I'll just leave Walrus' last message here, with which I agree wholeheartedly:

Quote from: TheWalrus on April 26, 2024, 06:32 AM
I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I'll continue saying it until someone listens:  winning percentage has been the silliest pre qualification for playoffs.  It rewards players that handpick their easier opponents, or only play certain schemes, and handicaps players that play a large share of their games against great players (oldsock, specifically).  This is an ELO based league, why are we still doing win% when a weighted scoring system exists to determine value?  It has never made an ounce of sense.  Games played I can understand, but win% is lol worthy, we should be rewarding activity.

Additionally, a player such as jago, who is very skilled, basically plays only during later NA hours, where he can basically only play me, camper, and tita; 3 players already qualified for playoffs.  Should he be punished because all of his games played are against good players?  I think not.

It was never a hard rule. In some cases, we've reduced the winning percentage just to allow more players into the PO.

Quote from: MonkeyIsland on April 26, 2024, 12:40 PM
It was never a hard rule. In some cases, we've reduced the winning percentage just to allow more players into the PO.

Yeah, but not everyone might know that. People might just check the standings, see players with <50% win rates are not qualified, and assume they must need ≥50% win rate to qualify.

Plus, as Walrus and other players mentioned, I don't see a good reason to have this requirement, considering the fact that we already have an ELO system.

However, I am all ears for any counter arguments.

Ideally, having a win % wouldn't be such an issue...

Though, when you have a small handful of top players, and the rest are sort of average, this is what happens. If we had enough top players it would be fine everyone playing each other.

If we have no win % required, and that they only need to play the right amount of games, then all you do is if 13 people have more than 30 games played, the 8 with the best win % make the Playoffs, that seems fair!

Quote from: TheKomodo on April 26, 2024, 07:37 PM
If we have no win % required, and that they only need to play the right amount of games, then all you do is if 13 people have more than 30 games played, the 8 with the best win % make the Playoffs, that seems fair!

I think you mean the most points, not the best winning percentage, because people can have more points than other people with a lower winning percentage. The best example I can think of is Piki, Husk and Jago in the overall Darts standings: https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/free-standings/Darts/?s=overall

Quote from: Triad on April 26, 2024, 07:44 PM
I think you mean the most points, not the best winning percentage, because people can have more points than other people with a lower winning percentage. The best example I can think of is Piki, Husk and Jago in the overall Darts standings: https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/free-standings/Darts/?s=overall

Nah, I did mean highest win % however thinking about it yeah it's better to be using the points first, THEN win % to decide who makes the cut.

Though I don't know what the problem is with your example?

Quote
Piki - 257 played - 50.19% - 1,488

Husk - 86 played - 46.51% - 1,408

Jago - 76 played - 39.47% - 1,172

Piki has both more points and highest win %
Husk has 2nd most points and 2nd highest win %
Jago has 3rd most points and 3rd highest win %

What were you trying to prove there?

Quote from: TheKomodo on April 26, 2024, 07:51 PM

Quote from: Triad on April 26, 2024, 07:44 PM
I think you mean the most points, not the best winning percentage, because people can have more points than other people with a lower winning percentage. The best example I can think of is Piki, Husk and Jago in the overall Darts standings: https://www.tus-wa.com/leagues/free-standings/Darts/?s=overall

Nah, I did mean highest win % however thinking about it yeah it's better to be using the points first, THEN win % to decide who makes the cut.

Though I don't know what the problem is with your example?

Quote
Piki - 257 played - 50.19% - 1,488

Husk - 86 played - 46.51% - 1,408

Jago - 76 played - 39.47% - 1,172

Piki has both more points and highest win %
Husk has 2nd most points and 2nd highest win %
Jago has 3rd most points and 3rd highest win %

What were you trying to prove there?

I mean them compared to other players below them. Piki has 9 points more than timo, but 21% less win percentage. Husk has 22 points more than Prince_Egypt, but 16% less win percentage. You get the picture. Like you said, using the points first is a better approach.

Quote from: Triad on April 26, 2024, 08:03 PM
You get the picture. Like you said, using the points first is a better approach.

Maybe...

It really depends who played who... The reason why we have both points and win % is because they sort of go hand in hand to dictate who played better.

It's also different when comparing an individual scheme and multiple schemes.

You can have more points, with a lower win % because you played players you have or haven't beat at specific schemes...

Ideally, you would use both as a measurement to find out which player is more deserving, but to keep things simple, using points is better.