In addition, I'd like announce my withdrawal from playoff contention and give the win to Riggins Rigs. The loss is not mine, but yours, as the rest of the Metabos will not be able to bear witness to Tebow's inevitable championship run. My Optimus Primetime Super Bowl winner t-shirts will now be shipped off to some third world country, never to be seen again.
However, I'd like to correct our esteemed commissioner on the tie breaker. While I agree wholeheartedly with the sequence of tie breakers he's using, by my estimation, Andrew and I's record against common opponents are equal, so we should move to #4, "Points scored in head-to-head matchups." (In which I would win actually).
- Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs)
- Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division
- Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games
- Points scored in Head-to-head matchups
- Points scored in games played within the division
See, using nfl.com, the very site Oliver used to pull his tie breaker rules from, it states (near the bottom) that: "In comparing records against common opponents among tied teams, the best won-lost-tied percentage is the deciding factor, since teams may have played an unequal number of games."
Also, on Wikipedia, that fount of truth, #3 says: "Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games (games played against the same opponents)." Which additionally supports my case that "common games" is synonymous with "common opponents."
Giving half a win or half a loss due to multiple games against dissimilar opponents shouldn't matter. We are both 6-6 versus all the "common opponents" we shared, even if we played specific ones an uneven amount of games. The NFL tie breaker law clearly states -- on multiple sources -- that "common opponents" is the key, not "common games" as Oliver seems to interpret the rule.
I hope you'll agree that the strict interpretation of the rules logically lead to my position.
In summary, I'd like to wish Andrew and his team the best, and I hope that his strong morals will guide him to a Super Bowl trophy. It has been a pleasure playing with you all and should we meet again, expect no mercy.
Disagree about the tiebreaker. We are breaking a tie WITHIN a division. If you apply the "common games" tiebreak WITHIN A DIVISION (in the nfl), you will NEVER come across a situation where the teams face teams outside of their own division twice. Thus, in our league, we have a problem when Team A faces Team C twice and Team B only faces Team C once. What is Team C is a really crappy shitty team? That is unfair to team B who only got to face Team C once while Team A got to take advantage. This is why in my 2nd method I proposed taking "half" credit for each result against a team outside of the division that you played twice.
ReplyDeleteThis would still be up for debate, but I guess you cowardly withdrew from the debate because deep down, you know I'm right. :)
For next year, I'm changing the tiebreak rules and getting rid of this "Common Games" tiebreaker... it works for the NFL, but obviously not for our 10-team fantasy league. I'm a noob Commissioner and still learning! Any other suggestions will be noted for next year.
I agree with most of Jon's analysis, so I think we should evaluate the match up as if a rationale lineup had been started by Igor.
ReplyDeleteThe most logical lineup for Igor would have been:
QB: Big Ben: 18.2
WR: Antonio Brown: 25.1
WR: Welker: 20.6
RB: Chris Johnson: 11.6
RB: Murray: 4.1
TE: Olsen: 13.3 OR Owen Daniels 17
W/R: Helu: 15.2 OR Stevie Johnson: 15.6
K Janikowski: 2
D: NE: 12
Under the best scenario, where both Owen Daniels was picked up and started and Stevie Johnson was started, then Igor would have had 126.2, compared to Andrew at 127.64. Andrew would be the winner. Obviously under all other scenarios Igor would have also lost.
One caveat. I reject the case that Steven Jackson would have been started. Steven Jackson had been benched the week before and ended up scoring 4 fantasy points, thus vindicating the move to bench him. I don't think anything would have made Igor want to suddenly change his mind and start Steven Jackson this week. The Giants had given up 89 yards, 205 yards, and 136 yards in the past 3 weeks. Nothing special that would make me want to bench Murray.
If Igor would have won in the rationale scenario I would have wanted to tag Andrew with a loss, but it seems he would have won anyway so I'm comfortable keeping his win. As I am out of the playoffs, I don't really have any interest in who makes it, only in whats fair.
While I agree this is the most likely lineup, its hard to say for sure what would have happened. In cases like this one, as a penalty, I think the "optimal" lineup for the person who is cheated should be used to fill in the lineup.
ReplyDeleteI guess this is all a moot point if Optimus has withdrawn from playoff consideration. Unless he would like to retract his retraction...
PS - anyone in the league can logon to the blog at metabos.blogspot.com if they want to leave a comment which will then be emailed to the entire league.
Well, sure it would never happen in the NFL, yes, but it could happen in a fantasy league due to scheduling, which we couldn't account for before the season. The best we can do is stick to the letter of the law that Oliver posted in August. At worst wouldn't you use the wild card tie-breaker rules?
ReplyDeleteEither way, in the future I'd suggest going with more standard fantasy league tie breaks for just this reason. Oliver, I'd like be willing to vote on the debate if you like, because I know a higher power -- logic (and semantics) -- would make my point for me. Creating an arbitrary system where you assign 0.5 for each win/loss or some such would be stepping even further outside the bounds of the tie breakers you set up. I'd love to vote on it, and if you lose, you owe me 25% of your winnings. Game on?
Also, the idea that you can retroactively decide if a team would have won the game to make a decision would open the door for all sorts of shenanigans. For example, why not just throw a playoff game if the "penalty" would get your optimal lineup into the match? In my opinion, you have to assess the transgression without looking at who would have won because it's irrelevant to what happened. If we had discovered two teams had colluded beforehand, would we then just say "Oh, we'll just assume they just started such-and-such a lineup." No way, especially if we start projecting FA pickups to determine who could have won.
In any competitive leagues, cheating is rewarded with suspension, an automatic loss for the perpetrator, or even retroactive retribution. Not, "Well Team A was better than Team B anyway so we'll just give one of them the victory." I think you'd have to look at it in this light, the disservice and action done, rather than if a win was possible or not.
Having said all that, I have no problems stepping down because I'm a man of my word and my quarterback is a man of humility and faith. Tebow!
Why would you use wild card tie-breaker rules? The tiebreak between you and Rigs is a divisional tiebreak and should stick with the principals behind a divisional tiebreak.
ReplyDeleteIt may be more arbitrary, but it is still more fair, which is what I've been trying to go for all along. You still have not come up with an argument against the fact that if Team A can play a shitty team C twice when Team B can only play shitty team C once, how is that fair in including all those games in the tiebreak? Additionally, if we just include all games as you suggest, then tiebreak rule #3 is obsolete since you are in effect just including all games which we already know is a tie. (Though I kind of wish tiebreak #3 was obsolete so I could avoid this entire argument...)
I think this argumentation is more logical than retracting a potential playoff berth without waiting for a potential league vote that could come out in your favor!
I'm down to bet on the league vote and give you 25% of my winnings, but if you lose, then you owe me 25% of the expected value of my winnings. Assuming I have an even 25% shot at coming in 1st-4th, the expected value of 25% of $500 is $125. If you lose the league vote, you owe me $31.25.
The "penalty" will not always be "optimal lineup" ... as I said before, it would be whatever would have been best for the person that was cheated. So if you throw a playoff game for no reason, then you just lose. If you throw it to help a buddy, then you get optimal lineup.
Regardless, I agree that future tiebreak rules should (and will) be changed. For the 2nd or 3rd time, I am noob commissioner and will make every effort to make future iterations of league rules more coherent and sensible.