This has been an interesting discussion. I'm really looking forward to this final game.
Forum > Suggestions > Playoff Seeding Error
Originally posted by briansimoneau
This has been an interesting discussion. I'm really looking forward to this final game.
Me too. Rage may well ensue.
doobas™
This has been an interesting discussion. I'm really looking forward to this final game.
Me too. Rage may well ensue.
doobas™
-Phaytle-
offline
offline
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
So, essentially, you're saying fix the tiebreaker in a way that gets you in the playoffs. I assume these will be a new fix suggested next season that suits your needs then?
As long as tie-breakers are known, have some form of logic, and are consistently applied I don't really care what they are. I just don't see the logic in including non-league games in league playoff seedings. For the sake of argument, let's say the NFL and CFL reached an agreement where their teams would play each other to determine who the best football team between the leagues was. The NFL playoff seedings shouldn't be impacted in any way by the CFL matchups.
No dumbass, I'm saying make the tiebreakers send the better team. It just so happens, when looking at all statistics for each team, the Chicago Bruins happen to be better.
The CFL/NFL analogy in irrelevant. The NFL even uses strength of schedule, which in GLB would be like ladder games, as a tiebreaker. There is no direct strength of schedule in GLB2 because everyone plays everyone in their league.
If you can't see that then please stop reading and replying.
So, essentially, you're saying fix the tiebreaker in a way that gets you in the playoffs. I assume these will be a new fix suggested next season that suits your needs then?
As long as tie-breakers are known, have some form of logic, and are consistently applied I don't really care what they are. I just don't see the logic in including non-league games in league playoff seedings. For the sake of argument, let's say the NFL and CFL reached an agreement where their teams would play each other to determine who the best football team between the leagues was. The NFL playoff seedings shouldn't be impacted in any way by the CFL matchups.
No dumbass, I'm saying make the tiebreakers send the better team. It just so happens, when looking at all statistics for each team, the Chicago Bruins happen to be better.
The CFL/NFL analogy in irrelevant. The NFL even uses strength of schedule, which in GLB would be like ladder games, as a tiebreaker. There is no direct strength of schedule in GLB2 because everyone plays everyone in their league.
If you can't see that then please stop reading and replying.
NiborRis
offline
offline
Originally posted by -Phaytle-
The CFL/NFL analogy in irrelevant. The NFL even uses strength of schedule, which in GLB would be like ladder games, as a tiebreaker. There is no direct strength of schedule in GLB2 because everyone plays everyone in their league.
No it isn't. Those teams are all in the same league and are unified under a single title.
By the time you get to season 5, it would be like giving NYG a tiebreaker over the Eagles because the giants won a superbowl more recently.
If we used the NFL tiebreakers, and threw out all the conference crap since there aren't any, it would come down to "combined ranks of offense and defense" which is a godawful metric that they never have to use so it doesn't matter in the NFL. That's assuming that the Phire don't shit the bed in the last week and lose, knocking you out due to "strength of victory" (which you happen to be tied on right now). So yeah, you'd be ahead on combined ranking of offense and defense, but I really don't think you could convince people that it's worth changing to that.
The CFL/NFL analogy in irrelevant. The NFL even uses strength of schedule, which in GLB would be like ladder games, as a tiebreaker. There is no direct strength of schedule in GLB2 because everyone plays everyone in their league.
No it isn't. Those teams are all in the same league and are unified under a single title.
By the time you get to season 5, it would be like giving NYG a tiebreaker over the Eagles because the giants won a superbowl more recently.
If we used the NFL tiebreakers, and threw out all the conference crap since there aren't any, it would come down to "combined ranks of offense and defense" which is a godawful metric that they never have to use so it doesn't matter in the NFL. That's assuming that the Phire don't shit the bed in the last week and lose, knocking you out due to "strength of victory" (which you happen to be tied on right now). So yeah, you'd be ahead on combined ranking of offense and defense, but I really don't think you could convince people that it's worth changing to that.
