[quote:f1ae1a923f="BigAlric"]for your remarks. Yes it looks like I will be 'punished' for playing more events than I had to and screwing my average in events 6 and 7. But, hey, it's nice to be successful, but I play for the fun of it and I decided to take that 'risk', so I have to live with it.[/quote:f1ae1a923f]
I thought, maybe just assumed, only your best 5 teams counted...guess not... :o
SOM PLAYERS TOUR LEADERS (Thru Event 7, Leagues 1-3)
Re: Thanks, etd,
by Jack377 » Tue Nov 22, 2005 5:23 pm
- Jack377
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by RiggoDrill » Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:56 am
[quote:c44809ea29="cristano1"]if were going to change some rules...might as well change the right ones...get rid of the tour formula...just base tour championship based on winning percentage alone... if one is going to award points, award points for making playoffs, thats it...everything else afterward is zero skill and 100% luck...[/quote:c44809ea29]
Amen! I don't know if I'd take it quite that far, but way too much of Tour points are based on postseason play. ...and having the "*" Events throws things off even more.
For managers that don't like having their overall score thrown off by one horrible team, we could allow a manager to drop his worst team (that's what Barnstormers Tour does) from average (as long as you had a minimum of 4 qualifying events after dropping one).
The overall winner should be highest Tour Average of the 12 teams that reach the final round rather than the champion of final round.
Amen! I don't know if I'd take it quite that far, but way too much of Tour points are based on postseason play. ...and having the "*" Events throws things off even more.
For managers that don't like having their overall score thrown off by one horrible team, we could allow a manager to drop his worst team (that's what Barnstormers Tour does) from average (as long as you had a minimum of 4 qualifying events after dropping one).
The overall winner should be highest Tour Average of the 12 teams that reach the final round rather than the champion of final round.
- RiggoDrill
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cristano11 » Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:17 pm
yah thats a great idea riggio...u guys could even have the final league (of the top 12) count twice or something...
the heavy points on making the finals and winning a championship has to be modified...winning a star championship is worth 25 additional points...to me, thats ridiculous...
we want to reward skill in the tour, not luck...
the heavy points on making the finals and winning a championship has to be modified...winning a star championship is worth 25 additional points...to me, thats ridiculous...
we want to reward skill in the tour, not luck...
- cristano11
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by ERICTAYLOR 2 » Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:29 pm
Why have playoffs at all? In any sport?
March Madness is pretty much luck. From now on, the team that's #1 at the end of the regular season is national champion!
No BCS bowls. Whomever is #1 next week is the champ.
No World Series. The Cards are the champs!
Think of the beauty of having the NBA season end in April instead of dragging into the summer.
You know guys, your idea might just take off.
March Madness is pretty much luck. From now on, the team that's #1 at the end of the regular season is national champion!
No BCS bowls. Whomever is #1 next week is the champ.
No World Series. The Cards are the champs!
Think of the beauty of having the NBA season end in April instead of dragging into the summer.
You know guys, your idea might just take off.
- ERICTAYLOR 2
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by ERICTAYLOR 2 » Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:30 pm
FWIW, I do agree there shouldn't be any events that count more than any others (i.e. star events).
- ERICTAYLOR 2
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by teepack » Sat Nov 26, 2005 10:41 pm
The one change I would like to see for next year would be to allow you to drop your worst score if you play six or seven teams. I don't think you should be allowed to drop your worst two scores if you play seven teams, though. The reason we made some events worth more than others was to try to encourage people to play those events. But looking at the data (i.e. number of leagues in each round), I don't think we achieved our goal. So I would just recommend going to a standard scoring for all leagues next year.
We did drop the bonus points for postseason back this year for the regular events, so I think we should keep that next year (15 for divisions, 10 for wild card, 10 for getting to the World Series and 10 for winning the World Series).
I agree that the best mark of a team is its regular season record, which is why the 15 bonus points are key.
We did drop the bonus points for postseason back this year for the regular events, so I think we should keep that next year (15 for divisions, 10 for wild card, 10 for getting to the World Series and 10 for winning the World Series).
I agree that the best mark of a team is its regular season record, which is why the 15 bonus points are key.
- teepack
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MARCPELLETIER » Sat Nov 26, 2005 11:16 pm
I support etdefender (both the playoffs logic and the special leagues).
Plus, playoffs aren't only about luck. It's also about positioning one team against another one, or positioning one team against its division, through waiver moves, through trades. Going with winning pct only will give an edge to teams that don't make any adjustments for the playoffs or for making the playoffs.
Plus plus, winning pct doesn't tell the whole story. Injury-prone teams tend to rest their players in the last 12 games or so. I had six injury-prone teams, five of them made playoffs, so I have something around 60 games where I sit my best players. I did it of course to get the additional points.
Plus plus plus, don't forget that we don't count the wins during the playoffs. The additional points for winning the first series or winning it all compensate in part for these.
Plus, playoffs aren't only about luck. It's also about positioning one team against another one, or positioning one team against its division, through waiver moves, through trades. Going with winning pct only will give an edge to teams that don't make any adjustments for the playoffs or for making the playoffs.
Plus plus, winning pct doesn't tell the whole story. Injury-prone teams tend to rest their players in the last 12 games or so. I had six injury-prone teams, five of them made playoffs, so I have something around 60 games where I sit my best players. I did it of course to get the additional points.
Plus plus plus, don't forget that we don't count the wins during the playoffs. The additional points for winning the first series or winning it all compensate in part for these.
- MARCPELLETIER
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by kaviksdad » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:02 pm
I tend to agree with ET and Lucky.
Many people here are fond of saying that this Tour is a marathon and not a sprint. If that's the case, then you have to place just as much emphasis, if not more, on playoff appearances, finals appearances and championships as you do on overall winning percentage and regular season wins. ET has a good point - if it was only about best winning percentage why should any sport have a playoff system. Some teams are built to win their division. Others are built to be champions. I can't count the times a 100+ win team cruises through it's division only to get beat by the wildcard in the first round of the playoffs. Winning percentage is only a part of what determines the overall skill of a manager. As Luckyman points out, there are many other factors that play into the "big picture." Its just wrong to say that regular season records are determined primarily by skill, and that championships are determined primarily by luck, and I would be opposed to any change that takes reduces the reward for winning a league title.
Many people here are fond of saying that this Tour is a marathon and not a sprint. If that's the case, then you have to place just as much emphasis, if not more, on playoff appearances, finals appearances and championships as you do on overall winning percentage and regular season wins. ET has a good point - if it was only about best winning percentage why should any sport have a playoff system. Some teams are built to win their division. Others are built to be champions. I can't count the times a 100+ win team cruises through it's division only to get beat by the wildcard in the first round of the playoffs. Winning percentage is only a part of what determines the overall skill of a manager. As Luckyman points out, there are many other factors that play into the "big picture." Its just wrong to say that regular season records are determined primarily by skill, and that championships are determined primarily by luck, and I would be opposed to any change that takes reduces the reward for winning a league title.
- kaviksdad
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to --- Player's Championship
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests