All Members please vote!!! IFPA point related.

[MikeS]

Hilton brought up a suggestion in the 2015 League Rules thread about changes in the way league results are reported to the IFPA for 2015 and their corresponding point values. Basically if we keep things as/is our monthly point base would go from approximately 2.8 points per month down to 1.6 points. However if we modified the format to include playoffs for the top 4 finishers we could double this value to approximately 3.2 points per month. The board decided it was best to leave this as something for members to decide via a poll/vote. If the majority of members decides they would rather keep things as/is we will scrap the idea and table it for 2016, however if the majority decides they are in favor of making changes then we can use this time to decide what these changes will be.

We don't have to nail down all the specifics right at this moment but can leave this thread open to discuss options. Please vote and weigh in with your opinion.

I will copy Hilton's suggestion from the rules thread to this one just as a starting point of discussion.

[MikeS]

Here is Hilton's point to use as a starting point:


Re: 2015 League Rules
Postby Hilton » Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:02 pm

May I raise a suggestion to the board for slight modification due to new IFPA points rules for 2015? I am not sure what the formal process for this is so please let me know if there is a correct way or if you want this removed from this spot/thread?


With the changes to IFPA points for 2015 our league events will be worth pretty limited monthly amount and I think there may be some simple ways to increase their value with little effort.
In general terms the new calculation is an algorithm based on number of people in the event and the number of games played.

Last year each event was worth ~2.8 points per month
Starting in 2015, with our current set up of 20 people and only 4 games needed to win (path to victory is what matters) our current monthly value will be ~1.6 points.

2o people times .5 = 10 then 10 times a game count multiplier (4% per game) of 16% = 1.6 points to the winner

I like how we do stuff for our actual league additive point accumulation, but would like to suggest that just for the purposes of IFPA monthly reporting that we increase the game count which will increase the rigor and WPPR points available at league.

Time for each night is obviously a concern so shooting from the hip I would suggest something like:
Play the 4 games like always. For IFPA strength purposes the top 4 finishers from the night will go on to play X number additional 'playoff' games to crown a monthly tournament champ and reshuffle the finishing position for those 4 people. For every game added to the total path to victory you can add 4% to the multiplier value of the event. For example >> 4 regular games plus the top pack at the end of the night plays through 4 more games for a total game count of 8 and a total event base value of 3.2 points. I think this could have the side effect of being some fun added goal for the night. make the top 4 and you get some more evenly matched competition for the evenings "playoff" bracket. This would likely mean those 4 people are playing an additional 45-60 minutes depending on X games played for the playoff. Could cut that time down by doing 4 person for 2 more games and then only top 2 for 2 more games.

Of course anyone not in the top 4 would be playing for fun and dollar games like normal post the standard nightly game play.

I hope I am explaining this correctly/clearly. I respect whatever decision the board makes, just a thought I wanted to throw out as many of us are always looking for points towards the SCS. At the same time I see this as a way for the more competitive in the group to have more "game day" practice.
Hilton

Posts: 926
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:18 pm

[u2sean]

These are good suggestions. I enjoy league and definitely want it to remain fun and simple, yet competitive. I also would like to avoid it becoming an all night event. That being said, here are my thoughts.

1. Keep the 7/5/3/1 point standings as-is for overall league placement
2. Additional 4 games for the top 4 finishers that are used SOLELY for IFPA points
a. 4 players play 2 games together
b. Top 2 players from the playoff play 2 more games for 1st and 2nd IFPA for the month

These additional games would be chosen randomly at the start of league, just like the other games.

What I'd like to avoid if at all possible:
1. A playoff to get into the playoffs
2. Additional playoffs in the playoffs because of ties.

For avoiding a playoff to get into the playoff, maybe make it so that if 2 players tied the player that moves on is the one with the LOWEST current total league average? This would theoretically mean they have played better this month than usual. Handicap.

For avoiding additional playoffs, any point scheme that works to reduce or eliminate it?

Keep it simple. I like simple.

[Hilton]

Thanks to the board for both taking on my suggestion and being very open/diplomatic about it by putting it to the vote.

I agree with all Sean has said. K I S S is a great plan and if this is voted as yes I am sure that we can come up with a way to eliminate any tie breakers. The idea of using past league performace to decide tie breakers should work after the first month and also provides incentive to play well over consitent months.

looking forward to the outcome.

Gonna be a great season no matter what!

[MikeS]

I agree with Sean as well and like the proposed changes. Another thing we could use for tie-breaker is head-to-head throughout the night although that probably wouldn't work as well if there was more than a 2 way tie.

[KingPin Games]

Here it is from my point of view.

I live at one of the far ends of the league radius, so for me to spend an extra 45-60 minutes playing games not really that big of a deal for me. If we continue to start around 7, done with league by 10, playoffs done by 11, the i am home by midnight. I am okay with that.

i will not say what the vote is as of now, but it is unanimous so far (for the people that voted) so unless everyone else is completely against it i think we have our answer (mostly).

[tullster]

Sounds good to me too. I like the idea of a playoff at the end of the night. IFPA points don't mean much to me, but I'm all for helping boost their value for those who keep track and might need all the points they can get at the end of the year!

Thanks for looking into this Hilton!

