Originally posted by dahman32
Who do you think ends up on top?
The girl. She got a free dinner or movie either way.
Who do you think ends up on top?
The girl. She got a free dinner or movie either way.
Forum > FAQ's, Player Guides and Newbie Help > League Standings
Achelon
offline
offline
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
Yeah, but he has a valid point not? Should ties be the same as losses.
I always figured a tie was a loss to whichever team had the ball last.
Yeah, but he has a valid point not? Should ties be the same as losses.
I always figured a tie was a loss to whichever team had the ball last.
aharden2
offline
offline
Ties should count as .5 wins and .5 losses. If you have 4 ties, that should equate to 2 wins and 2 losses, thus a 5-3-4 team would have a record for playoff purposes of 7-5, and would be ranked ahead of a team with a 6-6 record.
El Retré
offline
offline
Originally posted by aharden2
Ties should count as .5 wins and .5 losses. If you have 4 ties, that should equate to 2 wins and 2 losses, thus a 5-3-4 team would have a record for playoff purposes of 7-5, and would be ranked ahead of a team with a 6-6 record.
That wouldn't be efficient at all. A win is a win. You shouldn't be ranked higher than a team with more wins than you because you avoided losing 4 times. You may not have lost, but you couldn't win either. That doesn't say you are better than anyone else. A tie means you are the same, a win means you are better. This isn't European futbol. A tie is a very normal outcome for them.
Ties should count as .5 wins and .5 losses. If you have 4 ties, that should equate to 2 wins and 2 losses, thus a 5-3-4 team would have a record for playoff purposes of 7-5, and would be ranked ahead of a team with a 6-6 record.
That wouldn't be efficient at all. A win is a win. You shouldn't be ranked higher than a team with more wins than you because you avoided losing 4 times. You may not have lost, but you couldn't win either. That doesn't say you are better than anyone else. A tie means you are the same, a win means you are better. This isn't European futbol. A tie is a very normal outcome for them.
toobad4u_00
offline
offline
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
They're not as bad... they're essentially 1/2 of a loss. 2 teams that have played 5 games... if one has 4 wins and one loss and the other has 4 wins and 1 tie... then the team with the "tie" is better by 1/2 a game in the standings. If one team has 4 wins and 1 loss and the other has 3 wins and 2 ties, then the team with 4 wins is 1/2 game better in the standings. (2 ties = 1 loss... so it boils down to 3 wins vs 4 wins in the same amount of games played... hence 1/2 game difference.)
That essentially makes no sense. You're telling me that a tie is 1/2 a loss but not 1/2 a win. If one is true they both should be true. There is not technically an in between.
They're not as bad... they're essentially 1/2 of a loss. 2 teams that have played 5 games... if one has 4 wins and one loss and the other has 4 wins and 1 tie... then the team with the "tie" is better by 1/2 a game in the standings. If one team has 4 wins and 1 loss and the other has 3 wins and 2 ties, then the team with 4 wins is 1/2 game better in the standings. (2 ties = 1 loss... so it boils down to 3 wins vs 4 wins in the same amount of games played... hence 1/2 game difference.)
That essentially makes no sense. You're telling me that a tie is 1/2 a loss but not 1/2 a win. If one is true they both should be true. There is not technically an in between.
toobad4u_00
offline
offline
Originally posted by El Retré
That wouldn't be efficient at all. A win is a win. You shouldn't be ranked higher than a team with more wins than you because you avoided losing 4 times. You may not have lost, but you couldn't win either. That doesn't say you are better than anyone else. A tie means you are the same, a win means you are better. This isn't European futbol. A tie is a very normal outcome for them.
If you are giving half a loss than you have to give half a win. Also, a win doesn't mean you are better. It means you may be better, but you are better on that day. 4 ties means it was a very even match. European futbol is certainly not the only sport that ties are handled in a manner that makes some sense.
That wouldn't be efficient at all. A win is a win. You shouldn't be ranked higher than a team with more wins than you because you avoided losing 4 times. You may not have lost, but you couldn't win either. That doesn't say you are better than anyone else. A tie means you are the same, a win means you are better. This isn't European futbol. A tie is a very normal outcome for them.
