URGENT FF RULING (today only)

[B & B]

I am the commish of this league and one of the teams involved.

Mathematically, I am inclined to agree with JBerg and use .545 to .538

I mean, if two teams are 2-1 (.667) then each team plays two more games, with one winning and losing and the other tying both, then you have

2-1-2 (.667) vs
3-2 (.600)
As mentioned here earlier, if you went down the line on that and had

2-1-10 (.667)
7-6 (.538)
Personally, I would choose the team with one loss on the year to advance, but there are clear arguments each way.

There is no written or inherent rule on the .5 game for win or loss in the league guidelines and this has never come up. Its absurd to have a 10 tie team but nobody thought this was the case either. The site, CBS, has decided to use the .5 game in their breakdown winning %.

After consulting many diff ppl and getting many, diff interpretations, Im going to go with the 7-6 team advancing. Will also be changing to a decimal pt structure for next season to avoid this same scenario.

Thanks for all the fast responses.

[molson]

Originally Posted by B & B

The site, CBS, has decided to use the .5 game in their breakdown winning %.

That's a pretty big fact. So you're overriding how your platform does things to put another team in the playoffs? Without any specific rule saying that's the way to go?

I think most players would be pretty annoyed if a commissioner did that in favor of his own team. So hopefully you're moving yourself out of the playoffs. From that perspective, I'd at least be tempted to do that, because I'd hate to make a commissioner decision that benefits myself, even if I thought it was the right one.

[spleen1015]

Are you the 7-6 team?

[spleen1015]

You are making it so that the ties don't count for anything and that is just wrong.

You're essentially saying you're okay with 1 team making the playoffs by only playing 11 games when everyone else had to play 13.

[bob]

Not that it matters, but my gut reaction is if the winning percentage is the same (and I'd go with the .5 win / .5 loss method for ties), go with the team with more wins.

[QuikSand]

What is absurd is to play in a league where you have integer scoring, therefore plenty of chances for ties, and no rule that handles this properly and leaves it to the Commissioner to drop the ball like this.

[digamma]

So who did the platform advance, and how? Are you running the playoffs outside of the site?

[molson]

Originally Posted by bob

Not that it matters, but my gut reaction is if the winning percentage is the same (and I'd go with the .5 win / .5 loss method for ties), go with the team with more wins.

Ya, I think that should generally be the 2nd tiebreaker in a list of tiebreakers. That makes a tie worth slightly less than half a win, but still clearly more than a loss.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by molson

That's a pretty big fact. So you're overriding how your platform does things to put another team in the playoffs? Without any specific rule saying that's the way to go?

I think most players would be pretty annoyed if a commissioner did that in favor of his own team. So hopefully you're moving yourself out of the playoffs. From that perspective, I'd at least be tempted to do that, because I'd hate to make a commissioner decision that benefits myself, even if I thought it was the right one.

I wouldn't just be annoyed, I'd never play another league with that person. If it's not written down, you go with whatever is the default for the platform you are using. Just my 2 cents.

[spleen1015]

I think points scored should always been a tie breaker in fantasy sports.

The whole idea is you are trying to score as many points as you can. The other team can't stop you from scoring so the #1 measure should always be points scored. That's how fantasy teams should be judged.

H2H only comes into it to give it some drama and luck.

If the 7-6 team scored 200 points less than the 6-5-2 team, the 6-5-2 team is clearly the better team.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

That's a pretty big fact. So you're overriding how your platform does things to put another team in the playoffs? Without any specific rule saying that's the way to go?

I think most players would be pretty annoyed if a commissioner did that in favor of his own team. So hopefully you're moving yourself out of the playoffs. From that perspective, I'd at least be tempted to do that, because I'd hate to make a commissioner decision that benefits myself, even if I thought it was the right one.

Originally Posted by spleen1015

You are making it so that the ties don't count for anything and that is just wrong.

