Because I didn’t want to compare MOOSE’s tiebreaker to your tiebreaker, I only looked at games where iterative had a beatpick that conflicted with your pick. (There were no cases, as far as I can tell, where standard had a pick and iterative did not.)

Here’s the summary:

Week 7: Iterative got CIN→CHI right.
Week 11: Iterative got MIA→CAR right, and SD→DEN wrong.
Week 12: Iterative got NYJ→CAR right, and BAL→PIT wrong.
Week 13: Iterative got NYG→DAL right, and PHI→ATL wrong.
Week 14: Iterative got MIA→JAC right, and PHI→NYG wrong.
Week 16: Iterative got PIT→BAL wrong.
Week 17: Iterative got DAL→PHI and NYJ→CIN right.
Week 18: Iterative got DAL→PHI and NYJ→CIN right.

Overall, Iterative went 9-5 in conflict picks. It’s intereating to see the patterns here – iterative clearly thought more highly of Miami and thought less of Carolina, and benefited from that. On the flip side, iterative thought less of Philly, and went 2-2 on those conflict picks.

The most humorous, I think, is how iterative picked the road team in the PIT/BAL series both times, while standard picked the home team. Good thinking there, standard algorithm.

So, anyway, my arguments for iterative, in a nutshell:

1) The graph is more vertical and displays more of the data in a visually accessible way.

2) Significantly better retrospective pick record.

3) Slightly better predictive pick record.