Winter Meeting Proposal #7
Should We Change the Current Tie-Break Rule?
I’m not proposing a change, as I think the current rules are adequate, but I think it is worth the discussion and review. If someone has a good idea for a new system, here is the place to lay it out.
Currently, in the event of a year end standings tie, our current tie-break rule reads as follows:
“In cases of ties in total points, final places in the standings are determined by comparing placement of teams in individual categories. Respective performances are calculated and a point given to each team for bettering the other. Should one team total more points than the other, that team is declared the winner. Should the point totals still be equal, the tie is broken by adding each team’s total at-bats at season’s end, plus triple the number of its innings pitched. The team that scores a higher total by this measure wins the contested place in the standings. In the extremely unlikely event a tie still exists, prize money is split. We don’t do coin tosses.”
My 2 cents…
I would prefer the money is split. Are either of the two tie-breaker sufficient enough to show that one team really deserves it over another? The rule above was copied from the original constitution I found online and we’ve since edited the shit out of it. I’m guessing the person that put this together wasn’t thinking about a league as detailed as ours, with upwards of $2500 in play. I realize we could be talking about splitting $300-$400 if it’s a 3rd place tie, but it still feels right to me, rather than counting up something as arbitrary as at bats and inn’s pitched.
I think the first tie-break, head-to-head in categories with the tied teams, is a very valid tie breaker. The second, not so great and I can see room for improvement.
Is there a scenario in which 2 teams could be tied for 1st place? Have to determine a winner somehow.
I think the 1st tie breaker is legit, too. I would abolish the 2nd part. If teams are still tied then a split of the money would be fair. If two teams are tied for 1st then the 1st and 2nd place winnings would be combined and then split 50/50.
Good point Mike.
I like this:
“final places in the standings are determined by comparing placement of teams in individual categories. Respective performances are calculated and a point given to each team for bettering the other. Should one team total more points than the other, that team is declared the winner”
as the first tie breaker in all scenarios.
If there is still a tie after using this tie breaker and its to determine 2nd or 3rd place I think we should split the money. In the case of a tie for 2nd place we’d just split the 2nd and 3rd place money? This may already be in place.
As Mike pointed out, a tie for first place should probably be decided, somehow. Maybe, since we are Sons of Theo, and Theo loves him some Oh Bee Pee maybe we use this non SOT category to determine a tie for first place? Just a thought.
“I think the first tie-break, head-to-head in categories with the tied teams, is a very valid tie breaker.”
Looks like everyone likes this one, but why? Not trying to be a wiseass, just trying to figure out what about this scenario makes it valid, or a reason to believe one team is superior to another.
Speaking for myself only, I thought it seemed fair but I didn’t give much thought to alternative tie-breakers that might make more sense. Chris, did you have something in mind or were you just trying to understand why this appeared to be the consensus?
I still like the idea of mixing in OBP as a tie-breaker.
No, I don’t really have anything in mind. My first choice would be to split the money. However, if we do select a tie-breaker, I’d hope to find one that truly identifies the better team.
I’m not completely against the one EE and JM like, but I’m having a difficult time understanding why it’s the right choice. Every team builds their roster in the way best suited to producing the most points. If I do it by dominating HR’s and SV’s and TRC does it by being above avg across the board, does that mean that TRC should gain the edge in a tie-breaker? To me, that’s what the 1st tie breaker says, and I’m not sure I understand how that’s a true measure of finding the better team.
Each year we would all like to identify a “winner”, so we need to either keep or change the current tie-breaker rules, in the event that first place is a tie.
If you evaluate the h2h tie-breaker, it does do a solid job of identifying the best team, no matter the strategy implemented by the team owner. Regardless of how we choose to attack our point totals, every team has the goal of achieving the highest point total possible. Whether you forego saves in lieu of holds (DMB), prefer higher percentages to counting stats, or whatever your strategy is, every team is trying to accumulate the most points. If you then evaluate two teams, h2h, then each team’s strategy is put to the test.
