|
I have been looking at the NASL standings on the NASL website and I don't like the point system at all. I think it is very flawed.
I'll tell you why. For example Incontrol is on the top of his group with 2 points. This is because he won both of his matches 2-1. Therefore, he gained 1 point from each match as he won one more game than his opponent. QXC is on -4 points as he lost both his matches 0-2. QXC could potentially be on -2 points if he won the 3rd game in each match had it been played out.
Now if NASL made it so every match was to have all 3 matches played out then this point system would be fine. But I can not make myself agree with this system the way it is. I think it is terrible, and come week 9 it could make a huge difference with people having lost matches 1-2 instead of loosing 0-2 if a 3rd game was not played.
People may overlook this and think it makes no difference. Come the last week of divisional play when only one point differentiates 2nd and 3rd place in a division, people may realise that players could of made up some points had they played a third match in the matches where they lost 0-2.
Please don't be BM if you don't understand the point system. Just give your thoughts and whether you would agree that this needs to be changed for next season!
Poll: What is your opinion on the NASL Point System?Do you think NASL's point system is flawed and should be changed? (39) 72% Do you think NASL's point system is fine the way it is? (15) 28% 54 total votes Your vote: What is your opinion on the NASL Point System? (Vote): Do you think NASL's point system is flawed and should be changed?
(Vote): Do you think NASL's point system is fine the way it is?
|
After giving consideration to your proposal, I agree and disagree with it.
Agree: If you are doing the difference in games, then everyone should be playing the same number of games total.
Disagree: If someone loses 2-0 then thats his fault. I dont see that they should have the luxury of playing another game if they have already lost the first two...
Thats just my two cents tbh...
|
Yea I can understand that but whether or not someone looses 2-0 a third game should still be played in my opinion due to the way the points work.
|
I didn't even know they did it that way. That does seem like a quite horrible point system. Your point is valid, they should play all three games no matter what.
|
United Kingdom38257 Posts
There is nothing to say players who lost 0-2 wouldn't have just lost 0-3 instead if they played all 3 games.
There is nothing to say players who won 2-0 wouldn't have just won 3-0 instead if they played all 3 games.
Everyone plays the same number of bo3 matches total, if you aren't good enough on the day to take a map off your opponent that's nobody's fault but yours.
You also shouldn't be looking at this through purely a losers perspective, it rewards players who are dominant enough to win 2-0 just as much as it harms people who lose in one sided fashion.
|
On April 23 2011 19:38 Asha` wrote:
There is nothing to say players who lost 0-2 wouldn't have just lost 0-3 instead if they played all 3 games.
There is nothing to say players who won 2-0 wouldn't have just won 3-0 instead if they played all 3 games.
Everyone plays the same number of bo3 matches total, if you aren't good enough on the day to take a map off your opponent that's nobody's fault but yours.
You also shouldn't be looking at this through purely a losers perspective, it rewards players who are dominant enough to win 2-0 just as much as it harms people who lose in one sided fashion.
Yea your right, and I'm not looking at this from a loser's or winner's perspective. I'm just saying that given the current point system if matches don't have all 3 games played then this is going to effect the potential of the players points come the end of the season. It works both ways, it could benefit some and not benefit others. At the end of day it is unfair that someone has played 5 less or more games than someone else at the end of the season, for example, if a player has played 25 games and another player has played only 22 games then the player who has played 22 games could have potentially earned an extra 3 points which may or may not point him in the top 2 of his division. This wouldn't be an issue if each match gave the same amount of points for a win and same amount for a loss.
|
On April 23 2011 19:45 Ashby wrote:
for example, if a player has played 25 games and another player has played only 22 games then the player who has played 22 games could have potentially earned an extra 3 pointss.
As the other guy explained. while that is true, those extra 3 games for player A could have also been loses which wud have placed him even lower in the ladder. you cant argue that they have more chances to win points (because they've played more) because if those extra games were played, the players with less games would have an equivalent chance to lose more points
your argument is just saying that they don't have the same potential to generate points because they play less games. but because they aren't playing the extra games.. they also have less potential to lose points
if all the series were Bo21 and not Bo3 then the point results and ladder placements would also be more precise. its just to time consuming
|
The match is over when someone wins the bo3. If they didn't win 1 game, they don't get a point. Giving players 1 extra chance to earn 1 point just for the sake of being able to get a point isn't fair to the players who legitimately earn their win in the course of the bo3.
The league is determined by record and not points; points is a subsidiary ranking. If you have two players who go 0-9 , and one guy lost 0-2 and the other guy lost 1-2 each week... you want to give the guy who lost 1-2 an edge because he barely lost each week. If you let them play 3 games regardless of result that messes it up.
|
I have no problem with the current scoring system. The -2 for an 0-2 sweep as opposed to the -1 for a 1-2 loss is just more incentive not to get swept.
|
i think it's not a big deal, it's more likely that this favors the looser cause if he loses 0-2 then he'll probably lose 0-3 so he loses 2 points instead of 3. On the other hand i don't think that the winner feels bad about this since it's the same rule for everybody, no one will win 3points per match.
