PROBLEM
Up to this point in the season, we’ve been using two standings: one unadulterated and one normalized to the number of games played by the team who has played the most games. Neither ranking pleased everyone. The problem with the Unadulterated Ranking is that teams that played 10 games are standing next to teams that played 20 games. For obvious reasons, with a cumulative point system, this is unfair to the team that’s played less games. So we used a Normalized ranking where the number of games for all the teams was 21. Practically, this ranking is each team’s points per game (multiplied by 21). And, as a consequence, good teams who beat numerous strong opponents but also played some weaker teams have their strong wins averaged with their weaker wins. For obvious reasons, it’s unfair to penalize a team that beat numerous top teams solely because they also played some weaker teams.
SOLUTION
Normalizing the number of games played to the number of games played by the team that played the most games involves predicting the future. i.e. IMG had 1,000 Points in the first ten games. Logically, they will earn another 1,000 Points in the next 10 games. But, in reality, we have no idea how many points any team will have in the future. So, instead of projecting the future and normalizing the number of games to the team with the most points, we will move in the opposite direction to the team with the lowest number of games played. i.e. IMG shouldn’t be doubled. Culver should be cut in half.
But simply cutting Culver’s points in half has the same problem we had with our previous Normalized Standings. Once again, we’re using a points-per-game system and a team’s strong wins are being diluted by their weak wins. Even though, within the 10% Ante system, you don’t get a lot of points for playing weak teams but you’re certainly not punished for it. So, instead, every team can either (1) use the same previously used points-per-game system which is best for teams whose worst games are little different than their best games or (2) remove their weakest wins until they reach the number of games of the team with the least games played. Whichever system gives the team higher points is the system we use for the relevant team. With our new method for creating our standings, this is what our Standings (05.11.18) look like:
