Buds Board Keepers League

anton wroteCOLONhow about we not make a decision based on the opinion that an arbitrary number of points "looks bad"

agreed, it's not like the points we have now dont look a little insane. what's another couple thousand (i'm being serious)

Or we could go 4 teams per week and go to the W-L-T if people are worried about points looking foolish

I'm not suggesting that the large # looking foolish is why we care.


but being 256points back of a playoff spot is very different from being 8 wins. yet in our current system that would be the case.

Nick wroteCOLONI'm not suggesting that the large # looking foolish is why we care.

Who is "we" and why does "we" care. I don't believe that it would eliminate playoff races and I think it could actually have the opposite affect. No longer does a good week result in a big loss if you play the only team with a better week than you. Also you could be in 10th and win all 4 of your games and have 8th lose all 4 of his resulting in a bigger swing and easier to make up ground. With our current system once you fall behind it is way more difficult to get back in the race as evidenced by Paul this season who after a slow start hasn't made up much ground despite playing well. With an increased number of games it would be way easier to make up ground resulting in more playoff races as opposed to winning 10-6 and the team you are chasing losing 6-10 and still not making up much ground.

Nick wroteCOLONI'm not suggesting that the large # looking foolish is why we care.


but being 256points back of a playoff spot is very different from being 8 wins. yet in our current system that would be the case.

How so? One good week and you gain back a ton of points and the team you are chasing can have a bad week. This argument doesn't seem logical to me.

Nick wroteCOLONI'm not suggesting that the large # looking foolish is why we care.


but being 256points back of a playoff spot is very different from being 8 wins. yet in our current system that would be the case.

either im not understanding the proposed change here or you're very off the mark.

why would it matter if you're 256 pts back in a system where hundred of points are on the line each week?

you guys are crossing issues/options.


1) MMW

2) 2 points per category vs matchup


I'm pro MMW + 2 points per matchup, opposed to the MMW + 2 points per category.


Our measure of wins is not good, it's not a valid comparison and making more of them does not make it more accurate, it just skews it further.

I love the MMW. But having 21 weeks each with roughly 4 matchups giving 32 points means that our standings would be decided extremely early, that is because of the way our teams score (not saying the 128 points handed out would change from week to week, just in how they are distributed). Mike doesn't lose 0-16 but he does win 16-0. Shoalzie doesn't win 16-0 but he does lose that way. So despite the both winning and losing, the way they do it makes them worth extremely different amounts in our then comparison against the other 29 (or 25) teams. This is magnified each week, and is even truer for the 'normal' teams then it is for the extreme examples.

anyways... I think it would be awesome to use the same schedule as the NHL and use the same # of games, resulting in comparable point totals and the such.

MMW would also magnify effects of injuries, strategy, hot/cold streaks, which might even improve our similarity to the NHL

If you think it looks foolish can't we just make each category worth 1 point with 1/2 point for a tie? That cuts the points available per competitor down to 16. Or each category worth 1/2 point and a tie worth 1/4. That would mean each competitor in a week is worth 8. With 4 matches in a week there would still be 32 points available. That way we could still compare our team to past seasons?

Meh, maybe silly, but just a suggestion to those who think thousands of points look funny.

I think that argument is a bit off. Sure u may go down a 100 points quickly, but you can then make a 100 points back quicker than in our current system.

And losing 3 weeks in wlt is like the winner getting 32 points each week, but in our system those full wins are rare, keeping teams closer together longer.

Nick wroteCOLON having 21 weeks each with roughly 4 matchups giving 32 points means that our standings would be decided extremely early, that is because of the way our teams score (not saying the 128 points handed out would change from week to week, just in how they are distributed). Mike doesn't lose 0-16 but he does win 16-0. Shoalzie doesn't win 16-0 but he does lose that way. So despite the both winning and losing, the way they do it makes them worth extremely different amounts in our then comparison against the other 29 (or 25) teams. This is magnified each week, and is even truer for the 'normal' teams then it is for the extreme examples.

