How hard is it to finish top 9 in BSers to make the Finals?

My teams made the playoffs in all 6 Barnstormers qualifying leagues, finishing with the best record in the league 3 times and getting 2 rings. One of the ring winners had 109 wins and a near BSers record 124 points.

So did I qualify for the top 9? Yes, but by a razor thin margin of just 1 point, finishing tied for 8th with sjudd at 511 points. Mwelter finished 10th with 510 points.

Poor Dougess also made the playoffs in all 6 qualifying leagues and finished 11th with 509 points, 2 points from qualifying for the top 9. A manager has to do well in the playoffs to make the top 9, but that's downright unjust to make the playoffs in all 6 qualifying leagues, but finish out of the top 9.

There are also a lot of other great managers who barely missed the top 9.

Perhaps it's time to consider a 24 team Barnstormers Finals for the 2021 Barnstormers Tour.

I don't have it handy ATM, but TLD had posted a decent proposed solution for next year to rectify the cliff dive that is finishing just outside the top 9...maybe it was a 12 team semi league or something...I think that is also worthy of consideration and Moose seemed open to thinking through some options for next year with the board.

Nothing will ever be perfect, but you really illustrated the difficulty and level of achievement to make top 9, but even top 20 for that matter with only a few points of separation. And congrats

I like the 24 team league.

What I thought made sense was a top 6 get byes and have 6 leagues of 12 teams each to find the other 6. I believe it used to be that there were 3 leagues of 12 teams to find the other 3 finalists, but with the explosion of participants there needed to be more seninfinalists so the 24 team solution came about. If the partipants drop then I'm guessing the old system will come back.

Having a 24 team league as the finals would be a mistake in my opinion. It devalues the top early round performnace.

The reason teams with 6 playoff teams don’t make the finals with multiple championships is the devaluation that was approved after proposal by Last Druid to devalue playoff and championship competition in the Barnstormers as he called that luck. Last Druid felt that winning 100 games in a league was worth more than a 90 win team winning a championship.

Losers of a 7 game championship get almost as many points as the champion and semifinals winner gets no additional points for winning in the first round. Making the playoffs was reduced to 2 points from 5 and losers in the playoffs now get points for every win where they did not before. Meaning a 100 win team in an easy division that loses in 7 games in a first round will score more points (105) than an 89 game regular season winner and eventual champion (104). Previously the points would have been 105 for the 100 win team and 109 points for the champion. So losers in the playoffs in the first round frequently earn only 1 point less than the winner of the first round. The value of winning a playoff round in the Barnstormers is equal to one regular season win. This is why making playoffs does not assure making the finals.

Furthermore only 5 leagues count so making 6 playoff rounds does not add anything, although I could see making the case for adding the additional playoff points to the point total in the championship totals. So that if you earned 5 points in your lowest point qualifying league in the playoffs those points would be added to the Barnstormers total if you made the playoffs in all 6 leagues. Would add more value to creating playoff teams.

My suggestion:

Top 10 make the finals automatically - I would propose that there be 2 semifinal leagues of 12 to fill the last 2 spots with 18 of those spots (positions 11-28) of the 6 team seasons making the semifinals automatically and 3- 24 team leagues competing in a quarterfinal league with Champions and the runner up in the quarter finals advance to the semifinals. This allows most good players a solid chance to make the playoffs, move up in the Barnstormers, while respecting the greater play of the top players in the initial 6 rounds. This requires the Barnstormers to continue to have 200 participants at a minimum so making the playoffs puts you in the top 1/2 of players. In total 100 players make the playoffs. Should be a reward of some kind for that….

This adds another league to the Barnstormers but increases the value of the early rounds.

That's an interesting suggestion too.

While I did not have an opinion or tracked the point valuation changes you cite, I do think that making the playoffs consistently is a more skill-dependent outcome than winning a championship once you get into the playoffs. Just because of the statistical long run involved with a season worth of performance.