You're essentially saying you're okay with 1 team making the playoffs by only playing 11 games when everyone else had to play 13.

His post is pretty contradictory because he's arguing the opposite side (that ties should be thrown out when computing winning %), but I think he correctly counted the ties as half win/half loss just like the CBS platform does if the 7-6 team got in. Unless he's doing something crazy and saying 7 wins in 13 games = higher winning % than 6 wins in 13 game regardless of ties, which I wouldn't put past anyone at this point considering how many weird proposals people were willing to argue in the first couple hours after this post went up.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I wouldn't just be annoyed, I'd never play another league with that person. If it's not written down, you go with whatever is the default for the platform you are using. Just my 2 cents.

Yeah, I would be the same way. Even if his team isn't the one that makes the playoffs, you can't make this sort of change on the fly. You live with what your software gives you based on your rules and make changes for the future.

If his team is the one making the playoffs, I'd never play with them again.

[B & B]

CBS is not set up to handle the playoffs, never has been, so its not automated.

One team did not play 11 and the other 13, there were merely 2 ties.



I was intentionally ambiguous about which team I was as to not show a bias, but as the commish I am bowing out of this and advancing the 7-6 team.

[molson]

FWIW, CBS standard leagues use total points scored as the first tiebreaker, but I imagine this is a custom league.

[spleen1015]

I would recommend having a co-commish just for these situations.

I ran a league for 12 years with a co-commish and it was his idea to ask me to co-commish just in case there was a dispute between him and someone else. If there was a dispute between commishes, we would've had the other owners decide.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by B & B

There is no written or inherent rule on the .5 game for win or loss in the league guidelines

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

The site, CBS, has decided to use the .5 game in their breakdown winning %.

Of course there is an inherent rule. It's right there on your site. In any instance where there is an absence of an official rule on the books, your league site wins out.

I'm willing to bet that your league rule book doesn't contain something like "the team that is awarded a victory each week is the team that scores the most points compared to his opponent" but then there you go, your site handles that on its own.

It works because the league site is free of bias and isn't open to interpretation. If your site is doing something in contrast to your league rules, or how every member of your league interprets a rule, you fix it next season.

[spleen1015]

I can also see the position he is in. Since he's the 6-5-2 team, I can see how the other owners would be upset if he ruled in his own favor. I was ready to do that and I'm not involved.

The right thing to do here might be to let the other team in just to keep the league together and then adopt rules to cover this for the future.

[B & B]

lol spleen, I do have a co commish, hes not responded to a text or phone call all damn day. that's why hes not the commish.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

His post is pretty contradictory because he's arguing the opposite side (that ties should be thrown out when computing winning %), but I think he correctly counted the ties as half win/half loss just like the CBS platform does if the 7-6 team got in. Unless he's doing something crazy and saying 7 wins in 13 games = higher winning % than 6 wins in 13 game regardless of ties, which I wouldn't put past anyone at this point considering how many weird proposals people were willing to argue in the first couple hours after this post went up.

Ya, I guess reading that again I don't understand why he's going with the 7-5 team.

If ties don't count as .5 wins, the 6-5-2 team should get in.

If ties DO count as .5 wins, than the teams are tied and the next tiebreaker should come into play. But we don't know if there is a list of tiebreakers, and what would be on that list. Maybe the 7-6 team did win one of those tiebreakers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That ties would just be ignored is one of the crazier things I've heard on the internet in quite a while.

And makes me happy it's been years since I've played anything that was human managed.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

His post is pretty contradictory because he's arguing the opposite side (that ties should be thrown out when computing winning %), but I think he correctly counted the ties as half win/half loss just like the CBS platform does if the 7-6 team got in. Unless he's doing something crazy and saying 7 wins in 13 games = higher winning % than 6 wins in 13 game regardless of ties, which I wouldn't put past anyone at this point considering how many weird proposals people were willing to argue in the first couple hours after this post went up.

