BuzzerBeater Forums

in the PO finals where a direkt matchup was silly because of the home court advantage ...

This is not the first time this argument is brought up and I don't understand. Without trying to be too cynical - when do we need a tie-breaker in the PO? We have 3 matches and the winners play each other, so a tie-breaker in the PO is not really an option, or am I losing something?

25-0 iain't a bad win, i have pretty less games with such a high differental

My biggest argument is against the second parameter - highest amount of points. I hope you score more than 25 points in a regular match, or else you are in trouble...

2nd parameter isn't point total, it's point differential.

Highest points is the third parameter, after points differential. This makes a 25-0 game not so bad if forced upon you, +25 is nice considering the blowout rule. As a Defensive minded team I realize at the outset that if I ever get into a tie-break situation that goes to the third parameter, I am probably on the losing end. Its a risk I take all season long, but only becomes pertinent right at the end of the season. I would imagine this discussion appears near the end of each season.

Were I a betting man, I would bet that the BB's want to keep the code as simple as possible in certain areas, and PO tiebreakers that need to evaluate schedules and/or other factors besides points would be considerably more code intensive. My skills in this area are amateur at best, lets call it an educated guess (and wait for the avalanche, lol).

Last edited by Heathcoat at 2/8/2009 2:29:26 AM

Just don't try to convince me that the best parameters are used, especially since in a case of a tie in points differences - you prefer the team with more points.

This sounds like a one-way conversation. I wont try and convince you of anything myself, as you are stating you wont listen to anything but what you allready believe. Not the best tact for open debate, imo.

You can, of course, talk about me instead of dealing with the topic. This was a figure of speach to clarify that after reading dozens of messages repeating the same few arguments over and over again, I doubt if you can bring a new convincing one.

Well, you obviously did not even try to.

And let me say to all of you, once more: I think that using this parameter because it is simpler is definitely legitimate and makes sense to me.
For using it - nobody has to convince me that it is the best one.
I trust the developers and if they say that the 'head to head score' is a more complicated parameter, and therefore they prefer not to use it, I accept it as is.

Still, if it is not too complicated, or if it becomes simpler in the future due to technological break throughs, I would love to see it implemented, since after listening to all arguments, I am really not convinced that points differencial reflects better the strengh of the teams/managers.

As for the second/third parameter (depends when you start to count): I did not read even one strong argument for the this parameter: total amount of points.
With the current system of 25-0 victories, (that some teams might have while others not necessarily) - and with the clever drive of the developers to make all tactics valid, with no benefit to 'high pace - high score' tactics, this parameter looks like not the best choice.

Since we talk about rare cases, we don't need to use this parameter too often, but if it can be improved with low cost , now, or in the future - I would like that.

This is all I am saying

:)

You can, of course, talk about me instead of dealing with the topic. This was a figure of speach to clarify that after reading dozens of messages repeating the same few arguments over and over again, I doubt if you can bring a new convincing one.

Well, you obviously did not even try to.

This was my attempt, feeble as it is:

Highest points is the third parameter, after points differential. This makes a 25-0 game not so bad if forced upon you, +25 is nice considering the blowout rule. As a Defensive minded team I realize at the outset that if I ever get into a tie-break situation that goes to the third parameter, I am probably on the losing end. Its a risk I take all season long, but only becomes pertinent right at the end of the season. I would imagine this discussion appears near the end of each season.

Were I a betting man, I would bet that the BB's want to keep the code as simple as possible in certain areas, and PO tiebreakers that need to evaluate schedules and/or other factors besides points would be considerably more code intensive

Sometimes I am too subtle. I suppose what I am trying to say is that perhaps this is poor timing for this arguement, as we are(were) right in the middle of determining PO seeding. Tough for anyone to be completely objective at this time as everything is at stake for many teams this week. I believe you have a valid arguement. We may just disagree on the importance of it. We know how the PO seeding works as is, and have all season to consider this in our ongoing strategies. Calling foul at this time seems....well....subjective.

Tough for anyone to be completely objective at this time as everything is at stake for many teams this week

.
Yes, I agree, although I am in the PO, without any tie-breaker, so I have no immediate interests

I believe you have a valid arguement.

Thank you. It was important to hear that.

We know how the PO seeding works as is, and have all season to consider this in our ongoing strategies. Calling foul at this time seems....well....subjective.

As I said in several of my posts:

It is not urgent...
If you find a way now or in the future...