Once you get to the playoffs, it is not just highly matchup-specific, but in a short series you can have short-run anomalies that defy long-run expectations, ie the 80 win team that sweeps the 107 win team in the semis. So reducing that valuation delta seems reasonable to me at least on the surface. If nothing else, IMO one should not be weighted much more than the other.

In your example, my only quibble would be that 100 win team is not necessarily always in a weak division, but I see the overall point. I'm just saying the 100 win team may make the division suffer in intra-div play, but that doesn't make it weak.
But I'm a lightweight around here...was intrigued at matt's stats...but I see your point.

Chompsky Reflections on 2020 BS

Going in to the tourney my goal was 500 points. I felt I could compete at 60-100m but was nervous about 140 and 200m.

I can't complain about how I did. Quite the opposite, I am pleased. HAL didn't particularly curse me or anything. No bad injury streaks. No terrible home park interface with divisional parks or anything like that. I had some tough divisional and league mates, but I also faced a lot of new players, too. I did well in drafts and waivers securing viable players. More importantly, there were a lot of affable conversations and good sporting behavior demonstrated by the managers in my leagues.

I won between 87 and 98 wins in the six leagues, averaging between 91-92 wins.

Truly, as I consider everything, I was more lucky than unlucky. Things largely went my way.

With all that, I ended up with 491 points, falling 21 points short of the top 9.

I like the current rules (although the tourney runs too long for my taste). They appear fair. I'm proud of my run and just take my hat off all the managers who did better. And to the top 9, well, they are just better managers!!

What a blast!!!!!

I am 100% new to the ATG side, so I apologize ahead of time for the complete lack of knowledge on the prior discussions which brought your tournament to this point.

I do have experience as tour commissioner for a year on the 200x side, and I think I’m looking at this with as unbiased an eye as possible. That is, my lack of participation in Barnstormers gives me what I think is a lot of objectivity.

I would tell you that getting rid of “bonus” points was the single best thing to happen on the 200x tour. The competitiveness level is such that one single point makes a huge difference (as is being discussed here). Why on earth would anyone get a free point that was not earned on the field as a win??

Secondly, why have the “top nine are in” method, when the competitiveness level goes WAY deeper? Bernie makes an excellent point here. Why would you not have a Top 36 for semis and the 12 winners from there compete in a finals? I understand you are trying to reward teams who have a strong five league record. But that would only make sense to me if I saw some real separation in manager talent at this cut off. Clearly, there is not. The skill level is much, much deeper (ultimately begging the question of “How far is the separation between 36th and 37th?)

Just one outsiders perspective.

I like J-Pav's suggestion, but I would expand it further. Top 72 make it, then play 6 team leagues in the semi-finals, and the 12 winners advance to the finals. You can use the standings to assign teams to the leagues, so 1 and 72 in one league, 2 and 71, and so on so that the leagues more balanced. The current method of 10-21 and 70-81 in one semi-final makes that league theoretically the toughest semi-finals as it has all the higher seed managers in the same league. This actually punishes the bubble teams. The 6 team leagues don't have playoffs, so only win totals would matter, and if there is a tie, then the tie breaker is simple, use the qualifying round points ranking. Then the 12 winners can be ranked according to their qualifying round ranking, and voting for salary cap, DH, and draft position pick can occur. This would minimize the randomness, ensure a good number of teams qualify for the semi-finals, and still reward players for their qualifying round performance.

Either way, I would like to see the bonus for winning the world series reduced from 5 points to 3.

Why on earth would anyone get a free point that was not earned on the field as a win??

Secondly, why have the “top nine are in” method, when the competitiveness level goes WAY deeper?

Just one outsiders perspective.

You're never an outsider around SOM365 J-Pav. You have always been a perennially helpful player. I recall this when I started on the 2003 season side playing only 20xx for a few years.

Like the ideas. And indeed...why bonus points. I don't think there needs to be an objective target for what gets rewarded. What gets rewarded is rising above the competition. We all play on the same field--especially now that Moose implemented the the invite feature.