Ties are neither a win or a loss. If you are using winning percentage they do get thrown out when computing win percentage.

Just because the NFL and MLB award no played games or ties 1/2 win(1/2 loss) doesnt mean that is how life is. Europe awards them 1/3 of win. Jeff from Tucson awards them .41 of a win. Dom in Vegas awards them .51 of a win. Hence why it should be in the rules.

Personally I think it should be the next tiebreaker. However with what he said in his FIRST post(winning percentage advances) this can be looked at different ways. At no point did he say ties count as a half win.

[dolfin]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Ties are neither a win or a loss. If you are using winning percentage they do get thrown out when computing win percentage.

Just because the NFL and MLB award no played games or ties 1/2 win(1/2 loss) doesnt mean that is how life is. Europe awards them 1/3 of win. Jeff from Tucson awards them .41 of a win. Dom in Vegas awards them .51 of a win. Hence why it should be in the rules.

Personally I think it should be the next tiebreaker. However with what he said in his FIRST post(winning percentage advances) this can be looked at many different ways. At no point did he say wins count as a half win.

This was exactly my initial take. If you're going to say "Winning %" without defining what a tie means, then its very simple. One won 7 out 13 and the other won 6 out of 13.

[jbergey22]

I wonder if B & B was a little more vague about what sport or game it was what the answers might have been.

What is Trouts Batting Average if he gets 7 hits in 13 abs with no walks. How about if Harper gets 6 hits in 11 at bats with 2 walks?

If B & B goes 6-5-2 last weekend at the Sportsbook while his buddy goes 7-6-0. Same vig same amount bet on each game. Who wins more money?

UNLESS it was specifically stated in the rules this can be spun numerous ways.

[Pyser]

agree that points scored should be tie-breaker criteria here, but guess that would have to be implemented next season

[Butter]

FWIW:

In my pay league, I ended up tied with a 2 tie guy in this same scenario last year, I was 8-6 vs. 7-5-2... but our tiebreaker is total points scored, so I lost, and it cost me 4th place money.

[Landshark44]

they played the same amount of games....

Team A won 7
Team B only won 6

Team A goes to the playoffs...

[B & B]

Again, thanks for the many responses.

This was a one day priority thing and I wanted some much needed input.

The winning % as a handling of ties was the only question mark. I didn't want to make a betting analogy, but that's how my mind works.

If I won Dallas Cowboys +3, lost Patriots -8 and pushed Mike Evans Catches over 5, then someone asks me how my weekend was....

Well, I pushed 1-1. I don't say 1-1-1 (mike evans had exactly 5 receptions for those who didn't know)

A tie is a NON-event for me. A $500 bet doesn't get me back $250 that I have to return. Its just a push, a non factor.

The best thing I learned from this thread though is that I would buy JBergey22 a beer on site and that we would get along famously.

[molson]

Just curious then, why are you going with the the 7-6 team advancing when the 6-5-2 team has a higher winning % after excluding ties? Is that just because its how CBS did it in your league?

[B & B]

yes Molson

because the CBS site had listed identical winning %, then I have to honor that due to the TB which went to the 7-6 team.

This is a big $ league with a one owner turnover in the last decade. A half owner moved 3000 miles away to Oregon and came back to draft for two years before handing full ownership over to the partner.

Sad to not make the playoffs, but this type of technicality has never come up before. It was my mistake to expect to see a .545 % this morning when they updated.

[molson]

I think that was the right call. Unless there is a specific rule to the contrary, you should go with the rules of the platform your league is hosted on, rather than just making something up on the fly.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Winning percentage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Totally depends on how you define your winning % calculation.

If I were commish, we would go with ties are worth .5/.5, both teams would be 7-6 for the purpose of the win % calculation and then you would go to the 2nd tie-breaker. If you don't have a 2nd tie-breaker, then I would have to flip a coin.

