Ok, so unbeknownst to most of the league, our dignified league manager and I have been in an intellectual tug-o-war of epic proportions for the past couple weeks over the so-called "Pat's Subjective Performance Rankings" (PSPR). The debate began when I noticed that despite being 3rd overall in Points For (or Points "Forced" as the PSPR peculiarly call them), my team's ranking was 8th or 9th in the PSPR. Also curious was that other teams who had scored far fewer points on the season were ranked significantly higher than their point totals would seem to suggest. This mysterious phenomenon made me look a little deeper at these "estimations of ranking, based on W-L records, had the points [against been distributed] more evenly" and I decided upon closer investigation that the system (Pat doesn't like it when I call it that, but I don't know what else to call it), must in fact be flawed.
I've been having an impossible time convincing Mr. O'Keefe that this is the case and I think there are 3 possible explanations for why he is balking at my suggestion that the system needs revamping. They are as such:
Possibility #1- Pat is too emotionally attached to the PSPR (they are after all named after him) to accept that there may be problems with it.
Option B- Pat realizes that the system is broke, but simply enjoys toying with my ridiculous need to make him see things my way even on something as menial as a made up not even really predictive fantasy football rankings system. (For the record, I'm not REALLY as concerned about proving that I'm right about this as this crazy 5,000 word post may make it seem. I'm doing this in large part because I almost never get to interact (or argue) with my friend Patrick anymore since he's a big shot soon-to-be lawyer now, but I think I can suck him into giving me a little attention by challenging his beloved PSPR.)
Or, Numero III- As crazy as it may sound; Patty-O really is still convinced that the system works.
Possibility #1 is the reason that I initially held off on my critique of the system. After all, who really cares if the system "works" as long as Pat has fun doing it? (Or, similarly, who really cares if anyone actually reads this post, as long as I have fun writing it.) If it's Option B, then...I'm glad you could finally see it my way. :) If, however, Numero III is the reason for Pat's obstinacy, then hopefully the chart below will finally convince him once and for all that there is a glitch in this system.
Here's the data (explanation to follow)-
Ok, so what we have here is a season (through 12 games using our league's actual average point totals) where the top 4 teams have scored the same # of points, the middle 4 teams have scored the same # of points, and the bottom 4 teams have scored the same # of points. Likewise, each grouping of 4 has had the same # of points against only reversed in quantity for PA. This scenario is unlikely, of course, but not an impossibility. In the above scenario, we have 4 teams that are very clearly the 4 best teams in the league. They have outscored the 4 middle teams by 200 points, and the 4 lowest teams by 400 points. They, put simply, have dominated. (Would it seem braggadocious to say that a fair comparison would be Dave's and my teams this year?) However, they have also faced extremely easy competition. The 4 lowest teams have...well...stunk. And on top of stinking up the joint, they have also faced the toughest of competition. The middle teams have been mediocre on offense & defense.
Now, it seems a hard argument to make to say that these 12 teams with their tremendous variance in scoring ability would rank equally in any ranking system (whether subjective or objective), but this is exactly how Patty-O's system would rank them. The teams at the bottom scoring a whopping 400 points (33.3/week) less than those on the top would be ranked #1, just as would the boring middlemen.
I'll ask once and for all, how can this system be just?
Now, it seems a hard argument to make to say that these 12 teams with their tremendous variance in scoring ability would rank equally in any ranking system (whether subjective or objective), but this is exactly how Patty-O's system would rank them. The teams at the bottom scoring a whopping 400 points (33.3/week) less than those on the top would be ranked #1, just as would the boring middlemen.
I'll ask once and for all, how can this system be just?
