Game Date: May 17th, 2069
Suggestions
Forum >> Suggestions >> Tie Breakers 
| 
| 
| Post ID | Date & Time | Game Date | Function |
|---|---|---|---|
| #29271 | 01/20/2016 7:32:53 pm | ||
|
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive 
| Most of all, I'm glad you think the last point is flawed. You're dead wrong. It can easily be proven. The standings say as much all the time. Please continue to believe you're right. I'm not going to help you with that any more. It's there for the taking if you care to open your mind and figure it out. | ||
| #29272 | 01/20/2016 7:54:50 pm | ||
|
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9821 Haverhill Halflings Legends 
| I know exactly what you are thinking about there, but your thinking is flawed. If you beat a team you are competing for first place with, yes you gain 1 full game instead of half a game. But that is only affecting your position in the standings, not doubly proving that you are a better team. The exact same result happens if you win a game and your competition loses. Just because it happened in the same game instead of in two parallel games doesn't really change anything mathematically. You are essentially trying to double count. But in reality it doesn't work that way anyhow. Its strictly how many games I win vs. how many games you win. If I win 100 games and you win 80 games, it doesn't matter if you beat me EVERY time we played. I have the better team. And I obviously must have beaten a lot of teams that beat you. EDIT: Please go ahead and try and prove your point. Hopefully in the process you will see the flaw in your thinking. Updated Wednesday, January 20 2016 @ 7:56:32 pm PST |
||
| #29273 | 01/20/2016 9:04:43 pm | ||
|
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive
| Excellent, Rock. You still think you're right. Case closed. |
||
| #29277 | 01/20/2016 9:58:11 pm | ||
|
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9821 Haverhill Halflings Legends
| Not much of a case...? You haven't presented anything... Please explain how you think head to head is a better predictor of team quality. You haven't even attempted to explain... You're just saying "that's how it is" and "I know because I'm brilliant, so just trust me". If you really had an explanation you wouldn't mind sharing it. This whole claim that this simple concept is a big secret is just a cover for not really having anything to say. It can easily be proven If its so easy to prove, then just prove it already. Updated Wednesday, January 20 2016 @ 9:59:50 pm PST |
||
| #29278 | 01/20/2016 11:17:08 pm | ||
|
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive
| You're not even fighting the right fight. I never said head to head and divisional games proves who is better. I said they're more important. That's why those should be the first tie breakers, not run differential. While tie breakers may be different in different professional leagues, every one of them declares their league play champion (meaning pre-playoffs) based on wins. That's how everyone rightfully declares who had the best regular season. (Please don't go off on a tangent about sports like hockey that incorporate points. It's different, but the same, if you know what I mean.) That being the case, wins are all that matters. Forget about tie breakers for the moment. We're talking about league play outright winners. That's done by wins. Period. As a result, divisional games are more important than cross divisional ones because they decide two outcomes for the division race, not one. Head to head is the same thing. I would have no problem with division record being ahead of head to head. Both should be ahead of RD. Wins matter. Runs don't. Like I said, most people view this incorrectly. I blame the media and professional players and coaches for this to a certain degree for perpetuating this misconception. You always here them say "all games are equal," "a win is a win," "yadda yadda yadda." They're wrong. The tie break structure even tries telling them they're wrong, but they ignore it. Here are two final examples. Shoot them down in your mind again. That will make me very happy. Here's your logic and math: A win by you = a win by you and a loss by an opponent. That's false. Lastly, imagine this scenario. Everyone in the league has one game left. You are one game behind your division leader. Here are your options for your last game: You can play the worst team in the league who also happens to be starting their worst pitcher or you can go against the best team in the division who is starting the best pitcher in the league. Who do you play? Head to head and division games are more important than cross divisional games. That's why if a tie breaker game or series isn't played to settle the score, head to head and division record should be used before run differential. (Again, whether head to head or division should be first, I don't really care. Both could be argued. I think most leagues use H2H first, so I would go with the real world.) |
