2011 PC Tournament Final Standings
37 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
by durantjerry » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:37 pm
Event 5 League 6 - I twice picked up AL players in a NL only league
- durantjerry
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by bob711 » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:43 am
I've been away for a bit but by mistake I picked up Paul Maholm in an AL only league as my 5th never to start starter. He did not retire a batter. Not sure if a penalty was assessed but I posted to the league as soon as it happened.
- bob711
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
This is an interesting topic... one in which has links to
by mcsoupy » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:05 pm
College Football, The "Chase for the Race", and then Superbowl or World Series.
The argument is how to reward or to select the best manager within Strat. Each of the arguments has merit and it just depends upon what your criteria is for "fair" and "just".
1. It has been argued that each of the games should count and that "most wins" should be the decision point. this is not unlike College Football in that every game counts. If you lose early, the season is lost and that all games are counting towards determining the national champ.
Here is the biggest Con for this. What if you play against a weaker opponents and end up with a 99 win season vs if you were playing against a decent division and you make the playoffs but earn 87 pts. Which is the better manager? Total wins, imho, is not a good 'indicator' of truly being the best, not even if you use a handful of leagues to determine it. there are too many holes.
2. I love the argument about how many people are "let in"... whether it is the 64 team NCAA or race for the chase, etc. People love to see the underdogs early in the tourny, but at the end of the day, people want to see the NC's, Dukes, Kentucky's, etc in the end. It is natural... and for everytime there is an upset and you find yourself staring at a lessor team in the finals. So the question is how 'selective' do you make that very next step. The NBA practically is like over half the teams make it, Hockeyisn't too far from that... then you have Baseball that is very exclusive. There are no right answers here, but just your love for how many "underdogs' you allow in the race.
I will say this, i enjoy the way this this is done. There is a large "Play In" component, so that each of the games count toward making the next level, and then there is a binary result from there on out. Win and you will be in, lose and you will be out. I think, from what you all have put together, is a fun and exciting event, so much so that this is all that i play now year to year... i do very few other teams just because this is more to play for.
Good luck to everyone, from number 36 all the way to number 1 (Cristano, i know you are not number 1 but holy cow did you have a great run).
The argument is how to reward or to select the best manager within Strat. Each of the arguments has merit and it just depends upon what your criteria is for "fair" and "just".
1. It has been argued that each of the games should count and that "most wins" should be the decision point. this is not unlike College Football in that every game counts. If you lose early, the season is lost and that all games are counting towards determining the national champ.
Here is the biggest Con for this. What if you play against a weaker opponents and end up with a 99 win season vs if you were playing against a decent division and you make the playoffs but earn 87 pts. Which is the better manager? Total wins, imho, is not a good 'indicator' of truly being the best, not even if you use a handful of leagues to determine it. there are too many holes.
2. I love the argument about how many people are "let in"... whether it is the 64 team NCAA or race for the chase, etc. People love to see the underdogs early in the tourny, but at the end of the day, people want to see the NC's, Dukes, Kentucky's, etc in the end. It is natural... and for everytime there is an upset and you find yourself staring at a lessor team in the finals. So the question is how 'selective' do you make that very next step. The NBA practically is like over half the teams make it, Hockeyisn't too far from that... then you have Baseball that is very exclusive. There are no right answers here, but just your love for how many "underdogs' you allow in the race.
I will say this, i enjoy the way this this is done. There is a large "Play In" component, so that each of the games count toward making the next level, and then there is a binary result from there on out. Win and you will be in, lose and you will be out. I think, from what you all have put together, is a fun and exciting event, so much so that this is all that i play now year to year... i do very few other teams just because this is more to play for.
Good luck to everyone, from number 36 all the way to number 1 (Cristano, i know you are not number 1 but holy cow did you have a great run).
- mcsoupy
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by mesquiton » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:29 pm
[b:73959c8c73]bob711:[/b:73959c8c73] Players not actually used = no penalty assessed, but thanks for reporting.
[b:73959c8c73]mcsoupy:[/b:73959c8c73] I agree. The current tourney format, arrived at by trial-and-error over the years, seems to maximize participation, interest, fun and excitement, as well as make things more competitive.
When the Champs League was just the top 12 point-getters, with no Semis, over half the managers would drop out between the first and last events, because they were already out of contention.
