Yes, let's put Freeman in the same division as Nick and Josh, since all three of them have had success at least two out of the last three years.

I just like to argue...it's not really a visceral issue for me. I am not going far in the play-offs because my pitching has been garbage...that 's on me , not who is in my division.

freeman3 wrote:I just like to argue...it's not really a visceral issue for me. I am not going far in the play-offs because my pitching has been garbage...that 's on me , not who is in my division.

To me, you want to get into the playoffs. After that, anything can happen.

Note well: I'm not saying all teams in the playoffs have an equal chance, but it's not as unequal over a one-week or two-week period as it is over an entire season. You can have one guy have a career game and it changes the whole week. A career season can change the whole season, but it's less likely.

It's those byes in the playoffs that have the greatest value. 75% of championships in this league are won by the 1 & 2 seeds. Yes, those teams are probably marginally better but having to win one less series is huge.

Yes--getting the bye is huge. Having the tiebreaker is pretty big as well. Exhibit "A" is Steve had a really good team two years ago that wound up losing to Matt on a tiebreaker. Steve, if he were not in Matt's division, probably would have gotten a bye and the tiebreaker against everyone but Matt (and possibly would have even beat out Matt). Instead, he was the wild-card team.

freeman3 wrote:Yes--getting the bye is huge. Having the tiebreaker is pretty big as well. Exhibit "A" is Steve had a really good team two years ago that wound up losing to Matt on a tiebreaker. Steve, if he were not in Matt's division, probably would have gotten a bye and the tiebreaker against everyone but Matt (and possibly would have even beat out Matt). Instead, he was the wild-card team.

Thanks for reminding me.

while you're at it, why not give me a nice paper-cut and pour lemon juice in it?

If we really wanted "fair," we'd do away with divisions and just go by record. Then again, getting a balanced schedule is probably difficult.

That year was troublesome, I must admit. I thought I had a good enough team to have a serious shot at it. To lose on a heartbreaker, er, tiebreaker, was tough.

I'm going to once again weigh in against using xW for anything, even updating divisions. Remember, xW makes assumptions about owner behavior that are not valid- for example, that every owner is trying to maximize their results in each category, which we know not to be the case (because owners will e.g. punt Ks late in the week if they fall behind, where they might not have done against a different opponent). If we're going to do anything based on performance, just use actual record.

Anyway, I like having stable divisions. I'm not opposed to changing them, but I don't want it to be every year. I'd be in favor of 3-5 years.

As for how we arrange them, I'd probably shy away from anything performance-based. It seems like no matter how we do that it's going to be targeting someone. I'd rather just do it randomly.

I don't think performance based divisions is 'targeting' unless the intent is to create unbalanced divisions, something I'm not in favor of. If you go with the 1,5,9,13 model suggested by Freeman (I think that's the way he had it) or the system I put forth above, I don't see how you could say anyone is being targeted.

Regards stability, I think 2-3 years seems right, though I'm ok with annual realignment too.

Point taken on the use of xWins. Actual wins would suffice.

Sharur wrote:Anyway, I like having stable divisions. I'm not opposed to changing them, but I don't want it to be every year. I'd be in favor of 3-5 years.

I'm not arguing here. I really am simply curious. Why? What is wrong with every year? What's the advantage of 3-5?

I looked back at my "old" idea of 1.5 months that Mike is referring to and... (not )surprisingly I like it! There is nothing subjective about it, keeps things balanced, and rotates people around. I think divisions should be rotated every year--I think that while there are benefits to having divisions, I haven't seen any compelling arguments for not rotating them every year. At the end of the day all that matters is making the play-offs and hopefully winning championships and making that fair for everyone trumps other considerations, I think. It wouldn't be a big deal to rotate every 2 years though. If Todd bent my arm...really far....I might agree to 3 years...

I have a very strong preference for maintaining geographic divisions that are consistently stable. I want to kick Mike's ass every year. I would be okay with Josh being moved into our division, since he's in the same county. I would also like to kick his ass every year.

Doesn't Matt live in California, now? I think I could pass on the whole geographic division thing... Not that he has magical powers as a fantasy baseball GM...well, maybe if you give him Mike Trout every year...

I'm not arguing here. I really am simply curious. Why? What is wrong with every year? What's the advantage of 3-5?

In my opinion, the thing that makes divisions interesting and worth having is the rivalry aspect. Logistical implications aside, how would you feel about baseball scrambling its divisions every year? Sure, our rivalries pale in comparison to MLB's... but they're also in their infancy. Maybe E's-Jacks is growing into Yankees-Red Sox.

As such, were it not for the risk of structural unfairness, I'd prefer to keep the divisions permanently stable (or at least permanently fixed to some criteria, like geography). However, I think that risk is real, so I'm open to meeting in the middle.

I don't think performance based divisions is 'targeting' unless the intent is to create unbalanced divisions

Just as stacking all the best teams in one division targets the best teams, spreading them out targets the worst teams. Or put another way, it helps the best teams by ensuring they're facing the weakest possible competition. Think about how an elimination bracket is structured; it's the same concept.

Does that make it 'unfair'? I don't know, but it's not obviously 'fair' to me either. I don't know that there is a fair system that's performance-based; it's really just a question of trying to reward or punish success/failure, promote parity (or not), etc.

But random is definitely fair, in process if not in outcome.

A couple of things about the rivalry aspect:

(1) We play each team in our division twice for a total of six series within the division. So, that works out to 2/21 (9.5%) and 6/21 total within the division (28.5%). In real baseball the Angels play each team in their division 19 times for a total of 76 games. This works out to 19/162 (11.7%) and 76/162 (46.9%). So we play teams in our divisions a lot less than in regular baseball;

(2) I see how rivalries develop in regular baseball. Pride between cities, historical games, historically important players competing against each player. In our league the only rivalry that appears to have any resonance is people who know each other--that's it. We don't play other enough to somehow develop a team built to play a rival--everyone just tries to build the best team they can, regardless of who is in their division.

All I see is the potential for structural unfairness. I am quite sure that the E's would much prefer to be out of Matt's division than to have a rivalry with him. We have been doing this for three years...what rivalries have developed? The only rivalry I see in this league is between Nick and Matt--and they 're not in the same division.

freeman3 wrote:A couple of things about the rivalry aspect:

(1) We play each team in our division twice for a total of six series within the division. So, that works out to 2/21 (9.5%) and 6/21 total within the division (28.5%). In real baseball the Angels play each team in their division 19 times for a total of 76 games. This works out to 19/162 (11.7%) and 76/162 (46.9%). So we play teams in our divisions a lot less than in regular baseball;

(2) I see how rivalries develop in regular baseball. Pride between cities, historical games, historically important players competing against each player. In our league the only rivalry that appears to have any resonance is people who know each other--that's it. We don't play other enough to somehow develop a team built to play a rival--everyone just tries to build the best team they can, regardless of who is in their division.

All I see is the potential for structural unfairness. I am quite sure that the E's would much prefer to be out of Matt's division than to have a rivalry with him. We have been doing this for three years...what rivalries have developed? The only rivalry I see in this league is between Nick and Matt--and they 're not in the same division.

Boom.