Creativity, you the real MVP

Ok 1 I'm not mad , 2 the system is basically if cr8 or FC played 25 games they would of gotten in over you guys. It's basically saying if your team can't win a lot of games don't play 100 games just play the minimum. Trust me I'm not mad at all, just because I voice my opinion doesn't mean I'm outraged at the situation. It's a topic of discussion that's all

 

Yeah you're missing the point here. MF is awarded a playoff spot because of the point system, why don't we scrap the point system and just do standings by Win Loss Win% and keep the minimum game requirements just so someone isn't 10-0 and stops playing. Get rid of this point system. That's all

 

Why would we scrap a point system that worked really well for 15/16 of the playoff spots? The last spot obviously didnt go to the correct team, but if we raised the minimum games to 40, or gave an extra point for every game played we would have avoided that last spot.

Straight win-loss has some issues, the amount of teams that tried to run from NxU this tournament might have doubled because theres no bonus for beating a good team. Or, a team goes 22-3 to start against bad teams/avg competition. This team is good, but not that good. They stop playing and another team goes 88-13 playing better competition. The 88-13 clearly deserves it, but the 22-3 team has a better win loss %.

 

It is what it is, like I said before hopefully this situation will bring about a solution for the next Pro Series. Also I didn't mean you we're mad in a trolling way, I meant it in more of an upset at the system way which is certainly justifiable in this situation.

 

Only way you implement a point system like the one you guys are discusing is a set amount of games like league....

 

Replacing inactive players with equally as inactive players is the Dream Chaser way

 

As someone directly affected by the "flaw" in the point system, I took it upon myself to analyze the season and really breakdown what went wrong. For starters, my team played a disproportionately high number of games against the top 4 teams in the standings (3 Wins and 27 Losses, or 30 of our 110 games, 27% of our GP). Other teams, for example Wondermonger, played a mere 11%.

While this randomization wasn't a huge problem, the issue was how the points were calculated. My team was actually 2-1 in the season against Never Unlucky, the top ranked team. However, when we beat them we were awarded 24 points for each of our wins. On the contrary, we also were awarded 17, just 7 points less for beating the aforementioned Wondermonger who were one of only two teams to finish behind us. Equally disturbing was our 0-10 record against Provance Farms. While we got flat dominated for the majority of those games, we still lost on average 13 points per game in those losses against a far superior opponent, while conversely losing 15 when losing to Creativity (the second team that unfortunately finished in last).

As you can clearly imagine, there was basically on average a 5 point difference for beating a top ranked team versus a bottom ranked team and even less of a difference for losing against the top ranked teams versus the bottom ranked clubs. 5 points / 500 is only 1% of the total points given to each team at the beginning of the tournament. This is insignificant given the magnitude of talent on the top teams versus the bottom.

I came up with a "quick fix" for the point system that is already in place by altering the formula.

Basically the new formula would award points based off of the Win % of the losing team.
The new point gains would be as follows:
10 + ((Win % * Total Points)/20).

The Losing team would lose the (Win % * Total Points)/20) of their point total without the additional 10.

I made a quick table using the August 1st Season final standings. The PTS AVAIL column represents what a team would gain for beating the current team while the PTS LOSS column is what that team would be docked for losing their next game. This would result in a lot more reshuffling off the points as large amounts would be up for grabs from teams with higher win percentages and higher number of points. It effectively creates a catch-22. The higher percentage of games you win, the higher percentage of points you can potentially lose.




There are two "flaws" with my new formula. One, is that when teams have 0 win percentage (like at the start of the season), they aren't eligible to lose any points. A fix for this is to either a)make a base case for a net loss of 10 points if the team Win % is 0, or b) treat all 0 Win % teams as .500 and therefore eligible to lose approximately 13 points in their very first game (and decreasing with each successive loss as their total points is reduced).

The second "flaw" with my system is that with the larger amount of points at stake the better teams would be less inclined to play games and risk giving up their points. A quick and easy solution for this is to penalize inactive teams. If a team fails to play or schedule a game for a 96hour window, they should be docked 10 or 20 points for every proceeding day they do not play.

I do not claim to be a math genius or some sort of gift to the NHL series, but I do enjoy offering up ideas for potential solutions to "problems" that could make this league better. Obviously these numbers could be altered or scaled differently as the league sees fit. I don't expect this idea to be used verbatim next tournament, but it is something to think about and [MENTION=6796]NugeTV[/MENTION] literally has my number if you would like me to come on board and explore this point system further.

On an unrelated noted, good luck to all the teams for the remainder of the Pro Series playoffs!