Rough criteria:

1. W%

2. If tied, favors team with closer games and wins earlier in the series. Not exactly pt differential but similar

• Update 2025-05-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Based on creator comments, tie-breakers (when W% is equal) will consider the leverage of games won:

  • Wins in high-leverage situations (e.g., early in the series to take a lead) are valued more.

  • Wins in low-leverage situations (e.g., a blowout win when already down 3-0) are considered less meaningful.

  • Example given: A team going up 2-0 then losing 4 straight might be considered to have performed better in the tie-breaker than a team that won games 4 and 5 after being down significantly early in the series.

• Update 2025-05-05 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): The creator has provided specific numerical values for leverage to quantify the tie-breaker when W% is equal. These values are based on the game number and the series score at the time (assuming each game is initially 50/50):

  • Game 1: 0.3125

  • Game 2: 0.3125

  • Game 3: 0.375 (if series is 1-1), 0.25 (if series is 2-0 or 0-2)

  • Game 4: 0.375 (if series is 2-1 or 1-2), 0.125 (if series is 3-0 or 0-3)

  • Game 5: 0.5 (if series is 2-2), 0.25 (otherwise, i.e., 3-1 or 1-3)

  • Game 6: 0.5

  • Game 7: 1.0

The creator also noted that point differential is intentionally avoided partly because it can be misleading due to garbage time.

• Update 2025-05-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Further clarification on tie-breakers when W% is equal:

  • The assessment of which team had 'closer games' will focus on how close the closest individual games of their respective series were.

  • This approach is analogous to considering a 'tipping point margin' or 'median point differential' of games, rather than an overall average point differential (mean point differential).

  • The point differentials of individual games will be directly relevant in this comparison to determine which team's series featured closer contests.

  • Additionally, qualitative aspects, such as the context of a win (e.g., a road win, or a win in a perceived must-win situation that might offer nuance beyond the pre-defined leverage scores), may be considered in the overall evaluation of which team performed better in the tie-breaker.

• Update 2025-05-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Further details on evaluating the 'closer games' aspect of the tie-breaker (when W% is equal):

  • When assessing which series featured 'closer games', the point differentials in very large blowout wins are considered negligible. For example, the difference between a 22-point win and a 43-point win is not significant for this criterion if both games were decided early and non-competitive.

  • The focus is on the point differential in games that were genuinely close contests.

  • The determination of a game's 'closeness' will include qualitative judgment of its competitiveness, not solely the final point differential.

  • For example, a 9-point overtime (OT) win might be considered to represent a 'closer' or more significant contest than a 3-point win achieved in a game that was not competitive throughout (i.e., 'never close' despite the small final margin).

• Update 2025-05-11 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): When W% is tied, the creator has provided further details on tie-breaking considerations:

  • The creator may use the Excitement metric from stats.inpredictable.com (which sums swings in win probability) as one source to measure how close a game was, particularly when ignoring garbage time.

  • Average excitement from the games in each series may be considered as one of the factors.

  • The creator provided an illustrative example of a hypothetical multi-factor comparison that would be undertaken if W% were tied. This example included weighing:

  • Average point differential

  • Average excitement

  • Median point differential (and median point differential in regulation)

  • Order of wins (which relates to leverage and wins earlier in the series)

  • The creator noted that it can be hard to exactly specify all criteria beforehand. If, after considering these multiple factors, the assessment between the two teams remains too close to call, the market might resolve to 50/50.