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Ties are neither a win or a loss. If you are using winning percentage they do get thrown out when computing win percentage.

Just because the NFL and MLB award no played games or ties 1/2 win(1/2 loss) doesnt mean that is how life is. Europe awards them 1/3 of win. Jeff from Tucson awards them .41 of a win. Dom in Vegas awards them .51 of a win. Hence why it should be in the rules.

Personally I think it should be the next tiebreaker. However with what he said in his FIRST post(winning percentage advances) this can be looked at different ways. At no point did he say ties count as a half win.

You people are insane. Spleen - your link literally starts by saying

In sports, a winning percentage is the fraction of games or matches a team or individual has won. It is defined as wins divided by the total number of matches played (i.e. wins plus losses). A draw counts as a ½ loss and a ½ win. Winning percentage is one way to compare the record of two teams; however, another standard method most frequently used in baseball and professional basketball standings is games behind.

For example, if a team's season record is 30 wins and 20 losses, the winning percentage would be .600. If a team's season record is 30–15–5 (i.e. it has won thirty games, lost fifteen and tied five times), the five tie games are counted as 2½ wins and 2½ losses, and so the team has an adjusted record of 32½ wins and 17½ losses, resulting in a .650 winning percentage.

jbergey - ties are not treated the same as byes, non-contests or forfeits because they are actual events that happened. They do not get thrown out when calculating winning % in any head to head matchup (and although they sound interchangeable and often are, win % does not mean the same thing as winning %). If it helps you do the math, think of wins as +1, ties as 0 and losses as -1. Both 7-6, 6-5-2, and 1-0-12 if he's hanging around went +1 in a 13 game denominator.

The NHL, the EPL, etc standings where a win counts anything other than exactly 2x a tie, and your weird examples of Jeff and Dom, do not calculate winning percentage, they calculate/display points percentage. Winning percentage has been sloppily thrown around by people, but it is a concrete term with a (very, very simple, but very, very, very specific) math system behind it.

[Bobble]

The fact that this thread has gone on so long underlines why being commish sucks.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You people are insane. Spleen - your link literally starts by saying jbergey - ties are not treated the same as byes, non-contests or forfeits because they are actual events that happened. They do not get thrown out when calculating winning % in any head to head matchup (and although they sound interchangeable and often are, win % does not mean the same thing as winning %). If it helps you do the math, think of wins as +1, ties as 0 and losses as -1. Both 7-6, 6-5-2, and 1-0-12 if he's hanging around went +1 in a 13 game denominator.

The NHL, the EPL, etc standings where a win counts anything other than exactly 2x a tie, and your weird examples of Jeff and Dom, do not calculate winning percentage, they calculate/display points percentage. Winning percentage has been sloppily thrown around by people, but it is a concrete term with a (very, very simple, but very, very, very specific) math system behind it.

Winning Percent Calculator - Calculate Winning Percentage

It took the NFL a very long time to consider ties(1/2 win, 1/2 loss) so please dont act like it is "The way." The rule came into effect in 1972. Prior to 1972 they would consider the tie games as games that didnt count towards winning percentage.

So if the situation every comes up you wouldnt really consider a 13-0-1 team undefeated because the NFL has decided that should be 1/2 of a loss?

I am not arguing that your way of thinking is wrong. I just think it is open for debate especially when nothing was written in the rules about using the 1/2 win 1/2 loss formula. Plenty of winning percentages in sports arent using the 1/2 win, 1/2 loss in computing winning percentage.

We throw out plenty of things in sports that really did happen. No decisions for starting pitchers, walks for hitters when computing batting average, sacrifice bunts/flys when computing batting average. Since the original topic was fantasy football and not the NFL I think there is certainly room for interpretation.

My opinion is that generally in fantasy football the most points scored is the better team since you really have no control over how many points the other team scores. Id push for whatever reason I had to make total points the tiebreaker and have the better team advance that way. I say "in general" because injuries could impact how many points a certain team is scoring at this point in time.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Landshark44

they played the same amount of games....

Team A won 7
Team B only won 6

Team A goes to the playoffs...

Team A lost 6
Team B only lost 5

Team B goes to the playoffs...

[molson]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Winning Percent Calculator - Calculate Winning Percentage

It took the NFL a very long time to consider ties(1/2 win, 1/2 loss) so please dont act like it is "The way." The rule came into effect in 1972. Prior to 1972 they would consider the tie games as games that didnt count towards winning percentage.

So if the situation every comes up you wouldnt really consider a 13-0-1 team undefeated because the NFL has decided that should be 1/2 of a loss?

I am not arguing that your way of thinking is wrong. I just think it is open for debate especially when nothing was written in the rules about using the 1/2 win 1/2 loss formula. Plenty of winning percentages in sports arent using the 1/2 win, 1/2 loss in computing winning percentage.

We throw out plenty of things in sports that really did happen. No decisions for starting pitchers, walks for hitters when computing batting average, sacrifice bunts/flys when computing batting average. Since the original topic was fantasy football and not the NFL I think there is certainly room for interpretation.

My opinion is that generally in fantasy football the most points scored is the better team since you really have no control over how many points the other team scores. Id push for whatever reason I had to make total points the tiebreaker and have the better team advance that way. I say "in general" because injuries could impact how many points a certain team is scoring at this point in time.

I play in a Yahoo fantasy football league. It never would have occurred to me that in some issue over a league rule, the Yahoo league rules wouldn't govern and the commissioner could just overrule that platform on a whim, perhaps based on some rule the NFL used 30+ years ago.

That's league-quitting stuff, IMO. If my Yahoo league does things one way but the commissioner emailed everyone and told us he was unilaterally changing those rules in Week 13 because he thinks they should be different, I'm definitely not committing time and money to that league in the future.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by molson

I play in a Yahoo fantasy football league. It never would have occurred to me that in some issue over a league rule, the Yahoo league rules wouldn't govern and the commissioner could just overrule that platform on a whim, perhaps based on some rule the NFL used 30+ years ago.

That's league-quitting stuff, IMO. If my Yahoo league does things one way but the commissioner emailed everyone and told us he was unilaterally changing those rules in Week 13 because he thinks they should be different, I'm definitely not committing time and money to that league in the future.

I believe he mentioned that the site he was using didnt auto do the playoffs. And there was nothing in the rules about using the NFL rules or awarding ties 1/2 win, 1/2 loss. This was what was said. I am going just off of that.




12 team league

top 6 make playoffs with top 2 teams getting byes

Playoffs determined by winning %. One of these teams is the
last to get in, the other is the first out of the playoffs

Team A = 7 wins 6 losses

Team B = 6 wins 5 losses 2 ties


Which team makes the playoffs>

[jbergey22]

Either way.

Id speculate B&B's team had lower points in this situation and decided to just let it go. If his team(6 wins) had more total points he would have a very strong case. Either way now they can tighten up the rules so this situation doesnt happen again.

[stevew]

Anyone who thinks 6-5-2 is better than 7-6 probably wipes standing up

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by stevew

Anyone who things 6-5-2 is better than 7-6 probably wipes standing up

I don't think anyone is saying 6-5-2 is better than 7-6. I'm saying in terms of winning percentage, they are the same.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I don't think anyone is saying 6-5-2 is better than 7-6. I'm saying in terms of winning percentage, they are the same.

Well yeah, but that doesn't seem to be a consensus

[Kodos]

Ties definitely count at half a loss, half a win. To me, it's clear the teams are tied, and it should go to the next tiebreaker.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Winning Percent Calculator - Calculate Winning Percentage

Congrats on finding a site that does an inadequate job calculating winning percentage.

It took the NFL a very long time to consider ties(1/2 win, 1/2 loss) so please dont act like it is "The way." The rule came into effect in 1972. Prior to 1972 they would consider the tie games as games that didnt count towards winning percentage.

