2015 Tour Debrief

Yes. But if you go to last year's tour standings, it appears to me that the new point system is now applied to those standings (it probably happened when the new standings for this year were created). What I don't know is how to go back and see the old formatting so I could compare.

My guess would be, the results would be very close to identical. The only ones who would care how tour points are awarded are those in the 30th to 45th place range.

My reward for winning event 2 (with a team sporting a NEGATIVE run differential) was to get LuckyMan in my division for Event 4.

Good luck with that FoggyOne!

* * * * *

So...

The various camps are:

1. One win=one point (zero playoff points)
2. One win=one point (including the playoffs)
3. One win=one point (playoffs have reasonable winner take all points format)
4. One win=one point (reasonably assigned bonus points)
5. One win=one point (overemphasis on bonus points)
6. Winner take all (the full monte - only rings move to semi-final level)

I can personally support any of these methods (and would be happy to consider others). Since a win is a win isn't debatable, my personal preference is for choice 2. That is the only common ground I see among all camps except for the winners take all method (which definitely has merit, but also lots of downside). As soon as someone quantifies "significant achievement" and "ample recognition of and reward..." then we can all discuss it. My guess is, there will never be consensus on this point, just a vote among those interested enough to even cast a vote. And I can live with that, too.

I know the search for an intangible constant is maybe a fun intellectual pursuit. But since ALL agree a win is a win, why not just stop there?

I can personally support any of these methods (and would be happy to consider others). Since a win is a win isn't debatable, my personal preference is for choice 2. That is the only common ground I see among all camps except for the winners take all method (which definitely has merit, but also lots of downside).

Actually, not all wins are equal. Just ask any team that wins the World Series or any SOM manager who wins the Finals. To say winning game seven of the regular season is the equal of winning the game that wins the Finals is nonsensical. They aren't equal achievements. So, choice 4 would have as much common ground as choice 2.

As soon as someone quantifies "significant achievement" and "ample recognition of and reward..." then we can all discuss it. My guess is, there will never be consensus on this point, just a vote among those interested enough to even cast a vote. And I can live with that, too.

As I correctly said in my last long post, objectively quantifying "significant achievement" is impossible. So, we can't wait for that. However, we already subjectively quantified achievement when we assigned a subjective 1 pt value to a regular season win. We also successfully quantified achievement when players supported GBrookes' 3 pts-for-making-the-playoffs/2 pts-for-making-the-finals/and 3 pts for winning-the-finals system. So, we could start with that quantification of significant achievement and ample recognition of reward. We could also finish there.

I know the search for an intangible constant is maybe a fun intellectual pursuit. But since ALL agree a win is a win, why not just stop there?

Again, we don't need intangible constants. One regular win= one point isn't an intangible constant; we found that. GBrookes' equally objective and subjective playoff point system isn't an intangible constant either; we found that as well. And as a I showed above and earlier, and as most people know, one win is not the same as every other win. Some wins, like those winning the Finals are more significant achievements and worth more. So, why don't we just stop at GBrookes' playoff point system that worked fine?

There's lots of "we" and "our" in your posts. How about joining League 9? Password is J9. So "we" can close "our" last league?

We only need one to close League 9 now. Why does strether disappear whenever that subject comes up??

That would probably require an excessive amount of commitment.

He would probably enjoy a lot more success in the game if he spent as much time on his teams as he spends rewriting other player's posts so he can frantically argue against things no one is even saying. It's like watching the guy downtown swat at imaginary butterflies on the corner. Odd.

Everybody has a hobby.

He would probably enjoy a lot more success in the game if he spent as much time on his teams as he spends rewriting other player's posts so he can frantically argue against things no one is even saying. It's like watching the guy downtown swat at imaginary butterflies on the corner. Odd.

Three posts to and about me in an hour. I'm flattered. As to my success in the game, I've won 25 championships and made the playoffs many times. Unlike you, I didn't need a ratings guide to help me do it.

As to my posts, we've already established the only one who gets frantic is you. And if you think I've "re-written" any posts, why don't you act like a grown-up and show me where. We both know you can't. And I argued exactly against what you were saying; you can't counter that either. And I think it's both cute and creepy you actually watch the guy downtown swat at imaginary butterflies on the corner. That is truly odd...

Now, stop trolling and let's get back to the topic.