Strat-O-Matic Baseball Players Championship 2015 (Rules)

Here's my take: In any INDIVIDUAL league, the system of three divisional winners plus a wildcard completely and fairly establishes the actual achievements of the managers; however, across a GROUP OF LEAGUES, it does not. And across a group of leagues with high achievers, it especially does not.

The only way to achieve utopian fairness would be for every manager to compete against every other manager head to head at some point in the competition. Since that is unrealistic, the only way to judge fairly across the board is to acknowledge outright wins and losses in every individual game played.

This doesn't make sense, J-Pav. There is no utopian fairness in baseball or SOM, and there never can be. So making your decision based on an inability to achieve it is illogical. Secondly, you're not going to be able to "judge fairly across the board" with your point system either. So, your saying you're doing so to do that is also illogical.

The reason why so many like the "bonus" system (me included), is that one or two division wins virtually guarantee you make the semis. So, if I can skate around the League 1 and League 2 guys, I can (theoretically, at least) scratch my way in.

This is untrue. The reason many people like the "bonus system" is because, unlike your system, it actually represents and rewards the accomplishments of SOM on-line baseball. These are those accomplishments:

1. Winning games
2. Making the Playoffs
3. Making the Finals
4. Winning the Finals

Your point-system only adequately rewards and represents the first accomplishments. It doesn't adequately represent or reward 2-4. It may give some playoff points, but it gives no reward for the particular achievements of making the finals or--more importantly--winning them.

So your system is not as fair as it possibly can be, and your reasons for using it are--see above--flawed. Again, you are free to run the Tournament as you like, and I don't begrudge you that, but you are implementing an insufficient playoff point system.


Good luck with the sign-ups.

"Since your point system won't adequately represent the particular achievements of winning the event title or making the finals"

It does. You get a point for each playoff win. Actually this is fairer to the losing manager since it distinguishes between a 4-0 sweep and a 7 game series.

It doesn't represent it. It only gives you one point for winning the title. Since winning a regular season game also gives you one point, J-Pav's point system equates the value of winning a title with winning a regular season game. Since winning a title is a greater accomplishment than winning a regular season game, J-Pav's system does not adequately represent winning a title.

Your 7-game series anecdote perfectly demonstrates this. Under J-Pav's system, winning a title is worth only one point more than losing the finals in 7 games. That's ridiculous. Winning a title is more than one-point "greater" than losing a title in 7 games. So, again, J-Pav's system does not adequately reward or represent the achievement of winning a title.

But, as he said, he's the dictator, and what he says goes.

I'm not trying to make a lengthy debate as J-Pav says both ways have merits. But it's important for everyone to understand what the point per win system means. The playoffs will no longer be all-or-nothing,but winning a title will result in 8 additional points regardless. However, the manager of a losing team may earn points too. The loser of a 7 game final will get 7 points.

And J-Pav's discussion about the leagues makes perfect sense and is illustrated by the NCAA Basketball tourney. Every conference is not equal so there is a strength of schedule element involved in selecting bids.

I'm not trying to make a lengthy debate as J-Pav says both ways have merits. But it's important for everyone to understand what the point per win system means. The playoffs will no longer be all-or-nothing,but winning a title will result in 8 additional points regardless. However, the manager of a losing team may earn points too. The loser of a 7 game final will get 7 points.

If you don't want a lengthy debate, Scumby, then it would be best to stop posting. You didn't address or counter any of my valid points critiquing J-Pav's point system. Since they are valid and accurate, I'm not surprised. I completely understand what the point per win system means: it means there will be no adequate reward or representation for making the finals or--even worse--winning the league event.

Whether or not the losing manager gets points too, is irrelevant. Under a system rewarding making the finals, he would get points. However, the manager losing the finals shouldn't end up with only one less point than the manager winning them. As I said in my last post, that would be ridiculous, and could occur under J-Pav's point system.


Now let's move on and play the Championship.

How "Win more games, make more playoffs, collect valuable playoff wins" is illogical to you is an l.strether problem, not a logic problem. But that's okay, I appreciate the opinion.

Be sure to sign-up for the tour, too! You haven't done so yet.

Also...regarding signing up...

Of the manager's who have signed up, about half have emailed TourCommissioner2015@yahoo.com, and the others just signed the sign-up page. I really don't need anybody's email yet, I just wanted to be sure I could receive and send from there, as I haven't created an email account in probably 10-15 years and wasn't sure the darn thing would work.

If you just want to sign up without emailing right now, feel free to do so.

Thanks!

Read my posts better, J-Pav. That's a J-Pav problem. This is what I said wasn't logical about your points plan:

This doesn't make sense, J-Pav. There is no utopian fairness in baseball or SOM, and there never can be. So making your decision based on an inability to achieve it is illogical. Secondly, you're not going to be able to "judge fairly across the board" with your point system either. So, your saying you're doing so to do that is also illogical.

Also, "Win more games, make more playoffs, and collect valuable points" is fine. However, your plan still fails to adequately reward and represent the particular achievements of making the event finals and winning the event finals. So, it's a great slogan, but it just doesn't cover everything.

I'll be signing up soon.

Thanks JPav for the rules explanation and for agreeing to take on the burden of commissioner. I think I caught one typo that you might want to correct, although it's obvious. The salary cap for the $100M league is listed as $80M rather than $100M.

My one comment would be that it's not the same tournament without you competing as a player. I for one would forgo any concerns that you might have about conflict of interest and encourage you to re-consider and actually play. You're one of the great players online and I suspect all/most participants would agree with me that you should be allowed to play in the leagues.

TN

I agree and support J-Pav's participation.

Thanks for taking the reins this year JPav! I have no problem with your point system...win and your in...simple. Look forward to a great Championship season, but will miss facing up against you!

Yep, the revision of the point system is perfectly fine. Play ball

Without posting a lengthy discussion on the playoff points subject (that I dont have time for ) , I will just add my voice to either keeping the status quo 5 point award system or going with Geoff's modification downward to 3 points per series won. For the reasons Strether stated I don't think those wins are equivalent to regular season wins and bonuses, even significant ones, should be made for titles, playoff series' won, etc etc.

Well, Teamnasty certainly felt differently last year. However, like me, I'm sure he's willing to be flexible for the Tourney's sake.