Suggestions for the 2014 PC tourney-new thread/fresh start!

Continued from the last thread....

Any other suggestions - seriously...

Like:

A. Event parameters

How many non-DH events (let's assume there are 5 events)?

Is everyone kinda happy with about 3 $80 million cap events, 1 $60 mill, and 1 $100 million cap event?

I like the $60 million being a non-DH event - how does everyone feel about that?

I like the $100 million event to be unleashed. How do people feel about unleashed? Should we do 0, 1, 2 ,3 or 4 unleashed events?

B. Event timing and structure

What about the structure of events? For myself, with the way my life works, I like the way I've done it in the past, with an opening date and a closing date, with possibly as many as 6 weeks in between (sometimes 4 weeks). I know this causes wide gaps in the games played, which makes the standings page a little tricky or misleading from time to time, but I've mitigated this issue, I think, by publishing my own standings with games in hand accounted for at .5 points per game. I think this works OK, but I know some people would like it to be different. For me, trying to get event leagues started within even 2 weeks of each other is a bit daunting. Also, I feel that this tourney is kind of like the ultimate "open" tourney. I know strat-o-matic is pleased if we get as many participants as possible. With some events occurring over the summer holidays, I also would prefer to keep the events open for 4-6 weeks to try to accommodate summer vacation schedules. The fall events can be a little more compressed in the open and close dates.

The main alternative to this timing structure is what visick did with the mystery tournament, with very tightly scheduled events. But I'm just not sure that I can be the commissioner if that's what a lot of people want. I just don't know if I (personally) can deliver on a promise to get events done on that tight a timeline.My strat time is at odd hours, grabbing little bits of time. So the way the PC events have been structured in the past works well for my strat availability.

Your thoughts on this?

C. Communication

Similar to my comments on timing of events, I wish to strongly resist using real world emails. It just won't work for me, the way my life is structured. I would prefer to communicate on these boards, and by PMs on these boards.

For those of you who are in keeper leagues with me, you'll know that I will communicate with real life emails. However, that is the exception for my strat experiences - not the norm, for me. I really can't manage personal emails with 100 PC tournament participants - even 36 for the playoffs is too much for me. By contrast, communicating on these boards and by PM is easy for me to manage.

One very important suggestion that I've received is about the use of "banners" on strat, when people log in. I will attempt to make much more use of those banners. I think that is a very good idea. However, that is up to strat, and there are limits on what I can with that, I'm sure. But I will definitely explore making much more use of banners. Nevertheless, if I'm the commissioner, I need everyone to read the postings on these boards and threads, and read any PMs that I send their way. That's how I need to do it.

D. Playoff structure - i.e. the semi-finals and finals. How did everyone like that this year? Any suggestions? If so, please post them now, so that I can run them by strat to get their approval.

E. Anything else you want to suggest. Constructive criticism is welcomed by me. Just know that I am just doing my best, sincerely. But I welcome any constructive criticism or suggestions you might have. Wild brainstorming is OK. This is the time to do it, and it's why I've posted this request for comments! I've already made one change.....

Thanks everyone! Looking forward to the 2014 tournament!!!!

From the other thread:

-Suggestions to reduce or eliminate playoff bonus points. I would prefer to keep some bonus points for many reasons of my own, so my suggestion is 3 bonus points for making the playoffs, 2 for winning the semi-finals, and 3 for winning the finals.
This is down from 5, 5 and 5. A full discussion can be found on the other thread, here:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=635408

-A suggestion to have a live draft as part of events 1 to 5. I like this idea, although I think I would prefer to have longer turn limits for the live draft - like up to 3 hours per pick - so that it doesn't have to occur at a specific moment in time. That way, with automated proxy picks set by each player, the live draft can carry on efficiently, but over the course of a week or so.

-start early! (working on that!)

Sorry that I was late to the discussion about bonus points for the playoffs. I'll just throw in my support for J-Pav's suggestion that 1 playoff win = 1 point without any additional bonus points. That thought had occurred to me prior to seeing J-Pav's well-reasoned arguments.

Full disclosure: My four best teams in the 2013 Players Championship had a .523 regular-season winning percentage, yet I finished 50th in the rankings. Two of my teams were beaten in the first round of the playoffs (4 games to 2 and 4 games to 3) and another team was shut out of the playoffs despite having a better record than a division winner. I'm not sure that the J-Pav system would have put me in the top 36, but it certainly would have given me more hope of making the semi-finals when my 5th team started bombing.

Other ideas:

How about making one event a 24-team event? Probably you'd want to do that in conjunction with the $60 million limit.

I see that Strat-o-Matic has now also introduced 6-team leagues. I've not yet tried one, but maybe we could have an event with 6-team leagues with an especially high salary cap?

