Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- [1832399] Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 10:12
It has been noted by several members of the league that our scoring system is flawed and could use an adjustment. Most notable are the negative points handed out for a match loss. Here are my proposals:
1) Change a singles loss from -5 to +10 points.
After watching WWE from a fantasy perspective over the last few weeks, it is my opinion that a loss should be with more than an in-ring vignette. Last night is a perfect example. It does not seem right that I got almost as many points from Nunzio (32) as Blue Hen got from three Team Angle matches (36).
2) Change a tag loss from -5 to +8.
3) Change a singles no contest from 0 to +10.
If I'm not mistaken, a no contest occurs when there is a match and no winner is declared, like Monday's Y2J/Test match, right? IMO, those guys were involved in the show and got significant screen time. Nobody deserves points for winning, so I think it fair to award at least a loss' worth of points.
4) Change a tag no contest from 0 to +8.
5) Change winning the WWE and the World (Major) Titles on Raw or Smackdown from +75 to +50.
The primary argment against this when I originally suggested it was that it so rarely happens that it should be a big deal. The current rules only give +50 for winning a major belt on PPV. In spite of rarity, I cannot justify having a title change or any other event be worth more on a TV show than on a PPV. As was said it is rare, so I guess this isn't of too much importance, but worthy of a proposal.
6) Change a World or WWE title defense from +10 to + 15.
7) Lets officially make all Major (World and WWE) title matches "Main Events", worth the same +10 that we give in the current scoring system.
8) Change winning all Lesser titles (women's, cruiser and tags) to +15.
I see no reason why the tag championships should be worth more than the cruiser and women's titles. Being involved in tag matches are otherwise always fewer points for each wrestler than singles matches. I feel that this approach should counter any extra prestige that goes with the tag belts over the other lesser belts.
9) Change defending all Lesser titles from +5 to +10
10) Keep the same scoring system for matches that we agree upon for both TV shows and PPVs, and simply add +12 for every wrestler involved in a match, except for the main event(s). Main event wrestlers would get +20. Other scoring, vignettes, heel/face turns, run-ins and all other non-match pooints could remain the same. --------------------------
Note that I am not suggesting that any points should be added retro-actively. We've agreed on the scoring system we are currently using and the points we've accumulated by it should stay as they are.
How about listing yeas or nays, numbered 1 thru 10. Note that my feelings will not be hurt if all of my proposals are voted down.
My vote: 1)Y 2)Y 3)Y 4)Y 5)Y 6)Y 7)Y 8)Y 9)Y 10)Y
1
blue hen Leader
ID: 40029714 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 10:47
Yea on everything except 6, 8, and 9. Those place too much emphasis on titles, and if you've got a title, you're probably getting those points elsewhere. I'd also bring #5 down lower but for now I'll just give it a yea.
2
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 11:07
Blue Hen, I should have been more specefic regarding #8, which actually serves to lessen the emphasis on winning tag titles, bringing them down to the current value of winning the Women's and Cruiser titles which are currently worth +15 in our present system. The present system awards +25 for winning tag titles, which I assume you feel is too high.
3
Tree
ID: 22052618 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 11:20
to me, the tag team titles are above the cruiser and women's titles, and just a notch below the world title.
there's a lot of history to support this, as many a great wrestler - ric flair, ricky steamboat, sting, scott steiner, taz, shane douglas, booker T, and shawn michaels all come to mind immediately, as guys who were tag champs before becoming world champs...
4
mIST
ID: 21113162 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 11:21
Agree on 1, 2, 3, 4
5
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 11:22
So that's Nays on 5-10 for mIST? Tree, can we get a vote from you?
6
kev
ID: 11438306 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 11:31
There are also a lot of tag champs that basically have never done much.
With the WWE the way it is now, I really think the tag titles should be worth the same as the other lesser titles. There are only about 3 or 4 tag teams total.
And I do hold a Guerrero, so I should be all for more points.
7
wiggs@work Donor
ID: 447432423 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 11:33
y for all
8
Tree
ID: 22052618 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 11:38
oh yea, forgot that part. 1 through 5 = yes 6 and 7 (and 1 as well) - we need to discuss. these two rule changes. They effectively give you 25 points for defending the world title, and 20 points for losing the same match. i'm not sure that's fair to the winner. 8 and 9 = no 10 i have a question. every wrestler "involved" in a match. does that include run ins, or a manager tripping someone, or what?
also, a question to prepare for a possible future possibility.
Crash Holly won the hardcore title about 50 times. sometimes, because of the 24/7 rule, he defended it 15 times in a night. does he get points for EACH of those defenses?
9
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 12:12
Tree, in the current system, if you win a title, you still get points for the win plus extra points for the title related stuff. I'm not propsing we change that, just the point amounts for each specific accomplishment.
If you successfully defend a major title Under my proposed changes you get: 30 points for a singles win 15 points for a title defense 10 points for being in a main event total 55 points
Under the current system, you get: +30 for a singles win +10 for a title defense +10 for being in a main event. Total 50 points
If you lose a title major title (as champ or challenger) Under my system you get: 10 points for a singles loss 10 points for being in a main event. total 20 points
Under the current system: -5 points for a singles loss 10 points for being in a main event total 5 points
If you win a major title Under my system you get: 30 points for a singles win 50 points for winning a major title 10 points for being in a main event total 90 points.
Under the current system: 30 points for a singles win 75 points for winning a major title 10 points for being in a main event total 115 points ---------------
On your question re #10, I meant only if you are actually in the match.
Re your Crash Holly question, I guess he would get points for each title defense, but not because of any changes I propose. I assume that this is how the rule was intended to apply, I just proposed we change the amount of points awrded for a defense, not how award them.
10
Tree
ID: 22052618 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 12:18
re #10. if you actually wrestle in the match, as scheduled.
good analysis on 6 and 7. ok, i'm for your changes on those. :o)
11
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 12:32
Regarding # 10 again, I should have been more specific. My proposal is that anyone in a PPV match gets points they would otherwise regularly get for their matches, plus 12 points. Regarding run-ins and face/heel turns and vignettes, interviews and other "extras", I have no problem keeping the established PPV scoring for them, but I do not feel that non-match-wrestlers and managers and interviewers and others should get those 12 points.
12
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 13:39
So far 5 people have voted. Still waiting to hear from the following: Kev/THK Goatlocker Mr Nice Guy Species Mike D Great One Farn
Assuming everyone votes by Monday afternoon, will any agreed upon changes take effect for WEEK 3?
13
MNG@college
ID: 117422015 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 16:40
I totally disagree with awarding points for a loss, it just doesn't make sense to me. When have points in any fantasy game in history awarded points for a losing effort? My ballot: 1) N 2) N 3-10) Y
14
Tree
ID: 22052618 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 18:14
well, if randy johnson pitches 9 innings and strikes out 15 guys, but takes the loss, he still gets positive points. :o)
15
MNG@college
ID: 117422015 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 18:34
Well I see your point Tree, but the L still counts for -15.
16
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 20:48
Thanks MNG, that's 6...
17
Tree
ID: 22052618 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 21:20
top scorers after 2 weeks, at least according to my numbers...
Rank
Wrestler
Team
Pts
1
Kurt Angle
It's Not For Everyone
159
2
Brock Lesner
Eight Henchmen
152
3
Scott Steiner
Rod Serling's Underdogs
111
4
Buh-Buh Ray Dudley
S.C.Y.T.H.E.
90
4
D-Von Dudley
Eight Henchmen
90
6
Chris Jericho
Flying Jalapenos
89
7
William Regal
It's Not For Everyone
87
8
Rob Van Damm
Never Leave Your Buddy's Behind
70
9
Edge
Team Bring It
69
9
HHH
Endangered
69
11
Lance Storm
Eight Henchmen
67
12
Torrie Wilson
Never Leave Your Buddy's Behind
66
13
Chris Benoit
Controlled Destruction
65
14
Matt Hardy V1.0
Endangered
63
15
Nunzio
Flying Jalapenos
62
16
The Hurricane
Endangered
60
17
Test
Old Italian Disorder
55
17
Chavo Guerrero
S.C.Y.T.H.E.
55
19
Shelton Benjamin
Team Bring It
54
20
R.C. Hass
Team Bring It
53
18
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 21:32
Are those actual points or according to my proposals?