So i think it's ok !
|
I think the point system should be as in football i.e 2 (or 3) points for a win, 1 point for a tie and 0 point for a loss. Only two games should be played in total so that a tie is possible. There's no perfect system so let's wait see. I have a feeling though that when a few games have been played then there will be a huge difference in points between top and bottom in the leagues and, as a consequence, the top players will go for 2-1, 1-2 matches to stay in the top of the league since this is more favorable.
|
On April 26 2011 05:16 Mactator wrote:
I think the point system should be as in football i.e 2 (or 3) points for a win, 1 point for a tie and 0 point for a loss. Only two games should be played in total so that a tie is possible. There's no perfect system so let's wait see. I have a feeling though that when a few games have been played then there will be a huge difference in points between top and bottom in the leagues and, as a consequence, the top players will go for 2-1, 1-2 matches to stay in the top of the league since this is more favorable.
Yeah the point system should be a set amount for a win/loss. I just think this is a terrible system that they have going at the moment. I haven't ever seen a point system that works the same way as NASL's does. I agree it can benefit or not benefit the looser/winner, and yes if someone looses 0-2 they could end up loosing 0-3 or loosing 1-2 if a third game is played. To me the system is REALLY BAD and should just be changed to a normal system with a set amount of points for a win/loss/draw (even though a draw shouldn't be possible due to rematches).
|
I agree with the TE, it seems really stupid.
Why not just do it like that:
2:0 = 2 or 3 Points to winner.
2:1 = 1 or 2 Points to winner.
Allways -1 or -2 to loser no matter the actual result.
Or even better:
Just don't give -Points at all to the loser...
|
I don't see any problem with the current point system.
I don't think there will be that big of a controversy that will stem from this, but lets wait and see.
|
I actually like the current point system. Having the zero sum type system is fine. I see it this way.
If you dominate your opponent and go 2-0 you get +2 he gets -2. You were much better, and get some reward for it.
However, if you go down to basically a best of 1 series then for winning the best of 1 you only get 1-point but for losing you also only lose 1-point. It was a coin toss, you each won and lost a game. Over time I expect that the majority of matches will go all 3 games as skill evens out.
Since the 10-week play is all by division this will have the strongest players gravitate to the top because they will win 2-0 more often pushing the weakest division players to the bottom and allowing for a mid-range group.
The only thing giving negative points does is make it zero sum. Because all play is within the division and not interdivisional getting 0 for a loss has no benefit.
|
I personally think a bo3 win is a bo3 win and it shouldn't be differentiated if it was 2-1 or 2-0. Just +1 for a bo3 win, and +/- 0 for a bo3 loss.
|
It's a tiebreaker. Currently the possible results are:
Win 2-0, get 1 win, 2 points
Win 2-1 get 1 win, 1 point
Lose 1-2 get 0 win, -1 point
Lose 0-2 get 0 win, -2 points
There is no flaw here. Your suggestion is to make it so that the possible points distribution to (3,1,-1,-3) with no changes to the wins. That is fine too, but strange from the perspective of forcing players to play a unnecessary third game, which isn't usually done. You are also increasing the already-large number of games to be played.
Is there any real benefit to your system to call theirs terrible?
|
You guys know that the first ranking criteria is wins, and then points is used as a tiebreaker?
Like someone with 8 wins 4 points will rank higher than someone with 7 wins 11 points.
|
Kinda weird to have your poll answers be questions 
|
As long as it is used as a tiebreaker between players with the same number of wins it's fine, but it would obviously have major failings as a ranking system.
|
I have no problems with it, if you lose the first two games you should be penalized more than someone who won one of the first two games. That's how a best of system works, the order of the games matter and I think it's very fair.
|
On June 02 2011 12:34 Count9 wrote:
I have no problems with it, if you lose the first two games you should be penalized more than someone who won one of the first two games. That's how a best of system works, the order of the games matter and I think it's very fair.
And you're opinion is part of the minority of opinions as most people disagree with the system.
|
I think NASL should atleast give some mention on their site how the point system works. It's really confusing the first time looking at the rankings and wondering why how two people who have the same record (example: 6-1) can have two very different point ranking. If NASL wants to reach more people, they should have a point system that is easy enough to understand at the face value.
|
I think it is a fair ranking system.
|
On June 03 2011 23:37 LotsofLuck wrote:
I think NASL should atleast give some mention on their site how the point system works. It's really confusing the first time looking at the rankings and wondering why how two people who have the same record (example: 6-1) can have two very different point ranking. If NASL wants to reach more people, they should have a point system that is easy enough to understand at the face value.
yeah your point is valid
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
