In the past, teams have used statistics like OPR, DPR, and CCWM (Offensive Power Rating, Defensive Power Rating, and Calculated Contribution to Winning Margin) to quickly compare teams with reasonably high accuracy.
This has worked really well for some games (like In The Zone and Nothing But Net) and slightly less well for others (like Turning Point because descoring was allowed).
It seems like these formulas operate under the assumption that a higher match score is in all cases better than a lower match score. (Full disclaimer, I’m not super sure on how these formulas work so I might be wrong about this.)
This would mean that the formulas significantly underestimate the OPR of teams with a neutral tower strategy (i.e., focusing on an even distribution of colors instead of going after one specific color and using the towers). It would also mean that the OPR of teams that try and bring the score as high as possible (through the use of towers) would be overestimated. DPR and CCWM would be similarly skewed to favor certain strategies.
Am I correct in my assessment of this? While a holistic approach to picking an alliance partner and comparing teams is obviously ideal, the raw CCWM statistic helped teams quickly figure out which teams were better than which others. Is there another metric we can use similarly to CCWM, perhaps one that considers the ratio between scores instead of the raw number?