2015 Tour Debrief

Scintillating grownup comeback...exactly what I expected...

How about instead you join League 9 and be a help to the tour? We still need two more.

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!

This is irrelevant. Nobody wants to not credit managers for winning games. They just rightly want ample recognition of and reward for winning a 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.

This is erroneous and not mathematical. Firstly, rings do not correlate perfectly with regular season wins, just ask all the player who won 88-90 wins and not make the playoffs while watching a 82-87 win team win it. Secondly, a 89 win team is not necessarily mathematically inferior to a team who won 90. Not only could the 89-win team--in MLB and SOM--be better, there is absolutely no mathematical formula that could show such superiority. If J-Pav can produce that formula--and he can't--even Godel would applaud.

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.

This is another irrelevant red herring point. Rings aren't supposed to tell "enough of the story;" they are supposed to represent the significant achievement of winning a championship. Like winning regular season games--even moreso--they should be recognized in the point system.

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).

Talk about repeat and repeat and repeat. J-Pav keeps repeating this mantra that bonus points are arbitrary. as I've shown in my earlier post they are no more arbitrary than points assigned to regular wins. All point assignments are partially arbitrary and subjective and none are completely objective.

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?

This is another deceptive and pointless question. Since there is no objective point value for a SOM regular season win, and that point assignment has no "indisputable metric," there doesn't have to be one for playoff points. They just have to be consensually sensible. And J-Pav's poor reading shows again. I never said a win wasn't a win, I correctly said a win does not have to equal 1 point. A win can equal any point amount--be it 1, 5, 680, or 2000--as long as it successfully (but not completely0 represents the desired value.

So, we don't need indisputable metrics to come up with a fair playoff point system; we certainly didn't need or have one when deciding our season win point system.

Guys, the best way to get rid of a troll is to ignore him. As long as folks keep responding to the troll's posts, he will keep trolling and posting, for no real purpose but his own sick self-gratification, even if his time would be bettter spent talking to a shrink, or just doing his masturbating physically.

Please note, I'm speaking of trolls in general, nobody in particular.

I completely agree with you, Mesquiton. However, when the commissioner is the one trolling, there's not much I can do...

Speaking of trolls, a troll is someone who comes onto a thread, doesn't address it's topic, and only posts antagonizing filth--like masturbation references. That makes you both the brand new troll on this thread...and quite the sad one. Anyone who can fantasize about the auto-erotic activities of other posters not only needs significant help; they also need other types of therapy.

So, as always, Mesquiton, you have my sincere concern, and I look forward to your actually contributing to a thread once you are well. You are an excellent poster when you do.

Global warming causes

1-industries
2-vehicles burning fuel
3-pets farting
4-useless posts wit trolls

To answer J-Pav challenge earlier: If you build a team full of injury-prone players andyou dumbed them every time they get 10 or 15 games injuries, I think you might say it's a great team that will win a lot of seasonal games, but with that payroll down to 76 m or even less, you might think it's not fit to win the Finals. Mind you, this is related both to the 95/90/80 and the 1win=1 point.

But I agree with J-Pav that none of the alternative formulas that I or keyzick (or was it scumby?) proposed seem to have lifted off the ground).

Thanks keyzick for the kind words, but I seem to have met my Waterloo in the group of death (a division with only top 10 players)...1-5 so far and the team does not look good

But I agree with J-Pav that none of the alternative formulas that I or keyzick (or was it scumby?) proposed seem to have lifted off the ground).

They can't really get off the ground because we have 4 people arguing against playoff points, me arguing for them, and a few for them but uncommitted. That's not a sufficient quorum. So, instead of us debating back and forth now, we should shelve the discussion until next year when the new commissioner can foment polite discussion on the matter. Hopefully, he will go with a plan favoring the majority. If the majority prefers the present point system, we should stay with it. If the majority wants playoff points, we can decide to go back to GBrookes' old plan or formulate a new one. We can't formulate any plan with 5-7 people in disagreement.

Also, think about my suggestion of you as commissioner. You know the tourney, you get along with everyone, and you don't lose your temper. You could really help us have pleasant, non-contentious discussions on this.

The issue isn't about "rings" -that is a red herring. It boils down to recognizing all league and division are not equal strength and letting losers of playoff series earn points for wins or not. The debate is about points to the other guy. Champs will always get their points.