Public demo · No username needed
The most points.
Still outside the playoffs.
The Lanterns score well every week, yet finish fifth. Follow the numbers in a complete league report, then try a different schedule.
All teams, scores and matchups on this page are fictional. This deliberately constructed example explains the calculations; it is not a real Sleeper league, user data or evidence about how often this happens.
One season, two views of performance
The Example League has eight teams and seven completed regular-season weeks. Each team plays every other team once. The first four teams qualify for hypothetical playoffs. Standings use wins, then total points as the tiebreaker; this dataset has no draws.
| Rank | Team | Actual W–L | Points | All-play W–L–D | Effective Wins | Matchup gap | Playoffs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ravens | 6–1 | 892 | 37–12–0 | 5.29 | +0.71 | In top 4 |
| 2 | Owls | 4–3 | 858 | 32–17–0 | 4.57 | −0.57 | In top 4 |
| 3 | Meteors | 4–3 | 743 | 18–31–0 | 2.57 | +1.43 | In top 4 |
| 4 | Foxes | 4–3 | 694 | 15–34–0 | 2.14 | +1.86 | In top 4 |
| 5 | Lanterns | 3–4 | 910 | 42–7–0 | 6.00 | −3.00 | Outside top 4 |
| 6 | Otters | 3–4 | 718 | 21–28–0 | 3.00 | 0.00 | Outside top 4 |
| 7 | Comets | 3–4 | 648 | 13–36–0 | 1.86 | +1.14 | Outside top 4 |
| 8 | Badgers | 1–6 | 698 | 18–31–0 | 2.57 | −1.57 | Outside top 4 |
Effective Wins = all-play wins ÷ 7. The Lanterns' 42–7 all-play record becomes 6.00 Effective Wins and 1.00 Effective Losses on the seven-week scale. The matchup gap, called “Stolen Wins” in the analyzer, is actual wins minus Effective Wins: 3 − 6 = −3.00. Values in the table are rounded only for display.
The Foxes show the other side: 4 actual wins against 2.14 Effective Wins. Their positive gap describes favourable results from opponent timing. It does not mean the manager did anything wrong, nor does the Lanterns' negative gap prove superior skill.
Selected teams illustrate the gap. Bar lengths run from 0 to 7 wins; all values are also written below.
Why 130 points keeps losing
The Lanterns have the second-highest score every week. Their first four opponents happen to be that week's highest scorer. Each of those losses still represents six all-play wins and one all-play loss. Winning the last three weeks cannot recover the earlier head-to-head losses.
| Week | Opponent | Lanterns score | Opponent score | Result | Weekly all-play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ravens | 130 | 150 | Loss | 6–1–0 |
| 2 | Otters | 130 | 151 | Loss | 6–1–0 |
| 3 | Meteors | 130 | 152 | Loss | 6–1–0 |
| 4 | Owls | 130 | 153 | Loss | 6–1–0 |
| 5 | Foxes | 130 | 100 | Win | 6–1–0 |
| 6 | Badgers | 130 | 115 | Win | 6–1–0 |
| 7 | Comets | 130 | 89 | Win | 6–1–0 |
This is a timing example, not a prediction. Seven weekly scores tell us how recorded results compare with other scores in the same league. They do not measure drafting, injury luck or waiver skill, and this short constructed season cannot establish how common an unlucky finish is.
Try a Calendar Swap
In the default example, move the Lanterns into the Comets' matchup slots and the Comets into the Lanterns' slots. Every team's weekly points stay fixed. Recalculate all four matchups each week, including the other teams affected by the switch.
The complete Lanterns ↔ Comets worked swap is shown below. Enable JavaScript to choose a different pair.
Lanterns: 3–4 → 7–0, rank 5 → 1. Comets: 3–4 → 0–7, rank 7 → 8. Every team keeps the same weekly scores and all-play record. The table also recalculates their opponents' results.
