Hate to get back on topic when the off-topic is sex, but...
[quote:a73d7c9b63="cristano1"]
#4 - have a 5 league minimum, but allow anyone who plays in more than 5 leagues to drop their worst result from their average...
[/quote:a73d7c9b63]
I would totally get off of my soapbox about automatic entry into the Finals for multiple titles if this rule is implemented, as long as you can only drop one lousy squad. There needs to be SOME mechanism in place to be able to overcome one shïtty team. Wouldn't have really helped me last year, though (I ended 19th or 20th overall after something like 72, 73 and 75 wins in the first three events).
SOM PLAYERS TOUR LEADERS (Thru Event 7, Leagues 1-3)
by ERICTAYLOR 2 » Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:33 pm
Which reminds me of something...
The 13th thru 24th finishers should do a consolation league like we did last year...probably the most competitive league I was in all year (and I was in 78 leagues last year!)
The 13th thru 24th finishers should do a consolation league like we did last year...probably the most competitive league I was in all year (and I was in 78 leagues last year!)
- ERICTAYLOR 2
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Rigged Splits » Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:13 pm
[quote:d6849f8d2c="cristano1"]if i were amending the rules for next year, i think there are some important things to consider...
#1 - less points for how you do in playoffs...i think wildcard should be equal points to division winner, since 90% of times wildcard has a better record than at least one division winner, and is usually playing in the most difficult division...i personally would do a 15 + 5 + 5 bonus system (making playoffs, making finals, winning finals)
in our current league, managers ranked in the mid 30s can make the final tour event by having a 90 win team that wins a championship in event 7...thats too broad of a swing, i feel at this point no one ranked over 20 should have a shot at making the final league, since we are 6/7 of the way completed
i think these changes, or similar, would greatly improve the tour...i feel like right now, where we are now, there should be 15-20 legit managers , at most, that have a shot at making the final league...less than 20 in my opinion, but whatever...no way, after 85.7% of the leagues are completed, should manager #35 have a shot at making the final league...no offense, whomever is ranked 35...[/quote:d6849f8d2c]
Equal points to wild card and division winners is a good idea. I don't know about 90% but, in the 15 leagues I've been in, the wild card team has had a better record than a division winner 9 times and has equaled division winners in 3 others.
As for manager #35 not having a shot at the final league that's just silly. First of all, if I remember right, you said that late leagues are more competitive so if anything they should be weighted higher, though I'm not suggesting we do that. Secondly this would give more weight to early round leagues and we all seem to want rounds with no bonuses. Why should a manager that jumps out to an early lead have an advantage. It's a tournament and all rounds count. If your afraid that someone can play 7 rounds and move up in the last, remember that it's an average and the more rounds you play the harder it is to raise your average.
Or are you just saying that you shouldn't be allowed to play your 5th league in the seventh round. On second thought that's a great rule!
#1 - less points for how you do in playoffs...i think wildcard should be equal points to division winner, since 90% of times wildcard has a better record than at least one division winner, and is usually playing in the most difficult division...i personally would do a 15 + 5 + 5 bonus system (making playoffs, making finals, winning finals)
in our current league, managers ranked in the mid 30s can make the final tour event by having a 90 win team that wins a championship in event 7...thats too broad of a swing, i feel at this point no one ranked over 20 should have a shot at making the final league, since we are 6/7 of the way completed
i think these changes, or similar, would greatly improve the tour...i feel like right now, where we are now, there should be 15-20 legit managers , at most, that have a shot at making the final league...less than 20 in my opinion, but whatever...no way, after 85.7% of the leagues are completed, should manager #35 have a shot at making the final league...no offense, whomever is ranked 35...[/quote:d6849f8d2c]
Equal points to wild card and division winners is a good idea. I don't know about 90% but, in the 15 leagues I've been in, the wild card team has had a better record than a division winner 9 times and has equaled division winners in 3 others.
As for manager #35 not having a shot at the final league that's just silly. First of all, if I remember right, you said that late leagues are more competitive so if anything they should be weighted higher, though I'm not suggesting we do that. Secondly this would give more weight to early round leagues and we all seem to want rounds with no bonuses. Why should a manager that jumps out to an early lead have an advantage. It's a tournament and all rounds count. If your afraid that someone can play 7 rounds and move up in the last, remember that it's an average and the more rounds you play the harder it is to raise your average.