If you are giving half a loss than you have to give half a win. Also, a win doesn't mean you are better. It means you may be better, but you are better on that day. 4 ties means it was a very even match. European futbol is certainly not the only sport that ties are handled in a manner that makes some sense.
El Retré
offline
offline
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
If you are giving half a loss than you have to give half a win. Also, a win doesn't mean you are better. It means you may be better, but you are better on that day. 4 ties means it was a very even match. European futbol is certainly not the only sport that ties are handled in a manner that makes some sense.
Even in an "even match" there is usually a winner or loser. If you happen to tie once then it was just a tough game. But to have more than one or two in a 16 game season doesn't mean that you are evenly matched. By saying you should be better than teams with more wins that you is basically saying you should be handed the championship because you want it. Winning is the only thing that matters in that aspect.
Originally posted by Vin Deisel
It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning.
I don't care if a team goes 0-0-16. Still the worst team in the league. If you can't find a way to win, then you don't deserve to be anywhere but dead last unless someone else went 0-1-15. Even the team that went 1-15 is better because they managed to get that one win.
And yes, a win means you were better. If you want to go on a day by day basis, then you might have been better that day, but whoever has more wins at the end of the season was the better team. A team that goes 6-6-4 will never be better than a team that goes 7-9. All that means is that they weren't good enough to get the win. Like it, hate it, that's just the way it is.
If you are giving half a loss than you have to give half a win. Also, a win doesn't mean you are better. It means you may be better, but you are better on that day. 4 ties means it was a very even match. European futbol is certainly not the only sport that ties are handled in a manner that makes some sense.
Even in an "even match" there is usually a winner or loser. If you happen to tie once then it was just a tough game. But to have more than one or two in a 16 game season doesn't mean that you are evenly matched. By saying you should be better than teams with more wins that you is basically saying you should be handed the championship because you want it. Winning is the only thing that matters in that aspect.
Originally posted by Vin Deisel
It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning.
I don't care if a team goes 0-0-16. Still the worst team in the league. If you can't find a way to win, then you don't deserve to be anywhere but dead last unless someone else went 0-1-15. Even the team that went 1-15 is better because they managed to get that one win.
And yes, a win means you were better. If you want to go on a day by day basis, then you might have been better that day, but whoever has more wins at the end of the season was the better team. A team that goes 6-6-4 will never be better than a team that goes 7-9. All that means is that they weren't good enough to get the win. Like it, hate it, that's just the way it is.
toobad4u_00
offline
offline
Originally posted by El Retré
Even in an "even match" there is usually a winner or loser. If you happen to tie once then it was just a tough game. But to have more than one or two in a 16 game season doesn't mean that you are evenly matched. By saying you should be better than teams with more wins that you is basically saying you should be handed the championship because you want it. Winning is the only thing that matters in that aspect.
I suppose it can be argued that there are definitions of winner and loser that you could make fit that criteria, but as far as the match itself goes there is 1/2 of a win and 1/2 loss. There is no other way to stipulate this, especially if it has been stipulated a 1/2 loss already. Your complete lack of mathematics in this matter is alarming. Further, you are not saying that you should be handed anything. You legitimately played the same competition and based on that competition you played more games more tightly contested. That does not mean you are better or worse than the team with more losses. A straight up loss has to be counted as negatively as a straight up loss has to be looked at positively. How can you not? It is simply illogical.
Even in an "even match" there is usually a winner or loser. If you happen to tie once then it was just a tough game. But to have more than one or two in a 16 game season doesn't mean that you are evenly matched. By saying you should be better than teams with more wins that you is basically saying you should be handed the championship because you want it. Winning is the only thing that matters in that aspect.
I suppose it can be argued that there are definitions of winner and loser that you could make fit that criteria, but as far as the match itself goes there is 1/2 of a win and 1/2 loss. There is no other way to stipulate this, especially if it has been stipulated a 1/2 loss already. Your complete lack of mathematics in this matter is alarming. Further, you are not saying that you should be handed anything. You legitimately played the same competition and based on that competition you played more games more tightly contested. That does not mean you are better or worse than the team with more losses. A straight up loss has to be counted as negatively as a straight up loss has to be looked at positively. How can you not? It is simply illogical.
Originally posted by El Retré
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
If you are giving half a loss than you have to give half a win. Also, a win doesn't mean you are better. It means you may be better, but you are better on that day. 4 ties means it was a very even match. European futbol is certainly not the only sport that ties are handled in a manner that makes some sense.
