2021 Tour Changes??

Good points have been made by all.

I remember THE GREAT Cristino mentioning that he was trying something new with his semis team (over confident, or not his normal park, I am not sure the reason). He was the well deserved one seed. And I was the 36th seed only by the seat of my pants.

I know I was overlooked, and that's okay. Even the newbie Linda thought she would beat me ( no offense, but come on, take a peak at the lifetime records. And another guy from my division, Steve said I was the luckiest player ever, despite my +110 run differential to his +5 or whatever)... ...

But upsets happen quite frequently in real sports, we saw several in the NFL playoffs this weekend. And they are going to happen in Strat-O-Matic too. THAT SAID I ABSOLUTELY AGREE HIGHER SEEDS HAVE EARNED their place and should be rewarded. But you will never make it so the top 12 seeds make it every time. It doesn't work that way in real life either.

The same way it was explained to me that a better player should be able to win in any stadium, SHOULDN'T a better player be able to adjust from a BAD AUTO DRAFT? Isn't it part of the game and part of being the best (per the famous JEEP and others)?

At the same time I agree with EVERYONE that there is a ton of luck involved with the AUTO DRAFT.

So call me crazy and naive, but the only way to really make it fair is for 12 guys to commit to a 90 minute totally LIVE DRAFT.

That would be my solution. But I guess getting 12 people to show up online at the same time is IMPOSSIBLE??

I am not being sarcastic when I call Cristino great. But the best team/player isn't always going to win it all every year.

WHO THOUGHT THE BROWNS WOULD FINALLY WIN A PLAYOFF GAME IN PITTSBURGH WITHOUT THEIR COACHING STAFF?

Didn't the undefeated Patriots team not win the Super Bowl?

In fact the teams with the best records ever in MLB and NFL did not win the title in those years that they had the best regular season records.

I will participate if no changes are made, but I've gotten messages from several players including those who don't want to post here.

I think these players feel that it generally makes no sense to not "reward" results of events 1-5 in the Semis, but then do it in the Finals. What I don't know is whether people favor adding a brief player draft in the Semis or eliminate the Finals player draft.

If managers don’t post, then it’s going to be kinda hard to convince anyone to do anything.

...these players feel...

I wish we could take feelings out of the equation.

For consideration:

Here are my worst four teams of 2019 so far:

78-84, 80-82, 83-79, 83-79 (.500 win pct)

324 wins/points which would have been good for 79th place on the tour.

Here are my best four teams of 2019:

102-60, 99-63, 95-67, 95-67 (.603 win pct)

391 wins/points, easily good for 1st place after you add in the playoff points.

Here are my four tour teams (all made the playoffs):

88-74, 89-73, 89-73, 95-67 (.557 win pct)

So my question to the group is this:

Which manager am I, really? Of course it’s obvious to all, that all my teams are me. I may feel that I’m only my best four teams, and this merits reward. But does it? Am I not my worst four teams too? First or 79th?

So the point I’m trying to make is that in a very small four team sample among a larger group of four team samples, I haven’t demonstrated much of anything in terms of “deserve”, “merit”, “reward” or “incentive”. All I’ve done is provide a small four team sample that should get to advance or not advance on that particular (and somewhat insignificant) record relative to everyone else’s (somewhat insignificant) record. I deserve more reward because my sample is one point better than the next guys? That just does not make statistical sense to me.

I’m sorry some of the higher ranked teams were bumped in the semis, but if each and every one of the top 12 managers advanced, then where does that leave the “deserves reward” argument? We wouldn’t even be having this discussion now. And I remained unconvinced that 2, 4, or 8 picks in a live draft would have done anything to change anything in the semis.

Can someone convince me otherwise?

J-Pav, this is simple. Why are you making this so complicated or trying to make it mean more than it does?

We are only referring to this Player's Tour Championship Tournament: . Not every season played this year.

No one has ever claimed Events I-V Prove who the best manager is.

