Suggestions for the 2014 PC Tournament?

Why not 25 points for making the playoffs, 25 more for winning the semis and 50 for winning the ring?

Come on, J-Pav, offering an extreme exaggeration of a cogent point--like the one I made above your post--is not a very effective way of countering that point. I believe Gbrookes mentioned bonuses in the realm of 2-3 points, so your exaggerated rhetorical question has no real relevance to the matter. I would, however, welcome a rational response to my cogent post about bonus points for finals made and finals won.

Why not 24 points for making the playoffs, 24 more for winning the semis and 48 for winning the ring?

Why not 23 points for making the playoffs, 23 more for winning the semis and 46 for winning the ring?

Why not 22 points for making the playoffs, 22 more for winning the semis and 44 for winning the ring?

Why not 21 points for making the playoffs, 21 more for winning the semis and 42 for winning the ring?

My point is simple. Any number, even agreed upon in advance by me, you, gbrookes or HAL almighty is an arbitrary distortion (okay, if it's agreed upon then it's an agreed upon distortion). My point is that the only number that is not an artificial distortion is wins on the field. Is that rational/cogent enough now?

If you agree to 5-5-10 or 3-3-5 (replacing the numbers above) then please cogently explain how you rationally came to that conclusion so that I might plainly understand it.

I get what J-Pav is saying, and he makes some good points, but I also agree with Geoff that bonus points add to the interest and are more likely to keep people in the tourney longer. I don't agree that bunching scores closer together by eliminating bonuses will do that, unless there's some reasonable way for the guys on the bubble to make up ground faster than one win at a time.

And I especially agree with l.strether.

In real life, all major sports have some sort of playoffs besides the regular season, and in effect, give bonuses for making/winning playoffs. You can't win the championship if you can't make the playoffs, regardless of your "wins". (And is making the playoffs not a "win" in itself? I'd say it's worth a lot more than a regular season "win".)

Their playoff schemes also somewhat "skew" who eventually gets to play for the championship, but so what. Adds to the excitement and unpredictability, keeps more teams in the hunt longer, adds to fan interest. The guys who run professional sports figured this out a long time ago.

Also, I think if playoff wins are counted, they should count more than regular season wins. It takes consistent superior performance over the entire season to make the playoffs, and once you get there you are facing only other teams that have demonstrated that same level of performance.

So, if playoff wins are counted, I think they should at least count 2 points, and I see no reason why the playoff losers shouldn't also get credit for playoff wins. Otherwise, the winner would still, in effect, be getting a bonus just for winning.

The team that wins 95 and loses the wildcard to a team who won 85 in another division is not necessarily the better team. Maybe he just had a couple of clueless newbies in his division who padded his wins. Total wins certainly are not everything, and I don't think they should be the only thing reflected in the point standings.

Another example to consider from my brief look at J-Pav's comparisons under other schemes v. the current one: With bonus points included, spicki17 finishes 17th in the point standings. Without bonus points, he finishes 2nd. Does anybody really think those 15 managers who finished ahead of him deserve no credit for making/winning playoffs? Does anybody think spicki should, in effect, be rewarded over those other managers for inability to make/win playoffs?

Finally, I'd just point out that this tournament was created, and has continued, with the stated purpose of providing the most fun for the most folks. Its purpose is to have fun and crown a champion with bragging rights for a year, not to "prove" anything. It can't do that anyway, it's too small a sample.

Everybody knows the tourney champ is not necessarily the "best" manager, and would not be under any scheme we might devise. So the notion that counting only wins is somehow a more "precise" measure of relative skill is not only bogus in my view, it runs contrary to the traditional purpose of the tournament.

Why not 24 points for making the playoffs, 24 more for winning the semis and 48 for winning the ring?

Why not 23 points for making the playoffs, 23 more for winning the semis and 46 for winning the ring?

Why not 22 points for making the playoffs, 22 more for winning the semis and 44 for winning the ring?

Why not 21 points for making the playoffs, 21 more for winning the semis and 42 for winning the ring?

My point is simple. Any number, even agreed upon in advance by me, you, gbrookes or HAL almighty is an arbitrary distortion (okay, if it's agreed upon then it's an agreed upon distortion). My point is that the only number that is not an artificial distortion is wins on the field. Is that rational/cogent enough now?

If you agree to 5-5-10 or 3-3-5 (replacing the numbers above) then please cogently explain how you rationally came to that conclusion so that I might plainly understand it.