Even in an "even match" there is usually a winner or loser. If you happen to tie once then it was just a tough game. But to have more than one or two in a 16 game season doesn't mean that you are evenly matched. By saying you should be better than teams with more wins that you is basically saying you should be handed the championship because you want it. Winning is the only thing that matters in that aspect.
Originally posted by Vin Deisel
It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning.
I don't care if a team goes 0-0-16. Still the worst team in the league. If you can't find a way to win, then you don't deserve to be anywhere but dead last unless someone else went 0-1-15. Even the team that went 1-15 is better because they managed to get that one win.
And yes, a win means you were better. If you want to go on a day by day basis, then you might have been better that day, but whoever has more wins at the end of the season was the better team. A team that goes 6-6-4 will never be better than a team that goes 7-9. All that means is that they weren't good enough to get the win. Like it, hate it, that's just the way it is.
all of professional sports (NHL, NFL) that has ties disagree with you
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
If you are giving half a loss than you have to give half a win. Also, a win doesn't mean you are better. It means you may be better, but you are better on that day. 4 ties means it was a very even match. European futbol is certainly not the only sport that ties are handled in a manner that makes some sense.
Even in an "even match" there is usually a winner or loser. If you happen to tie once then it was just a tough game. But to have more than one or two in a 16 game season doesn't mean that you are evenly matched. By saying you should be better than teams with more wins that you is basically saying you should be handed the championship because you want it. Winning is the only thing that matters in that aspect.
Originally posted by Vin Deisel
It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning.
I don't care if a team goes 0-0-16. Still the worst team in the league. If you can't find a way to win, then you don't deserve to be anywhere but dead last unless someone else went 0-1-15. Even the team that went 1-15 is better because they managed to get that one win.
And yes, a win means you were better. If you want to go on a day by day basis, then you might have been better that day, but whoever has more wins at the end of the season was the better team. A team that goes 6-6-4 will never be better than a team that goes 7-9. All that means is that they weren't good enough to get the win. Like it, hate it, that's just the way it is.
all of professional sports (NHL, NFL) that has ties disagree with you
Originally posted by toobad4u_00
That essentially makes no sense. You're telling me that a tie is 1/2 a loss but not 1/2 a win. If one is true they both should be true. There is not technically an in between.
Um... no... check the math again. In the first example one team has 4 wins and 1 loss... the other has 4 wins and a 1 tie. Since a tie is a half game better than a loss, then the team with the 4-0-1 record is 1/2 game better in the standings than the 4-1-0 team.
The second example (which I messed up on... sorry.) gives you a team with 4 wins and 1 loss against a team with 3 wins, 1 loss, and 1 tie. Again, a tie is a 1/2 a game of sorts. Therefore 4-1-0 would be 1/2 game better than 3-1-1. A tie is neither a win or a loss... which, essentially, makes them both a win AND a loss at the same time. It's a touch confusing but I keep stats for baseball and we deal with 1/2 game differences a lot. Sorry I messed up the first time. Mah baad.
That essentially makes no sense. You're telling me that a tie is 1/2 a loss but not 1/2 a win. If one is true they both should be true. There is not technically an in between.
Um... no... check the math again. In the first example one team has 4 wins and 1 loss... the other has 4 wins and a 1 tie. Since a tie is a half game better than a loss, then the team with the 4-0-1 record is 1/2 game better in the standings than the 4-1-0 team.
The second example (which I messed up on... sorry.) gives you a team with 4 wins and 1 loss against a team with 3 wins, 1 loss, and 1 tie. Again, a tie is a 1/2 a game of sorts. Therefore 4-1-0 would be 1/2 game better than 3-1-1. A tie is neither a win or a loss... which, essentially, makes them both a win AND a loss at the same time. It's a touch confusing but I keep stats for baseball and we deal with 1/2 game differences a lot. Sorry I messed up the first time. Mah baad.
Edited by Theo Wizzago on Jun 24, 2013 11:24:41
toobad4u_00
offline
offline
Originally posted by Theo Wizzago
Um... no... check the math again. In the first example one team has 4 wins and 1 loss... the other has 4 wins and a 1 tie. Since a tie is a half game better than a loss, then the team with the 4-0-1 record is 1/2 game better in the standings than the 4-1-0 team.
