Buds Board Keepers League

no...just bored at work lol

Matthew wroteCOLONNick. 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.

you're assuming the teams lose and win in the similar manner. they don't.

if shoalzie were to defeat mike, in our 32 point systems its actually meaningless. because he doesn't win 15-1, he wins 9-6 for virtually no impact. Whereas when Mike wins versus Carolina, he wins 14-1-1, and there's a huge impact. Much less accurate then a win or loss which is then compared to other teams.

I don't really want to get into it, it's amazing to me that so few see the issue, in the past 7 years i've shown statistically the errors we're making (crossing levels of measurement, and back, creating false data that does not measure what we're saying it does), as well as extremely obvious one with sub 500 teams making the playoffs over teams that actually won more of their match-ups, of us missing awesome races and important differences between teams.


It may be many GMs opinions that the 32 point system is better then the w-l-t (which i called 2 points up for grabs), or incorrectly saying it's more fun, but it's not tomato - potato, and it's not accurate.

then we go

WLT system with 4 games per week

everyone wins

But shoalzie wouldn't defeat mike. But let's say he does. If mike wins 14-1 7 times then mike loses to shoalzie 8-7, won't mike have the same amount of points regardless of when he lost them, whether it be in 1 match (that he loses) or over the 8 matches where he loses a little bit each time despite winning those weeks, and then a bit more in the week he somewhat loses?

It still adds up to fairly equal, no?

14-1
14-1
14-1
14-1
14-1
14-1
14-1
7-8

Is the same as

15-0
15-0
15-0
15-0
15-0
15-0
15-0
0-15


???

And in our current system, there is still a reason for bad teams to pay attention past the first day of the week.

In my opinion a win is a win, whether it be 15-1 or 8.5 to 7.5. Having all the scoring categories we do have, and being strong in a lot of those categories, just makes getting the win easier.

I too prefer the W-L-T standings

The BBKL Insider wroteCOLONthen we go

WLT system with 4 games per week

everyone wins

2-0

I do not want to play BUFFALO

We should start a poll thread and have a vote. It doesnt have to be official, but just to see the overall bbkl opinion on the issue.

WLT just makes more sense to me...

In real life, winning 7-0 counts the same as winning 2-1 and we are trying to mimic the NHL as much as a fantasy league possibly can.

I've understood Nick's argument and have seen it before. It does allow teams that lose more of their matchups to finish higher than teams that win more based on degree of winning.

Here is an extreme example why the system doesn't always show the best teams:

Team A - 0-16 loses every week 7-8-1 and finishes with 240pts
Team B - 14-3 wins every week 8-7-1 and loses 3 weeks 0-16 finishes with 238pts

In this scenario the team that never won a week all season finishes ahead of the team who won 14 of their 17 weeks.

The redeeming quality of our system is it adds to the enjoyment for many since even when a team knows they will win/lose they can still be following certain stats hoping to pick up points that are still up for grabs giving teams more to cheer for.

thom54 wroteCOLONI do not want to play BUFFALO

Better be cheering for Tyler then. My team is beat up though, you'd probably beat me.

I am haha

maybe people will be comforted by the idea that even if one of their match-ups is 'decided', perhaps 2 of the other ones will be worth watching....

Bruyns wroteCOLONI've understood Nick's argument and have seen it before. It does allow teams that lose more of their matchups to finish higher than teams that win more based on degree of winning.

Here is an extreme example why the system doesn't always show the best teams:

Team A - 0-16 loses every week 7-8-1 and finishes with 240pts
Team B - 14-3 wins every week 8-7-1 and loses 3 weeks 0-16 finishes with 238pts

In this scenario the team that never won a week all season finishes ahead of the team who won 14 of their 17 weeks.

The redeeming quality of our system is it adds to the enjoyment for many since even when a team knows they will win/lose they can still be following certain stats hoping to pick up points that are still up for grabs giving teams more to cheer for.

This is very much the case in BBKL, I remember looking at the standings and history in my first year and figuring out I didn't need to win weeks to make the playoffs in the West, if I kept each week close to 6-7 cat's on average I'd make the playoffs and after that who knows, just need to win one week at a time. It might be rare but definitely something that impacted by thinking in building my team originally.

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.

being 8 wins behind is probably worse (and making it depending on the schedule more than on your team performance, whereas if you're 256 behind and your team goes full throttle you'll have more chances to recover)

I'm a little confused by our pkayoffs. If they started today who would I play?

LeanMachine wroteCOLONHas a lot to do with what you are talking about Mik. Regular season schedule --> regular season standings --> playoff seedings.

pretty sure you just aren't open to hear it.

I'm not sure what you're missing. Probably just not paying attention to what I wrote.

Again, having a 82 games schedule changes nothing when it comes to the Divisions blocked seedings problem.

You would probably have better final standings, i.e. more representative of teams performances, but that's not the problem I was discussing about the seedings.

The problem comes from having the 4th and 5th teams in division A ranked lower than the 2nd and 3rd team in the division B even if they had twice the pts.

This means:
- the 4th and 5th teams get a worse playoff route than they would deserve, as they conquered many more pts despite being in the much tougher division
- several weeks late in the season may easily be pointless for the 2nd and 3rd team, cause in a situation like this year (or last year) their seedings will stay the same no matter the outcome of those weeks
- the top team in the conference in the 1st round will get the stronger 5th team off the much tougher division instead of getting the worst playoff team in his conference (3rd in the weaker conference)

a 82 games schedule solves nothing of that.

The BBKL Insider wroteCOLONI'm a little confused by our pkayoffs. If they started today who would I play?

the lower wild card team, which as of now is StLouis I think

The BBKL Insider wroteCOLONthen we go

WLT system with 4 games per week

everyone wins

Yah, I'll be thinking long and hard about staying if that's the case.

Who is everyone btw? I'd fucking hate that system...

How's it fun for me to go up against teams like mike, or Steve and know I've automatically lost that week? Why the fuck am I even going to pay attention?

At least with the current category I can tune in to see how many cats I can steal. I suppose if you're looking to decrease interest w-l-t is the way to go!!