-Phaytle-
offline
offline
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
You're looking at this based on "today". Imagine 7 seasons from now. You'll have teams that have been playing Veteran for two seasons and their ladder ranking will reflect that. A team newly promoted to Veteran will, by nature of the system, have a lower ladder ranking. Longevity of a team at the veteran level shouldn't be a deciding factor in playoff seeding.
It's not longevity of a team at a certain level. There is no way ladder ranks can go wrong besides what I already described above, which I'll explain again here:
A team has the worst ladder ranking in their league, they obviously have to be a shitty team or even a new team in that league. Since they have a shitty ladder rank they probably won't even need to worry about competing for a payoff spot, because how often is the bottom ladder rank in any league ever going to still sniff the playoffs? If this shitty team all of a sudden turns it around in one season and goes from the bottom to playoff contender then the amount of games they have played may not be enough to catch up their ladder rank to other teams who have had a higher and more consistent ladder ranking in their league.
Ladder ranking makes sense as a tiebreaker. It sounds like a lot of talking against this has been with the tone like I'm arguing for ladder ranking to decide playoff teams or seeds.
Again, tiebreaker is there to send the better team.
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE LADDER IS DECIDING WHICH TEAM IS BETTER THAN WHICH!
You can't point to older teams down the line and say it won't work. If a new team is being added to a league it's because they are in the same level bracket. They've got around the same time to develop their ladder ranking. It doesn't make sense that a team can both be a playoff contender with one of the worst ladder rankings in their league. It's not going happen. When two teams have the same records it makes more sense to use results from equally matched opponents to decide who is better, not who can beat up on crappy league teams better.
In a newer league average ladder rank may be something like 500, with a range of 400-600. That 600 ranked team is not going to sniff the playoffs because they are a crap team (that season at least) as evidenced by their ladder ranking. But if they somehow managed to get in a tie for the WC, should a 600 ranked team go instead of the 450 ranked team who has achieved a 450 rank by beating tougher opponents all season?
I'm also pointing out, and using my own situation as an example, as to how bad using ONLY PA is as a tiebreaker - and then providing a better solution. Others have also offered better solutions, it's not hard when the currently implemented tiebreaker is that bad.
You're looking at this based on "today". Imagine 7 seasons from now. You'll have teams that have been playing Veteran for two seasons and their ladder ranking will reflect that. A team newly promoted to Veteran will, by nature of the system, have a lower ladder ranking. Longevity of a team at the veteran level shouldn't be a deciding factor in playoff seeding.
It's not longevity of a team at a certain level. There is no way ladder ranks can go wrong besides what I already described above, which I'll explain again here:
A team has the worst ladder ranking in their league, they obviously have to be a shitty team or even a new team in that league. Since they have a shitty ladder rank they probably won't even need to worry about competing for a payoff spot, because how often is the bottom ladder rank in any league ever going to still sniff the playoffs? If this shitty team all of a sudden turns it around in one season and goes from the bottom to playoff contender then the amount of games they have played may not be enough to catch up their ladder rank to other teams who have had a higher and more consistent ladder ranking in their league.
Ladder ranking makes sense as a tiebreaker. It sounds like a lot of talking against this has been with the tone like I'm arguing for ladder ranking to decide playoff teams or seeds.
Again, tiebreaker is there to send the better team.
THE WHOLE POINT OF THE LADDER IS DECIDING WHICH TEAM IS BETTER THAN WHICH!
You can't point to older teams down the line and say it won't work. If a new team is being added to a league it's because they are in the same level bracket. They've got around the same time to develop their ladder ranking. It doesn't make sense that a team can both be a playoff contender with one of the worst ladder rankings in their league. It's not going happen. When two teams have the same records it makes more sense to use results from equally matched opponents to decide who is better, not who can beat up on crappy league teams better.
In a newer league average ladder rank may be something like 500, with a range of 400-600. That 600 ranked team is not going to sniff the playoffs because they are a crap team (that season at least) as evidenced by their ladder ranking. But if they somehow managed to get in a tie for the WC, should a 600 ranked team go instead of the 450 ranked team who has achieved a 450 rank by beating tougher opponents all season?
I'm also pointing out, and using my own situation as an example, as to how bad using ONLY PA is as a tiebreaker - and then providing a better solution. Others have also offered better solutions, it's not hard when the currently implemented tiebreaker is that bad.