With the current format, most managers participate to the end. This year I think we had one less league filled for the final event than for the first event. Under the old format we would have half or less of the original number of leagues by the final event.
Also doesn't seem so clear to me that a 2-league Semis gives top seeds a big advantage over a 3-league format. The numerical odds are better with 24 teams, but the competition is weaker with 36. With 36 teams, a top seed faces lower seeds in his division than he would with only the top 24 competing.
With 24 teams, the #1 seed faces #12, #13 and #24 in his division. With 36 teams, he faces #18, #19 and #36.
Seems to me that's an advantage for the top seed. The higher the seed, the bigger the benefit.
A 24-team format puts 4 managers into the finals without even making the playoffs in their Semis league, while another dozen managers are needlessly excluded.
The difference between those managers could be as little as a dice roll or two over 5 qualifying leagues, or maybe a manager had easier or tougher competition in his divisions.
With 36, all playoff teams advance, and nobody gets to the Champs League without first making the playoffs against all top-36 competition, in the Semis. That works for me, whatever my seed.
The tournament's for fun, not to prove anything, which it can't do anyway. But, it can crown a Tournament Champ and make for fun along the way. So why not go with the format that affords the most fun for the most folks, the reason the Tour was created in the first place.
The 36-team format keeps more managers in the mix longer, helps the tourney by increasing interest and participation, and helps TSN sell more tickets to keep things going.
It gives a top seed better odds of making the finals by winning his division/wildcard, but also gives more managers a shot. Gives a dozen managers who might be better than their seeds a last chance to prove it, and requires all finalists to first make the playoffs (not finish 5th or 6th) against Semis competition.
And seems like the most fun for the most folks. A win-win all around.
[b:73959c8c73]mcsoupy:[/b:73959c8c73] I agree. The current tourney format, arrived at by trial-and-error over the years, seems to maximize participation, interest, fun and excitement, as well as make things more competitive.
When the Champs League was just the top 12 point-getters, with no Semis, over half the managers would drop out between the first and last events, because they were already out of contention.
With the current format, most managers participate to the end. This year I think we had one less league filled for the final event than for the first event. Under the old format we would have half or less of the original number of leagues by the final event.
Also doesn't seem so clear to me that a 2-league Semis gives top seeds a big advantage over a 3-league format. The numerical odds are better with 24 teams, but the competition is weaker with 36. With 36 teams, a top seed faces lower seeds in his division than he would with only the top 24 competing.
With 24 teams, the #1 seed faces #12, #13 and #24 in his division. With 36 teams, he faces #18, #19 and #36.
Seems to me that's an advantage for the top seed. The higher the seed, the bigger the benefit.
A 24-team format puts 4 managers into the finals without even making the playoffs in their Semis league, while another dozen managers are needlessly excluded.
The difference between those managers could be as little as a dice roll or two over 5 qualifying leagues, or maybe a manager had easier or tougher competition in his divisions.
With 36, all playoff teams advance, and nobody gets to the Champs League without first making the playoffs against all top-36 competition, in the Semis. That works for me, whatever my seed.
The tournament's for fun, not to prove anything, which it can't do anyway. But, it can crown a Tournament Champ and make for fun along the way. So why not go with the format that affords the most fun for the most folks, the reason the Tour was created in the first place.
The 36-team format keeps more managers in the mix longer, helps the tourney by increasing interest and participation, and helps TSN sell more tickets to keep things going.
It gives a top seed better odds of making the finals by winning his division/wildcard, but also gives more managers a shot. Gives a dozen managers who might be better than their seeds a last chance to prove it, and requires all finalists to first make the playoffs (not finish 5th or 6th) against Semis competition.
And seems like the most fun for the most folks. A win-win all around.
- mesquiton
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
You nailed it
by mcsoupy » Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:01 am
Well said well said. :) Great Job, agree wholeheartedly.
mc
mc
- mcsoupy
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by durantjerry » Fri Dec 23, 2011 2:15 pm
[quote:46c43dfb1c]The tournament's for fun, not to prove anything, which it can't do anyway. But, it can crown a Tournament Champ and make for fun along the way. So why not go with the format that affords the most fun for the most folks, the reason the Tour was created in the first place. [/quote:46c43dfb1c]
Yes, and thank you for all your hard work.
Yes, and thank you for all your hard work.
- durantjerry
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
37 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Return to --- Player's Championship
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest