2012 League Discussion

[Yoshi]

8 games with at least 6 different opponents sounds good indeed (8 different opponents may be a little too much ; then you could have situations like "I’d love to play you again but I need only different opponents)

[666]

@DarthMaximus:

Yeah we really like the shift down to 8 games.  Even looking at the last standings JWW posted, we had a few at 8, but we’d like to avoid the mass scramble we are seeing this year with everyone trying to get to 10 in the last minute (myself included).  I have like 6 games going now I thought would be done by Nov. 1 and its likely all won’t be.  Defintiely too much to try and get to 10 with tournaments and other versions out there.

In terms of scheduling, we like to keep things simple.  Look for a game, find opponent, and play.

Now, I could see no duplicate play until you play 6 (or 8 ) different people first.  That might be something to consider.  But the one drawback is number of active players at any given time.  Activity comes and goes throughout the year.  It seems like we have a good pool of active players but some might only play 1 game at a time.  So for those that like to have 3-4 games going at once it might be tough (at times) to find players if we go 8 different playes before you can do rematches.  But maybe we bump the minimum requirements to 8 games played against 6 (or 8 ) different opponents.  You can still do rematches at any time, but at least you’ll have to face off against 6 (or 8 ) different people.

We should simply limit the amount of multiple games per opponent to TWO. We then have the current weighted scoring systems for ties and hopefully this simply resolves this perceived fairness issue.

[gamerman01]

I’ve been thinking about league rules as well.

I am strongly opposed to the idea that you can’t play a 2nd game with someone until you’ve played several different people.
I am opposed to reducing the maximum between two players from 3 games to 2.
I am in favor of reducing the minimum # of games to 8.
I hope that if there is mutual agreement between players before G1, that the 72 hour rule could be relaxed.  Some players probably play mostly on the weekends, and I wouldn’t want them to feel deterred from the league.
I am in favor of players choosing their opponents.
I am strongly opposed to mandatory league matchups.  I enjoy tournaments, but have pretty much sworn I won’t play in another, because I keep getting matched up against players I don’t get along with.  I don’t want this to happen in league play also.
If there is to be a small tournament at the end (like the playoffs of major American sports), I would like to see it expanded to 8 players from 4.
I think a simple check for “strength of schedule” should be done.  For example, you are ineligible for the playoffs if you have 0 wins against league opponents with > .500 win percentages.  With this rule, I would be squeaking into the playoffs this year, because I have only defeated 1 player with > .500 win percentage.  Just an idea.  Another example is to make it ineligible if you have < 3 wins against a > .500 opponent.  The strength of schedule issue could be addressed in other ways, too.  This is just an idea, but I think it’s a good one.

I keep a spreadsheet matrix of all league results - who has played whom.  It is very easy to check strength of opponents using this spreadsheet.

[Zhukov44]

Couple thoughts for better league rules.

1.  I don’t think a strength of schedule formula would be too difficult to implement if we can come up with one that would work well with an Excel spreadsheet.  The standings would only need to be updated a few times a year, so that’s only a few math problems to solve per year.  Maybe a statistics whizz could volunteer to help administrate the league and carry out the math?

2.  I agree with Luckylindy that there needs to be a deadline ( I propose Aug.1 or Aug 15) where all league games started up to that point count for the league.  We could set up a committee to adjudicate games that are definitely not even, and the ones that are too close to call would be adjudicated as draws.  This is only fair to players who start games for one year’s league and don’t necessarily intend to compete in the next year’s league.

3.  I don’t know if it’s needed but it might be a good idea to have a short discussion in the rules warning against penalties for excessive psychological warfare in a game.  Ie if table-talk gets out of hand, or arguing about stats from biased perspectives, and most of all, excessive dice whining.  For the most part everyone playing here is gracious and honorable, so I can’t single out any one user in this regard.  But in rare instances I’ve noticed the table talk can get out of hand and it can seem like the trash-talker is employing a page out of Sun Tzu’s playbook and attempting to rattle the opponent and goad him into a mistake.  Naturally this is a minor issue so there should be multiple warnings before any overt penalties in such cases.  Of course, if the majority here feel psy warfare is part of the game, then I can understand that, though I don’t necessarily agree.

[Zhukov44]

Some additional remarks on #3 above (I’m overly used to being able to edit forum posts!!).  The intention is definitely not to stifle free speech.  The only intention is to protect the rights of the other user.  What I’d propose is if a user feels the trash talk is getting out of hand, they state in thread that they want a game w/o tabletalk and send a note to mod.  If objectionable table talk continues, the abuser gets a 2nd warning.  If nastiness continues after the 2nd warning, then we can talk penalties.

[gamerman01]

@Zhukov44:

Couple thoughts for better league rules.

1.  I don’t think a strength of schedule formula would be too difficult to implement if we can come up with one that would work well with an Excel spreadsheet.  The standings would only need to be updated a few times a year, so that’s only a few math problems to solve per year.  Maybe a statistics whizz could volunteer to help administrate the league and carry out the math?