Namecalling! I win!
If, according to ALL statistics, the Chicago Bruins are better then the Chicago Bruins would be higher seeded in the playoffs. As it stands, the Bruins have allowed 112 points and Galactic Heroes have allowed 110. If you allow 2 or less points than Galactic does in your final game (assuming both teams win or lose) then Chicago will take the tiebreaker. It just so happens that you are currently behind in the one category that matters. Sorry about your luck.
I do agree, SOS doesn't matter in GLB (at least in divisional battles) and isn't used for that reason.
The problem here is that you're calling something a bug because the system doesn't work in a way that benefits a team you're associated with. To even call it a bug is laughable. To rage on those who are using logic based on generalized situations or are thinking ahead several seasons to ensure any potential change won't have negative impacts is pathetic.
If you want Chicago to make the playoffs, take care of business in week 14, hope other things fall in place, and quit bitching that something is broke because you don't like how its set up. Please stop crying. It really isn't flattering.
If, according to ALL statistics, the Chicago Bruins are better then the Chicago Bruins would be higher seeded in the playoffs. As it stands, the Bruins have allowed 112 points and Galactic Heroes have allowed 110. If you allow 2 or less points than Galactic does in your final game (assuming both teams win or lose) then Chicago will take the tiebreaker. It just so happens that you are currently behind in the one category that matters. Sorry about your luck.
I do agree, SOS doesn't matter in GLB (at least in divisional battles) and isn't used for that reason.
The problem here is that you're calling something a bug because the system doesn't work in a way that benefits a team you're associated with. To even call it a bug is laughable. To rage on those who are using logic based on generalized situations or are thinking ahead several seasons to ensure any potential change won't have negative impacts is pathetic.
If you want Chicago to make the playoffs, take care of business in week 14, hope other things fall in place, and quit bitching that something is broke because you don't like how its set up. Please stop crying. It really isn't flattering.
-Phaytle-
offline
offline
Originally posted by AirMcMVP
Namecalling! I win!
If, according to ALL statistics, the Chicago Bruins are better then the Chicago Bruins would be higher seeded in the playoffs. As it stands, the Bruins have allowed 112 points and Galactic Heroes have allowed 110. If you allow 2 or less points than Galactic does in your final game (assuming both teams win or lose) then Chicago will take the tiebreaker. It just so happens that you are currently behind in the one category that matters. Sorry about your luck.
I do agree, SOS doesn't matter in GLB (at least in divisional battles) and isn't used for that reason.
The problem here is that you're calling something a bug because the system doesn't work in a way that benefits a team you're associated with. To even call it a bug is laughable. To rage on those who are using logic based on generalized situations or are thinking ahead several seasons to ensure any potential change won't have negative impacts is pathetic.
If you want Chicago to make the playoffs, take care of business in week 14, hope other things fall in place, and quit bitching that something is broke because you don't like how its set up. Please stop crying. It really isn't flattering.
Sorry if it hurt your feelings, stupid stuff makes me angry.
No, I'm calling it a bug because it's not working as it should (sending the better of two tied teams). What brought it to my attention, as with everyone else who has identified bugs, is it affects them. I obviously didn't know what the tiebreakers were before and never needed to until I was in a tie. After that I found out and looked at everything and could see how broken it was. THAT is why I'm calling it a bug.
It's called discussion and arguing your point, not bitching, whining, crying or whatever YOU take it as. You're retarded if you think any of this is an attempt to flatter anyone.
The problem here is a faulty implementation with a reluctance to change to an improvement, just because something is already in place - whether it is actually doing its job or not.
Do any of you watch football? Do any of you seriously think PA only is even a decent tiebreaker?
Namecalling! I win!
If, according to ALL statistics, the Chicago Bruins are better then the Chicago Bruins would be higher seeded in the playoffs. As it stands, the Bruins have allowed 112 points and Galactic Heroes have allowed 110. If you allow 2 or less points than Galactic does in your final game (assuming both teams win or lose) then Chicago will take the tiebreaker. It just so happens that you are currently behind in the one category that matters. Sorry about your luck.