I personally enjoy playing NL-only (with no DH) and AL-only (with DH) leagues. You really have to do these in conjunction with full live drafts, though, as autodraft substitutions will come from the other league, so I am not so sure how practical they would be in the Players Championship. (It would be great if DiamondDope.com would load up the 2013 player set so you could do live drafts with longer time limits than SOM's live draft mechanism allows.) Sometimes you also have to set salary limits below $80 million to be fair to all the teams (haven't calculated yet what those limits should be with the 2013 player set).

With autodraft leagues, there is a lot of luck involved with regard to stadiums. It's definitely tough to overcome, for example, putting together a team designed for a low BPHR environment only to discover after the draft that 9 of the 12 teams are in high BPHR stadiums. I like what you did in this year's finals, where teams drafted unique stadiums. Maybe some of the "regular season" events could have at least a two-round draft (1 player and 1 unique stadium) on the message board before the autodraft commences.

Here's an idea that I've never tried (and maybe the players' championship is not the place to experiment, but I'll throw it out there): How about an event where every team was in the same neutral stadium, such as Wrigley?

Sorry that I was late to the discussion about bonus points for the playoffs. I'll just throw in my support for J-Pav's suggestion that 1 playoff win = 1 point without any additional bonus points. That thought had occurred to me prior to seeing J-Pav's well-reasoned arguments.

How then do you propose to factor in the significant accomplishments of making the finals and winning the finals into the point total deciding the final 36? J-Pav's proposal would factor in regular season wins and playoff wins, but it would not actually give any points for making the finals or winning a championship, leaving those accomplishments unreasonably ignored. In fact, under J-Pav's system you claim to support, a player who wins 6 finals games but loses the championship would do better than a player who wins a championship in 4 or 5 games...which wouldn't be an equitable representation of player success.

I'm sure you consider making finals and winning championships to be significant accomplishments in the Players' Championship competition, so I look forward to your answer.

Sorry that I was late to the discussion about bonus points for the playoffs. I'll just throw in my support for J-Pav's suggestion that 1 playoff win = 1 point without any additional bonus points. That thought had occurred to me prior to seeing J-Pav's well-reasoned arguments.

How then do you propose to factor in the significant accomplishments of making the finals and winning the finals into the point total deciding the final 36? J-Pav's proposal would factor in regular season wins and playoff wins, but it would not actually give any points for making the finals or winning a championship, leaving those accomplishments unreasonably ignored. In fact, under J-Pav's system you claim to support, a player who wins 6 finals games but loses the championship would do better than a player who wins a championship in 4 or 5 games...which wouldn't be an equitable representation of player success.

I'm sure you consider making finals and winning championships to be significant accomplishments in the Players' Championship competition, so I look forward to your answer.

l.strether, I'm not sure I follow your example. I was thinking that the system where each playoff win gets 1 point would mean that if you win the championship, you would get 8 points - one point for each win in the semi-final series (4) and 1 point for each win in the finals (4), for a total of 8 bonus points for the team that wins the finals. So, a player who won the finals would always have more points (8) than a team that didn't win the finals (at most, 7 points, but no less than 4 if they won the semi-finals). Am I not understanding your point?

My thinking is that what the 1 playoff win=1 point system does not reward is any bonus for making the playoffs. My suggestion of 3 bonus points for making the playoffs rewards that accomplishment. But my system provides even less emphasis for winning the semi-finals (only 2 points, compared to 4 for 4 wins) or winning the finals (only 3 points, compared to 4 points for 4 wins).

What the playoff wins system rewards (which my system does not reward) is playoff wins in a losing effort.

What I like about my system is that it keeps some reward (3 points) for something that most veteran players agree is the most repeatable, worthy accomplishment of managerial skill in the online game - that is, making the playoffs in a 162 game schedule.

Sorry that I was late to the discussion about bonus points for the playoffs. I'll just throw in my support for J-Pav's suggestion that 1 playoff win = 1 point without any additional bonus points. That thought had occurred to me prior to seeing J-Pav's well-reasoned arguments.

Full disclosure: My four best teams in the 2013 Players Championship had a .523 regular-season winning percentage, yet I finished 50th in the rankings. Two of my teams were beaten in the first round of the playoffs (4 games to 2 and 4 games to 3) and another team was shut out of the playoffs despite having a better record than a division winner. I'm not sure that the J-Pav system would have put me in the top 36, but it certainly would have given me more hope of making the semi-finals when my 5th team started bombing.

Other ideas:

How about making one event a 24-team event? Probably you'd want to do that in conjunction with the $60 million limit.

I see that Strat-o-Matic has now also introduced 6-team leagues. I've not yet tried one, but maybe we could have an event with 6-team leagues with an especially high salary cap?

