Victory Points (VPs) are a useful tie-breaker in tourney formats that need them. However, when VPs are used as a tie-breaker for a series of matches rather than to decide an individual match, what's the best means to use them?
VPs generally come from killing wizards, creatures, et cetera in a match. Players who end a match with the most VPs have, by and large, killed more things than others. Thus, players who go for the win early and get it will, at the end of the day, have fewer VPs than someone who plays more conservativelyy and grinds out a long match to an actual or near tie.
So, if we use whoever has the most VPs as a the tie-breaker, then we give an advantage to players who took the longest to defeat their opponents and/or ended their matches in draws. Perhaps this might incentivize some players to play their matches conservatively to give them more opportunities to earn VPs. In contrast, if we use whoever has the least VPs to get to a tied record, then perhaps this might incentivize some players to take more risks and play more aggressively. Another way to look at it this is (a) using highest VP total as the winning tie-breaker standard almost is a proxy for using whoever took more turns to win their matches while (b) using lowest VP total could be a proxy for using the lowest turn total.
I don't believe either use of VPs is wrong or invalid. Heck, either use is more fair than a penalty shoot-out that can end some high-stakes soccer tournaments. Though I must confess, based on my play-style preferences, I have a bias toward using whoever has the fewest VPs as the tie-breaker.
Though if we're looking for another tie-breaker stat, then total turns to achieve wins could be that stat with similar low/high options as we have with VPs....