Jump to content
NHL'94 Forums

Forefit wins


Guest BSDaemon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest BSDaemon

There has been lots of discussion lately about ways to handle DNPs and FFs. I've come up with a way to make it fair for everybody.

After DNP's have been determined, it then becomes an issue of handing out forefit wins.

Not giving out FF wins is unfair to the coach, because they made an honest attempt to play the games, which they very well may (or may not) have won

Giving out FF wins without limits is unfair to the rest of the league, as it alters the standings without any sort of rhyme or reason. It's not right to give somebody a win for a game they didn't play under the assumption that they would win.

So basically, it's impossible to determine if a coach would have won or lost a game that was never played, and so, we need to turn to... statistics.

Really, my idea is simple. Tie the number of FF wins to the coach's win %.

As an example, look at Vancouver in SNES B. He went 9-11 which is a .450 win %

I think for his remaining 20 games, rather then 20 FF wins (which is 40 points - Enough to put him in 1st place!) ... he should be given FF wins equivalent to his win %, which would be 9, making his final record 18-22, which is a .450 win %

Another example:

SNES B LA is 24-7 (.774), and so his FF wins should be 7, giving him a season finish of 31-9 (.775). The idea being that in his 9 remaining games, it would safe to assume, based on his win percentage, that he would lose 2 of his 9 games.

Does this sound good to you guys? I mean... I can't see anyone arguing against its fairness.... I mean, if I lost 25% of my games during most of the season, I think it would be fair to assume that I would lose 25% of my games for the entire season.

Just a thought.... any opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds fair enough...although ultimately leagues are striving to find guys to play all 40 games..like you did...

i like the idea that someone had mentioned in another post of a forfeit team being deducted a point...so forfeit winner (2 pts) forfeit loser(-1pt)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BSDaemon
sounds fair enough...although ultimately leagues are striving to find guys to play all 40 games..like you did...

i like the idea that someone had mentioned in another post of a forfeit team being deducted a point...so forfeit winner (2 pts) forfeit loser(-1pt)

Well the problem is that somebody who gets 20 FF wins is going to be a lot higher in the standings then somebody who played all of their games. That's 40 points!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just about to post something similar, after seeing that I almost beat out kgboy based on forfeit ties. Kgboy played all his games -- it would have been pretty unfair for me to have beaten him into the playoffs based on 5 extra points from games I didn't play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the problem is that somebody who gets 20 FF wins is going to be a lot higher in the standings then somebody who played all of their games. That's 40 points!!

I doubt we had anyone receive as many as 20 FF wins this season. There were only an average of 2 unplayed games per team in GENS A and 3 in GENS B. In SNES it was much worse - 6 in SNES B and a whopping 9 in SNES A. Still, a ton of those are unlikely to end up as FF wins.

But, more importantly, I sincerely sincerely doubt we'll come close to these figures in future seasons. This is for two reasons.

1) I believe the league is going to be much more on top of rotating out coaches who can't complete their commitments, and

2) I believe that the procedures for claiming points for unplayed games are going to be tightened up. I think it will be FAR less effort to simply play a 10-minute game of video game heaven, than it will be to successfully claim points for an unplayed game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the winning percentage method would be good as well, but how do you decide which games they win or lose. You'd have to calculate for all the ff games together and figure out a way to get to the win percentage they currently have. Its just too complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BSDaemon
But, more importantly, I sincerely sincerely doubt we'll come close to these figures in future seasons. This is for two reasons.

Well, I would like to think that these rules would never need to be enforced past this season, but they should be in place anyway.

I thought the winning percentage method would be good as well, but how do you decide which games they win or lose. You'd have to calculate for all the ff games together and figure out a way to get to the win percentage they currently have. Its just too complicated.

It really doesnt matter which ones they win or lose, either way, the opponent who is taking the forefit loss still gets 0 points in the standings. it doesnt affect the forefit loser. So it really makes no difference which games get made into FF wins. It's not complicated at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BSDaemon
But then you get the idea that you are losing possible points because some guy was a dick and didn't make himself available to play you. ITs a hard thing. There needs to be minimum games played requirements next season.

On the contrary. With this method, you are getting the points you deserve - no more, no less. If you can think of a better way, I'm all ears.

As I've already said, unless you can produce a crystal ball to determiine what the outcome of the games would have been, basing it on statistics is the most logical and fair option. There is no perfect black and white rule - but this gets us as close to that as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really just think everybody has to play a full schedule, if you don't play for x number of days without reason you get emailed and if you don't answer you get the boot. That will kill inactivity and then the full schedule will be played and ff wins or losses won't have to be dealt with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this, next season teams are ranked by GAMES PLAYED. If two teams have the same number of games played, then it's decided by points. No forfeits, no DNP's, none of that bs. Ideally, this will encite everyone to play 40 games so this rule won't matter.

This is the best way to reward people who actually play their games. What? I'm 5-35 and the #1 seed in the conference? Don't like it? Play your games and unseat me!

-Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BSDaemon
How about this, next season teams are ranked by GAMES PLAYED. If two teams have the same number of games played, then it's decided by points. No forfeits, no DNP's, none of that bs. Ideally, this will encite everyone to play 40 games so this rule won't matter.

This is the best way to reward people who actually play their games. What? I'm 5-35 and the #1 seed in the conference? Don't like it? Play your games and unseat me!

-Greg

#1 seed? lol what? From what I can see, you're in 9th, not even in the playoffs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh okay.

It still seems like you don't understand.

Greg is saying that the first statistic used for standings could be games played. So if someone is 5-35 but the only person with 40 games played, he would be in first place, until someone with a better record also played 40 games.

He's not saying that he himself is in first right now. He's giving a hypothetical example to illustrate the system he was throwing out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...