I was never trying to call foul anyway. Sory if it looked that way. Since this topic was brought up - and some were trying to dismiss the idea as if it was totally irrelevant, it was important for me to support the idea.

Let me end my contribution to this thread by saying:

I love this game

:)

Points difference is the best way to take on tiebreakers let me give you some examples.
As a strongest team in my league (atleast that's how I look at it), I have lost 3 games 2 of them were crunched + some crunches that I still won. A lot of teams just want to win that one big match and season is not about one match. You might lose tiebreaker just because first game he crunches the second game 2 of your starters would be injured giving him the advantage. Now against the other conference team you get the random factor. In my league the leader of the other conference got drawn 3 of our best team at his homecourt now this gives him advantage on points anyway + he has better chance of winning all those. I have a good all around team but I might lose some head to heads because I want to get that extra money from the cup or manage minutes. I don't need people to start crunching just those 2 games and lose to some weaker opponents after the crunches to gain that tiebreaker advantage.
Bah too long:)

in the PO finals where a direkt matchup was silly because of the home court advantage ...

This is not the first time this argument is brought up and I don't understand. Without trying to be too cynical - when do we need a tie-breaker in the PO? We have 3 matches and the winners play each other, so a tie-breaker in the PO is not really an option, or am I losing something?

The question is who becomes home court if both finalist win X games ;)

My biggest argument is against the second parameter - highest amount of points. I hope you score more than 25 points in a regular match, or else you are in trouble...

But you ahve a good start for the second one, and mostly the other team get a 25-0 win.

PS: If i only get it and not the other one i would be happy, i have a high win, and a more easy game the next game.

And i don't like the head to head comparison, as long it is important thing of a gm to focus, that means that you sometimes lineup aloosing formation + tie, to win the other game the week and maybe if you go for the championsship is it clear which game could become a head to head comparision, but in the midfield it will become a mix betwen the schedule and luck on which opponent you focus better.

I would love to see it [head-to-head score] implemented, since after listening to all arguments, I am really not convinced that points differencial reflects better the strengh of the teams/managers.

I am not convinced head-to-head score is that much better either. It probably is if we expect each team to play every game as well as they can, but as a two-time Cup champion I find that an unfair assumption. Unless you have really deep pockets and therefore even more depth in your roster, you need to take risks in the league to advance in the Cup. I know that's how it is for my team anyway. This season I finished third in my conference, although I beat the team that finished first for the Cup title in an away game. One reason for the weaker league record is taking it easy in certain league games that I could've won if I were willing to risk my Cup run. While I'm not the favourite, I think I have a decent shot at the league title as well.

How does this play into the league and head-to-head scores? Well, you would need to plan ahead which head-to-head scores you need to win to maintain an edge come playoff seeding time without knowing the Cup schedule. While this might obviously show unparalleled managerial prowess as suggested, it would more likely be a sign of pure clairvoyance. The points differential takes this consideration out of the equation. You may still need to make sacrifices to do well in other competitions, but you're freer to make those sacrifices when needed. As many have pointed earlier, the head-to-head score is considered in the points differential, so those two games are the most important two games anyway -- however, they're not the only ones that count.

The head-to-head score is not completely fair in lower leagues either (where bots turn active, active teams turn bot, and the whole Cup run argument is perhaps out of the picture). Let's come up with a silly, but feasible example:

As the season begins Team A is active, Team B is bot. The first week Team A easily beats Team B (or even gets a 25 - 0 WO, if that's possible in any scenario). Week or two later, Team B gets a new owner. In their second game, Team B beats Team A by a few points. They finish with the same W/L record battling for the playoff spot, Team B has a better points differential (having played a strong season under the new owner). Why would Team A deserve to go to the playoffs in this case? They won the head-to-head sure, but are they really the overall stronger team? Of course, this is a pretty silly example, but there's still a good chance that points differential is in fact the better parameter in such cases. It certainly appears much more fair in this example.

Shortly, I am not convinced head-to-head score is really a better parameter than points differential. In my opinion, it is a very important factor, but I feel it is already pretty well reflected in the points differential.

Last edited by GM-WallyOop at 2/8/2009 4:13:18 AM

if they use the basketball rules in amatuer leagues..theyll use the points quotient system in breaking the tie.. lets say team a and b has the same 3-3 record but the but in 3 wins team A averages 98 pts against 95 of their opponent while the 3 wins of team B averages 100 against 80 pts of their opponent..then youll see the difference between the 2 teams

Last edited by Coach Rukawa at 2/10/2009 5:02:46 AM