Or are you just saying that you shouldn't be allowed to play your 5th league in the seventh round. On second thought that's a great rule!
- Rigged Splits
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cristano11 » Fri Dec 02, 2005 12:10 pm
i realize that it is an average...i just think that for next year its ridiculous to allow a manager in the mid 30s after 6 full events the ability to make the final 12 with a good showing in league 7...
this year it isnt ridiculous, otherwise you are right, managers would be penalized by those that jump out to an early lead...
this is why im arguing that "making finals" and "winning finals" points are far too high...
this year it isnt ridiculous, otherwise you are right, managers would be penalized by those that jump out to an early lead...
this is why im arguing that "making finals" and "winning finals" points are far too high...
- cristano11
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by RiggoDrill » Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:28 pm
Can't believe I've still got an outside shot at reaching the finals in spite of [b:f7137c1bfe]failing to win a single playoff series[/b:f7137c1bfe]. :roll: Event 7 team is 5 games over .500, but struggling in 3rd place of a tough division...
- RiggoDrill
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by RiggoDrill » Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:37 pm
[quote:cf29998835]If RS/RA was the stat to measure coach success, I wouldn't bench my injury-prone star after game 150, [/quote:cf29998835]
[b:cf29998835]luckyman's[/b:cf29998835] got a point - I never bench players. I guess its a personal preference, but I always try to max it out during regular season.
Also, I've tracked a lot of teams and I consistently underperform pythag projections (my Tour Finals team last year was an ugly 13 games below its pythag! :cry: ). This has happened enough, so that I think its fair to say I'm missing some of the finer points of maxing out the wins.
That said, the playoff points are too high and the *-season have to go. 8)
...and [b:cf29998835]ck[/b:cf29998835], thanks for posting the [i:cf29998835]advanced [/i:cf29998835]Tour stats that clearly demonstrate my underappreciated dominance of the 2005 Tour. :P
[b:cf29998835]luckyman's[/b:cf29998835] got a point - I never bench players. I guess its a personal preference, but I always try to max it out during regular season.
Also, I've tracked a lot of teams and I consistently underperform pythag projections (my Tour Finals team last year was an ugly 13 games below its pythag! :cry: ). This has happened enough, so that I think its fair to say I'm missing some of the finer points of maxing out the wins.
That said, the playoff points are too high and the *-season have to go. 8)
...and [b:cf29998835]ck[/b:cf29998835], thanks for posting the [i:cf29998835]advanced [/i:cf29998835]Tour stats that clearly demonstrate my underappreciated dominance of the 2005 Tour. :P
- RiggoDrill
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by mesquiton » Fri Dec 02, 2005 9:37 pm
[b:9d7932b548]Riggo,[/b:9d7932b548] I think your experience is well within the range of statistical probability. You've been about as unlucky as ET has been lucky.
As I recall, you were the most dominant manager overall in 2003, and I don't believe for a second that you suddenly became a "worse" manager when the 2005 cards came out, or that everybody else suddenly got smarter.
I'd say the only "finer point" you might be missing is that luck alone can result in a far wider range of results than is generally recognized around here.
It would be different if we were talking results over hundreds or thousands of leagues. But over just a few leagues, or even a few dozen leagues, it's normal for chance to yield some results that might seem impossible due to luck alone, even though they are well within the expected range of probability.
A 20-run blowout against RJ in Petco might seem impossible, yet we see it happen because it's still within the range of probabilities. And that one blowout will give you more pythag wins than somebody with 19 actual one-run wins, thus grossly skewing pythag/win results over a 20-game sample. Still, pythag score is clearly the best predictor of wins over, say, hundreds of leagues.
The reality is that even an entire Tour is too small a sample size to have much statistical significance. Folks tend to greatly underestimate the role of luck in this game. When we have extended lucky streaks we think we're geniuses, and when we have an unlucky streak we tend to assume we must be doing something wrong.
I couldn't believe how smart I was when one of my Tour teams rode a 16-game win streak to the league's best record and a 14-game division lead late in the season...until the same team finally barely broke .500 and missed the playoffs.
Taking personal credit/blame for luck is the same part of human nature that pays for all those billion-dollar Vegas casinos.
I bet if each game of the 2005 Tour, including playoffs, were decided by a single coin flip, we'd see about the same range of results that we see in the current standings, regardless of the Tour format.