Prior to 1972 people believed a lot of dumb things. The fact you need to reach back 45 years to buttress your argument should be a hint you're in the wrong.

So if the situation every comes up you wouldnt really consider a 13-0-1 team undefeated because the NFL has decided that should be 1/2 of a loss?

No, they are undefeated. "Defeat" = A loss. In cases where it matters and ties aren't extremely unusual (like college football used to be, or soccer is), "undefeated and untied" had a different connotation than just "undefeated"

I am not arguing that your way of thinking is wrong. I just think it is open for debate especially when nothing was written in the rules about using the 1/2 win 1/2 loss formula.

Well I am arguing you are wrong. If I say 2+2=4 and you say "I don't disagree, but it can also equal 5" you would be wrong. If B&B wants to play in a total points league, or count wins as 17 points, ties as -6 and losses as 2, he's welcome to, but that wouldn't be winning percentage. And in the absence of any other information we should assume he's using the standard definition of winning percentage instead of trying to lawyer it out and look for loopholes.

Plenty of winning percentages in sports arent using the 1/2 win, 1/2 loss in computing winning percentage.

Again, those aren't winning percentages. Those are points percentages.

We throw out plenty of things in sports that really did happen. No decisions for starting pitchers, walks for hitters when computing batting average, sacrifice bunts/flys when computing batting average.

These aren't thrown out, they just aren't counted. For example, batting average is comparing (number of hits/number of official at-bats). A walk is not considered an at-bat, so we do have a stat that adds in walks called on-base percentage, and no surprise it's a more accurate measure of player quality than something that ignores one of the three most likely events. Similarly, a pitcher's winning percentage is calculated as (number of wins/number of decisions). It would be a more accurate measure of winning percentage if a 16-4 pitcher with 8 no-decisions was calculated as 20-8, but sportswriters in 1900 weren't known for their math skills.

My opinion is that generally in fantasy football the most points scored is the better team since you really have no control over how many points the other team scores. Id push for whatever reason I had to make total points the tiebreaker and have the better team advance that way. I say "in general" because injuries could impact how many points a certain team is scoring at this point in time.

Everybody agrees (I hope) that total points and H2H in some order are the first two tiebreakers, and the argument is whether 7-6 and 6-5-2 go to that tiebreaker or not. You clearly agree they should, so I don't understand what you are still arguing.

[cmp]

To me it's easy, a tie should count as half a win and half a loss. Go to the next tiebreaker.

[bhlloy]

I think despite the lack of a consensus, you did the right thing by putting the other team through. Sometimes being a commish you have to sacrifice your own teams success for the good of the league in grey areas.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Congrats on finding a site that does an inadequate job calculating winning percentage.Prior to 1972 people believed a lot of dumb things. The fact you need to reach back 45 years to buttress your argument should be a hint you're in the wrong.No, they are undefeated. "Defeat" = A loss. In cases where it matters and ties aren't extremely unusual (like college football used to be, or soccer is), "undefeated and untied" had a different connotation than just "undefeated"

Well I am arguing you are wrong. If I say 2+2=4 and you say "I don't disagree, but it can also equal 5" you would be wrong. If B&B wants to play in a total points league, or count wins as 17 points, ties as -6 and losses as 2, he's welcome to, but that wouldn't be winning percentage. And in the absence of any other information we should assume he's using the standard definition of winning percentage instead of trying to lawyer it out and look for loopholes.Again, those aren't winning percentages. Those are points percentages.These aren't thrown out, they just aren't counted. For example, batting average is comparing (number of hits/number of official at-bats). A walk is not considered an at-bat, so we do have a stat that adds in walks called on-base percentage, and no surprise it's a more accurate measure of player quality than something that ignores one of the three most likely events. Similarly, a pitcher's winning percentage is calculated as (number of wins/number of decisions). It would be a more accurate measure of winning percentage if a 16-4 pitcher with 8 no-decisions was calculated as 20-8, but sportswriters in 1900 weren't known for their math skills.
Everybody agrees (I hope) that total points and H2H in some order are the first two tiebreakers, and the argument is whether 7-6 and 6-5-2 go to that tiebreaker or not. You clearly agree they should, so I don't understand what you are still arguing.

