whatever should totally be a game of HORSE
Edited by Timetoshine-Beta on Nov 11, 2009 13:12:41
Forum > Pro Leagues > 3 way tie breakers
Timetoshine-Metta
offline
offline
MattyP
offline
offline
Originally posted by NiborRis
Really ugly when the tiebreakers determine who is and isn't a playoff team - basically useless. Point differential within the tied teams makes the most sense to me. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have. If the tie matters, then none of the tied teams should be gutted. You could still construct a corner case where a playoff contender guts mid-season and gets into a 3-way tie for 8th. If they've only played one of two other teams post gut (and obviously beat the other team pre-gut), then the point differential will be out of whack. I saw something similar happen in the old A league days, but it seems to be much more of a corner case than the current system.
So tiebreaker could be:
H2H record
Conference record (won't break many ties, but should be there)
H2H Point differential
H2H Points scored
...
and then move on. H2H yards gained, maybe, and then just coinflip? You could (almost) completely remove the impact of the mid-season guts.
Oh yeah. I didn't even think of that. Good call.
Really ugly when the tiebreakers determine who is and isn't a playoff team - basically useless. Point differential within the tied teams makes the most sense to me. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have. If the tie matters, then none of the tied teams should be gutted. You could still construct a corner case where a playoff contender guts mid-season and gets into a 3-way tie for 8th. If they've only played one of two other teams post gut (and obviously beat the other team pre-gut), then the point differential will be out of whack. I saw something similar happen in the old A league days, but it seems to be much more of a corner case than the current system.
So tiebreaker could be:
H2H record
Conference record (won't break many ties, but should be there)
H2H Point differential
H2H Points scored
...
and then move on. H2H yards gained, maybe, and then just coinflip? You could (almost) completely remove the impact of the mid-season guts.
Oh yeah. I didn't even think of that. Good call.
NiborRis
offline
offline
And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.
kondor
offline
offline
Originally posted by coachviking
It's where this thing comes from
http://www.gwrra-mi.org/Images/clipart/TAZ.jpg
nice
It's where this thing comes from
http://www.gwrra-mi.org/Images/clipart/TAZ.jpg
nice
datongw
offline
offline
Originally posted by TrevJo
The Ravens actually accomplished a rare feat by scoring more than twice as many points as they allowed. I think point ratio (PF/PA) would be a good substitute for point margin (PF-PA). p much anything is better than using points scored.
That's really more of a testament of how dominant the Raven's defense were rather than how good their offense are.
The Ravens actually accomplished a rare feat by scoring more than twice as many points as they allowed. I think point ratio (PF/PA) would be a good substitute for point margin (PF-PA). p much anything is better than using points scored.
That's really more of a testament of how dominant the Raven's defense were rather than how good their offense are.
TrevJo
offline
offline
Originally posted by datongw
Originally posted by TrevJo
The Ravens actually accomplished a rare feat by scoring more than twice as many points as they allowed. I think point ratio (PF/PA) would be a good substitute for point margin (PF-PA). p much anything is better than using points scored.
That's really more of a testament of how dominant the Raven's defense were rather than how good their offense are.
To me, it's a testament of how dominant they were as a team. Obviously they were a better defensive team than offensive, but their ability to score points was a lot better than people gave them credit for. Once Tony Banks was no longer starting, they scored 24.75 ppg, which is well above average. They ran the ball well, didn't turn it over, hit the deep ball with decent consistency, and scored on D and ST. So even if a team could get a lead against them, the lead wasn't safe.
Anyway, IMO the point is that if you can consistently double your opponent's score, i.e. average scores of 14-7, that's more impressive than say average scores of 34-20 or 9-6.
Originally posted by TrevJo
The Ravens actually accomplished a rare feat by scoring more than twice as many points as they allowed. I think point ratio (PF/PA) would be a good substitute for point margin (PF-PA). p much anything is better than using points scored.
That's really more of a testament of how dominant the Raven's defense were rather than how good their offense are.
To me, it's a testament of how dominant they were as a team. Obviously they were a better defensive team than offensive, but their ability to score points was a lot better than people gave them credit for. Once Tony Banks was no longer starting, they scored 24.75 ppg, which is well above average. They ran the ball well, didn't turn it over, hit the deep ball with decent consistency, and scored on D and ST. So even if a team could get a lead against them, the lead wasn't safe.
