Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 24 Sep 2015, 1:54 pm

Basically, the top 4 owners would be in one division. The criteria would be: (1) championships won, and (2) winning percentage in the league (minimum three years). The winner of that division would automatically get one of the byes. The second and third-place finishers would be guaranteed wildcard spots IFF their expected wins exceed the top two non-division winners in the other divisions (alternatively, we could add a play-off round where they play the top two non-division winners from the rest of the league) Divisional play would be enhanced by having each team play each other three times. The fourth-place finisher in the division would be automatically be booted from the division. (Even if they would otherwise qualify)
Potential advantages:

(1) would be interesting to have best teams fight it out in the same division;
(2) we can increase divisional play and make it more effective because owners will not be worried about getting beat by a powerhouse
(3) current owners in a stacked division would feel they have a better chance;
(4) teams less likely to tank since they won't be stuck with Matt or Nick in their division.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Sep 2015, 2:01 pm

freeman3 wrote:Basically, the top 4 owners would be in one division. The criteria would be: (1) championships won, and (2) winning percentage in the league (minimum three years). The winner of that division would automatically get one of the byes. The second and third-place finishers would be guaranteed wildcard spots IFF their expected wins exceed the top two non-division winners in the other divisions (alternatively, we could add a play-off round where they play the top two non-division winners from the rest of the league) Divisional play would be enhanced by having each team play each other three times. The fourth-place finisher in the division would be automatically be booted from the division. (Even if they would otherwise qualify)
Potential advantages:

(1) would be interesting to have best teams fight it out in the same division;
(2) we can increase divisional play and make it more effective because owners will not be worried about getting beat by a powerhouse
(3) current owners in a stacked division would feel they have a better chance;
(4) teams less likely to tank since they won't be stuck with Matt or Nick in their division.


5) There's some prestige in being in that division. I'd rather be in it and get beat down than not be in it.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 24 Sep 2015, 5:33 pm

As much as I love xW, I would object strenuously to using them for anything official.

I'm also curious what the goal of this is. Is it to promote parity by grouping the best owners together? Or something beyond that?

Personally, I don't think parity is, in itself, a particularly important or valuable goal. We don't have fans that we need to placate by ensuring that each team has its moment in the sun. And we should be rewarding owners for playing well. We do also want to keep the less successful owners engaged (and incentivized to improve), but I think our keeper setup does that pretty well. And promotes parity due to its structure, as well (see: Ryan's up-and-down pattern).
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 24 Sep 2015, 5:49 pm

I agree with Todd on not using xWins for anything. Other objections include: 1) A permanent onus on someone to calculate it and do it accurately. 2) Would require a constitution change even if I did agree with it.

I will certainly entertain ideas on re-shuffling the divisions. We just need the criteria. Regular season scheduling can also be adjusted without a vote but that's a much trickier issue.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 24 Sep 2015, 6:00 pm

I'm not really that serious about it. But then again clearly there is griping from those that are in tough divisions. From my point of view If I can put together a decent pitching staff (it didn't help this year that my laptop froze and Hal spent all of my money on Cabrera) I can make a run at the championship...so I'm ok with how things are. And I don't know that the griping is all that serious. It's still a fun league. But at least 2 owners in Matt's division have complained.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 24 Sep 2015, 6:03 pm

Personally, I would just do it randomly every year...
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 25 Sep 2015, 5:21 am

I like the idea of active owners collectively thinking about what's best for the league as it's currently constructed. Given that we have a large, semi-causal league with a mixture of owners, I'm not opposed to trying to consider everyone's needs. I don't ever hear from several owners, so it's hard to know what they want.

Winning boils down to three factors: skill, effort, and luck (and luck is out of an owner's control). What do we want to reward? Putting teams with lower owner skill and effort together in order to give one of them a good crack at the playoffs seems like an odd system.

What's broken? Freeman and Steve are in "tough" divisions I guess, but that hasn't stopped them from making the playoffs. For Brad S, who is fairly active but hasn't had as much success historically, I can understand wanting to move to a division with other owners in a similar boat, but I'm not convinced that's a good move for the league right now.

Owners with skill who put in effort are going to make the playoffs frequently.
Owners with skill who put in less effort are going to make the playoffs periodically.
Owners with low skill who put in a lot of effort are going to make the playoffs infrequently.
Owners with low skill and low effort are almost never going to make the playoffs.

That seems reasonable. Once you get into the playoffs, you have a shot.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 25 Sep 2015, 8:13 am

Good point, Nick, on the record clustering approach. Freeman had an idea in the other thread about mixing the better teams with the low performers. You can even do that with xWins. So for example...

D1
Jacks
E's
King's Men
E-Claires

D2
Bangers
Foes
Soup
Ducklings

D3
Sauce
Dingers
Bombers
Wallaby

D4
Sluggers
Longgui
Bums
Cougars

Strangely enough, that only moves one team out of the current Hollandaise division.

Alternatively, we could base divisions on owners' zodiac signs.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Sep 2015, 9:14 am

SLOTerp wrote:Alternatively, we could base divisions on owners' zodiac signs.


I guess I wonder what is sacrosanct about the current divisions? Is there any reason NOT to change them?

Me personally--I'd love to get out of Matt's division, and Andrew's as well.

But, really, is there a downside to changing this? Will it shake the foundations of the league? Will fantasy stadiums slide into the ocean?

How about just rotating the division champs into different divisions?
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 25 Sep 2015, 9:17 am

I'm fine with shuffling divisions and this is something I can do by fiat. We just need some agreement on the methodology.
Adjutant
 
Posts: 80
Joined: 22 Apr 2014, 5:27 pm

Post 25 Sep 2015, 9:28 am

So essentially doing a "bracket" like they do in professional tennis or college basketball, but rankings come from previous year's standings (or xW if we feel we can stay on top of it)? Would you change divisions every year then? And I think your observation about Hollandaise gets to the point that divisions are reasonably well-aligned already. I'm not sure how serious Steve and Brad S are about wanting to be in a different division than Matt. They may have just been griping - which is justified because Matt is legitimately dominant - or they may have a more extensive proposal in mind for re-aligning divisions.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 25 Sep 2015, 9:32 am

It just comes down to fairness. If Nick and Matt were in the same division this year they almost certainly would have made the play-offs--however, it's not likely that both of them would be in the finals because one of them would have have to win two play-off series without the advantage of a tiebreaker. If we are going to give two teams byes and the tiebreaker advantage, then divisions need to be rotated . Even if you make the play-offs in a division with Matt unless you can win the division you will be a long-shot as a wild- card.

I don't think the criteria we use much matters as long as divisions get changed every year. what Mike proposed is fine by me.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 25 Sep 2015, 9:53 am

I don't get why it would be fair to have Nick and Matt in the same division.

How about something like this:

Top four teams lead separate divisions. Next four teams slotted into those divisions randomly. Next four teams, etc... Base the tranches on actual W's or xWins. Whatever...

That way you get a mix of good/bad teams (to use the term loosely) in each division, which I like better than lopsided divisions. You also retain the scheduling system whereby you play the teams in your tranche twice.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 25 Sep 2015, 9:57 am

I'm not saying it would be fair to put them in the same division--I am just trying to show being in a division with Matt or (recently) Nick could you put at a disadvantage even if you make the play-offs.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 25 Sep 2015, 10:04 am

freeman3 wrote:I'm not saying it would be fair to put them in the same division--I am just trying to show being in a division with Matt or (recently) Nick could you put at a disadvantage even if you make the play-offs.

If two consecutive years of success is the criteria, how about Freeman, who has also fielded really good teams two years running? :smile:

Your point does argue for annual rotation. Ok by me.