed standings, I've already shown (more then once actually) just how much error and exaggeration we're adding with the 32 point matchups on the 21 week schedule, it's magnified each week. The assumption that it would be normally occurring for all teams is categorically incorrect.



MMW would improve the WLT scoring validity and should address the reported concern of interest in 'decided' weeks. MMW would further skew the 32 point scoring system.

[Nick]

MMW + 32 would result in teams WAY under 500 making the playoffs at the expense of teams well over 500. Not the +/- 2 we're currently seeing, but actually just embarrassing outcome with -8 making it and a + 8 sitting outside.

This is not, as Mik sometimes suggest, an argument for roto; there is validity and a fair h2h comparison going on in a 1v1 (or 1v1 x4) matchup and scoring. The error is occurring when that outcome is not compared as a whole but being taken up a statistical level of detail.

i know, i know, blah blah blag, interest in individual category, 'earned' big wins, post is too long... it's just hog wash is my concern.

[Nick]

anyways. If I'm the minority here that's still fine- not suggesting anything extreme. Love the league in any matchup and scoring format.

[KapG]

anyways. If I'm the minority here that's still fine- not suggesting anything extreme. Love the league in any matchup and scoring format.

Fwiw id never actually leave the league no matter what. I'm here for life, like it or not haha.

[The BBKL Insider]

82 games,

scoring optional

[dave1959]

anyways. If I'm the minority here that's still fine- not suggesting anything extreme. Love the league in any matchup and scoring format.

Fwiw id never actually leave the league no matter what. I'm here for life, like it or not haha.

Nice....me too

[kyuss]

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

f*$#ing un-earned point..

lol what?

It's such an incredibly false belief/allocation of value in our 32 point system it's hard to understand why it's taken us 7 years to move away from what was originally an error in setup.

like the reasons for it were not talked about.. and you talked about the main reason yourself in your post.

As for the allocation of value.. it is only false in reference with your target: the winner of the matchup is the only thing that should count.

If you cared about not having false allocation of value and having scores representative of teams' real performances you would advocate for a rotisserie system, not for this pure WLT that only rewards a very limited part of the data recorded every week. The fact that single resulting data is the only one that should matter in your opinion doesn't make it representative of team's actual performances.

totally unfounded 'interest' being reported on " I may steal 2 points on blocked shots, and 2 points is better then zero" when in reality you just did so so so much more then a categorical loss, and the impact on the league was so so so much more then a normal week outcome. I hate that I keep letting myself get drawn into this.

what's unfounded in being interested in how many pts our teams will record and add to the standings that week?
and what bloody interest may I have instead in a matchup where I face Dallas if all is at stake is W-L-T, which is already known even before the matchup starts?!

The MMW would result in 4 matchups most weeks (2 weeks with 3), surely at least one of those matchups would be worth following for everyone...

far from guaranteed, there would still be some pointless weeks for some teams. Obviously it would be a huge upgrade from the nightmarish scenario of WLT for single matchup weeks.

MMW + 32 points per matchup would result in insanely skewed standings, I've already shown (more then once actually) just how much error and exaggeration we're adding with the 32 point matchups on the 21 week schedule, it's magnified each week.

the only thing you have repeatedly shown is how our current system brings an exagerrated error in respect with what YOU want to measure (WLT outcome Vs single teams), which is however something very far from an accurate measure of teams performances.


Again, I do want to take WLT into account, but I see no reasons to cut down a good chunk of the weekly fun by taking away stats pts, when we can easily have both things.

[Nick]

1) they are un-earned points relative to the rest of the league!

-Detroit doesn't get extra points in the standings because they beat Toronto 7-1. It's worth the same as Nashville defeating Anaheim 4-3.

2) Statistically it is INCORRECT to go up a level of measure. Going from an interval comparison to a nominal is fine (Down), the data is there to warrant that. But to then compress the nominal scores and compare them against each other is incorrect. You haven't measured what you're saying you did!

[kyuss]

1) they are un-earned points relative to the rest of the league!

just like a WLT against a team would bring un-earned points relative to rest of the league.

-Detroit doesn't get extra points in the standings because they beat Toronto 7-1. It's worth the same as Nashville defeating Anaheim 4-3.

you're probably talking about real hockey here, which is a completely different situation obviously:
teams play each other on the ice, and what a team accomplishes is stricly related to what his opponent allows him to..
something that clearly doesn't happen in our fake matchups.

[Nick]

the WLT comparison is directly relative to your opponent. it's an accurate measure of who won. not a measure of how much they won by.

So DET beat TOR
NSH beat ANA

DET wins, NSH wins
TOR loses, ANA loses

but ours we are caring about, " by how much"
oh DET won by 6
NSH won by 1
ANA lost by 1
TOR lost by 6

Meaning in our standings system
ANA in effect beat TOR by 5
and NSH was defeated by DET by 5

not that they faced each other, or that it's even kinda a count of a relative how much (6-2 for a win of 4 or whatever).

and you're saying it's your opinion that is an accurate measure. sometimes an outcome is opinion, and in this case it's just incorrect.

[kyuss]

the WLT comparison is directly relative to your opponent. it's an accurate measure of who won.

which, despite being the only thing you care about, is itself far from an accurate measure of how the team performed.

[Nick]

it's the only thing we accurately measure!

[Handsome&FairMike]

I'm with Nick here, but happy to see how we like 82 games with scoring by cats if we decide 1 major change per season

[kyuss]

and you're saying it's your opinion that is an accurate measure. sometimes an outcome is opinion, and in this case it's just incorrect.

oh, and btw, I never claimed what we have been using till today is an accurate measure of teams performances. It is not.

Fact is, the system you're proposing is not more accurate in measuring teams performances than what we use today.

[Nick]

the standings would be much more accurate of what is being measured and compared.