The second example (which I messed up on... sorry.) gives you a team with 4 wins and 1 loss against a team with 3 wins, 1 loss, and 1 tie. Again, a tie is a 1/2 a game of sorts. Therefore 4-1-0 would be 1/2 game better than 3-1-1. A tie is neither a win or a loss... which, essentially, makes them both a win AND a loss at the same time. It's a touch confusing but I keep stats for baseball and we deal with 1/2 game differences a lot. Sorry I messed up the first time. Mah baad.
Please read the entire post and come to a realization that you are confused. Otherwise, there is no way you can be helped. In the first post you made, you assigned no positive value to a tie, but you did assign negative value to the tie. If a tie is in fact neutral, which it is since no win was determined for the match, then it has to have just as positive impact as well as negative impact. Therefore, 4 ties is the same as a 2-2 record. 1 tie is the same as a .5-.5 record... thus extrapolated to the OP as a 7-5 record which is better than the 6-6 record which he claims was showing above his team with the 5-3-4 record. This isn't even a little confusing honestly. What baseball league are you keeping stats for that has so many ties also? do they only assign a negative value to the ties?
Um... no... check the math again. In the first example one team has 4 wins and 1 loss... the other has 4 wins and a 1 tie. Since a tie is a half game better than a loss, then the team with the 4-0-1 record is 1/2 game better in the standings than the 4-1-0 team.
The second example (which I messed up on... sorry.) gives you a team with 4 wins and 1 loss against a team with 3 wins, 1 loss, and 1 tie. Again, a tie is a 1/2 a game of sorts. Therefore 4-1-0 would be 1/2 game better than 3-1-1. A tie is neither a win or a loss... which, essentially, makes them both a win AND a loss at the same time. It's a touch confusing but I keep stats for baseball and we deal with 1/2 game differences a lot. Sorry I messed up the first time. Mah baad.
Please read the entire post and come to a realization that you are confused. Otherwise, there is no way you can be helped. In the first post you made, you assigned no positive value to a tie, but you did assign negative value to the tie. If a tie is in fact neutral, which it is since no win was determined for the match, then it has to have just as positive impact as well as negative impact. Therefore, 4 ties is the same as a 2-2 record. 1 tie is the same as a .5-.5 record... thus extrapolated to the OP as a 7-5 record which is better than the 6-6 record which he claims was showing above his team with the 5-3-4 record. This isn't even a little confusing honestly. What baseball league are you keeping stats for that has so many ties also? do they only assign a negative value to the ties?
aharden2
offline
offline
It's not a matter of "how many" ties. It's a matter of how do you treat one, singular tie. If you treat a tie as .5 wins and .5 losses, you don't stop doing that just because a team has 2 of them. It's not, "Well, one tie counts as .5 wins and .5 losses, but the second tie counts as .4 wins and .6 losses, the third tie counts as .1 win and .9 losses, and all ties after that count as 1 full loss."
There are some on here who believe a team that goes 2-14-0 is better than a team that goes 1-0-15. I disagree.
There are some on here who believe a team that goes 2-14-0 is better than a team that goes 1-0-15. I disagree.
El Retré
offline
offline
Originally posted by aharden2
It's not a matter of "how many" ties. It's a matter of how do you treat one, singular tie. If you treat a tie as .5 wins and .5 losses, you don't stop doing that just because a team has 2 of them. It's not, "Well, one tie counts as .5 wins and .5 losses, but the second tie counts as .4 wins and .6 losses, the third tie counts as .1 win and .9 losses, and all ties after that count as 1 full loss."
There are some on here who believe a team that goes 2-14-0 is better than a team that goes 1-0-15. I disagree.
This is where you guys go way over board. There is not necessarily any numeric value added to a tie. A multiple amount of ties does not equate to a certain amount of wins. I don't care what argument you come back with. I'm not trying to be rude, but you are basically undervaluing the wins and overvaluing the ties.
Standings are based off wins. If a team has the same amount of wins, THEN they look at tie/loss numbers. Whoever has less losses at that point is the better team. They don't look to see how many ties a team has first to bump them up the standings. You can argue all you want about who you think is better and why, by this game is all about numbers. And the most important number is in the win column.
