2015 Tour Debrief

Sometimes the simplest solutions are best. It seems that in coming up with a points system you would be concerned about three things: (1) rewarding players for their regular-season and post-season performance, (2) trying to minimize distortions caused by weaker divisions (since teams play in-division teams more often), (3) and minimize the distortion caused by weaker leagues vis-a-vis other leagues.

Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best; sometimes they're not. As to your point #1, I've already made my arguments for why the current system doesn't adequately reward post-season performance, so I'll save doing so again for when more people want to discuss the issue.

As to points 2 and 3, it would be very difficult to determine "weaker" divisions. Firstly, while there are some excellent known players and some good-very good known players, it would be difficult to determine a "hierarchy" among players, particularly since there may be some awesome newbies out there. Secondly, sometimes the good or very good players put together better teams than the excellent players, so you can't just look at the players in a division to discern which divisions are the strong ones and which are the weak ones. So, the concern with "weaker'" divisions shouldn't be an issue. it certainly isn't in MLB.

As J-Pav points put its ridiculous for an 84 win wild card team to wind up with the same points as a dominant 98 win team that had a bad run of luck in the play-offs. That would be putting too much emphasis on the play-offs.That 84 win team might not have even have made the play-offs in another league--now they are going to get one of the highest rated totals in a tour event

Firstly, I'll stand corrected, but I don't think GBrookes' recent playoff point system would allow that many points to be gained. Secondly, an 84 win wild card team that won the title did achieve more than a dominant 98-win team that got knocked out of the playoffs early--it won the Championship. The purpose of MLB and SOM isn't to rack up regular season wins; it's to win a championship. So, there shouldn't be a great point differential between the two teams. They each did significantly well in the area where the other didn't.

And what about the 98 win team in an easy league that gets the extra 15 points? Now they are getting a huge score that they may be getting because they lucked into a weaker league. Of course they may be in a strong league, we don't know. But by having 15 bonus points you are exacerbating any differences in the strength of leagues. What about a team that does well because they are in a weaker division? Well, there are still 8 bonus points to be had in the play-offs that will help to equalize any differences in divisional strength. In sum, one point, one win appears to be better suited to furthering the goals of a point system as compared to a bonus system.

Again the weaker league/division issue is both not determinable and irrelevant. The relative quality of divisions aren't a factor in determining champions in MLB; it shouldn't be in SOM either. And the issue isn't just that a championship team gets 8 pts, the fact a runner up team could only get one point less is also an issue. If only one point more is given to the WS winner, as of now, some may not consider that enough of a reward for differentiation. Rewarded points don't matter if they're not significantly higher than those not earning that reward.

My personal evolution regarding the tour from 2003 to 2015:

There was a time only 12 managers made the finals with a truck load of "bonus points" handed out for playoffs. I thought this was all fair and just. However, the downside was that by the last events, only 30 guys were still bothering to play. And a look at the leaderboard revealed that just as many (or more) excellent managers were not in the top 12 as there were in it.

It was mesquiton's argument (way back when) that finally won me over to a more inclusive perspective, which at first I vehemently resisted. But he was right after all: there is no one BEST player, there are however, many excellent players. It was around this time we switched to a top 36 semi-finals format (still replete with "bonus points").

A couple of years back I did a study of this "Top 36" and it for me, definitely confirmed something tangible: very, very close to just beyond the 36th spot, there is a dramatic shift toward teams with mostly poor overall records and relatively few playoff appearances. So, in my opinion, the Top 36 semi-finals for a pool beginning with 100 or so initial entries is a spot-on method for identifying excellent managers.

Whether or not we have truck loads of bonus points or absolutely ZERO bonus points, not much would change in identifying the top 36 managers. Having conceded that, I still think we should lean closer to the zero than to the too many. More on that in a second.

Let's consider the balance between regular season records and Championships won. In last year's tour, and likely in the previous year's as well, the top 36 managers were nearly evenly split between guys who one a ring and guys who won no rings in the qualifying rounds. In fact, keyzick (the tour Champ) won no rings in any of his qualifying events. If the top 36 managers are readily identifiable as the better performing managers, but having won a qualifying ring isn't a pre-requisite to find yourself among the top 36, then what would be the purpose of rewarding having won qualifying rings? Plenty of managers in spots 37 and below won rings, but way more often than not, that was their only positively performing team.

So my argument is that overall records are more important than qualifying rings, but if I'm wrong in this, at worst they are only equally important.

Under our current tour method, a 90 win team who misses the playoffs begins the next event 0-8 to the 90 win team who wins an 8 point ring. If I win 90 games again, that other team has to go 82-80 in his next event for me to just break even. I still argue that is a LOT of ground to make up (But it's also way less than that team having to go 75-87 for me to catch him, so we're moving in the right direction).

I think people are underestimating beginning a next event 0-8 to start the next round. If you saw it in the pre-season standings, people would probably oppose it more passionately.

So what we're really doing is trying to establish the floor just below that last 36th spot. I still believe that the guy in the 37th spot feels screwed if he loses by a point to the guy just ahead of him who was awarded "bonus points". That is, "This sucks, our teams were otherwise equal but he was "assigned" points". Under our current method, if I was the 37th place manager, I would still say "This sucks!" but would have to concede that the guy in 36th place at least won that point on the field, and I could have beaten him by winning one or two more games myself.

