keyzick wrote:I would say the current point system DOES amply reward the following:
No, it doesn't.
1. Winning the title.
You would have to win 4 games in the series, thus getting 4 points. And it also acknowledges the loser of a 4-3 nail biter championship, by providing 3 more points to them than the manager who loses a title via a 4-0 sweep.
And your example above shows it doesn't amply reward. In a nail-biter series, the winner only gets
one more point than the loser, relegating the worth of winning the championship to winning
one regular series game. Winning the championship is worth more than winning a regular season game. Even in a 4-2 series, the 2-point difference doesn't represent the achievement of winning the Finals. So, only if there is a sweep, which isn't common, do we have the same representation most were happy with before. So the current system decidedly does
not amply reward winning the championship.
2. Making the Finals
You would have received 4 extra points via winning the first round of playoffs...and now have the opportunity to win more games (i.e. points)
Your statement above show your position to be wrong again. Just like in the Finals, if the other player wins 1,2, or 3 games, the significance of the points rewarded becomes inadequate. And the "opportunity" to win more games is certainly not an ample reward if one is shutout or only wins one game. So, again, you have well-shown why the current point system does not amply reward a player for making the finals.
4. Winning regular season games
you agreed on this point already, so I won't belabor
We are agreed, and since we're only focusing on playoff rewards, I'm not sure why you included it.
And the missing item...is currently only rewarded via opportunity (which may not be a bad thing):
No, it's not a good thing. Opportunity for points itself is not ample reward for the significant achievement of making the playoffs, particularly when there is solid chance that opportunity won't translate into ample reward.
3. Making the playoffs
You make it, you can earn more points via items 1 and 2 above. You get swept, you get nothing extra. This would perhaps be where they hybrid system might come into play, providing an automatic 2 pint bonus for anyone making the postseason. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I offer it as an option of compromise. While I do like the current point per win system, I understand the feeling that there should be some "subjective" reward to this accomplishment. I may not be in agreement, but I can certainly understand that point.
Well, we're in agreement here. As to compromise, GBrookes already substantially compromised when he reduced the regular playoff points last year. Continual "compromise" will just make the minimal playoff point reward inadequate and irrelevant.
I don't know why the tournament would not want to capture excellence AND reward those who do the best? I think a point system that only addresses one of these, would be a flawed system. If too much weighting is put on the bonus points, I think it can potentially skew tournament qualification by overemphasizing a couple great seasons as opposed to consistent excellent performance. It's like saying Eli's a better QB than Peyton because he has more Super Bowl rings.
Because, as I said before, the purpose of a
fair tournament is to give
everybody--not just the "excellent" players--the same chance and opportunity to win a tournament that best reflects SOM play and best rewards the most important accomplishments in SOM play. MLB certainly doesn't try to get the most "excellent" teams in the playoffs, it lets the teams who earned it make it. As I said before, Altec is the best player SOM has had, so if we were just rewarding the excellent, we should just give him next year's title now.
And a playoff point system
does reward excellence, since the excellent players are usually the ones who make the playoffs most and win the most titles. So, a playoff point system does "capture excellence and reward those who do the best." As to "skewing" tournament qualification, you can say the same about a one-point-per-win system that gives 90+ points to players who just had a "few good seasons" by winning 90+ twice. If you don't want a few good seasons to "skew" things, you'd have to get rid of the current point-per-win system as well. I don't think you want that.
And the bonus point system is "not" like saying Eli is better than Peyton; that's a poor analogy, particularly since they aren't competing in a tournament. It's more like saying Peyton did win two super bowls (which is a major achievement), and he should get his deserved recognition for that. And when the time comes to evaluate his achievements, those should definitely be included along with the rest of his achievements. The same goes for making the playoffs, making the Finals, and winning the Finals. They don't necessarily make a player inherently better, but they are significant achievements the Tournament should amply recognize in its point system. As I showed earlier, the current system doesn't.
Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:59 pm
You would have to win 4 games in the series, thus getting 4 points. And it also acknowledges the loser of a 4-3 nail biter championship, by providing 3 more points to them than the manager who loses a title via a 4-0 sweep.