I personally enjoy playing NL-only (with no DH) and AL-only (with DH) leagues. You really have to do these in conjunction with full live drafts, though, as autodraft substitutions will come from the other league, so I am not so sure how practical they would be in the Players Championship. (It would be great if DiamondDope.com would load up the 2013 player set so you could do live drafts with longer time limits than SOM's live draft mechanism allows.) Sometimes you also have to set salary limits below $80 million to be fair to all the teams (haven't calculated yet what those limits should be with the 2013 player set).

With autodraft leagues, there is a lot of luck involved with regard to stadiums. It's definitely tough to overcome, for example, putting together a team designed for a low BPHR environment only to discover after the draft that 9 of the 12 teams are in high BPHR stadiums. I like what you did in this year's finals, where teams drafted unique stadiums. Maybe some of the "regular season" events could have at least a two-round draft (1 player and 1 unique stadium) on the message board before the autodraft commences.

Here's an idea that I've never tried (and maybe the players' championship is not the place to experiment, but I'll throw it out there): How about an event where every team was in the same neutral stadium, such as Wrigley?

Al Hogg, please see my comments in my previous post, re the playoff bonus system choices that I am considering, and J-Pav's suggestion. What do you think about my comments?

I like your ideas Al. It would be really nice if we could somehow limit the live draft even to just AL players only, or to just NL players only. Otherwise, I worry about the confusion that would arise if someone made an ineligible pick in a live draft. Can you limit the player pool in a live draft to AL only or NL only?

Sorry that I was late to the discussion about bonus points for the playoffs. I'll just throw in my support for J-Pav's suggestion that 1 playoff win = 1 point without any additional bonus points. That thought had occurred to me prior to seeing J-Pav's well-reasoned arguments.

How then do you propose to factor in the significant accomplishments of making the finals and winning the finals into the point total deciding the final 36? J-Pav's proposal would factor in regular season wins and playoff wins, but it would not actually give any points for making the finals or winning a championship, leaving those accomplishments unreasonably ignored. In fact, under J-Pav's system you claim to support, a player who wins 6 finals games but loses the championship would do better than a player who wins a championship in 4 or 5 games...which wouldn't be an equitable representation of player success.

I'm sure you consider making finals and winning championships to be significant accomplishments in the Players' Championship competition, so I look forward to your answer.

l.strether, I'm not sure I follow your example. I was thinking that the system where each playoff win gets 1 point would mean that if you win the championship, you would get 8 points - one point for each win in the semi-final series (4) and 1 point for each win in the finals (4), for a total of 8 bonus points for the team that wins the finals. So, a player who won the finals would always have more points (8) than a team that didn't win the finals (at most, 7 points, but no less than 4 if they won the semi-finals). Am I not understanding your point?

My thinking is that what the 1 playoff win=1 point system does not reward is any bonus for making the playoffs. My suggestion of 3 bonus points for making the playoffs rewards that accomplishment. But my system provides even less emphasis for winning the semi-finals (only 2 points, compared to 4 for 4 wins) or winning the finals (only 3 points, compared to 4 points for 4 wins).

What the playoff wins system rewards (which my system does not reward) is playoff wins in a losing effort.

What I like about my system is that it keeps some reward (3 points) for something that most veteran players agree is the most repeatable, worthy accomplishment of managerial skill in the online game - that is, making the playoffs in a 162 game schedule.

Yep, GBrookes, I switched games played for games won and made an erroneous example...which is why I shouldn't debate at 12:00 AM. However, my valid point in the post still stands, as a pure points-for-wins system still only rewards a player who makes the finals and/or wins the championship (or makes the playoffs) for the extra games won in doing so; it doesn't actually recognize achieving those accomplishments by rewarding players for doing so...winning a championship is worth more than one point more than making the finals and losing in 7 games (that example works ).

As I've said in my posts above, and argued in the previous forum, I, too think that winning the championship, making the finals, and making the playoffs are the most important accomplishments in Strat. So, i agree with your system that rewards those accomplishments.

P.s. Your system doesn't actually provide less emphasis on making the finals or winning the championship. It may actually give a lower point reward for those accomplishments than in a point-for-wins system. However, since your system gives no points for games won in losing the first round or finals, the rewards you do give for those accomplishments (themselves) have greater value than the "rewards" given in a points-for-wins system for them.

^^^ I really do appreciate the input from everyone, including yourself and J-Pav. It really is an interesting debate. The bottom line is that as commissioner, I need to make a decision on various things, including playoff points (of whatever kind). Unless there's a gaping flaw in my thinking that someone else might notice, I think my decision on playoff points is going to be the bonus points system that I've described, which is :

3 points for making the playoffs,
2 points for winning the semi-final, and
3 points for winning the finals.