I do agree, SOS doesn't matter in GLB (at least in divisional battles) and isn't used for that reason.
The problem here is that you're calling something a bug because the system doesn't work in a way that benefits a team you're associated with. To even call it a bug is laughable. To rage on those who are using logic based on generalized situations or are thinking ahead several seasons to ensure any potential change won't have negative impacts is pathetic.
If you want Chicago to make the playoffs, take care of business in week 14, hope other things fall in place, and quit bitching that something is broke because you don't like how its set up. Please stop crying. It really isn't flattering.
Sorry if it hurt your feelings, stupid stuff makes me angry.
No, I'm calling it a bug because it's not working as it should (sending the better of two tied teams). What brought it to my attention, as with everyone else who has identified bugs, is it affects them. I obviously didn't know what the tiebreakers were before and never needed to until I was in a tie. After that I found out and looked at everything and could see how broken it was. THAT is why I'm calling it a bug.
It's called discussion and arguing your point, not bitching, whining, crying or whatever YOU take it as. You're retarded if you think any of this is an attempt to flatter anyone.
The problem here is a faulty implementation with a reluctance to change to an improvement, just because something is already in place - whether it is actually doing its job or not.
Do any of you watch football? Do any of you seriously think PA only is even a decent tiebreaker?
The simple fact is this. League play should determine league playoffs. Ladder games are not league games and should not be used for anything league-related. If they are there WILL be issues down the line. I think NiborRis said it best.
Originally posted by NiborRis
Those teams are all in the same league and are unified under a single title.
By the time you get to season 5, it would be like giving NYG a tiebreaker over the Eagles because the giants won a superbowl more recently.
Originally posted by -Phaytle-
Do any of you watch football? Do any of you seriously think PA only is even a decent tiebreaker?
As for this question, it dates back to GLB Classic. Early on tie breakers were points for then points against. What happened was that one team would play Team Gut in week 2 and would win 24-10. Team Gut would gut in week 7 and another team would beat Team Gut 255-0 later in the season. When those two teams tied in the standings, the team that played Team Gut early in the season was more affected by points for than points again. In GLB2, I could see a case being made for points for being ahead of points against for a couple reasons. First, there aren't really 255-0 games. Second, you can't gut mid-season.
Again, to get back to my initial point. League playoffs are to determine who is best in league play. Playoff tiebreakers should reflect that and that only. Ladder should not be included.
Originally posted by -Phaytle-
It's called discussion and arguing your point, not ****ing, whining, crying or whatever YOU take it as. You're ****ed if you think any of this is an attempt to flatter anyone.
Finally, its called discussion when both sides attempt to comprehend what the other is saying. It called bitching, whining, or crying when you completely ignore the arguments of others because their arguments don't work in your favor.
Originally posted by NiborRis
Those teams are all in the same league and are unified under a single title.
By the time you get to season 5, it would be like giving NYG a tiebreaker over the Eagles because the giants won a superbowl more recently.
Originally posted by -Phaytle-
Do any of you watch football? Do any of you seriously think PA only is even a decent tiebreaker?
As for this question, it dates back to GLB Classic. Early on tie breakers were points for then points against. What happened was that one team would play Team Gut in week 2 and would win 24-10. Team Gut would gut in week 7 and another team would beat Team Gut 255-0 later in the season. When those two teams tied in the standings, the team that played Team Gut early in the season was more affected by points for than points again. In GLB2, I could see a case being made for points for being ahead of points against for a couple reasons. First, there aren't really 255-0 games. Second, you can't gut mid-season.
Again, to get back to my initial point. League playoffs are to determine who is best in league play. Playoff tiebreakers should reflect that and that only. Ladder should not be included.
Originally posted by -Phaytle-
It's called discussion and arguing your point, not ****ing, whining, crying or whatever YOU take it as. You're ****ed if you think any of this is an attempt to flatter anyone.
Finally, its called discussion when both sides attempt to comprehend what the other is saying. It called bitching, whining, or crying when you completely ignore the arguments of others because their arguments don't work in your favor.
Edited by AirMcMVP on Jan 16, 2014 10:12:16
NiborRis
offline
offline
Originally posted by -Phaytle-
Again, tiebreaker is there to send the better team.