What you fail to realize is that it isnt about your opinion, my opinion, or anyone elses opinion. It is what is in their fantasy football league rulebook that they use. Ive seen leagues award 50 points for 80 plus yard TDs. I think it is dumb but if I think its dumb and it is in the rules I dont get to force my opinion on the rule. Yes Ive always thought these two teams should be tied and go to total points as a tiebreaker. But the first post of the thread only says "winning percentage". Which as B&B and myself have explained there is another way to look at that such as the betting example when a push gets wiped off the books as you dont lose any money. In any case there is no reason to get all upset and personal about it.

[Kodos]

Is your sig a quote?

[spleen1015]

This isn't betting. This is winning percentage in a standings context, not betting.

You can't wipe games off the books. All 13 games have to be counted.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

This isn't betting. This is winning percentage in a standings context, not betting.

You can't wipe games off the books. All 13 games have to be counted.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

What you fail to realize is that it isnt about your opinion, my opinion, or anyone elses opinion. It is what is in their fantasy football league rulebook that they use. Ive seen leagues award 50 points for 80 plus yard TDs. I think it is dumb but if I think its dumb and it is in the rules I dont get to force my opinion on the rule.

This is entirely about B&B asking us for our opinions. If he had it in the rulebook he wouldn't have asked us.

Yes Ive always thought these two teams should be tied and go to total points as a tiebreaker.

2 of the first 3 replies in this thread are you saying Team 6-5-2 has the better winning percentage and should be in. I'm glad you've come over to the side that acknowledges both are tied and it goes to tiebreakers in the last 36 hours though.

But the first post of the thread only says "winning percentage". Which as B&B and myself have explained there is another way to look at that such as the betting example when a push gets wiped off the books as you dont lose any money.

You can keep trying to rationalize it, but it won't make you right. Words have definitions, and math is math. The phrase "Winning percentage" has a specific definition. "Win percentage" has a different one, as does "points percentage". It's pedantic on my part, but sometimes I like channeling my inner George Orwell.

Even if there were alternate acceptable definitions of "Winning percentage" (and, once again, there are not), we would clearly go with the standard, most accepted definition in the scenario B&B proposed.

In any case there is no reason to get all upset and personal about it.

I'm not upset, I'm actually quite amused. Because of the hundreds of arguments I've gotten into on this board in 15 years this is one of the very rare times the other side is demonstrably and provably wrong. Like you said though, it's not personal, so I'll bow out at this point. Catch you in other threads!

[CU Tiger]

I think its amazing how people can interpret the English language completely differently and not even realize (until its pointed out) that there are alternate options.

For example reading the initial thread my mind said:

Winning Percentage- Percentage of games won.
7-6 means he won 7 out of 13
6-5-2 means he won 6 out of 13.

Since the deonominator remains unchanged I don't need to do the math, bigger numerator equals bigger number 7-6 wins.

Now as I read through this I start to think, well maybe...
But no way without a specific rule can I see a scenario where a tie equals 1/2 W and 1/2 L.

To me, again without further clarification I can only imagine 2 possible rationales
A) (7/13) > (6/13)
or
B) (7/13)<(6/11)
and again I fall in the group A camp, as those ties were certainly not wins and therefor cant bolster a winning percentage.

The idea that (7/13) = (7/13) is a conclusion that anyone can reach, again without an additional input it a total alien thought to my sensibilities.

I can't jump on a soapbox and say I am right and anyone else is wrong, just I cant see how the conclusion can be reached.