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

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 6301
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 23 Jan 2013, 8:59 pm

I have been thinking about why three intra-division games bothers me. Some things that came to mind:

I don't think I want to play almost half my games against the same three opponents. Now that's not unheard of. The 2013 MLB schedule has its teams playing an even higher percent of its games against divisional opponents although it does have more opponents (4 instead of our 3). The NFL is in the middle, followed by the NHL and NBA. Here are the numbers:

MLB - 76 of 162 games (47%)
NFL - 6 of 16 games (37.5%)
NHL - 24 of 82 games (29%)
NBA - 16 of 82 games (19.5%)

I believe the MLB numbers to be distorted by the fact that interleague play has only been around for 15 years with only 20 games dedicated to the opposing league. Whatever.

Here are the RBL numbers for 2 & 3 divisional games respectively (assuming 21 week schedule):

6 of 21 games (28.5%)
9 of 21 games (43%)

Truth is, those comparisons don't really amount to much without context. An important question is how divisional play affects a teams chances of earning a playoff berth. Does it create inequities (i.e. leave out good teams & let bad teams in)? I don't have any analysis or data to back this up but here's a possibility that comes to mind: A good team is in a division with a really good team, say the best in the league. We seem to have a run-away team every two or three years. If the good team now has to play the really good team three times during the season, the overloaded schedule can be a killer for grabbing a wild card. Playing the best team in the league for 14% of your games seems... well, cruel.

More numbers. Percent of games played against one opponent:

NFL - 2 of 16 games (12.5%)
MLB - 19 of 162 games (11.7%)
NHL - 6 of 82 games (7.3%)
NBA - 4 of 82 games (4.9%)

RBL numbers:

2 of 21 games (9.5%)
3 of 21 games (14.3%)

Am I going through all these numbers just to confirm my own bias? Maybe and it seems to be working.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 24 Jan 2013, 9:00 am

Yeah, anyone who had to play me three times in 2011 would have had cause to rage :razz:
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 6301
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 24 Jan 2013, 12:13 pm

Indeed. I played you once during the season (mauled 2-8) and in the semi-finals (mauled 1-9). That team was a juggernaut!
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 6301
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 24 Jan 2013, 12:25 pm

Here's what Andrew's suggestion would create for divisions. As noted in his clarification, these would be permanent.
SLOTerp wrote:From Andrew:
1) I prefer a 1 week championship over a questionable final week of the MLB season
2) Don't know enough to care.
3) Just base this on last year's rankings:

1,16 D1
2,15 D2
3,14 D3
4,13 D4
5,12 D4
6,11 D3
7,10 D2
8,9 D1


D1
George (Bombers)
Freeman (???)
Brad S (Ducklings)
John (King's Men)

D2
Matt (Lumberjacks)
Michael (Quaggas)
Nick (Sauce)
Brad Ba (Wallaby)

D3
Ryan (Longgui)
Alexander (Knucklebusters)
Mike (Soup)
Andrew (E-Claires)

D4
Todd (vall Bangers)
Steve (E's)
Barry (Teabaggers)
Brad Bu (Cougars)
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 6301
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 24 Jan 2013, 12:30 pm

Here's what Todd's follow-up would look like.
Sharur wrote:[1, 5, 9, 13] [2, 6, 10, 14] [3, 7, 11, 15] [4, 8, 12, 16]


D1
George (Bombers)
Barry (Teabaggers)
John (King's Men)
Steve (E's)

D2
Matt (Lumberjacks)
Mike (Soup)
Brad Ba (Wallaby)
Alexander (Knucklebusters)

D3
Ryan (Longgui)
Nick (Sauce)
Andrew (E-Claires)
Michael (Quaggas)

D4
Todd (vall Bangers)
Brad S (Ducklings)
Brad Bu (Cougars)
Freeman (???)

Hmmmm.... interesting how D4 comes out.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 7378
Joined: 16 Feb 2000, 9:55 am

Post 24 Jan 2013, 2:53 pm

Schedule (21 week regular season):

Two leagues of two divisions to four teams.

Each team in division 3 times (9 games)
Each team in other division of the same league twice (8 games)
Each team in one division of the opposing league (alternating years--every team in division plays the same teams from the opposing league) once (4 games)

Total: 21 games.

Playoffs (3 weeks):

Week 1: Top team in each league - bye
2nd ranked division winner in each league plays best ranked non-division winner from each league

Week 2 (league championships): Top team in each league plays winner of previous week's game

Week 4: World Series - winners of previous week's games play each other

I'm indifferent as to who goes where. Do it by last year's records as far as I'm concerned.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm

Post 24 Jan 2013, 2:58 pm

I guess I am not getting the reason to go to divisions. Right now, in a 16 team league, I am assuming everyone plays each team one time and plays a few teams twice. So everyone is playing a similar schedule and for the most part the best teams should come out on top. You start putting in permanent divisions and if you get stuck in a division with an owner who continually has powerhouse teams, you are going to get pretty frustrated if you wind up suffering for that.