||
| #29283 | 01/21/2016 7:08:18 am | ||
|
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9821 Haverhill Halflings Legends
| LOL! You can play the worst team in the league who also happens to be starting their worst pitcher or you can go against the best team in the division who is starting the best pitcher in the league. Who do you play? I wasn't aware you could dynamically choose your opponent. For some reason I thought the MLB schedule was set at the beginning of the year... LOL! Your argument is that H2H is more important because it has a bigger impact on standings. That means it is already incorporated in your records. So you want to double count it. You're not even fighting the right fight. Nobody on this thread is arguing about how games apply to your record (its pretty straight forward). The debate is how do you determine who is the best team. You are the one who is trying to change the "fight" so that your straw man argument will fit. A win by you = a win by you and a loss by an opponent. Seems pretty straight forward to me... Are you saying that if team A beats team B, then sometimes team B doesn't lose? Updated Thursday, January 21 2016 @ 7:13:19 am PST |
||
| #29287 | 01/21/2016 8:19:25 am | ||
|
Spoonerific Joined: 01/17/2013 Posts: 339 Inactive
| Spoon, your example is arbitrary and not necessarily true. My point was true. A run differential of 161 [480-319] would trump a 160 [320-160] but the PTE of those two you be .694 compared to .877. Your example doesn't even compare nearly equivalent teams. The first would have PTE of .941 and the latter .610. The first should win due to run diff and due to PTE, so PTE still would be a correct indicator. |
||
| #29291 | 01/21/2016 9:24:19 am | ||
|
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive
| My point was true. A run differential of 161 [480-319] would trump a 160 [320-160] but the PTE of those two you be .694 compared to .877. I thought your point was that RD put defensive oriented teams at a disadvantage. My entire point was not to argue against PTE, but rather to give a very easy to see example that the more defensive team could easily win on RD. You want something closer? Try 2.01-1 versus 5-4. Edit: Or more direct to your last post, 161 [321-160] versus 160 [800-640]. Updated Thursday, January 21 2016 @ 9:28:04 am PST |
||
| #29292 | 01/21/2016 10:41:15 am | ||
|
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive
| Between Spoon and Newt, I thought someone was arguing that PTE was superior to RD. I would agree with that even though I don't think either is as good as the other tie breakers I mentioned. However, I will admit I can't figure out exactly what is being debated on that front. Rock, you've proven there really is no reason to try to reason with you. I'm done. Believe what you want to believe. Edit-Rock, your comment about the already fixed schedule was silly. Obviously my point was hypothetical. I'm well aware that no one gets to alter the schedule, but thanks. However, I looked back at my earlier post and realized one part wasn't communicated effectively at all--my equation. The rest of the content describing that in the previous post made it much clearer; I should have left it as it was. The point was, as basically all of them have been, is that division games and head to head games affect the standings more than cross divisional games because you have the power to not only get a win but also give your divisional opponent a loss. A wise owner/manager understands this emphasis and acts accordingly. That being the case, divisional games should be more reflective of how good teams are than cross divisional games. Major leagues understand this, which is why they use them as tie breakers ahead of scoring differential . Now I'll really be done. Updated Thursday, January 21 2016 @ 11:14:10 am PST |
||
| #29305 | 01/21/2016 3:13:04 pm | ||
|
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9821 Haverhill Halflings Legends
| No one is arguing that division games and head to head games don't affect the standings more than cross divisional. In fact that is not even the topic of this thread. That was my point. Your pointing to an apple tree as proof that pears are red. If anything that is exactly why H2H shouldn't be counted. Since you are already getting more "credit" for a H2H game then you deserve. Under your world view, its more impressive to beat a team in your division twice, then a team in another division 3 times. The math will simply never be able to support your argument, because you aren't actually making one. You've proven time and again there really is no reason to try to reason with you. Facts and figures mean nothing compared to your all-knowing feelings about how the world should operate. Updated Thursday, January 21 2016 @ 3:15:10 pm PST |
||
| |