Likewise, I bet if the 2005 Tour were re-played a dozen times, we'd see at least 3 dozen different managers finish in the top 12 at least once, and probably 10 or 12 different winners.
As I recall, you were the most dominant manager overall in 2003, and I don't believe for a second that you suddenly became a "worse" manager when the 2005 cards came out, or that everybody else suddenly got smarter.
I'd say the only "finer point" you might be missing is that luck alone can result in a far wider range of results than is generally recognized around here.
It would be different if we were talking results over hundreds or thousands of leagues. But over just a few leagues, or even a few dozen leagues, it's normal for chance to yield some results that might seem impossible due to luck alone, even though they are well within the expected range of probability.
A 20-run blowout against RJ in Petco might seem impossible, yet we see it happen because it's still within the range of probabilities. And that one blowout will give you more pythag wins than somebody with 19 actual one-run wins, thus grossly skewing pythag/win results over a 20-game sample. Still, pythag score is clearly the best predictor of wins over, say, hundreds of leagues.
The reality is that even an entire Tour is too small a sample size to have much statistical significance. Folks tend to greatly underestimate the role of luck in this game. When we have extended lucky streaks we think we're geniuses, and when we have an unlucky streak we tend to assume we must be doing something wrong.
I couldn't believe how smart I was when one of my Tour teams rode a 16-game win streak to the league's best record and a 14-game division lead late in the season...until the same team finally barely broke .500 and missed the playoffs.
Taking personal credit/blame for luck is the same part of human nature that pays for all those billion-dollar Vegas casinos.
I bet if each game of the 2005 Tour, including playoffs, were decided by a single coin flip, we'd see about the same range of results that we see in the current standings, regardless of the Tour format.
Likewise, I bet if the 2005 Tour were re-played a dozen times, we'd see at least 3 dozen different managers finish in the top 12 at least once, and probably 10 or 12 different winners.
- mesquiton
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by RiggoDrill » Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:19 pm
[quote:eb38ad1b73]As I recall, you were the most dominant manager overall in 2003...[/quote:eb38ad1b73]
Glad you brought that up [u:eb38ad1b73]mesquiton[/u:eb38ad1b73]. 8) In, fact, many affectionately refer to me as [b:eb38ad1b73]"The Great" RiggoDrill[/b:eb38ad1b73]. In [u:eb38ad1b73]luckyman's[/u:eb38ad1b73] emails to me, he usually starts like this...
[i:eb38ad1b73]"Dear Great One,"[/i:eb38ad1b73]
The next line usually looks like this...
[i:eb38ad1b73]"Greeting from First Place. Just a frieldly reminder that I'm kicking your A** again..."[/i:eb38ad1b73]
Or something like that... :P
Glad you brought that up [u:eb38ad1b73]mesquiton[/u:eb38ad1b73]. 8) In, fact, many affectionately refer to me as [b:eb38ad1b73]"The Great" RiggoDrill[/b:eb38ad1b73]. In [u:eb38ad1b73]luckyman's[/u:eb38ad1b73] emails to me, he usually starts like this...
[i:eb38ad1b73]"Dear Great One,"[/i:eb38ad1b73]
The next line usually looks like this...
[i:eb38ad1b73]"Greeting from First Place. Just a frieldly reminder that I'm kicking your A** again..."[/i:eb38ad1b73]
Or something like that... :P
- RiggoDrill
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Mr Baseball World » Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:17 pm
As long as this has become the soap box zone for tour changes:
1. Assign leagues. No doubt that some players cherry pick their leagues based on their perception of the talent level in the league.
2. Major revamp: Play three rounds, then narrow the field to 36, then play three more to narrow to 12 and then have the final league. Will help alleviate the concern regarding cherry picking/being lucky enough to get lesser managers in your divisions since you will have to battle the top 36 to get to the finals. Also will help limit the chances of a skewed last league result by someone experimenting since he has no shot anyway.
1. Assign leagues. No doubt that some players cherry pick their leagues based on their perception of the talent level in the league.
2. Major revamp: Play three rounds, then narrow the field to 36, then play three more to narrow to 12 and then have the final league. Will help alleviate the concern regarding cherry picking/being lucky enough to get lesser managers in your divisions since you will have to battle the top 36 to get to the finals. Also will help limit the chances of a skewed last league result by someone experimenting since he has no shot anyway.
- Mr Baseball World
- 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 24 guests