Of realistic statistics, standing, and proper interpetation of detail

We have all come to enjoy the gentlemens game of Croquet. Few other sports hold truth, self-control, and humility in such high regard. Truly, the sport of Croquet holds many of the virtues important to human civilization. And as any sport, there are winners and losers, and obviously there must be a way to determine who wins and who loses. What our current system does in fact is this, it determines the winners, and rewards there actions with formal victory. Our system as well acknowledges those whose performance has been less than excellent.

So we currently apply the availible points to the winner to lose in a descending fashion, this only makes sense. To determine the character of a players performance, lest memorizing ones entire history, we in turn find the percentage of availible points to a player against how many he has acquired. How is the system for our infant league more barbaric than scoring and ranking systems on the collegiate and professional levels? In football, no matter how much one team beats another, each team gets a win and lose respectively. When ranking collegiate teams, the basic rule of thumb is one's record. This is the similar way other sports teams, or players are ranked.

Let look at the month of November, where Morris and Cassie both recieved a 66.7% as their percentage ranking. Is it really a problem two players tied? Which player is better: the one who consistently gets average scores, or the one who bounces between first and sixth? Either way, the percentage reflects on average how they performed.

The argument that we dont know the details is simply false. The records are displayed of the finished games merely a few inches below this very post. Im not sure what scoring system that exists that not only tells how well a player or team has done, AND tells how well they performed. The Eagles are 6-2, but that doesnt say anything if the six wins were at the last minute, or the two losses came when a star quarterback was injured.

The only solution I can think of is somehow stratify the placing further, and have a second performance score, but that would still be an average of how a player normally would do. The point is, is that without a player reciting a series of numbers, each ranking areas of their play, the current system we have is fine.

The real question is: Do we need to solve the 75% problem? Bring everyone up to 100%? Or leave them as is? Just becuase a player played more or less games than another (within reason) does not mean those extra or missing games would have/are the good/bad games they (would) have played.