2015 Tour Debrief

Jeff,

Actually, with the example you gave, both coach A and coach B will be invited in the Final 36, so no one is hurt.

A better example would be:

Coach c: 83-79 X 5
vs
Coach D: 78-84 X 4 + 89-73 + 15 points for winning the championship.

Say Coach D takes the 36th spot and coach C takes the 37th spot. In my personnal opinion, coach C has not demonstrated in any season that he is among the top 12 coaches, so I don't feel there's an injustice for him to not be invited in the 36-team round robin to get a selection in the top 12. Perhaps coach D is not more deserving, but since he got a better season in at least one case, I feel he has an argument to get the invitation for the round-robin.

And like I said, beyond the fairness argument, coach will dedicate more importance to playoffs if we give points for winning the series instead of playoff games (and would be more fun too, IMHO).

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.

Points recognizing and representing playoff achievements are no more "bonus" points than points for regular season wins are. They are appropriate reward and point recognition for achievement on the field. To lose a final 36 slot to someone who earned points for playoff achievements should be no more frustrating than losing to someone who racked up regular wins. Actually, considering the point of SOM is to win championships, not rack up regular season wins, it should be less frustrating.

I like the current system for awarding points.

To me the initial events are basically qualifying rounds to get into finals. I feel that consistency over multiple events shows the strengths of the manager in building a team for their ballpark and competing within the division/league that they are in.

I agree with freeman that the SOM playoffs are a bit of a crap shoot and that we do as a manager can only control so much towards the outcome. It is a dice game after all.

Strether, you do not need to respond and debunk my points. We all know your point of view and saying it over and over again doesn't make yours right and others wrong.

Hey, Stoney, here's a suggestion if you don't want me to talk: keep it silent about me, yourself.

And my points are right because they're right. And I haven't repeated them over and over, thank you. I've responded to separate arguments.

Coach C: 83-79 X 5
vs
Coach D: 78-84 X 4 + 89-73 + 15 points for winning the championship.

Say Coach D takes the 36th spot and coach C takes the 37th spot. In my personnal opinion, coach C has not demonstrated in any season that he is among the top 12 coaches...

He is not trying to be a top 12 coach...he's trying to be the top 36th place coach!

Your example makes me even more emboldened!

Since there is no right answer for x in the equation 1 Ring = x Wins, I reckon it will come down to some sort of vote or the strong will of the next Commissioner.

I actually do see your points, I just remain unconvinced. It's like that blue (or gold!) dress thing on the Internet a few months ago. We'll never convince each other it's not the way we see it!

Thx Stoney and gracianbcq for your input as well!

Strether,

First, you provided no support for your assertion that play-off performance is a significant mark of the quality of a team. Well, a team can be so good that bad luck in the play-offs will not stop them from winning. So performance in the play-offs could be a mark of how good team is...or not.

Secondly, it is not determining who the best manager is in the abstract--it's determining who the top 36 managers are as evidenced by their performance over 4 events...which is best determined by regular season performance for the most part.

Thirdly, I disagree about managerial strategies in the play-offs. If pitching staff management mistakes, line-up management mistakes, and strategy mistakes are important in a 7-game play-off why wouldn't that be even more reflected in a 162 game season? Even if you make mistakes in managing in a short play-off that is more likely to be overriden by luck in a 7-game play-off than your strategic mistakes over a year.

And with regard to randomness I am talking about random chance, the fact that statistical variances from what on average should be expected are far greater in a 7-game play-off than in a 162 game season. You can just get lucky in a 7 game play-off; not true in a 162 game season.

I am not opposed to giving a reasonable bonus for winning a championship. But it should be carefully thought out so as to not give too much of advantage. The current system is fine. Put it to this way--given the commish invests a lot of time to make this possible, unless the point system is clearly unfair I don't think it is cool to complain too much about it. Good players will advance--it's like the 69th team complaining they should have gotten into the NCAA tournament. Anyone who wins a championship in this tournament and does not make the top 36 because they did not get bonus points would be whining in my view. Just win and you need not worry about the fine details of the point system. Let every commish put their own spin on the point system within reasonable limits. J-Pav's system is within those limits.