It's not a matter of "how many" ties. It's a matter of how do you treat one, singular tie. If you treat a tie as .5 wins and .5 losses, you don't stop doing that just because a team has 2 of them. It's not, "Well, one tie counts as .5 wins and .5 losses, but the second tie counts as .4 wins and .6 losses, the third tie counts as .1 win and .9 losses, and all ties after that count as 1 full loss."
There are some on here who believe a team that goes 2-14-0 is better than a team that goes 1-0-15. I disagree.
This is where you guys go way over board. There is not necessarily any numeric value added to a tie. A multiple amount of ties does not equate to a certain amount of wins. I don't care what argument you come back with. I'm not trying to be rude, but you are basically undervaluing the wins and overvaluing the ties.
Standings are based off wins. If a team has the same amount of wins, THEN they look at tie/loss numbers. Whoever has less losses at that point is the better team. They don't look to see how many ties a team has first to bump them up the standings. You can argue all you want about who you think is better and why, by this game is all about numbers. And the most important number is in the win column.
Originally posted by El Retré
Originally posted by aharden2
It's not a matter of "how many" ties. It's a matter of how do you treat one, singular tie. If you treat a tie as .5 wins and .5 losses, you don't stop doing that just because a team has 2 of them. It's not, "Well, one tie counts as .5 wins and .5 losses, but the second tie counts as .4 wins and .6 losses, the third tie counts as .1 win and .9 losses, and all ties after that count as 1 full loss."
There are some on here who believe a team that goes 2-14-0 is better than a team that goes 1-0-15. I disagree.
This is where you guys go way over board. There is not necessarily any numeric value added to a tie. A multiple amount of ties does not equate to a certain amount of wins. I don't care what argument you come back with. I'm not trying to be rude, but you are basically undervaluing the wins and overvaluing the ties.
Standings are based off wins. If a team has the same amount of wins, THEN they look at tie/loss numbers. Whoever has less losses at that point is the better team. They don't look to see how many ties a team has first to bump them up the standings. You can argue all you want about who you think is better and why, by this game is all about numbers. And the most important number is in the win column.
in the NFL, ties are counted as 1/2 win and 1/2 loss - go tell them they are wrong
Originally posted by aharden2
It's not a matter of "how many" ties. It's a matter of how do you treat one, singular tie. If you treat a tie as .5 wins and .5 losses, you don't stop doing that just because a team has 2 of them. It's not, "Well, one tie counts as .5 wins and .5 losses, but the second tie counts as .4 wins and .6 losses, the third tie counts as .1 win and .9 losses, and all ties after that count as 1 full loss."
There are some on here who believe a team that goes 2-14-0 is better than a team that goes 1-0-15. I disagree.
This is where you guys go way over board. There is not necessarily any numeric value added to a tie. A multiple amount of ties does not equate to a certain amount of wins. I don't care what argument you come back with. I'm not trying to be rude, but you are basically undervaluing the wins and overvaluing the ties.
Standings are based off wins. If a team has the same amount of wins, THEN they look at tie/loss numbers. Whoever has less losses at that point is the better team. They don't look to see how many ties a team has first to bump them up the standings. You can argue all you want about who you think is better and why, by this game is all about numbers. And the most important number is in the win column.
in the NFL, ties are counted as 1/2 win and 1/2 loss - go tell them they are wrong
El Retré
offline
offline
Originally posted by reddogrw
in the NFL, ties are counted as 1/2 win and 1/2 loss - go tell them they are wrong
Only in the event they have the same amount of WINS. What you guys are saying is that a team with so many ties should be placed higher than one with more wins and more losses. It doesn't work that way.
You will never see in the NFL standings as follows.
New England 14-2
Miami 6-6-4
New York 7-9
Buffalo 5-11
New York will ALWAYS be ahead of Miami because they have more WINS. It's that simple.
in the NFL, ties are counted as 1/2 win and 1/2 loss - go tell them they are wrong
Only in the event they have the same amount of WINS. What you guys are saying is that a team with so many ties should be placed higher than one with more wins and more losses. It doesn't work that way.
You will never see in the NFL standings as follows.
New England 14-2
Miami 6-6-4
New York 7-9
Buffalo 5-11
New York will ALWAYS be ahead of Miami because they have more WINS. It's that simple.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