No, it isn't.
The teams that go to the playoffs are the teams that performed best in their division/league that season. Not which team is better, not which team is the best at the end of the season - which teams performed better along the way. The tiebreaker is there to help decide which team had a better season in that league.
Using ladder ranks instead of some statistics involved in the league's play that season is terrible because it has little to no relation to how a team performed in the league that season.
This is why the ladder rank is a poor choice of tiebreaker and should not be used.
-- this does not mean that PA is the best choice of tiebreaker, but ladder rank is horribly bad.
I think most would agree that for division title, the tie breakers should go H2H -> division record, but after that it gets murky.
PA was the GLB1 answer, because PF was a crapshoot anytime there were cpu/guts (score 300 or 500? basically a roll of the dice, and that dominated your points for total). So you couldn't use margin of victory either.
GLB2 for now just has the GLB1 defaults, which probably isn't the best solution anymore.
Margin of victory (PF-PA) seems okay and is probably better than PA then PF, assuming we don't end up with massive blowouts in a couple of seasons; if massive blowouts return (100+ points), then PF needs to just be thrown away. You could even lift from the NFL and put "total touchdowns" after that before going to coin flip. Don't use the "sum of your rank of points scored and points allowed", because summing rankings is dumb. Don't use "strength of victory", because that's pretty obnoxious to explain and calculate for the user just viewing the standings. Don't use the ladder because it uses things that aren't part of the season's play.
Again, tiebreaker is there to send the better team.
No, it isn't.
The teams that go to the playoffs are the teams that performed best in their division/league that season. Not which team is better, not which team is the best at the end of the season - which teams performed better along the way. The tiebreaker is there to help decide which team had a better season in that league.
Using ladder ranks instead of some statistics involved in the league's play that season is terrible because it has little to no relation to how a team performed in the league that season.
This is why the ladder rank is a poor choice of tiebreaker and should not be used.
-- this does not mean that PA is the best choice of tiebreaker, but ladder rank is horribly bad.
I think most would agree that for division title, the tie breakers should go H2H -> division record, but after that it gets murky.
PA was the GLB1 answer, because PF was a crapshoot anytime there were cpu/guts (score 300 or 500? basically a roll of the dice, and that dominated your points for total). So you couldn't use margin of victory either.
GLB2 for now just has the GLB1 defaults, which probably isn't the best solution anymore.
Margin of victory (PF-PA) seems okay and is probably better than PA then PF, assuming we don't end up with massive blowouts in a couple of seasons; if massive blowouts return (100+ points), then PF needs to just be thrown away. You could even lift from the NFL and put "total touchdowns" after that before going to coin flip. Don't use the "sum of your rank of points scored and points allowed", because summing rankings is dumb. Don't use "strength of victory", because that's pretty obnoxious to explain and calculate for the user just viewing the standings. Don't use the ladder because it uses things that aren't part of the season's play.
bhall43
offline
offline
Originally posted by -Phaytle-
But then I'd guess most would say that is fair to the team that has been consistently higher on the ladder, for them to get the nod if the tiebreaker were ladder rank.
Originally posted by -Phaytle-
No. Use ANY other record for a tiebreaker and we win. OBVIOUSLY the reason we need a TIEBREAKER is because our record is tied, that's not owning anybody. We're also tied in league record, so use anything else besides points allowed and we are ahead.
You mean use the only other record in use for a tie breaker and you win? (points for) All those other team statistics you mention would never be used in any tiebreaker ever known.
But then I'd guess most would say that is fair to the team that has been consistently higher on the ladder, for them to get the nod if the tiebreaker were ladder rank.
Originally posted by -Phaytle-
No. Use ANY other record for a tiebreaker and we win. OBVIOUSLY the reason we need a TIEBREAKER is because our record is tied, that's not owning anybody. We're also tied in league record, so use anything else besides points allowed and we are ahead.
You mean use the only other record in use for a tie breaker and you win? (points for) All those other team statistics you mention would never be used in any tiebreaker ever known.
(how is this not locked or moved yet!?!)