19
Tree
ID: 22052618 Fri, Jan 24, 2003, 22:05
sorry. i should have clarified. those are the actual points, at least as far as my numbers go.
in a different thread, i posted there was a bit of a discrepency in my totals, and mists totals.
i'll be honest. it's gotten to the point where i'm not exactly what scores what anymore. lol.
i hate to sound like a moron, but at this point, i'm just inputing Mists points into the spreadsheet, but since we've changed it up so many times, i'm not sure which is right any longer.
fyi - i'm not complaining, just pointing things out.
it is interesting to note, though, that the top 3 were all in "world title" matches, while the next 2 won a world tag team match.
peace, Tree
21
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195 Sun, Jan 26, 2003, 11:59
BUTT
22
GoatLocker Sustainer
ID: 60151121 Sun, Jan 26, 2003, 17:03
Yes on 1,2,3,4,7,10 No on 5,6,8,9
Cliff
23
Farn Donor
ID: 7822711 Sun, Jan 26, 2003, 17:17
Y: 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10 N: 7
25
Mike D Donor
ID: 31022116 Mon, Jan 27, 2003, 10:36
Yes to 3, 4, 5. No to the rest.
I drafted based on the rules that were in place, and I can't go back now and redraft.
26
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Tue, Jan 28, 2003, 11:50
BUTT We're still waiting for 3 people to vote on the scoring proposals.
People who haven't voted yet: Kev/THK Species Great One
27
Farn Donor
ID: 7822711 Tue, Jan 28, 2003, 17:21
In fairness to Mike D, he is right, we did draft according to the old rules. So to go and change them midseason is sort of unfair. That totally ruins the strategy of a general manager.
28
MNG@VS
ID: 30302517 Tue, Jan 28, 2003, 22:23
Please everyone also look at this (It has promise, I guarantee it!)
29
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195 Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 07:44
As was mentioned in another thread, perhaps the fairest way to approach a rules change is for it to take more than a simple majority pass it. How about 9 votes, or 75% approval? That would effectively knock out proposals 6, 8, and 9 already, and also leave #7 short only one more nay vote to get knocked out. Further, only 3 and 4 would remain unanimous, meaning that any and all of the other 4 remaining proposals could still be shot down.
30
blue hen Leader
ID: 40029714 Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 10:28
I'd like to know exactly how the rules affected your drafts... Other than the 5-3 rule which is fairly simple to see. Is there REALLY that much of a problem with giving points for a loss?
31
Mike D Donor
ID: 38044119 Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 10:57
BH, I intentionally did not draft based on television time alone. I lowered the value of people who are often on TV, but typically never win. The scoring changes would seem to favor just getting on TV, and into a match.
I should add that I think some of the proposed changes are excellent for next season. I also should add that the reason I waited so long to read, digest, and respond to this thread was because it really isn’t a big deal to me. Seemed like MITH really wanted everyone’s input, so I took the time to do so.
32
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 11:07
I do want everyone's input and take no issue with Mike D's. Though looking at the draft, I'm not sure how you would have drafted differently if some of the proposed changes were rules at the time. Maybe you would have taken D-Von or Storm instead of Jazz in the 4th round, but I have a feeling that Jazz will prove just as or more valuable than those guys in the near future whether we change the scoring or not.
33
Mike D Donor
ID: 38044119 Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 11:26
Hard to say MITH. Have not gone back to review the draft itself, but I clearly “slotted” people on my draft board in the Mike D War Room based on the anticipated scoring system. There are several people that simply don’t often get the duke, and I dropped them down.
Again, no biggee to me though. Maybe I’m the only one that read the initial scoring system and applied it to my draft. Maybe it doesn’t matter at all anyway. It’s all good. This is a fun league for me where the discussions about “turns” and how to score Tommy Dreamer’s actions on Raw are what make it so fun. The 1 million dollar first place prize is nice, but not my motivating factor.
34
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 12:16
I feel you have raised a fair issue and it is noted. Still, everyone in this group should be experienced enough at fantasy gaming to take that into consideration. For that reason, I think 9 out of 12 votes is sufficient to change a rule.
With regard to rule discussions in general, this is a brand new league without any real prior format to base our rules on. Flaws and potential discrepencies are inevitable, and should be discussed, even if they do get a little annoying.
35
blue hen Leader
ID: 40029714 Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 17:14
Mike D brings up good points. I honestly don't care about the scoring system. My main reasoning for wanting points for losses is so that when a guy on my team comes onto the screen, I can yell "YES!!!!" instead of "I hope he doesn't lose."