A statement in the rules says: These "seeding rules for the draft order provide an incentive and a reward for the managers who finish with the highest scores in Events I-V."[/b]

You can not "provide an incentive and a reward for the managers who finish with the highest scores in Events I-V" if they are already eliminated. Therefore, if you are going to follow this statement you have to do it in the Semi-finals before the teams who finished with the highest scores in Events 1-V are potentially eliminated. It makes no sense to wait until some teams are potentially eliminated and then say we are going to change the second tournament and make it different than the Semi's because we want to "provide incentive and reward for the managers who finish with the highest scores" in the first 5 events!

Continually making statements about different winning % in other Leagues and how close the coopetition is in the first 36 places, etc. is all fine and probably true, but it is not relevant for the discussion I brought up here.

Gilbo does have a point, if the goal is to provide incentive for those who finish best in events I-V, and those teams are eliminated already, that kind of defeats that purpose. But, there is obviously no easy answer that will satisfy everyone, but the discourse is great. Good points made all the way around.

Maybe the solution is to drop all the "incentives" and simply go with autodraft the entire time, but with league seedings in semis and finals?

Bottom line: I again thank those who have run this tournament, and hope they all know it is appreciated across the board by so many players.

Just for the record: I NEVER said anything at all to Radagast Brown about "beating him," nor, as a new player, would I even consider saying something like that!

What I said to everyone, (not just to Radagast Brown) is this is a dice game, and with that there is a certain amount of luck involved. My feelings are that there is more luck than most of you guys think there is, because the number of dice rolls over a 162 game season are not enough for true statistical outcomes (yes, I have a degree in finance, and accounting, so I am familiar with numbers.)

But, I would appreciate people not attributing comments to me, that were absolutely not made. As most of you know, I have been nothing but respectful and appreciative to everyone who has ever messaged me, assisted me, or answered any of my questions.

Linda

This is the opposite of simple!

I want it to be simple too. All $80 mil autodraft leagues, start to finish. Fortunately or unfortunately, other commissioners and managers decided about unique ballparks, league salary caps and live drafts long, long ago, so here we are with the past as precedent.

I know what the rules say, because as I mentioned above, I wrote that myself when I was Commissioner. I wrote it to explain the situation at hand. The rules wording I used did not establish the situation at hand, if you follow me. The tournament long preceded the writing of the rules thread by gbrookes, me, keyzick and MBW.

There’s two issues: the seeding and draft order do provide reward/incentive to the finals as stated. The other issue is that some feel that it should apply to the semis as well. So we have a poll up, and we’re having discussion. The case might actually be that the silent majority of managers are perfectly happy with the status quo.

Me personally, I can go along with pretty much anything, although I do have personal preferences too.

Your argument has been, that high seeds missed the finals because they were unrewarded with live picks for their showing in qualifying events. My argument has been that A. The point spread among managers is so close that saying one manager should pick first and a manager a few points behind him should pick 12th makes no logical, statistical sense, and B. Even if they did get picks, it amounts to much ado about nothing anyway.

I agree that it should therefore not happen for the finals as well, but like I said, I didn’t make those decisions, we’re all merely following established precedent.

If we’re going to change things, let’s all change them then. All we need is some sort of consensus, right?

I think what I posted previously IS relevant to what you’re saying. As I wrote above, “The point spread among managers is so close that saying one manager should pick first and a manager a few points behind him should pick 12th makes no logical, statistical sense.” I was trying to highlight that even my own teams when compared against my OWN teams do not suggest there is merit to the This Group of Teams Deserves to be Rewarded Argument.

J-Pav I'm sure you are a great guy! Nevertheless, Your following statement is not my argument: "Your argument has been, that high seeds missed the finals because they were unrewarded with live picks for their showing in qualifying events." NO, I didn't argue that. What that sounds like is your apparent assumptions about the implications and motives of my argument.

Then what you call Your Argument again has no relevance to my argument. It does not matter how close your so called "Point Spread" is. I didn't decide what anyone's picks are. Any picks in an order are already there - I didn't create or advocate for any order of picks. My argument has noting to do with how close you think the competition is. Obviously if someone picks first, someone else has to pick after that. It doesn't matter if the "point spread" is millions or one. So again your argument of close competition is irrelevant to what I've said.

I don't expect you to get it.