Your point may be simple, but it is actually specious, and there are two significant problems with it. First of all, your insistence that there be no points rewarded for finals made or finals won because you want a purer representation of accomplishments is bogus. Simply adding up all the wins (including playoff wins) for every player, as you propose, is itself a distortion of the player's accomplishments, since it neglects to recognize two of his most significant achievements--finals won and finals made. Those finals won and finals made must be included in a player's point total if that point total is to accurately represent his accomplishments; they are a natural requirement of that representation.

The second significant error in your reasoning is you claim that any constructed representation (or symbol) of an accomplishment or value--such as finals made and finals won--is entirely arbitrary solely because it is constructed...this is wrong. Almost all representations of value--be they salaries, home prices, or commodity prices--are constructed by the people who value them; they are not "natural". However, they are not equally arbitrary. When substantial thought is put in determining those representations of value, putting in consideration other factors relevant to them, then those representation of value become more accurate and less arbitrary than others. So using my example, all salaries (or home prices or commodity prices) are not natural, but some (as you well know) are still more sensible, accurate, and less arbitrary than others.

This applies to your erroneous belief that any representation of finals made or finals won in measuring a player's accomplishments would be arbitrary. As, I mentioned in the first paragraph, an accurate representation of a player's accomplishments must include representation of his finals made and finals won. So a constructed representation of those finals made and won through points--done with substantial consideration of other factors in a player's accomplishments--would be sensible and necessary rather than arbitrary. Considering GBrookes' proposal of 2-3 points per playoff accomplishment would not skew regular season and playoff win totals, then that proposal is a sensible means of completely representing a player's accomplishments, not an arbitrary addition--such as your ridiculous examples above-that would skew them.

I hope that was cogent (it is a great word) enough for you; I really have enjoyed this discussion...

This must be some sort of Common Core nightmare.

I don't agree that bunching scores closer together by eliminating bonuses will do that, unless there's some reasonable way for the guys on the bubble to make up ground faster than one win at a time.

Question: If the managers ahead of the guy on the bubble got there one win at a time, why do you feel compelled to help the guy who fell behind make up ground faster than the one win at a time it took those ahead of him??

And I especially agree with l.strether.

In real life, all major sports have some sort of playoffs besides the regular season, and in effect, give bonuses for making/winning playoffs. You can't win the championship if you can't make the playoffs, regardless of your "wins". (And is making the playoffs not a "win" in itself? I'd say it's worth a lot more than a regular season "win".)

Their playoff schemes also somewhat "skew" who eventually gets to play for the championship, but so what. Adds to the excitement and unpredictability, keeps more teams in the hunt longer, adds to fan interest. The guys who run professional sports figured this out a long time ago.

I'm sure you understand this, but I have literally no idea what you're talking about. Where do teams with more wins NOT make the playoffs? What real-life leagues give "point bonuses" for making the playoffs? What playoff formats are skewed?

Also, I think if playoff wins are counted, they should count more than regular season wins. It takes consistent superior performance over the entire season to make the playoffs, and once you get there you are facing only other teams that have demonstrated that same level of performance.

So, if playoff wins are counted, I think they should at least count 2 points, and I see no reason why the playoff losers shouldn't also get credit for playoff wins. Otherwise, the winner would still, in effect, be getting a bonus just for winning.

Now we're getting to it. I.strether really likes gbrookes' fair compromise because it's really fair. You like playoff wins to count as two points. I like playoff wins to count as one point. I've showed you the math from my perspective. Where's your math?? Five years ago, 25 points for a ring was agreed upon by all. And it was stupid. Two points might be a number that works. It sounds fair, just like 25 points sounded fair back in the day. Is it too much to ask simply how you arrived at that number and why not 3,4,5,or 6?

The team that wins 95 and loses the wildcard to a team who won 85 in another division is not necessarily the better team. Maybe he just had a couple of clueless newbies in his division who padded his wins. Total wins certainly are not everything, and I don't think they should be the only thing reflected in the point standings.

HAL love you guys. Only in these threads can 95<85 be true.

Another example to consider from my brief look at J-Pav's comparisons under other schemes v. the current one: With bonus points included, spicki17 finishes 17th in the point standings. Without bonus points, he finishes 2nd. Does anybody really think those 15 managers who finished ahead of him deserve no credit for making/winning playoffs? Does anybody think spicki should, in effect, be rewarded over those other managers for inability to make/win playoffs?