Have you seen my league results spreadsheet yet, Zhuk?  I just uploaded it last night.

Another brainstorming suggestion for strength of schedule:
A point system:
(For those meeting the minimum, say 8 games)
1 point for each win (with a limit? say 12 or 14)
1 point for each win against an opponent with minimum (5? 6? 8?) games played and has a winning record.  Or a .600 record.  Something like that.

• 1 point for each loss
• 1/2 point for each loss to an opponent with minimum games played and has a winning record.

Top 4 (or 8) point earners go to playoffs, seeded by points earned.

So player A is 12-2.  He has 4 wins against opponents that have played 8 games and also have winning records.  1 of the losses came to a player who had the minimum threshhold met and was a winning player.  Player A has 14 1/2 points.
Player B is 15-8.  He has 5 wins against winners.  4 losses to winners.  Player B has 14 points.

Just consider the concept.  The weighting of points, minimum games played, and winning percentage that defines a “winning player” or a “quality opponent” could all be tweaked.

[gamerman01]

@Gamerman01:

Player B is 15-8.  He has 5 wins against winners.  4 losses to winners.  Player B has 14 points.

Or 13 points if the limit is 14 points for # of wins.  Or 11 points if 12 is the limit for # of wins.  So under my hypothetical system, the maximum possible # of points would be 28.  (14-0 or better, with at least 14 wins against quality opponents)

[Yoshi]

I’m not a big fan of “more you play more you have points”. Here for instance, if you play only 8 games would have a very few chances to go in the playoff, and this just because he didn’t play enough.

We all have a personal life ;)

[gamerman01]

@Yoshi:

I’m not a big fan of “more you play more you have points”. Here for instance, if you play only 8 games would have a very few chances to go in the playoff, and this just because he didn’t play enough.

We all have a personal life ;)

Read it again, Yoshi.  Each loss makes you lose a point, and there could be a maximum.  You do not necessarily get more points the more you play.  If you play 8 games and go 7 and 1 and your 7 games are against mostly quality opponents, you have a very good chance for playoffs.  I’m not sure you’re clear on what you’re rejecting.  Where is your suggestion?

I don’t see the tournament as a big deal, personally.  I’d just as soon not even play in it.  I just like to have league standings and see how I do, and see the records of others.  But my brainstormed system is an improvement on the current one.

I’m definitely not a fan of highest win percentage alone.

[gamerman01]

@Gamerman01:

I don’t see the tournament as a big deal, personally.

I mean the playoff at the end.

[Zhukov44]

With regard to the games played debate, I suggest there be 2 different playoffs.

One division where the minimum is 16-20 games, and another division where the minimum is 8-10 games.  The top 2 from each division get into the playoffs.

Or 2 4-person tournaments for each category, if preferred.

[boldfresh]

I think something like Gamer’s point system has merit.  A player that plays the minimum number of games should have to beat more quality opponents to make the playoff.  Someone who plays many more games than the min but against weaker players must be penalized.  I’m sure with the math whizzes on here a great system could be developed.  :-)

[DarthMaximus]

Okay, I deleted a bunch of post I thought were derailing the thread.  If you made a league suggestion and it was deleted in a post, you’ll have to make the suggestion again.

All user inputs are valid whether you played 1 game, 100 or never played in the league.  My goal (and that of the league) is to get as many people playing as possible.

[DarthMaximus]

Since scoring has seemed to take on the most discussion, I’ll address that.

Some of the suggestions have merit, but you also have to remember simplicity is very important.  Since neither JWW or I want to spend all day tallying points or whatever.

In terms of a weighted system, or points per win (more points for beating better players), we used a system like that for the Revised league in both '07 and '08.  At the end of the year players were ranked by win %.  Then each given a point value.  So if we had 50 players who completed a game the best player would be 50, the next best 49, an avg player would be in the 25 pt range, and the worst would be 1.  So If you beat the best you’d get 50 but if you beat the worst you’d only get 1, etc.  I think it was pretty accurate, but in terms of results it wasn’t much different then just using straight up win% so it didn’t make sense to do the extra work for little benefit.

Take this years league and top players trying to get into the playoffs:

(as of last posted standings)
Gamerman - 12-1
Zhuk - 7-1
LL - 7-1
DutchD - 6-1
RD - 6-1
JWW - 8-3

Please demostrate a scoring system that will come up with a differend (better?) ranking of players.  Are these not the top 6 league players (in some order)?
Also the “NEW” scoring system cannot penalize players for only playing the minimum and cannot reward players who can play 20+ games (ie X points per win).

Please note, I’m only using the currents standings and these 6 players as an example, I’m not trying to single anyone out.

If there is an argument of who should get in, there should be, we have 4 players with 1 loss and not yet at 10 games.