Anyway, IMO the point is that if you can consistently double your opponent's score, i.e. average scores of 14-7, that's more impressive than say average scores of 34-20 or 9-6.
Edited by TrevJo on Nov 12, 2009 14:51:13
Edited by TrevJo on Nov 12, 2009 14:50:26
NiborRis
offline
offline
Originally posted by TrevJo
Anyway, IMO the point is that if you can consistently double your opponent's score, i.e. average scores of 14-7, that's more impressive than say average scores of 34-20 or 9-6.
In real life, that's kind of silly. Teams who are winning 14-7 are playing 4 quarters of football. Teams winning 45-25 are letting up at the end - shortening the game rather than trying to continue to score points at a 2x rate of the opponent, perhaps giving some starters some rest towards the end, and so on.
It's all really hard to measure in a vacuum as game situation dictates activity; points don't have a linear worth (which is why some mathematical analysis on going for 2 isn't always applicable), and so on.
In general, the expected margin of victory and the chance of winning map together very well, which can be shown from the correlation between gambling spreads and odds for the favorite to win. This would suggest that teams winning by 21 are generally more likely to win than teams winning by 7, which in turn could suggest that teams winning by 21 are "better".
I like "points allowed" better than "points scored" but I like point differential best of the three.
Anyway, IMO the point is that if you can consistently double your opponent's score, i.e. average scores of 14-7, that's more impressive than say average scores of 34-20 or 9-6.
In real life, that's kind of silly. Teams who are winning 14-7 are playing 4 quarters of football. Teams winning 45-25 are letting up at the end - shortening the game rather than trying to continue to score points at a 2x rate of the opponent, perhaps giving some starters some rest towards the end, and so on.
It's all really hard to measure in a vacuum as game situation dictates activity; points don't have a linear worth (which is why some mathematical analysis on going for 2 isn't always applicable), and so on.
In general, the expected margin of victory and the chance of winning map together very well, which can be shown from the correlation between gambling spreads and odds for the favorite to win. This would suggest that teams winning by 21 are generally more likely to win than teams winning by 7, which in turn could suggest that teams winning by 21 are "better".
I like "points allowed" better than "points scored" but I like point differential best of the three.
TrevJo
offline
offline
Originally posted by NiborRis
Originally posted by TrevJo
Anyway, IMO the point is that if you can consistently double your opponent's score, i.e. average scores of 14-7, that's more impressive than say average scores of 34-20 or 9-6.
In real life, that's kind of silly. Teams who are winning 14-7 are playing 4 quarters of football. Teams winning 45-25 are letting up at the end - shortening the game rather than trying to continue to score points at a 2x rate of the opponent, perhaps giving some starters some rest towards the end, and so on.
It's all really hard to measure in a vacuum as game situation dictates activity; points don't have a linear worth (which is why some mathematical analysis on going for 2 isn't always applicable), and so on.
In general, the expected margin of victory and the chance of winning map together very well, which can be shown from the correlation between gambling spreads and odds for the favorite to win. This would suggest that teams winning by 21 are generally more likely to win than teams winning by 7, which in turn could suggest that teams winning by 21 are "better".
I like "points allowed" better than "points scored" but I like point differential best of the three.
Firstly, 45 is pretty close to double 25 anyway.
Secondly, if you're only giving up 7 points in 60 minutes on average, it doesn't much matter if the game is lengthened obv.
Originally posted by TrevJo
Anyway, IMO the point is that if you can consistently double your opponent's score, i.e. average scores of 14-7, that's more impressive than say average scores of 34-20 or 9-6.
In real life, that's kind of silly. Teams who are winning 14-7 are playing 4 quarters of football. Teams winning 45-25 are letting up at the end - shortening the game rather than trying to continue to score points at a 2x rate of the opponent, perhaps giving some starters some rest towards the end, and so on.
It's all really hard to measure in a vacuum as game situation dictates activity; points don't have a linear worth (which is why some mathematical analysis on going for 2 isn't always applicable), and so on.
In general, the expected margin of victory and the chance of winning map together very well, which can be shown from the correlation between gambling spreads and odds for the favorite to win. This would suggest that teams winning by 21 are generally more likely to win than teams winning by 7, which in turn could suggest that teams winning by 21 are "better".
I like "points allowed" better than "points scored" but I like point differential best of the three.
Firstly, 45 is pretty close to double 25 anyway.
