Posted by odalisgagne on 2/19/2020 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by milest on 2/19/2020 1:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by redcped on 2/19/2020 11:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by odalisgagne on 2/19/2020 11:46:00 AM (view original):
I agree with schwarze that we swung the pendulum back a touch too far...I'd support a small bonus for making the playoffs.

Maybe 3 points? I do agree it's disheartening to go 1-3 in the first round and wind up with 1 point only to show for it.

So the 79 win team that won the AL East in the $90m league deserves a bonus & the 5 teams with better records that missed the playoffs do not? I just can't fathom how that's something we should consider.

by your logic, teams that make the playoffs shouldn't even get the bonus wins for winning playoff games unless they have a top 4 regular season record.

That's not what I said nor think

I thought I was a high cap specialist... The only WS I made in the 1st round was in the $70M league. The only WS I made in the 2nd round was in the $70M league. I surprised myself big time... Both in a good and bad way.

Ok, we've got a race here!

All WS are set. There are some complex scenarios where schwarze can pull off a win by winning the 140M WS. Some involve also winning the 70M WS, but all are dependent on how well brianjw does in the 130M WS and the 140M (against schwarze)

One other note -- I'm sure schwarze will be thrilled I'm pointing this out -- his 140M team, which MUST defeat brianjw and win the WS for him to have a shot, ended up as the best team in the tournament based on the Stdev rankings

Hang on, I'm playing tigerrott not schwarze in the 140M.

Correct, my 104 win team couldn't beat a team that had a +26 run differential on the season. Typical WIS.

Would've been fun had that World series been for the title.

The problem with the 79 win team getting bonus points argument is that this is not a normal situation. So let's punish all the good playoff teams because 2 or 3 low-win teams get a lucky division placement?

Posted by schwarze on 2/21/2020 8:12:00 AM (view original):
The problem with the 79 win team getting bonus points argument is that this is not a normal situation. So let's punish all the good playoff teams because 2 or 3 low-win teams get a lucky division placement?

No one is being 'punished' under the current scoring system. That's a false narrative. Not rewarding someone is different from punishing. If you don't give your kid $5 for every A on their report card, you aren't punishing them, you just aren't rewarding them.

Posted by brianjw on 2/21/2020 7:12:00 AM (view original):
Hang on, I'm playing tigerrott not schwarze in the 140M.

Whoops -- my mistake, looked at the wrong team name. If that's the case then I think brianjw has clinched the title

Will correct the standings with the next update

Posted by milest on 2/21/2020 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by schwarze on 2/21/2020 8:12:00 AM (view original):
The problem with the 79 win team getting bonus points argument is that this is not a normal situation. So let's punish all the good playoff teams because 2 or 3 low-win teams get a lucky division placement?

No one is being 'punished' under the current scoring system. That's a false narrative. Not rewarding someone is different from punishing. If you don't give your kid $5 for every A on their report card, you aren't punishing them, you just aren't rewarding them.

Every year before this year, playoff teams got a 5-point bonus, ozomotli asked everybody what he thought about the rule CHANGE. So in my eyes, making a rule change to remove a previously awarded bonus is punishing.

Using a rare event as your main argument against it is flawed logic. FYI - I'm not biased. Based on my playoff performance, I would rank better if ZERO playoff points were awarded.

My opinion is that it went too far the other way. Your opinion is different. I'm not going to change your opinion and you're not going to change my opinion.

To frame the problem, it makes sense to zoom out and start from a place where no playoff points exist at all, rather than focusing on how it compares to the old system. In that vein, points can be given for:

• Making the playoffs
• Winning a playoff game
• Winning a playoff series

Making the Playoffs

• Should points be awarded for making the playoffs?
  • If so, how many?
• Should all teams be awarded the same amount of points for making the playoffs?

Winning a Playoff Game

• Should points be awarded for winning a playoff game?
  • If so, how many?
• Should points be awarded for winning each game?
• Should the same amount of points be awarded for winning a game in each series?

Winning a Playoff Series

• Should points be awarded for winning a playoff series?
  • If so, how many?
• Should points be awarded for winning each series?
• Should the same amount of points be awarded for winning each series?

There are a lot of options with what we could do and what we tried this year may not be where we end up.

Here would be my answers:

Making the Playoffs:

I personally think some points should be awarded for a team making the playoffs. The 5 points under the old system was way too many. I think I would be most comfortable with 2.

Winning a Playoff Game:

I think this should be left as is. Winning a Playoff Game should be worth the same number of points as Winning a Regular Season Game. Making it any more valuable would create issues because the Playoffs already often feel like a crapshoot. 110+ win teams regularly seem to go down in flames to teams with 25-30 fewer wins...on the incentives side, there is already an incentive to favor playoff success due to the winner goes home nature of the playoffs (can't get more points if you are eliminated).

Winning a Playoff Series:

I don't think there should be any points awarded for winning the divisional series, as it is only a 5 game series. This makes it very vulnerable to being heavily impacted by elite spot starter relievers like Bob Milacki. I like the fact that bonus points are awarded for winning the WS, and I could be persuaded that some bonus points could be awarded for winning the LCS.

Personally, I think instead of 0 points for Divisional Series, 0 for LCS and 10 points for the WS it should be 0 points for the Divisional Series, 5 points for the LCS and 5 points for the WS. The 10 points for the WS seems to increase the luck/crapshoot factor and increases the chances that one Bob Milacki spot start in Game 7 could be the difference between winning the WISC or not.

Weird options I have thought about:
- playoff wins count less than regular season wins
- playoff wins count more the further your team gets
- the amount of points you can get in the playoffs is disproportionate to the amount of wins you had in the regular season

Not saying I necessarily want to test any of these, but just illustrating the range of possibilities on the table as I am thinking about this for the 2020 tournament

If you still have the data, it might be worth building a chart showing how (for instance) the top 5 would have looked the past few years, including this year, under a few different point systems. Makes it more tangible to see how much certain things influenced the standings.