I would not mind going to divisions if they were not permanent, however.If you look at the history of the league, Mike, Todd, George, and Matt have the best track record, so if you are going to go to divisions those teams should head different divisions. I would not make divisions permanent; I would rotate them based on performance in the league (1, 8, 12, 13; 2, 7, 11 14; 3,6, 10, 15; 4, 5, 9, 16) (I just saw Andrew's ranking system and that would just as well if not better)

League performance would be winning percentage in league*(1- .01*(years of league-years of team in league) So if a team had been in for three years and their winning percentage was .544, then this would yield .544(1- 01*(10-3))= .544 *.93=.505. Or use some other formula to account for the fact that performance over a long period of time has more significance. You change divisions every year based on ownership league winning percentage

I favor using the last week for regular season, if necessary Perhaps you could allow a couple of free pick-ups to make up for fact that some guys are sitting.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Jan 2013, 4:44 pm

Machiavelli wrote:Schedule (21 week regular season):

Two leagues of two divisions to four teams.

Each team in division 3 times (9 games)
Each team in other division of the same league twice (8 games)
Each team in one division of the opposing league (alternating years--every team in division plays the same teams from the opposing league) once (4 games)

Total: 21 games.

Playoffs (3 weeks):

Week 1: Top team in each league - bye
2nd ranked division winner in each league plays best ranked non-division winner from each league

Week 2 (league championships): Top team in each league plays winner of previous week's game

Week 4: World Series - winners of previous week's games play each other

I'm indifferent as to who goes where. Do it by last year's records as far as I'm concerned.


I'll just ditto Mach. I like this, actually.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 6301
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 24 Jan 2013, 5:13 pm

Mach's idea is quite interesting but it doesn't fit with what we voted on and passed. At this point we will continue to work on four divisions & one league.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Jan 2013, 5:22 pm

SLOTerp wrote:Mach's idea is quite interesting but it doesn't fit with what we voted on and passed. At this point we will continue to work on four divisions & one league.


Fine, fine, fine.

Okay, what about not rotating the divisions every year. What if a 2-year composite result was used for realignment?

I'm just looking for something that does not lock in a bad situation and does not leave the divisions with no consistency at all.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 6301
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 24 Jan 2013, 7:13 pm

freeman2 wrote:I guess I am not getting the reason to go to divisions. Right now, in a 16 team league, I am assuming everyone plays each team one time and plays a few teams twice. So everyone is playing a similar schedule and for the most part the best teams should come out on top. You start putting in permanent divisions and if you get stuck in a division with an owner who continually has powerhouse teams, you are going to get pretty frustrated if you wind up suffering for that.

The point of divisions is primarily two-fold, as I see it. One, potentially create some rivalries and two, add some interest to play at the end of the season. Last year, with I think two or three weeks still left, we pretty much knew who was in the playoffs. End of year divisional games might've shaken that up a bit. As for getting stuck, I don't believe any set-up should be perpetual (even if we nominally call it permanent).

I would not mind going to divisions if they were not permanent, however.If you look at the history of the league, Mike, Todd, George, and Matt have the best track record, so if you are going to go to divisions those teams should head different divisions. I would not make divisions permanent; I would rotate them based on performance in the league (1, 8, 12, 13; 2, 7, 11 14; 3,6, 10, 15; 4, 5, 9, 16) (I just saw Andrew's ranking system and that would just as well if not better)

I've no problem initially setting up divisions from a balanced perspective. Annual realignment, however, is not on my horizon. I would be open to limited realignments and would be receptive to ideas on this.

I favor using the last week for regular season, if necessary Perhaps you could allow a couple of free pick-ups to make up for fact that some guys are sitting.

You shall have a chance to vote on this issue shortly, except for the playoff acquisition bit. We experimented with it the last few years and it was voted back out this year.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm

Post 24 Jan 2013, 8:10 pm

Yeah, I could see that it might be a problem with teams getting bored when only 6 teams make the play-offs. It's more of an academic interest to me as to which system is most fair, rather than something I am going to mind much however it is done. Especially, if you're only playing teams in your division two times, I don't think being stuck in a tough division is going to be that big of a deal. And once we see how it plays out in practice rather just trying to predict what happens, we will have a better feel for the positives and negatives.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 24 Jan 2013, 10:31 pm

From a procedural standpoint, Mike, I disagree that two leagues of two divisions each is outside the scope of what we voted for. We voted for four divisions, and two leagues with two divisions each IS four divisions. Really it would just come down to a different way of scheduling (both regular season and playoffs, insofar as presumably each league would have 3 playoff teams).

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing you wield the commish hammer a bit here. It seems like there's too many options on the table for us to go through and vote on everything. It might make more sense to just pick a system, try it, and then use future amendments to tweak it, rather than trying to hash out the whole thing via voting right now.

I do like the idea of using a formula that extends back beyond last year if we want to do static divisions based on performance. We could go with one of those same grouping patterns, but just apply it to a different ranking.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 6301
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 25 Jan 2013, 6:08 am

I won't argue that having two leagues and four divisions is not possible in terms of the amendment. But, I think you'd have to make a square peg fit in round hole to make the rest fit. From the amendment:
Division winners earn playoff spots, seeded #1-#4 based on record. The teams with the next best records will earn the final two playoff spots.

I think the first part is ok but the second part is problematic. Regardless, I still don't like the 3 intra- games and I really don't like not playing 4 teams at all. I do think it's a very cool idea, but... not this year.

After we vote on the 21-week issue, the rest will be accomplished via fiat. I'll get the amendment out today.
User avatar
Indy Car Driver (Pro IV)
 
Posts: 6301
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 25 Jan 2013, 7:37 am

21-week schedule amendment has gone out. Please vote!