36
Tree
ID: 22052618 Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 17:16
personally, after reading the smackdown spoilers, i'm miffed one of the guys on my bench this week got some nice promo points, and i didn't activate him....oh well...
37
blue hen Leader
ID: 40029714 Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 17:36
Dude. Don't say things like that in threads like this.
38
Tree
ID: 22052618 Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 18:02
lol. i was pretty careful in not saying any names. you don't really have any better idea now than you did before you read it. come on!
39
Species Sustainer
ID: 569221717 Wed, Jan 29, 2003, 19:47
Yes on 5 and 6
No on the rest.
40
Great One Donor
ID: 41136511 Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 01:03
I am fine with any rule changes that have a majority vote... I don't really have time right now to go over everything as much as I would like - or think things through enough - so I don't want to make an uniformed decision just for the sake of voting. I am working over 60 hours a week right now and am mentally and physically exhausted.
41
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195 Thu, Jan 30, 2003, 08:01
Great One, hopefully you could find the time to skim through this and vote. There are several proposals that will likely come down to the last vote. I don't think we are on any kind of time table.
42
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 15:10
BUTT
People who haven't voted yet: Kev/THK Species Great One
43
Farn Donor
ID: 7822711 Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 15:19
species voted in 39
44
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Fri, Jan 31, 2003, 15:43
Oh my bad. Thanks Farn and thanks Species.
Tally so far: 1)7y 3n Yeas: MITH, Blue Hen, mIST, wiggs, Tree, Goatlocker, Farn Nays: Mr Nice Guy, Mike D, Species
2)7y 3n Yeas: MITH, Blue Hen, mIST, wiggs, Tree, Goatlocker, Farn Nays: Mr Nice Guy, Mike D, Species
3)9y 1n Nays: Species
4)9y 1n Nays: Species
5)8y 2n Yeas: MITH, Blue Hen, wiggs, Tree, Mr Nice Guy, Farn, Mike D, Species Nays: mIST, Goatlocker
6)6y 4n Yeas: MITH, wiggs, Tree, Mr Nice Guy, Farn, Species Nays: Blue Hen, mIST, Goatlocker, Mike D
7)6y 4n Yeas: MITH, Blue Hen, wiggs, Tree, Mr Nice Guy, Goatlocker Nays: mIST, Farn, Mike D, Species
8)4y 6n Yeas: MITH, wiggs, Mr Nice Guy, Farn Nays: Blue Hen, mIST, Tree, Goatlocker, Mike D, Species
9)4y 6n Yeas: MITH, wiggs, My Nice Guy, Farn Nays: Blue Hen, mIST, Tree, Goatlocker, Mike D, Species
10)7y 3n Yeas: MITH, Blue Hen, wiggs, Tree, Mr Nice Guy, Goatlocker, Farn Nays: mIST, Mike D, Species
So far, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have been voted down and 3 and 4 have been voted in. 1, 2, 5 and 10 remain undecided.
45
Great One Donor
ID: 41136511 Sat, Feb 01, 2003, 00:28
I got an opportunity to read through all the proposals and think they all are well thought out and I can't really see voting against any of them - so -
Yes to all.
46
kev
ID: 11438306 Sat, Feb 01, 2003, 04:18
Yes to 1,2
No to 5
Undecided on 10.
If my vote is the deciding one on 10, I will make a choice. As of now, Im not sure.
47
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 18027195 Sat, Feb 01, 2003, 07:47
Great One and kev, thanks. Sorry kev, you are the deciding vote on #10. For further explanation on the proposal, check post 11. As of now, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are in and we are waiting on #10. My reason for it was to simplify the scoring system so that we do not have two seperate sets of rules for TV show matches and PPV matches. The reason I chose 12 points was because that is the current PPV bonus we are working with. This proposal calls for keeping all of the current established non-match PPV scoring (vignettes, run-ins, etc.).
48
kev
ID: 11438306 Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 11:31
Sorry guys, I missed this.....
I will then vote yes to 10.
Sorry for the delay.
49
Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399 Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 11:42
Really glad you voted yes on that one. A no vote would have resulted in two entirely different scoring sstems for PPVs and TV shows. I assume no one is averse to implimenting these changes for Raw and Smackdown beginning next week?
50
Farn Donor
ID: 7822711 Tue, Feb 04, 2003, 11:43
i am all in favor of retroactive stats starting with last night. :)