I disagree, standings wouldn't be decided earlier since future weeks will still have more points at stake. Losing/Winning 16-0 is going to hurt your playoff chances either way, but in a week Shoalzie loses 0-16 to Mike he might tie WPG 8-8 beat Dallas 10-6 and lose to NYR 12-4. Having the chance to salvage weeks will keep the standings tighter coupled with the fact that good weeks can make up ground much easier.

I'm fine with W-L-T also, but just would prefer more than 16 games a season since we have the capability to do that no matter what scoring system is used.

Bruyns wroteCOLON

Nick wroteCOLON having 21 weeks each with roughly 4 matchups giving 32 points means that our standings would be decided extremely early, that is because of the way our teams score (not saying the 128 points handed out would change from week to week, just in how they are distributed). Mike doesn't lose 0-16 but he does win 16-0. Shoalzie doesn't win 16-0 but he does lose that way. So despite the both winning and losing, the way they do it makes them worth extremely different amounts in our then comparison against the other 29 (or 25) teams. This is magnified each week, and is even truer for the 'normal' teams then it is for the extreme examples.

I disagree, standings wouldn't be decided earlier since future weeks will still have more points at stake. Losing/Winning 16-0 is going to hurt your playoff chances either way, but in a week Shoalzie loses 0-16 to Mike he might tie WPG 8-8 beat Dallas 10-6 and lose to NYR 12-4. Having the chance to salvage weeks will keep the standings tighter coupled with the fact that good weeks can make up ground much easier.

I'm fine with W-L-T also, but just would prefer more than 16 games a season since we have the capability to do that no matter what scoring system is used.

this

dave1959 wroteCOLON

Bruyns wroteCOLON

Nick wroteCOLON having 21 weeks each with roughly 4 matchups giving 32 points means that our standings would be decided extremely early, that is because of the way our teams score (not saying the 128 points handed out would change from week to week, just in how they are distributed). Mike doesn't lose 0-16 but he does win 16-0. Shoalzie doesn't win 16-0 but he does lose that way. So despite the both winning and losing, the way they do it makes them worth extremely different amounts in our then comparison against the other 29 (or 25) teams. This is magnified each week, and is even truer for the 'normal' teams then it is for the extreme examples.

I disagree, standings wouldn't be decided earlier since future weeks will still have more points at stake. Losing/Winning 16-0 is going to hurt your playoff chances either way, but in a week Shoalzie loses 0-16 to Mike he might tie WPG 8-8 beat Dallas 10-6 and lose to NYR 12-4. Having the chance to salvage weeks will keep the standings tighter coupled with the fact that good weeks can make up ground much easier.

I'm fine with W-L-T also, but just would prefer more than 16 games a season since we have the capability to do that no matter what scoring system is used.

this

yup, i like this as well - it seems to have a very positive outlook from the league as well

Nick. There is no difference between our current 32 point system and a 2 point system. The difference is w-l-t, yes? Because whether a team wins the entire 2 points or entire 32 points is just a ratio.

Therefor, a full win vs 1/4 win whether 32 points are available or 2 points is the exact same.

So let's not cross those points.

So really we are arguing as to the extremity of a win for each week. To me, the full extremity of a win will allow teams to separate quicker earlier, but also allow teams to make up that large ground easier later. However, in our current system, since the wins aren't nearly as extreme that large difference isn't created early, so while teams in this system can't make up large gaps as simply, they usually won't need to, because those large gaps won't be created in the first place.

So it's tomato potato, it's just what the league finds the most fun.

i died laughing at tomato potato for some reason

It's too hard to write tomato tomotto? Zzzz...

but...you just did...

Tomotto isn't correct.

no...it's more...tomahto

I feel like we are arguing over tomato tomato in a tomato tomato situation. We aren't fools...right?