Like most, I'll join the tour pretty much regardless of what the rules for points are. But I would like to hear a specific plan for how you other managers think points should be awarded rather than just generalized statements for giving more weight to playoff victories. As you can see above, even a meager point per playoff win can have an impact.

(Note to strether: I know this already has you chomping at the bit, but if you wouldn't mind, hold off awhile until some of this year's tour participants can comment. There will be plenty of time for you to line-by-line my post in the weeks and months ahead. I look forward to it. Just not right now. Agreed?)

This is an issue about next year's tournament, and since I plan to participate in next year's tournament, the issue is relevant to me. Since the tournament has already started, it is no more important to this year's tournaments participants than next years'. I already contacted SOM and told them I would only address issues about next year's tournament, and this is one of them. So, don't start chomping at the bit at my response.

A couple of years back I did a study of this "Top 36" and it for me, definitely confirmed something tangible: very, very close to just beyond the 36th spot, there is a dramatic shift toward teams with mostly poor overall records and relatively few playoff appearances. So, in my opinion, the Top 36 semi-finals for a pool beginning with 100 or so initial entries is a spot-on method for identifying excellent managers.

Many managers who haven't made the top 36 have solid overall records and many playoff appearances. So, you have an inaccurately low esteem for many of your participants that doesn't adequately rate them.

Whether or not we have truck loads of bonus points or absolutely ZERO bonus points, not much would change in identifying the top 36 managers. Having conceded that, I still think we should lean closer to the zero than to the too many. More on that in a second.

It's not an issue about "identifying the top managers." It's an issue about amply rewarding all significant achievements in the tournament. Points for playoff achievements, not just playoff wins, would help to more accurately do that.

So my argument is that overall records are more important than qualifying rings, but if I'm wrong in this, at worst they are only equally important.

Again, you forget that qualifying rings/winning the title, making the playoffs, and even making the Finals are all significant achievements that should be rewarded beyond just acknowledgment of games won. The purpose of a point system is to represent and recognize all of the significant achievements in the tournament. If the point system fails to do that, and this years' system does, then it is not identifying the best 36 managers of the tournament. Who the actual best outside of the tournament are is irrelevant.

Under our current tour method, a 90 win team who misses the playoffs begins the next event 0-8 to the 90 win team who wins an 8 point ring. If I win 90 games again, that other team has to go 82-80 in his next event for me to just break even. I still argue that is a LOT of ground to make up (But it's also way less than that team having to go 75-87 for me to catch him, so we're moving in the right direction).

I never said your current point system is horrible and a complete failure. It just doesn't adequately reward teams who make the playoffs (a significant achievement in itself) or the team that wins the finals. As I said in my last post, the point of SOM isn't to rack up wins or have the best record in the league. The point is to win a championship. Your current point system mistakenly favors the former.

Under our current method, if I was the 37th place manager, I would still say "This sucks!" but would have to concede that the guy in 36th place at least won that point on the field, and I could have beaten him by winning one or two more games myself.

I've already addressed this. Making the playoffs and winning the title are also done "on the field." So, if someone beats another player for the final spot because they accomplished either one, they did so on the field.

Like most, I'll join the tour pretty much regardless of what the rules for points are. But I would like to hear a specific plan for how you other managers think points should be awarded rather than just generalized statements for giving more weight to playoff victories. As you can see above, even a meager point per playoff win can have an impact.

That's good to hear. The specific plan should come from what people think making the playoffs, winning a title, and even making the Finals is worth in relation to a regular season win. As I pointed out in my earlier post, no point assignment is purely objective, even the one point-for a win assignment. It's all structurally relative. Once a consensus of those values are determined, then we should assign the point values.

OMFG.



Thanks for the post and thanks for not honoring a small, simple request. I'm glad I don't have to rebuttal this, as your post is a perfect defense of my original argument, as your posts always have been.

Now if we can get some input from guys who actually play the tour, that would be awesome.

I think you're right, J-Pav. From my perspective, A manager's regular- season performance is the best way to analyze how good a manager they are. Things such as the small-sample size in play-offs, the potential greater impact of random chance over the strength of opposing teams in a short series, the chance of getting poorly match-ups with other teams because of their ballpark and/or players all make measuring play- off performance not a great measurement of a manager's strength. All of the above factors get evened out over 162 games, making the regular season much less subject to chance. And I don't think that in this game (unlike MLB) that a manager can do a lot with match- ups and strategy to affect the result in a short play-off. Doing consistently well in the regular-season is something more under a manager's control (and therefore a point-system should prioritize this) than performance in play- offs.

As for rewarding all achievement, there are play-off points (8 if you win a championship). I got 103 for my for first round championship. The reason for not overly rewarding play-off achievement is that the randomness factor makes giving it special consideration questionable. As for rewarding a team for making the play-offs, they are rewarded for that by the points they accrue for getting enough points to make the play-offs and they are given the opportunity to earn an additional 8 points.