| New rank | Team | Original record | After swap | Win change | Playoffs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lanterns | 3–4 | 7–0 | +4 | In top 4 |
| 2 | Ravens | 6–1 | 6–1 | 0 | In top 4 |
| 3 | Foxes | 4–3 | 4–3 | 0 | In top 4 |
| 4 | Owls | 4–3 | 3–4 | −1 | In top 4 |
| 5 | Meteors | 4–3 | 3–4 | −1 | Outside top 4 |
| 6 | Otters | 3–4 | 3–4 | 0 | Outside top 4 |
| 7 | Badgers | 1–6 | 2–5 | +1 | Outside top 4 |
| 8 | Comets | 3–4 | 0–7 | −3 | Outside top 4 |
Follow each changed opponent
| Week | Team score | Original opponent | After swap opponent | After swap result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 130 | Ravens (150) | Otters (80) | Win |
| 2 | 130 | Otters (151) | Owls (110) | Win |
| 3 | 130 | Meteors (152) | Badgers (97) | Win |
| 4 | 130 | Owls (153) | Ravens (83) | Win |
| 5 | 130 | Foxes (100) | Meteors (89) | Win |
| 6 | 130 | Badgers (115) | Foxes (113) | Win |
| 7 | 130 | Comets (89) | Comets (89) | Win |
In the default Lanterns–Comets example, Week 7 stays unchanged because those teams already face one another. The Lanterns' all-play record stays 42–7–0 under every swap: opponent assignments cannot change the strength of their scores against the whole league. For any selected pair, their own direct meeting remains unchanged.
A different head-to-head schedule can outperform the all-play average. Seven actual wins after this particular swap do not contradict 6.00 Effective Wins. All-play averages all seven possible opponents every week; the swap follows one specific set of seven matchup slots.
The complete example data
Use these recorded fictional scores and pairings to reproduce either standings table. Scores are kept as whole numbers for readability. There are no median wins, incomplete weeks, score ties or playoff games in this example.
| Team | W1 | W2 | W3 | W4 | W5 | W6 | W7 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lanterns | 130 | 130 | 130 | 130 | 130 | 130 | 130 | 910 |
| Comets | 86 | 98 | 98 | 108 | 78 | 91 | 89 | 648 |
| Badgers | 97 | 101 | 97 | 112 | 93 | 115 | 83 | 698 |
| Foxes | 84 | 109 | 75 | 94 | 100 | 113 | 119 | 694 |
| Owls | 112 | 110 | 92 | 153 | 154 | 117 | 120 | 858 |
| Meteors | 110 | 80 | 152 | 82 | 89 | 109 | 121 | 743 |
| Otters | 80 | 151 | 95 | 84 | 104 | 118 | 86 | 718 |
| Ravens | 150 | 114 | 120 | 83 | 114 | 155 | 156 | 892 |
| Week | Game 1 | Game 2 | Game 3 | Game 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lanterns–Ravens | Comets–Otters | Badgers–Meteors | Foxes–Owls |
| 2 | Lanterns–Otters | Ravens–Meteors | Comets–Owls | Badgers–Foxes |
| 3 | Lanterns–Meteors | Otters–Owls | Ravens–Foxes | Comets–Badgers |
| 4 | Lanterns–Owls | Meteors–Foxes | Otters–Badgers | Ravens–Comets |
| 5 | Lanterns–Foxes | Owls–Badgers | Meteors–Comets | Otters–Ravens |
| 6 | Lanterns–Badgers | Foxes–Comets | Owls–Ravens | Meteors–Otters |
| 7 | Lanterns–Comets | Badgers–Ravens | Foxes–Otters | Owls–Meteors |
Transparency: This dataset was constructed to make opponent timing easy to inspect. It uses no real managers or historical outcomes. The full example dataset and calculation logic are public. The page's original and default-swap tables remain readable with JavaScript disabled.
What this report can and cannot tell you
The report answers a specific question: how did these recorded weekly scores perform against the opponents assigned on those same weeks? It shows why total points alone cannot explain a head-to-head record, and why comparing every team every week provides useful context.
- All-play is descriptive. Effective Wins are a normalized record against the league's scores, not a prediction of next week's wins.
- Schedule swaps assume the same lineups. A real manager might change strategy when facing a different opponent. That behavioural change is outside this model.
- League rules matter. This demo uses a four-team cutoff and points as a tiebreaker. Your league may use divisions, median results or different qualification rules.
- Points are not a complete skill measure. Injuries, roster construction, scoring settings, trades and lineup decisions need context beyond the score table.
If scores tie in the calculations, ties are recorded separately rather than credited as outright wins. The standings comparison counts a head-to-head draw as half a win; Effective Wins still mean all-play outright wins divided by the number of opponents.