On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, John T. Whelan wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>> The best thing to do to put ties in their proper place, and value wins
>>> appropriately, is to do what real football (soccer for you grid crazed
>>> Americans) does. Award three points for a win and one for a tie. This
>>> discourages playing for a tie but rewards a hard fought even effort.
>> Ack! Just say NO to non-zero-sum point systems. How do you calculate
>> winning percentages when some games are worth two points and others
>> worth three? And is a team's strength-of-schedule lower because they
>> play in a conference with a lot of ties?
> No, you misunderstood the system. ALL wins get three points and all ties
> get one, no overtime. The greater reward for a win makes it less
> attractive to play for a tie which is what necessitated regular season
> overtime originally.
No, you misunderstood my beef with the system. (Although I didn't
realize you were also advocating doing away with overtime. Not having
grown up a soccer--or college football--fan, I have some psychological
block against a situation where the outcome of the game is only
partially in doubt, i.e., a team is fighting to tie but doesn't have
time to win.) Games that someone wins are worth three points, but
tied games are only worth two points. (Similarly, in the current
silly NHL system, games that are won in overtime are worth three
points, while games won in regulation and tied games are worth only
two.) So if two teams split a pair of games, they each get three
points, but if they tie them both, they each get two. What are their
winning percentages in each case? Are they calculated out of 4 or 6
points? And if two of your opponents tie each other, does that make
your strength of schedule lower than if either one won (since your
opponents have fewer total points)?
John Whelan, Cornell '91
[log in to unmask]
http://www.amurgsval.org/joe/
Enjoy the latest Hockey Geek tools at slack.net/hockey
|
