Tuesday, March 29, 2011

NPPL Pro Brackets: Scoring

Not only does the new NPPL Pro format invest one third of its schedule in games that are "play if necessary" but with the brackets of 4 teams in each of four brackets the odds are (particularly over the course of a season) there will numerous results requiring resolution by tie-breaker. (Something regular readers know I find contrary to the ideals of competition.) Anyway, with 4 teams in each bracket the possible outcomes are as follows: (Wins) 3, 2, 1, 0. 3, 1, 1, 1. 2, 2, 2, 0. 2, 2, 1, 1. That's it. There are no other outcomes. 50% of the time the outcome is clear cut. 50% of the time the result will be determined by some sort of tie-breaker, and in this case it will be highest average score. (The first tie-breaker is matches won which doesn't apply. The second is head-to-head and with three teams tied [group 2 & 3] that doesn't apply either. The third tie-breaker is total points scored divided by games played or highest average score.) Since the third tie-breaker is highest average score it would seem the fewer games a team plays the better but that isn't actually correct. It's true if a team loses single games in matches it eventually wins--because that dilutes their scoring average. But in matches a team loses every extra game won increases a team's scoring average. The moral of the math is win matches 2-0 and if you gotta lose do it 2-1 for your best chance of moving on. That may seem obvious but look at this way. Two teams play 7 games each and end up 2 matches won and one match lost. First team goes 2-1 in a match it won and the second team went 1-2 in the match it lost. Who goes through? First team went 4-3 in games won/lost. The second team went 5-2 in games won/lost for the higher scoring average. So here we go again. Btw, the Millennium does the same damned thing--and has for years--like you didn't already know that. What the hell is the matter with you people?


Anonymous said...

Welcome to pool play.

The only alternative is a head-to-head tournament, where a team can get knocked out their first match. Is that your preference?

Baca Loco said...

Waddya mean the only alternative? What about the way we played until the latest geniuses decided Race 2-2 was better?
Call me crazy but the pro teams actually played many of the other pro teams, the schedule was easily controlled and the results were simple and clear cut.

Has anybody suggested to ESPN how loud the grandstand could get if they allow snake side coaching?

Anonymous said...

The old way, where tiebreakers almost always determined who advanced, and the tiebreakers were between teams that didn't even play each other or the same opponents?

Baca Loco said...

Wow, Anon, you must be heavy into the NPPL blow. The old way you played half the division and highest overall scores moved on. Once in the prelims, once in a sort of quarterfinal round robin. Everybody in contention played everybody else to determine the semifinalists. Tie-breakers were almost never an issue.

Are you here from alternate paintball universe?

Anonymous said...

I forgot you only talk about Pros. I was more referring to the other divisions, but even in the Pro division where you played everyone, tiebreakers were a factor almost all the time. You just seem to be changing the definition of tiebreaker if it helps your bitching.

The old way, the first tiebreaker was a combination of pulls and eliminations/live players, then head to head, then some other crap. In the new way, the first tiebreaker is head-to-head, then the number of games lost.

Breaking ties by an extra live body or two doesn't appear to be better than doing so by number of games lost.

Baca Loco said...

Again, Anon? If you didn't like the way things used to work you should'a said something. However given that your track record for making accurate statements vis-a-vis the topic isn't particularly inspiring so maybe you shouldn't.
If you don't like my bitchin' feel free to piss off. I don't recall inviting you.
Body count was not a tie-breaker, but nice, if disingenuous, try. Body count was part of your accumulated game score. It wasn't ideal but it was better than it's replacement.

Anonymous said...

So if NPPL were to change the scoring so that it's 20 points for each match won and 1 point for each game won, including a bonus point for winning the first two games in a match, you would then be satisfied that matches are not decided by tiebreakers?

What if the scoring system was number of flags hung, then first tiebreaker is number of flags pulled, then next tie breaker is double the number of eliminations plus the number of live players? Would you be upset that the team that advances would frequently be decided by the second tiebreaker?

Missy-Q said...

man, you can cut the air with a knife in here...

Baca Loco said...

That's not air.

Last time.
It is unsatisfactory when, to a greater or lesser degree, the outcome of a tournament that is supposed to represent the pinnacle of competitive paintball fails to determine clear winners and losers as a result of the actual competition.
After a fashion I imagine that's what the Supreme Command was thinking--if everything is a best of 3 there is a greater likelihood the best teams will rise to the top. Unfortunately it leaves everything below that a complete mess.
Your time is up.

Anonymous said...

So advancing because you lost fewer games than the other team isn't based on the competition, but advancing because you got 35 eliminations in 8 games and the other team only got 34 eliminations in 8 games IS based on competition?