IMO, it is very hard to get to 9, 10 wins, even if you try and cherry pick opponents.  It is also hard to not play people.  You still need to post in the looking for a game thread, and anyone can respond.  Based on the standings I just posted, I find it hard to believe that none of the top 6 have played each other.  I of course know for a fact that many of the top 6 have played each other.  And don’t forget there is still the playoff.  The bottom line is you are going to have to play and beat “good” players at some point.

Now I certainly understand the issue of delaying a win/loss to help your playoff standing, but IMO that is a different issue then scoring/ranking.

–--------------

Other issues:

We won’t expand the playoffs.  JWW and I already talked about it and we want each seasons playoffs to end as quickly as possible.  With 6 players (with byes), or 8 we honestly porbably wouldn’t finish until Summer.  That’s just too long.

I could see a scenerio where we go back to Major and Minor Leagues.  As Zhuk mentioned, we’d do something like 8-12 for the minor, and 12+ for major.  That way players that do play tons of games aren’t necessarily punished for playing lots of games.  Afterall I want to encourage games to be played and not have a bunch of people that just paly 8 and go 7-1 and then sit out hoping to make the playoffs.
I also want to give poepl a shot at something if they start out 0-2 or 0-3.  At least those players could play and try and rebound and maybe get into the major league playoff with a 9-5 record or something.

A deadline for games might be considered, but there will be no judgmet system.  Niether JWW or I want to try and figure out who is winning some 15 rd game.  Pehaps we come up with something simple like most VCs at Nov 1 wins or if you took a Capital (if both players agreed when they started the game will end on Nov. 1).  But even that has flaws.  But again remember we want the league to be simple, and JWW and I are not looking to take on more work for ourselves.  Like all of you guys we do have other priorities.

The 72 rule.  Not to post a loophole to our own rule, but it is only a violation if your opponent posts bump.  If you agreed to take on a game with a weekend player or someone says that they can only post on certain days, that is fine.  JWW and I are not going to be checking game threads.

---

Keep the ideas coming (Please stick to rule suggestions)  :-D

But also post potential solutions if you have them with the thinking that JWW and I want to keep this simple and easy to maintain.

[gamerman01]

If you haven’t already, download the spreadsheet I posted on the league results thread.  You can see exactly who played who and what the results were.  It could also help you in deciding how to pick playoff participants.

I agree the top 6 currently in league standings are all deserving of playoff, so win percentage seems to work well enough.  (I am still over-rated, by the way.  I am probably losing to Lucky, and Darth Maximus has me in a serious jam early)  I see Darth just knocked off Zhukov, so apparently that summer course really paid off.

Really the playoff doesn’t prove much of anything anyway, it’s just for fun, right?  So being excluded from the playoffs shouldn’t be a big deal anyway.  Heck, I might decline to play in the playoffs this year even if I qualify.  A single game doesn’t prove much.  That’s why in baseball right now they’re playing best of 7.

My point system is very simple and I could tell you how many points everyone has in about a half hour, so I don’t think administering it would be very time consuming at all.  But I now agree that with a respectable minimum # of games (8 or so), straight win percentage is fine for picking the playoff participants.  It’s not like there’s a $100 cash prize at the end.

[DarthMaximus]

I’ll have to take a look at your SS.

Edit:

And yes, this is all for fun.  :-D
We all get competitve at times, but it is important to remember the “fun” factor.  :-D

[666]

@Gamerman01:

If you haven’t already, download the spreadsheet I posted on the league results thread.  You can see exactly who played who and what the results were.

Hello Gamerman, yes I have and it is nearly identical to the spreadsheet that I use to calculate the current standings. I sometimes wonder if I miss anything but nobody has stated as such and I figured if I missed a win or a loss for someone I would hear about it. Thanks for sharing this document.

[Guest]

@DarthMaximus:

Some of the suggestions have merit, but you also have to remember simplicity is very important.  Since neither JWW or I want to spend all day tallying points or whatever.

I agree with you and JWW…simplicity keeps the league going

[Guest]

If the league was officially started on Nov. 1 and ran through to say Sept. 1 of the next year, would it be possible to expand the playoffs to 6 or 8 players? That would give players 10 months to play 10 games and 4 months for the playoffs. Would a 6 or 8 man playoff make sense for you guys then? Just a thought.

[666]

@ExtraBilly:

If the league was officially started on Nov. 1 and ran through to say Sept. 1 of the next year, would it be possible to expand the playoffs to 6 or 8 players? That would give players 10 months to play 10 games and 4 months for the playoffs. Would a 6 or 8 man playoff make sense for you guys then? Just a thought.

At the moment, it appears that the majority of players are having difficulty getting to 10 games, thus we are planning on reducing the qualifying number of games played to 8 for next season. Personally, I am opposed to “byes”, therefore increasing the qualifiers to 6 wouldn’t make sense to me. Also, I want to make the “playoffs” start and end in a relatively short time frame while also rewarding the strongest players. With that said, I am a bit stuck on “4” for the playoffs.

FYI…if you haven’t participated in a tournament you should check them out. They are designed a bit differently and might be appealing to you.