I thought the first system was fair. The second system is too weighted. Teams that are lucky to win a low performing division will have an unfair advantage.

The goal of the the regular is to make the playoffs. Once in the playoffs, the goal is to win the next series, and after winning that series, the goal is to win the next series, etc.

When a playoff team gets swept in round 1, they get the same number of "bonus points" as the team that finished 62-100. That seems way less *fair* to me than the handful of teams that might be lucky enough to make the playoffs in a weaker division. Essentially, there is ZERO reward for *just making the playoffs*.

Each series win should be rewarded. Based on the current system and the randomness of the playoff results, the current system encourages teams to win as many regular season games as possible, at the possible cost of winning a playoff series. If my team has a 10-game lead with 8 games to play, normally I might rest my best starting pitcher(s), but the current scoring system tells me I'm better off trying to win these 8 games, instead of hoping I am lucky enough to win 8 coin flip playoff games.

Adding a mere 2 bonus points for each round advancing isn't going to skew things that much, but it will leave a better taste in my mouth after my 105-win #1 seeded team gets swept by the 84-win wildcard team with a negative run differential. "At last I got two more bonus points than the last place team did".

In my opinion, using the "playoff team in a bad division gets an unfair advantage" reason is a weak reason to penalize all the other teams that did make the playoffs and got screwed b/c they got unlucky in round 1.

That's my two cents.

Here's a different way to look at the two scoring systems... I'm removing the point per win since that is the same under both methods...

OPTION A - CURRENT METHOD
0-10 wins = 0 additional points
11 wins = 10 points (WS winner)

OPTION B. Proposed system
0 wins = 2 points (makes playoffs)
3 wins = 2 additional points (wins wildcard round)
7 wins = 2 additional points (wins LCS)
11 wins = 5 additional points (WS winner)

The World Series winner is essentially the same (10 vs 11 points). The WS loser is +6 pts, the LCS loser is +4 pts, the wildcard loser is +2 points. Is this proposed scoring method so extreme that everybody is worried about the 3 or 4 bad playoff teams racking up tons of extra points?

seems like a contradiction to say teams should get an extra reward for winning each playoff round while also calling each playoff game a coin flip

also, changing the scoring system as proposed would do nothing to change the incentives once you've clinched a playoff spot, you're now playing for 20 bonus points once the playoffs start instead of 21, what difference is that going to make?

You moved the goalposts with the different Options. The top post (3/15) is NOT the same thing as your 3/31 post

Basically, the NEW Option A overweights winning the WS compared to making and winning playoff games. While many of the lower tier players are just happy to make the playoffs and are praying for one or two series wins, the top tier players WIN the WS way more. I'd rather see a player that makes the playoffs 3-4 times rewarded for consistency over a guy who has one lucky run.

Frankly, I'd like to see a handicap system that gives lower seeds bonus points for just getting to .500, but that's probably a lost cause...

"You moved the goalposts with the different Options. The top post (3/15) is NOT the same thing as your 3/31 post"

No - the two proposed scoring systems are the same. I simply excluded the point per win, since that is the same in both scoring methods. This new display simply shows the difference in the proposed system. I am advocating for extra bonus points for making the playoffs and for winning each series. A whopping "2" points per round advancement. Everything else is essentially the same.

Posted by 06gsp on 3/31/2023 2:42:00 PM (view original):
seems like a contradiction to say teams should get an extra reward for winning each playoff round while also calling each playoff game a coin flip

also, changing the scoring system as proposed would do nothing to change the incentives once you've clinched a playoff spot, you're now playing for 20 bonus points once the playoffs start instead of 21, what difference is that going to make?

Let me give an example of what I'm talking about...

Under the current scoring method,
The four divisional series losers will end up with around 1 to 1.5 "bonus points" per team
The two LCS losers will end up with around 4.5 to 5.5 "bonus points" per team
The WS loser will end up with around 8.5 to 9.5 "bonus points" per team
The WS winner gets 21 "bonus points"
That's an average of roughly 5.5 "bonus points" per playoff team.

Under the proposed scoring method,
The four divisional series losers will end up with around 3 to 3.5 "bonus points" per team
The two LCS losers will end up with around 8.5 to 9.5 "bonus points" per team
The WS loser will end up with around 14.5 to 15.5 "bonus points" per team
The WS winner gets 22 "bonus points"
That's an average of roughly 8.5 "bonus points" per playoff team.

If I have clinched my division early, and can pick up 8 easy wins vs the bad teams in my division, that's more preferable than the 5.5 bonus points I may get with average luck in the playoffs. By changing the incentive to win each series, now it's more preferable to try and win these coin flip games.

We're talking about 2 points per playoff round. I'm stunned that people are against this and prefer a "World Series Win or nothing" system.

Here is the simplest way to compare the two scoring methods. Keep in mind that the point per win is the exact same under both methods...

Current Method --> All or nothing for World Series win
0 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 10 points

Proposed Method --> Get a little something for each round advanced
2 + 2 + 2 + 5 = 11 points

Posted by toddcommish on 3/31/2023 2:54:00 PM (view original):
You moved the goalposts with the different Options. The top post (3/15) is NOT the same thing as your 3/31 post

Basically, the NEW Option A overweights winning the WS compared to making and winning playoff games. While many of the lower tier players are just happy to make the playoffs and are praying for one or two series wins, the top tier players WIN the WS way more. I'd rather see a player that makes the playoffs 3-4 times rewarded for consistency over a guy who has one lucky run.

Frankly, I'd like to see a handicap system that gives lower seeds bonus points for just getting to .500, but that's probably a lost cause...

As to the last part of this, we've moved away from rankings the past couple years. I don't even know how we would do it fairly at this point.

I prefer even more radical ideas:
— No bonus points at all. A win is a win.
— Round 2 of the WISC everyone starts over from zero. Advantages from Round 1 do not carry over.

The reward for advancing is you get to play for more points. Giving additional bonus is double dipping so I voted against it. 3-5 points for WS win makes sense, any more is excessive. A few points for winning division but not for wildcard.
There's no way to remove luck from the outcomes the best we can ask for is balanced rewards.

Posted by contrarian23 on 3/31/2023 4:34:00 PM (view original):
I prefer even more radical ideas:
— No bonus points at all. A win is a win.
— Round 2 of the WISC everyone starts over from zero. Advantages from Round 1 do not carry over.

A carryover makes sense. The goal is to win games not just to make top 24. You could quibble over the percentage but it shouldn't be zero.
My complaint is with round 2 themes that seed the top teams facing each other giving the lower seeds an advantage. Why give them a bonus for winning and then penalize them for winning?

We'll have to agree to disagree on the carryover. I don't think it makes sense.

Making the playoffs already grants the opportunity to earn more points. That is sufficient in my opinion. I have been in leagues where a team has won over 100 games and not made the playoffs, whereas another team in the same league was barely .500 and won their division.