2015 Tour Debrief

You do realize that the word "penalty" is being used with regard to a hypothetical/supposed group of managers who are arguing for the current system because of their subjective belief that a bonus system penalizes them. If you agree that other people can have subjective beliefs about the meaning of penalty different than your own, and I'm sure you do, then you cannot really argue with the meaning of penalty in the minds of other managers . Hopefully , you can admit this--and I am sure you can.

You do realize that the word "penalty" is being used with regard to a hypothetical/supposed group of managers who are arguing for the current system because of their subjective belief that a bonus system penalizes them. If you agree that other people can have subjective beliefs about the meaning of penalty different than your own, and I'm sure you do, then you cannot really argue with the meaning of penalty in the minds of other managers . Hopefully , you can admit this--and I am sure you can.

You do realize that words have specific definitions and they are useless if people disregard them. "Penalty" has a specific definition. You disregarded it and misused the word; I didn't and correctly used it. Subjective beliefs don't change that. Hopefully, you can admit this--and I'm sure you can.

Perhaps it is the ones who make comments after winning a league that should be suspect.

You should really cut out that "suspect" talk, Scumby, and stop encouraging the attacks on posters. Everybody has the right to contribute, even newbies. If their positions are valid, they're valid...period. The fomenting of animosity and hostility really needs to stop.

I admit...you're wrong, Strether. And your comment directed at Scumby, Jr is ludicrous--his comment was fair and not at all like you characterized it.

I have no problem at all with Big's post! I am trying to figure out if I'm sitting down to a bowl of haggis poutine or a bowl of razzberry poutine !? Who is that post directed at???

I agree 100% about winning rings. I even proposed that the manager ratings simply reflect credits won to teams played. I always viewed the "but I only play keeper leagues..." or "I only play _________" somewhat suspiciously.

Having said that, I do not quite know how to build a team that wins rings without winning games. I have yet to enter a season and think boy, this team will only win 80 some games but I like my chances at the ring!

I won't pull out the math book here, but I will state that rings correlate perfectly with regular season wins. In today's hypersensitive feelings age, maybe it's impolite to say so and so's team is "inferior". Personally, I don't consider an 89 win team inferior to a 90 win team. But mathematically, it is.

The question is, how does that affect the tour point system? I agree with Marc and Edge and Big that a ring is the reason we're playing. But in a competition across leagues, where Marc is in League 1 and Edge is in League 2 and Big is in League 3, in my opinion, rings don't tell enough of the story. Scumby's post on 90 win teams being in the same division illustrated this perfectly.

The randomness of a 78 win team winning a division and ultimately a ring is fine within any given league. Any complaints ARE sour grapes. But a 78 win team being arbitrarily assigned extra points (again, in my opinion) unfairly penalizes other teams chasing points from other leagues. (Note to strether: one win = one point is also arbitrary. But it's more sensible than assigning it 3.14 or some other idiotic metric).

I'm all ears for the assignment of bonus points. I'm just waiting for someone to compute the formula for one ring is equivalent to x wins, in a mathematical fashion that everyone else agrees is the indisputable metric. But while we're guessing at an answer, what's wrong with one win = one point? Does anyone besides strether believe a win is somehow not a win?

Big: Earlier I suggested a method where you need to win a ring to advance to the semis. Are you in that camp, or do you prefer some other points method and what specifically would it look like?

You guys do know that Big is definitely NOT a noob, right???

I admit...you're wrong, Strether. And your comment directed at Scumby, Jr is ludicrous--his comment was fair and not at all like you characterized it.

Actually, I'm not, and the fact you can't back up that hollow statement helps prove it. So, too, does your truly ludicrous misreading of my post to Scumby, which characterized his accurately.

You guys do know that Big is definitely NOT a noob, right???

I never said he was. You're having difficulty with that reading thing again...

Strether,

I see your awesome Red Sox post isn't getting you any attention. Why don't you take your nonsense back over there and do a re-write. The adults are talking over here.

You're having problems with that troll thing and I'm tired of beating you down. Go away already.

J-pav,

Considering I debunked all your arguments, supported mine, and called you out on your embarrassing lie, the only one who got a beat down Is you. You've also been the only one trolling, and you certainly haven't been a grown-up. I'll have a response to your last big post soon.