2015 Tour Debrief

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.

I didn't say the issue is about rings; I said rings--or championships--are an issue, and they are. They are the main goal of almost any SOM season. So, saying they are is not a red herring. And it doesn't just "boil down to recognizing all league and division are not equal strength and letting losers of playoff series earn points for wins or not." First of all, neither MLB nor SOM concerns itself with the relative strength of divisions, so the tournament shouldn't either. And even if it did, the points-per-win system doesn't adequately recognize leagues and divisions aren't equal strength either. So, having points for actual playoff achievements wouldn't change anything.

And a points-for-actual-playoff achievements system could still allow points for losers of playoff series. So, that shouldn't be a concern either.

Another fun with math perspective:

A 90 win team who wins a ring currently gets 8 additional points, a nine percent increase. A .275 hitter who gets a nine percent increase becomes a .300 hitter (.275 x 1.09=.29975). Now if subjective is objective, penalties are benefits, 78>92, and trolls are arbiters of reason, then I guess 275 can equal 300 too.

I just see it differently is all.

Marc:

Tour points are imaginary, dollars (credits, I guess) are real. I'm always playing for the ring. I do that by building my roster to win as many games as I can. I don't feel like I have to choose - I want them both! If you prefer to try gaming the tour points to somehow win more games at the expense of winning rings, you are always free to pursue that. But in your own example, if you flunk out in the playoffs with zero points, and the Champ gets eight (plus two credits), what good did building an eight game lead in the regular season really get you?

A 90 win team who wins a ring currently gets 8 additional points, a nine percent increase. A .275 hitter who gets a nine percent increase becomes a .300 hitter (.275 x 1.09=.29975). Now if subjective is objective, penalties are benefits, 78>92, and trolls are arbiters of reason, then I guess 275 can equal 300 too.

Considering you've been the troll failing to be the arbiter of reason, your post is somewhat apt. However, nobody said "subjective is objective" or "penalties are benefits." So, your irrelevant and erroneous comparison is even more irrelevant and erroneous. Fantastical stuff, though.

Feel free to politely address my actual points at any time or show any posts where you think I've trolled. You haven't done that yet.

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.

Actually, I do want to credit managers for winning games. That's what the point for win system accomplishes.

Was that addressed to me? You didn't include any words of mine. I completely agree with your first paragraph. And the current point-for-win system does adequately reward regular season wins. It just doesn't amply reward playoff achievements. Anyway, we're finding common ground.

This was your quote. I do want to credit managers for winning games so I must be nobody.

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.

This was your quote. I do want to credit managers for winning games so I must be nobody.

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.

Actually, no. Since I said nobody wants to not credit managers for winning games, and you do not want to not credit managers for winning games, I wasn't saying you were nobody at all. I was crediting you and everyone holding your position for not having the one previously described.

But I do want to credit managers for winning games. I didn't have the your quote formatted correctly in my first post. I apologize for any confusion that may have caused you.

Cool. I believe you. No harm, no foul.

Hey JPav, just out of curiousity, have you ever tried a recalc of the 2014 final standings, implementing the various systems proposed in this thread? I wonder what the impacts would be for each...maybe some minor shuffling in the standings, or significant movements?