One splendid season should not override general mediocrity.

OMFG.

Thanks for the post and thanks for not honoring a small, simple request. I'm glad I don't have to rebuttal this, as your post is a perfect defense of my original argument, as your posts always have been.

Now if we can get some input from guys who actually play the tour, that would be awesome.

It would be pretty arrogant of you to expect me to honor any request of yours, even insensible ones like the one you addressed to me. As I said above, point systems for future tournaments are important to all future participants, not just present tour ones. So, I will continue to contribute to this topic. And my arguments (present and past) showed the flaws in yours; they certainly didn't "defend" them. If they did, you would have showed how; you didn't.

P.s. I thought it was cute you said "OMFG." That's one of my daughter's faves.

Hey man, he gave you 34 minutes before posting! That doesn't count as holding off? Here's my take, as an actual player in the tournament:

I really like the format as it stands. Putting the emphasis on the regular season performance, rather than the small sample size of the playoffs is the way to go. However, I do like the idea of a small point boost whenever you win a ring. No more than four or five points though. The playoffs can be crazy, but that does add a bit more of a reward for doing well.

I wouldn't be in favor of bonus points for just making the playoffs. Given the tiebreaker rules, that could lead to bonus points being awarded on a coin flip. Extremely unlikely, but still possible.

I think you're right J-Pav. A manager's regular- season performance is the best way to analyze how good a manager they are.

First of all, that's not true. Success in the playoffs is a significant mark of the quality of a team, as is managing in the playoffs. Just ask J-Pav, who has argued there is a significant difference in quality between a team who makes the finals and a team that wins it.

Secondly, the point of the championship isn't to determine who is the best manager. if that was the case, we should just hand over the championship to Altec every time. He's the best manager SOM has had. The point of the tournament, like SOM and MLB, is to determine who did the best. And the managers who made the playoffs more and won more championships should get the point reward acknowledging it. They shouldn't just get points for the playoff games won; that's an inadequate reward.

And I don't think that in this game (unlike MLB) that a manager can do a lot with match- ups and strategy to affect the result in a short play-off. Doing consistently well in the regular-season is something more under a manager's control (and therefore a point-system should prioritize this) than performance in play- offs.

This is also inaccurate. In a seven game contest, then nuances and minutiae of strategy become even more important as pitching staff management mistakes, line-up management mistakes, and strategy mistakes become even more destructive. This is definitely an area where the excellent managers separate themselves from the crowd. It is also where the most important achievement of winning a championship comes into play and should be amply rewarded...and not just by one extra point.

As for rewarding all achievement, there are play-off points (8 if you win a championship). I got 103 for my for first round championship. The reason for not overly rewarding play-off achievement is that the randomness factor makes giving it special consideration questionable. As for rewarding a team for making the play-offs, they are rewarded for that by the points they accrue for getting enough points to make the play-offs and they are given the opportunity to earn an additional 8 points.

I have no idea what "randomness" factor you are talking about. As I said in an earlier post, there is subjectivity in all point assignments, including point assignments for regular season wins. So, there is no particular randomness in any of the assignments.

And, as I noted earlier, the present point system doesn't amply reward the championship winner as opposed to the loser. In the present system, a championship winner could only receive one more point than the loser. That's just the equivalent of one regular season win, and a Title win is a greater achievement than that.

Like most, I'll join the tour pretty much regardless of what the rules for points are. But I would like to hear a specific plan for how you other managers think points should be awarded rather than just generalized statements for giving more weight to playoff victories. As you can see above, even a meager point per playoff win can have an impact.

Me too, my participation doesn't depend on how we attribute playoff points.

Like I and edgecity said, in the current system of 1win=1point, there is no incentive to "prepare" our team for the playoffs: I saw Kershaw pitch game 162 and hence be available for only one game in the first round, no injury-prone players are set back, etc. In our current system, since a seasonal game is no less important than a playoff game, it's the logical thing to do.

Hence, in my humble opinion, a solution is to make a winner-take-all formula for each playoff round. To reduce the bias introduced in past seasons, I would not give the same amount of points as before. I would formulate it this way:

Regular season: 1win=1 point
Playoffs: getting to the Finals: 8 points (5 points if you feel 8 is too much)
Playoffs: winning the Finals: 15 points (10 points if you feel

Formulated this way, teams in the 24-team format wouldn't win extra points by having an extra round of playoffs.

Of course, we all know there are lots of chance going on in determining who wins the playoffs, but that's part of baseball---even in real-life, wild card teams winning world series are not necessarily the best teams on paper. Our Tour would simply follow that logic.

Marc,

Then this is what we would have:

Team A: 90-72, 90-72, 90-72, 90-72 plus no rings = 360 points.

Team B: 90-72, 90-72, 90-72, 76-86 plus one ring (15 points) = 361 points.

If managers feel B>A, then there's probably not much more I can argue to change that. But to me personally, it looks pretty cut and dried. And to stomp on the dead horse one last time, it would make no difference among the top teams. But for that last team, losing to bonus points is nothing but #WeakSauce the way I see it.

(Please note: you can substitute tofu poutine for hashtag weak sauce, if you prefer! )