Secondly, if you're only giving up 7 points in 60 minutes on average, it doesn't much matter if the game is lengthened obv.
datongw
offline
offline
Originally posted by TrevJo
To me, it's a testament of how dominant they were as a team. Obviously they were a better defensive team than offensive, but their ability to score points was a lot better than people gave them credit for. Once Tony Banks was no longer starting, they scored 24.75 ppg, which is well above average. They ran the ball well, didn't turn it over, hit the deep ball with decent consistency, and scored on D and ST. So even if a team could get a lead against them, the lead wasn't safe.
Their offense was really average at best, Dilfer isn't exactly Dan Marino. The thing Dilfer did best was just hang on to the ball, defense did most of the work. Ravens scored a lot of defensive and ST TDs, but more importantly, they provided excellent field position for the offense. Baltomore's K (Stover I believe) had like the most FGs in the league, thanks to great field position and an offense that can't finish.
To me, it's a testament of how dominant they were as a team. Obviously they were a better defensive team than offensive, but their ability to score points was a lot better than people gave them credit for. Once Tony Banks was no longer starting, they scored 24.75 ppg, which is well above average. They ran the ball well, didn't turn it over, hit the deep ball with decent consistency, and scored on D and ST. So even if a team could get a lead against them, the lead wasn't safe.
Their offense was really average at best, Dilfer isn't exactly Dan Marino. The thing Dilfer did best was just hang on to the ball, defense did most of the work. Ravens scored a lot of defensive and ST TDs, but more importantly, they provided excellent field position for the offense. Baltomore's K (Stover I believe) had like the most FGs in the league, thanks to great field position and an offense that can't finish.
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by datongw
Their offense was really average at best, Dilfer isn't exactly Dan Marino. The thing Dilfer did best was just hang on to the ball, defense did most of the work. Ravens scored a lot of defensive and ST TDs, but more importantly, they provided excellent field position for the offense. Baltomore's K (Stover I believe) had like the most FGs in the league, thanks to great field position and an offense that can't finish.
They went 5 consecutive games without an offensive touchdown....and won 2 of them.
Pretty sure I could have QB'd for them that year
Their offense was really average at best, Dilfer isn't exactly Dan Marino. The thing Dilfer did best was just hang on to the ball, defense did most of the work. Ravens scored a lot of defensive and ST TDs, but more importantly, they provided excellent field position for the offense. Baltomore's K (Stover I believe) had like the most FGs in the league, thanks to great field position and an offense that can't finish.
They went 5 consecutive games without an offensive touchdown....and won 2 of them.
Pretty sure I could have QB'd for them that year
datongw
offline
offline
Originally posted by tautology
They went 5 consecutive games without an offensive touchdown....and won 2 of them.
Pretty sure I could have QB'd for them that year
I donno, are you good at handoffs?
They went 5 consecutive games without an offensive touchdown....and won 2 of them.
Pretty sure I could have QB'd for them that year
I donno, are you good at handoffs?
tautology
offline
offline
Originally posted by datongw
I donno, are you good at handoffs?
I personally trained Zheng Yi Quan.
I donno, are you good at handoffs?
I personally trained Zheng Yi Quan.
TrevJo
offline
offline
Originally posted by datongw
Originally posted by TrevJo
To me, it's a testament of how dominant they were as a team. Obviously they were a better defensive team than offensive, but their ability to score points was a lot better than people gave them credit for. Once Tony Banks was no longer starting, they scored 24.75 ppg, which is well above average. They ran the ball well, didn't turn it over, hit the deep ball with decent consistency, and scored on D and ST. So even if a team could get a lead against them, the lead wasn't safe.
Their offense was really average at best, Dilfer isn't exactly Dan Marino. The thing Dilfer did best was just hang on to the ball, defense did most of the work. Ravens scored a lot of defensive and ST TDs, but more importantly, they provided excellent field position for the offense. Baltomore's K (Stover I believe) had like the most FGs in the league, thanks to great field position and an offense that can't finish.
Average is better than what most people give them credit for.
And obv you didn't at all mention the strength of their offense which was the running game.
Originally posted by TrevJo
To me, it's a testament of how dominant they were as a team. Obviously they were a better defensive team than offensive, but their ability to score points was a lot better than people gave them credit for. Once Tony Banks was no longer starting, they scored 24.75 ppg, which is well above average. They ran the ball well, didn't turn it over, hit the deep ball with decent consistency, and scored on D and ST. So even if a team could get a lead against them, the lead wasn't safe.
