|
On March 21 2012 02:44 hacklebeast wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 02:41 Game wrote:On March 21 2012 02:35 Eywa- wrote:On March 21 2012 01:17 Game wrote: Being that it's 1 week out of the playoffs, why is iFU above LRM) in 3rd when LRM) beat iFU? Tie breaker proceedure 1) Wins 2) Sets Won 3) Sets Lost 4) Head to head LRM has 2 CWs left whereas iFU only has one, if LRM beats iFU again, they will be ahead of iFU. But for the time being, strictly for aesthetic purposes, LRM) should be ahead of iFU given the only CW having gone 4-2, correct? (not saying to fix it if I am indeed right, just curious) same number of points same number of wins ifu has 57 set wins, lrm has 52 therefor ifu is ahead. head to head is the very last tie breaker. It was originally first until I considered the possibility of three way ties. So yes, Hacklebeast is correct.
|
On March 21 2012 02:44 hacklebeast wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 02:41 Game wrote:On March 21 2012 02:35 Eywa- wrote:On March 21 2012 01:17 Game wrote: Being that it's 1 week out of the playoffs, why is iFU above LRM) in 3rd when LRM) beat iFU? Tie breaker proceedure 1) Wins 2) Sets Won 3) Sets Lost 4) Head to head LRM has 2 CWs left whereas iFU only has one, if LRM beats iFU again, they will be ahead of iFU. But for the time being, strictly for aesthetic purposes, LRM) should be ahead of iFU given the only CW having gone 4-2, correct? (not saying to fix it if I am indeed right, just curious) same number of points same number of wins ifu has 57 set wins, lrm has 52 therefor ifu is ahead. head to head is the very last tie breaker. Still makes no sense because we have a higher win percentage, meaning we finish our opponents rather than drag on CW's, and also beat them. Regardless of ELO, logic is slapping me in the face right now.
Edit: 64-61% is what I mean by higher win %
|
On March 21 2012 02:53 Game wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 02:44 hacklebeast wrote:On March 21 2012 02:41 Game wrote:On March 21 2012 02:35 Eywa- wrote:On March 21 2012 01:17 Game wrote: Being that it's 1 week out of the playoffs, why is iFU above LRM) in 3rd when LRM) beat iFU? Tie breaker proceedure 1) Wins 2) Sets Won 3) Sets Lost 4) Head to head LRM has 2 CWs left whereas iFU only has one, if LRM beats iFU again, they will be ahead of iFU. But for the time being, strictly for aesthetic purposes, LRM) should be ahead of iFU given the only CW having gone 4-2, correct? (not saying to fix it if I am indeed right, just curious) same number of points same number of wins ifu has 57 set wins, lrm has 52 therefor ifu is ahead. head to head is the very last tie breaker. Still makes no sense because we have a higher win percentage, meaning we finish our opponents rather than drag on CW's, and also beat them. Regardless of ELO, logic is slapping me in the face right now. Edit: 64-61% is what I mean by higher win % Basically means iFU is ahead because they have played more CWs...
|
I now can't tell whether you are trying to understand what the rules are, or if you are trying to explain why the rules are deficient.
|
On March 21 2012 03:03 hacklebeast wrote: I now can't tell whether you are trying to understand what the rules are, or if you are trying to explain why the rules are deficient. Both, I'm boggled.
|
Ruh Roh, not the rules that are wrong... seems I forgot to give LRM set wins for 2 W.O CWs... I realized this when thinking about how it was logical and it wasn't not because of the rules, but because LRM's win total wasn't right. 12 wins = 48 SW and 4 losses all in game 7 = 12 SW.
^ When I thought about their losses I realized LRM has near the most amount of possible set wins. ;; So I recalculated.
This puts LRM ahead of iFU. Going to recalculate everyone's set wins before playoffs (This may mean that iwL still has a chance with a sweep depending if reps) totals are correct. Going to try to get that done today if possible actually.
|
Random point: this league is so good. Look at the win/loss/points/statistics balance. No team in the top 4 has under 60% win or over 67%, and all extremely similar records. The 5th and 6th team both bear arguably the top 2 players, and many other top players outside of Korea and are 11-5 and 10-6 with mid to high 50% statistics. When is GC3 mang?
|
so wait... there are only 6 teams participating cause other just stopped ? or is this already some kind of a playoff stage ?
|
On March 21 2012 16:33 Sinedd wrote: so wait... there are only 6 teams participating cause other just stopped ? or is this already some kind of a playoff stage ? The teams in black are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. I believe dM and iWL are participating in the final two weeks of the regular season.
|
Russian Federation484 Posts
hey, dM- team, are you going to come on our CW this week?
|
yes, we just can't get to the next stage anymore, but we try to play still
|
On March 21 2012 18:04 tryummm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 16:33 Sinedd wrote: so wait... there are only 6 teams participating cause other just stopped ? or is this already some kind of a playoff stage ? The teams in black are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. I believe dM and iWL are participating in the final two weeks of the regular season. oh ok awesome
|
Russian Federation484 Posts
On March 21 2012 21:07 LML wrote:yes, we just can't get to the next stage anymore, but we try to play still data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt="" ok, good. We are going to show up.
|
eywa add UK Zerg dM-Teddy plss
|
Russian Federation484 Posts
add pls Canadian protoss reps)Eywa
|
On March 23 2012 07:21 reps)Plumbum wrote: add pls Canadian protoss reps)Eywa I'll quit the league if you managed to get him out of retirement.
|
To ensure maximal quality of games, quarterfinal match "A" (3rd <> 6th) has been rescheduled to 1 hour before the previously announced time. If there is any issue with this time for any player from these teams, an arrangement will be made with due notice. Please note, this is not a sign that league dates and times can be moved around freely, this specific request has been in place since three months ago.
|
Russian Federation484 Posts
|
|
On March 24 2012 03:09 myrtleturtle wrote: no gc today? afaik there should be a stream today
|
|
|
|