In my mind, this is a significant reduction in playoff points from prior years; it keeps some reward for just making the playoffs (which is important in my mind, see above); and it indirectly provides points to people who make the playoffs but lose a series (3 points for making playoffs and losing in the semi-finals - essentially 3 wins in J-Pav's suggestion; and 2 points for making the finals but losing in the finals - essentially 2 wins in J-Pav's suggestion).

I realize that some may argue that you might as well reward playoff wins, but there is a subtle difference. Under the "playoff wins only" point system, if you get swept in the semifinals you would get zero points. With my modified bonus system, you would still get the 3 points just for making the playoffs. To me, this is a better result, as a reward for just making the playoffs.

I realize that this won't please everyone, but I honestly think that this goes at least half way to addressing the wishes of those who advocate 1 point for each playoff win (only). So, I think that my system is a good compromise between that idea, and last year's playoff bonus point system. Never say "never" or "always", but I think that's my decision for the 2014 PC tourney on playoff points.

As i said in my previous post, I think it's a solid plan that effectively rewards the key accomplishments within the Players' Championship tourney (and within regular seasons as well)...Now, you've got to get busy on deciding and planning the 5 events and their structures...

1. qksilver69 405
2. Knerrpool 386
3. J-Pav 385
4. karphenry 381
5. DERRICKSANSON 380
5. the ghost of roger maris 380
5. ROGGIE 380
8. gbrookes 379
9. Stoney18 376
10. Terry101 374
10. the splinter 374
12. stevep107 373
13. NYY82602 372
13. Spider 67 372
15. Pan Mark 371
15. spicki17 371
17. mesquiton 369
18. teamnasty 367
19. TomSiebert 366
20. Dr.Publix 365
20. Jake Squid 365
20. buzz082308 365
20. Delbird 365
24. Gilbo 364
25. Phenomenal 363 (w/huge penalty)
25. thisisray 363
27. durantjerry 362
28. chuckwonup 361
28. TexasKen 361
30. bertolett 360
31. LongIsland4Ever 359
31. blsmith7 359
31. Jmoore1966 359
31. Kire 359
35. mpcharette 358
35. pronk08 358
37. Jeepdriver 357
37. exwallman 357
39. coachtwitty 354
40. milleram 353
41. T.Richardson 351
41. thisisdan26 351
41. Steve F 351
44. GoDucks 350
45. Al Hogg 349
46. Hailedog 348
46. usjgtjrgolf 348
46. scumby 348
49. bbasebrawl 347
49. pine tar 347
49. FRANKZAHN 347
52. rongermany 346
52. WJS6768 346
54. l.strether 341

Here's the final accounting for the "One Win is One Win" Method.

As you can see from the numbers, it makes the entire race painfully close. The good news to that end is that more people stay in the race for a longer period of time. Basically nothing is settled until the last out of the last league.

Another thing I learned from running through these numbers is that "Top 36" seems to me to be a very good separation number. Any of the Top 36 managers are people quite capable of winning championships. As you continue to move further down the line, you start to see teams with fewer playoffs made. So I think (regardless of whatever method we choose), the idea of a 36 team playoff to determine the Final 12 is about as fair as anyone can come up with. In addition, if you wanted to move in the other direction, a Top 24 I think leaves too many "as equal" managers out of a fair chance.

Now, as I speculated earlier, there's really a question right at the cut-off of 36. Although I argue 36 is a very good place for this cut-off, there's a super painful decision to be made about the distinction between 36th and 37th place.

There's been a lot of handwringing about the assignment of bonus points. In my opinion, when after five leagues (lowest team dropped) teams 30 thru 40 are separated by only seven points, assigning bonus points unfairly distorts the entire standings and for what? Because it "seems" fairer to add additional reward to a playoff made? There are already so many intangibles (what league you join, level of competition, etc) why unnecessarily add one more intangible to the mix? Just leave a win a win and use Championships, Playoffs-made and all that as your tie-breakers.

At least when you miss the Top 36 teams by ONE point, you can say it was all decided objectively on the field of play, not by the amount of bonus points thought to be most fair by anyone. I know if I were to be the 37th place team, that's what I would want to be applied.

Along the same lines, let's re-evaluate what happened with Phenomenal's 20 point penalty for using the same ballpark. A 20 point penalty turned a 4th place team into a 25th place team. Does this seem right to anybody? I never even thought about it because 20 points "seemed fair" to me at the time. But looking at it now in this light, it's not even close to sensical. And why? BECAUSE ALL THE TEAMS PERFORM SO CLOSELY TO ONE ANOTHER. Why should we introduce another arbitrary point assignment without fully looking at the impact it has on everything?

1. I know I'm beating a dead horse.
2. I know that in the end, more or less, the best teams win more rings, more playoffs and more individual games. Even under our current method this barely changes anything.
3. But, if you are the LAST team in, the points method means everything.

I'd really like to hear opinions from more than three people before we decide all this. There's certainly no hurry to decide, is there?