For this I am at fault. I should have calculated everybody's complete playoff win total before posting that "unfiltered" Baker's Dozen. It would make a huge difference in the final calculations and yes, those wins SHOULD be rewarded. The point I was trying to make with the unfiltered totals was that the points races would be much closer and players would stay interested longer.

In hindsight, maybe 1 playoff win = 1 tour point is a perfect, objective way for playoff "bonus points" to be totalled!!!!

Finally, I'd just point out that this tournament was created, and has continued, with the stated purpose of providing the most fun for the most folks. Its purpose is to have fun and crown a champion with bragging rights for a year, not to "prove" anything. It can't do that anyway, it's too small a sample.

Everybody knows the tourney champ is not necessarily the "best" manager, and would not be under any scheme we might devise.

I agree wholeheartedly. My aim is to keep the points race leading up to the Top 36 as competitive as possible.

So the notion that counting only wins is somehow a more "precise" measure of relative skill is not only bogus in my view, it runs contrary to the traditional purpose of the tournament.

This is a complete flat-out distortion of everything I am saying.

I'll disregard the stupidity of wins not measuring skill, because I'll assume I didn't understand exactly what you meant to be saying here. And how "Not-Winning" then is "the traditional purpose of the tournament" is also beyond me.

A win precisely measures a win. Is this really that hard to comprehend?????

A playoff win can count 1, 2, 3, 4, 25, 50 or 100 freaking points. I DON'T CARE! But at least have the courtesy to demonstrate why 2 is better than 1, or 3 is better than 2 or 50 is better than 25 with more than "well, that's a really fair compromise." No, it's just lazy.

To keep the most players interested longest, and to keep the points race competitive longest, keep the races tighter. Stop arbitrarily picking a number out for a "bonus" or at least select a number that has some sort of objective reason behind it.

I.strether:

I'm in Eastern Europe today so it's early morning for me. Assuming you're back home...please...get some sleep!

I like GBrookes' proposal. Rewarding points for playoff appearance and performance doesn't really skew points totals as much as it factors in playoff appearance and performance, which are a significant part of a team's success. Why would we want to completely disregard that element of success when deciding the final 36 and the champion?

In other words, is making regular season performance the sole arbiter of deciding the final 36 and the champion worth completely disregarding performance in the playoffs, which is a significant part of the competition, when deciding the final 36 and champion?

Wow. My ability to communicate must really be lacking. I'm pretty much done here, so I hope someone else can take a few snaps. Where on earth did I say to completely disregard playoff performance??? I'm simply saying one playoff victory earned should equal one point earned. The bonus point system overwhelms the actual wins by too large a percent, is all I am saying.

OK, J-Pav, I didn't completely understand that that was what you were saying, but now I think I do.

Administratively, I would rather do the 3-2-3 system that I proposed (i.e. it might be easier than modifying the standings system to keep track of playoff wins for each person). It's not terribly different in the end result (8 wins for the champs equals 8 points either way), but I just like it better. With the 3-2-3 bonus points, it's probably not too different than playoff wins for most teams that make the playoffs (5 if you get to the finals, 3 if you make the playoffs). And I just think it's kinda fun.

Sorry, I really didn't mean this to be an argument - although it was actually an excellent debate.

On this playoff point system, I think I've settled on 3 for making the playoffs, 2 for making the finals, and another 3 for winning the finals.

J-Pav, sincere thanks for making the point, and thanks to everyone who debated it with J-Pav and myself. I think this at least goes part way to addressing J-Pav's concerns.

Any other suggestions? (he asked with trepidation)

I think we should get started right away.
Also include some live drafts in the mix.

Agree with both of these thoughts.

Just quoting this to bump it towards the end of the previous discussion.

I.strether:

I'm in Eastern Europe today so it's early morning for me. Assuming you're back home...please...get some sleep!

Hmmm, it was only 10-something my time when I wrote my last post, a perfectly normal time for an English professor grading papers to be awake...but I appreciate your concern...

Do get back to me from Eastern Europe, though, J-Pav, when you're ready to actually address my last post; it addressed your points quite effectively.

J-Pav,

As you said before your last dozen posts (sorry, I couldn't help it!), I've had my say and I'm done, happy to sit back and let others take their swings. Safe travels!


Geoff,

Thanks for sorting this out!