Since there is no right answer for x in the equation 1 Ring = x Wins, I reckon it will come down to some sort of vote or the strong will of the next Commissioner.

There is no right answer for x in the equation 1 Regular season win = x points either. Perhaps that will come down to the vote or will of the next Commissioner, as well.

First, you provided no support for your assertion that play-off performance is a significant mark of the quality of a team.

Yes, I did, I explained exactly why it is. You, however, did not. You just gave an insufficient explanation of your position with no evidence. So, you are in no position to be criticizing my sound argument on the matter.

Secondly, it is not determining who the best manager is in the abstract--it's determining who the top 36 managers are as evidenced by their performance over 4 events...which is best determined by regular season performance for the most part.

No, it is not the 36 managers as best determined by regular season performance, although the current point system worked hard to make it that way. It's for the managers who accomplished the most over the 4 events, and part of that accomplishment is playoff performance and title wins. You, for some reason have forgotten the purpose of SOM--as in MLB--is to win championships, not rack up regular season wins.

Thirdly, I disagree about managerial strategies in the play-offs. If pitching staff management mistakes, line-up management mistakes, and strategy mistakes are important in a 7-game play-off why wouldn't that be even more reflected in a 162 game season? Even if you make mistakes in managing in a short play-off that is more likely to be overriden by luck in a 7-game play-off than your strategic mistakes over a year.

I'm sorry, if you can't see that a game screwed up by bad management in a 7-game series is more costly and destructive than in a 162 season, then you're not looking at the basic math. I know you can. A game lost in a 7 game series is inherently more costly--because of percentages--in a grouping of 162 games than in 7...end of story. And just because luck can be more damaging then also, that doesn't take away from the fact that bad management in a 7-game series will be more costly than in the regular season.

And with regard to randomness I am talking about random chance, the fact that statistical variances from what on average should be expected are far greater in a 7-game play-off than in a 162 game season. You can just get lucky in a 7 game play-off; not true in a 162 game season.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. Firstly, randomness is just as likely to occur in a regular season game as it is in a playoff game. In fact, the shortness of a 7-game series opens up greater possibility for randomness not being a factor than in a 162 game season. And, as I said before, randomness does not take away the importance of tighter management with greater expertise in the playoffs.

I am not opposed to giving a reasonable bonus for winning a championship. But it should be carefully thought out so as to not give too much of advantage. The current system is fine. Put it to this way--given the commish invests a lot of time to make this possible, unless the point system is clearly unfair I don't think it is cool to complain too much about it.

At least we agree that there should be a point system without giving too much advantage. That's solid common ground. As to not questioning the commish on his policy, that's wrong. We are the participants who pay $100 to play the series, we should be able to have our input. J-Pav certainly didn't just let GBrookes have his way with his point system last year. Greatly disagreeing with it, he made around 8 posts against the policy...as was his right.

Good players will advance--it's like the 69th team complaining they should have gotten into the NCAA tournament. Anyone who wins a championship in this tournament and does not make the top 36 because they did not get bonus points would be whining in my view. Just win and you need not worry about the fine details of the point system. Let every commish put their own spin on the point system within reasonable limits. J-Pav's system is within those limits.

It's not just a matter of who advances, it's the matter of a fair system rewarding players for their accomplishments. Making the playoffs and (especially) winning the title are great accomplishments that should be recognized and amply rewarded. And again, J-Pav felt free to actively criticize GBrookes' point system last year, so potential participants in next year's tournament should feel free to do so, too.

There is no right answer for x in the equation 1 Regular season win = i points either. Perhaps that will come down to the vote or will of the next Commissioner, as well.

While everyone is searching for x in strether's unusual equation, I have to take this opportunity to post a link to the Greatest SOM Online Tour Team Ever Assembled:

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1138187

Matt never should have trashed talked me and HAL when I made the finals!!

(spicki's team was 103-59 by the way!)

And thank you to freeman, who makes many excellent points.

While everyone is searching for x in strether's unusual equation, I have to take this opportunity to post a link to the

Thank you for pointing out my typo, J-Pav. Here is the corrected post of my salient point:

There is no right answer for x in the equation 1 Regular season win = x points either. Perhaps that will come down to the vote or will of the next Commissioner, as well.