[Ken]

More pinball?? Sure! Sean's ideas sound good and should be explored.

[Hilton]

since this is getting vetted out more.
(I respect whatever the board comes up with or decides)
Here is what I would propose for efficiency of time each night and elucidate upon what Sean said >>>

1. Keep the 7/5/3/1 point standings as-is for overall league placement. >>> How you do during the 4 games of league play is what will be tracked for league

2. Additional playoff games for the top 4 finishers that are used SOLELY for IFPA points. >>> These games are only used for IFPA rigor purposes. If there is a tie of some sort for whom is the top 4 for the night then we look to current total points in league based on all previous months. For example, 2 people are tied for 4th position with 18 points for the night, then look at total accumulated league points and whomever is higher is deemed 4th for IFPA playoff games. In January we may need to do a 1 ball playoff since we have no history established.

a. Top 4 players enter playoff. To avoid ties here what I would suggest is Game 1 is 4 players, lowest score is out and top 3 continue on. Game 2 is 3 players, lowest score is out and top 2 continue on.

b. Top 2 players from the playoff play 3 more games for 1st and 2nd IFPA reporting for the month. First to 2 wins. With only 2 people these games typically go very quickly.

This will actually take the total game count to 9 and I forsee this adding almost no time to a typical league night. This is the most K I S S way to I can come up with for what has been proposed.

note: I have idea to help speed up our front end of the night which is to use the previous nights finishing to determine initial 4 packs for that months league play. The random draw from a hat wastes time when all we should need to do is draw out the games. If we do this then our net time impact on the night will be negligible.

[Ken]

Sounds good except I like Sean's idea of Lowest league total to date gets into the playoff.

[Hilton]

Sounds good except I like Sean's idea of Lowest league total to date gets into the playoff.

Sean and I are saying the same thing I think?

If there is a tie for determining top 4 on a league night then a tiebreaker is settled by looking at current league standings. Whomever has better current league placement wins the tiebreaker decision.
At least that is how I am reading it. Past perfromace used as incentive to show up and play well every league night makes sense to me.

[u2sean]

Sean and I are saying the same thing I think?

I think we are saying the opposite. If you get 2 people that tie at 18 points, then the individual with the LOWER placement would win the tiebreaker. Why? The higher ranked individual should have been able to finish better than the lower ranked. Because they tied, the person who played better that night compared to how they usually do would move on to the finals. I'll put it in bowling terms, where two bowlers are competing against each other. One has a 150 average and the other has a 200 average. If they both bowl a 210 game, who would win? The person that bowled better than night - the one with a 150 average - because they'd technically have a higher handicap to even the playing field.

I like the knockout round suggestion for the 4 player games and then the best 2/3 for the final 2 players. Great ideas!

[Hilton]

ok, then I disagree with you

Since our league points are dependant on attendance and not purely average performance the handicapping does not work. Granted we could calculate a running average based on actual nights played, but pinball has less consistency that bowling since all different games and that sounds like more work. I don't think handicaps work very well in pinball and to be honest I think the bowlers shoudl toss another ball rather than give the win to the guy that got hot for the night (my best game is 118 BTW )

I prefer that tie breakers go to the person that has done better in league and not the person that got hot for the night. I also like to incentivize showing up each month rather than incentivizing a hot hand and sporadic attendance. Basically, the cream should float to the top.

[KingPin Games]

i will have to agree with Sean on this one. the person that is lower should have a chance (just for that night) to make it into the playoffs. nothing makes me feel better than when i bowl a 220 (170 average and a high game of 278 btw) and beat the guy who bowls a 230 (200 average). it makes me enjoy the win that much more. on the flip side, when i get beat by a 140 average person it is more likely than not that it was because i wasn't doing my best that night either.

on a side note, i don't really know how i feel about the other part of your suggestions

note: I have idea to help speed up our front end of the night which is to use the previous nights finishing to determine initial 4 packs for that months league play. The random draw from a hat wastes time when all we should need to do is draw out the games. If we do this then our net time impact on the night will be negligible.

if it is done this way then you will have an initial 4 pack that will be the top players. that initial game could take a lot longer than if it were done at random. i am sure there is a phone app (for us people that have move into the 21st century.... (cough, "Hilton" cough) that could easily randomize the players for that night. you get a number when you arrive at the event (1-20) then the app randomizes the numbers and the packs are determined that way. (i am just picking on you Hilton about the phone. sarcasm is so hard in text form)

also, what happens if you are not at the previous event? are you automatically included in the bottom initial 4 pack? that may be fine for me, but what if say Mike S (we all know how good you are Mike, just deal with it) gets put in the bottom just because. not really as fair as just randomizing the people. I will have to think on this a little more and see if someone else has a suggestions that hasn't been brought up yet.

KingPin

[Methos]

Whatever is decided, the issue of any of the top 4 finishers not wanting to participate will need to be planned and have a process for it. Not everyone can spend all Sat night playing pinball because of weather/prior committments/travel distance, etc.

So say someone has to get out by 8:30, but they finished 3rd. There should not be any penalty to or for them in giving up the playoff for that night. That expectation needs to be addressed. We can't allow contention to occur if someone is unable to stay all evening. Not everyone in the league has as their 1st priority for being in the league to earn IFPA points.