Their offense was really average at best, Dilfer isn't exactly Dan Marino. The thing Dilfer did best was just hang on to the ball, defense did most of the work. Ravens scored a lot of defensive and ST TDs, but more importantly, they provided excellent field position for the offense. Baltomore's K (Stover I believe) had like the most FGs in the league, thanks to great field position and an offense that can't finish.
Average is better than what most people give them credit for.
And obv you didn't at all mention the strength of their offense which was the running game.
datongw
offline
offline
Originally posted by TrevJo
Average is better than what most people give them credit for.
And obv you didn't at all mention the strength of their offense which was the running game.
Well, I said "average at best". Although it is true that the strength of their offense was the running game, it was not a dominating running game, and it's not hard to be better than their passing offense, which was simply just horrid.
Just for fun I went back and checked up on Raven's SB run, some very interesting stats:
-Defense allowed 163 points in the regular season, just over 10 points a game, which is just dominating. In the playoffs it was even better, 23 points allowed in 4 games, less than 6 points a game, that is just nutty.
-In 4 playoff games, offense scored 7 TDs, defense and special teams scored 4 TDs (essentially outscoring their opponents). Against Tennessee, offense score 10, defense 14; in the SB, defense and special teams scored 14 points, doubling Giant's 7 points, which came on kickoff return.
-3 of the 4 playoff teams were held under 200 yards total offense;
-Forced 12 turnovers, including 5 in AFC Championship and 5 in SB;
Offensively:
-Team scored 67 offensive points in 4 playoff games, just under 17 points a game; But if you look at the total yards, it was pretty awful, 240, 134, 282 and 244 yards.
-Against Tennessee, the offense had 134 total yards, rushed 23 times for 49 yards;
-Against Oakland, offense scored on a 96 yard pass to Shannon Sharpe, that play accounted for 1/3 of their total yards. Rush game gained 110 yards, on 46 freaking carries. Despite getting 5 turnovers from the defense, offense only mustered 3 FGs rest of the game.
-In their last 7 games (3 regular season, 4 playoffs), the offense averaged 218 yards a game, 218!!!! Highest output was 282 yards (thanks to Sharpe's 96 yard reception).
After going back checking the stats. I'll admit I was wrong. The Baltimore offense was not average at best, it's pathetic. They could have won the league with any team's offense. Hell, they'd probably won with some of the college offenses. In 4 playoff games, the defense/ST out scored their opponent in 2 games and allowed 2 FGs total in the other 2.
Average is better than what most people give them credit for.
And obv you didn't at all mention the strength of their offense which was the running game.
Well, I said "average at best"
. Although it is true that the strength of their offense was the running game, it was not a dominating running game, and it's not hard to be better than their passing offense, which was simply just horrid.Just for fun I went back and checked up on Raven's SB run, some very interesting stats:
-Defense allowed 163 points in the regular season, just over 10 points a game, which is just dominating. In the playoffs it was even better, 23 points allowed in 4 games, less than 6 points a game, that is just nutty.
-In 4 playoff games, offense scored 7 TDs, defense and special teams scored 4 TDs (essentially outscoring their opponents). Against Tennessee, offense score 10, defense 14; in the SB, defense and special teams scored 14 points, doubling Giant's 7 points, which came on kickoff return.
-3 of the 4 playoff teams were held under 200 yards total offense;
-Forced 12 turnovers, including 5 in AFC Championship and 5 in SB;
Offensively:
-Team scored 67 offensive points in 4 playoff games, just under 17 points a game; But if you look at the total yards, it was pretty awful, 240, 134, 282 and 244 yards.
-Against Tennessee, the offense had 134 total yards, rushed 23 times for 49 yards;
-Against Oakland, offense scored on a 96 yard pass to Shannon Sharpe, that play accounted for 1/3 of their total yards. Rush game gained 110 yards, on 46 freaking carries. Despite getting 5 turnovers from the defense, offense only mustered 3 FGs rest of the game.
-In their last 7 games (3 regular season, 4 playoffs), the offense averaged 218 yards a game, 218!!!! Highest output was 282 yards (thanks to Sharpe's 96 yard reception).
After going back checking the stats. I'll admit I was wrong. The Baltimore offense was not average at best, it's pathetic. They could have won the league with any team's offense. Hell, they'd probably won with some of the college offenses. In 4 playoff games, the defense/ST out scored their opponent in 2 games and allowed 2 FGs total in the other 2.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