Tiebreakers suck. I definitely feel for a team that goes 10-4 and misses the playoffs. It sucks! But that is the sytem: 12 team leagues...25% make the playoffs. It happens in the NFL too (11-5 teams have missed the playoffs which is brutal!)
No system will make everyone happy. I think:
- Overall record
- head to head
- division record
- margin of victory of head to head games - if you won by 7 and lost by 10..you're out
- still tied (won by 7; lost by 7)? Owners get 12 hours notice of the tie breaking scrim - winner moves on - loser is out
In case of a 3 way tie - almost certainly it can be pared to 2 teams in steps 1-4
Tiebreakers suck. I definitely feel for a team that goes 10-4 and misses the playoffs. It sucks! But that is the sytem: 12 team leagues...25% make the playoffs. It happens in the NFL too (11-5 teams have missed the playoffs which is brutal!)
No system will make everyone happy. I think:
- Overall record
- head to head
- division record
- margin of victory of head to head games - if you won by 7 and lost by 10..you're out
- still tied (won by 7; lost by 7)? Owners get 12 hours notice of the tie breaking scrim - winner moves on - loser is out
In case of a 3 way tie - almost certainly it can be pared to 2 teams in steps 1-4
NiborRis
offline
offline
Originally posted by TxSteve
No system will make everyone happy. I think:
- Overall record
- head to head
- division record
- margin of victory of head to head games - if you won by 7 and lost by 10..you're out
- margin of victory in division games
- margin of victory in league games
- points scored
- TDs scored
- coin flip
Added my suggested changes.
I like margin of victory in H2H. For the wild card, throw out the division lines but otherwise keep it.
No system will make everyone happy. I think:
- Overall record
- head to head
- division record
- margin of victory of head to head games - if you won by 7 and lost by 10..you're out
- margin of victory in division games
- margin of victory in league games
- points scored
- TDs scored
- coin flip
Added my suggested changes.
I like margin of victory in H2H. For the wild card, throw out the division lines but otherwise keep it.
Originally posted by TxSteve
- margin of victory of head to head games - if you won by 7 and lost by 10..you're out
This suggestion is interesting but Phaytle is not going to like it. We beat Chicago early in the season 14-0 and then Chicago beat us 20-10 last game.
- margin of victory of head to head games - if you won by 7 and lost by 10..you're out
This suggestion is interesting but Phaytle is not going to like it. We beat Chicago early in the season 14-0 and then Chicago beat us 20-10 last game.
That's why I like it. Clear. Concise. Feel free to be sad. Feel free to be filled with regret...but they beat us worse than we beat them is kind of hard to argue with.
(by the way - I'm thinking of a long term solution - I would never expect anything in this thread to influence whatever Bort already has planned). I have no affiliation with any team in this current conundrum (which might very well be sorted out in the upcoming games and not even be an issue)
(by the way - I'm thinking of a long term solution - I would never expect anything in this thread to influence whatever Bort already has planned). I have no affiliation with any team in this current conundrum (which might very well be sorted out in the upcoming games and not even be an issue)
Edited by TxSteve on Jan 16, 2014 11:57:35
-Phaytle-
offline
offline
Originally posted by TxSteve
That's why I like it. Clear. Concise. Feel free to be sad. Feel free to be filled with regret...but they beat us worse than we beat them is kind of hard to argue with.
(by the way - I'm thinking of a long term solution - I would never expect anything in this thread to influence whatever Bort already has planned). I have no affiliation with any team in this current conundrum (which might very well be sorted out in the upcoming games and not even be an issue)
It's still an issue whether it gets sorted by the last game or not. It should never come down to just PA in a tiebreaker for any teams.
That's why I like it. Clear. Concise. Feel free to be sad. Feel free to be filled with regret...but they beat us worse than we beat them is kind of hard to argue with.
(by the way - I'm thinking of a long term solution - I would never expect anything in this thread to influence whatever Bort already has planned). I have no affiliation with any team in this current conundrum (which might very well be sorted out in the upcoming games and not even be an issue)
It's still an issue whether it gets sorted by the last game or not. It should never come down to just PA in a tiebreaker for any teams.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