I think this tie-breaker is analagous to sudden death on the PGA. A golfer plays a 72-hole metal play tournament against the field. If two players are tied, then they square off in a sudden death format, essentially playing match play style golf as one hole can decide the outcome.
What to do in the event h2h is tied is the real question worth debate.
I just think that comparing placement of teams in individual categories gives a good representation of one team that is better then the other. I guess the one problem would be that that system would not show the effect of dominance in any category as the team would just be given a point for finishing higher then the other. I would think a split of the money would be appealing to those teams involved as it would result in a greater take home.
We could let the teams involved decide. Say we set up an arbitrary deadline of two weeks before the end of the season. At that time all owners who are in the running can agree to split the pot in the event of a tie or decide a clear winner thru that category point system. Thoughts?
“We could let the teams involved decide. Say we set up an arbitrary deadline of two weeks before the end of the season.”
I see two problems with this. First, won’t we be having the same debate then that we are having now, with regards to splitting and tie-breaker? Second, with two weeks to go, a team would have a pretty good idea how they would fair in a h2h tie-breaker. Wouldn’t the team trailing opt to split and the team ahead in the h2h would be in favor of a tie-break? Where would that leave us?
Then we could set the deadline to decide a tie breaker earlier; say the day after the SOT trade deadline. Using this method only the teams involved would decide their own fate. Whether it be to split the money, go to a point system, or some other method I can fairly confident that owners would eb able to come to some amicable solution.
I still don’t see why would forego resolving this now, only to have a similar debate the last month of the season. It seems like a majority is in favor of the first tie-breaker (I count WTNY as the lone dissenter), and we can further discuss a second tie-breaker or splitting at the WM.
I see what you’re saying EE, in terms of head to head comparison, but I still don’t understand why it’s a good way to determine who the better team was for 162 games.
Majority right now equals two guys, you and AG, and it sounds like AG may be changing his tune.
Using your golf scenario, I may drive the ball well, you may be great around the greens, but at the end of the round, we both scored the same to bring us to a playoff. Now what if we got to the playoff and we determined the winner by the guy with the furthest driving avg or least amount of putts? To me, that’s what we’re doing with the head to head comparison. Does it really matter how teams do head to head accumulating point if it was my goal to dominate six categories with 8′s, finish in the middle of the pack in six categories, then completely punt the remaining two categories. At the end of the day, I tallied the same amount of points as the guy who decided to finish above avg in each category. The goal is to accumulate the most amount of points, not win head to head categories against another team.
The current rule is as stated above, so probably the best thing to do would be to present what you think is a better alternative. I get you don’t like this one. I don’t think saying “split-it” is an agreeable solution for most owners in this league, especially when dealing with first place. Also, it seems as though both TRC bros and DMB are in favor of the first tie-break.
I don’t see anything from DMB or Rich on this thread, which is why I’m saying you and AG. I do see Andy, but he also said he hasn’t given it much thought.
As for my proposal, here it is:
There are no tie-breakers and the winner’s money is split. I don’t see why it should be different for 1st and 2nd place tie or 2nd and 3rd place tie.
I’ve tried to think through it a few ways, like awarding the team who spends the least amount of money, or who has the most home grown players, or who’s spent the most weeks in first place, etc. The problem with each solution, is that none of them really matter. We all work under the same rules, and after 162 (or 163 – sorry Tillman), no matter how teams get there, it’s all about the final point total. Head to head is impossible to do in our format, because it’s really irrelevant.
I don’t see how your example of, “dominate six categories with 8’s, finish in the middle of the pack in six categories, then completely punt the remaining two categories”, is valid. Could you lay out an example where this strategy results in an unfair outcome.
The only draw back I see in splitting the money is that we would still need to find a way to determine draft order. I don’t think it would be fair to declare a tie, split the money and then create a way to see who drafts 1-8. Since we need to determine draft order I think it would be best to clearly determine spots 1-8. I was leaning towards the split; but don’t think that is practical due to the draft order dilemma.
If I have a team that dominates six categories (8,8,8,8,8,8 pts), is less than avg in six (3,4,3,4,3,3 pts), and punts two (1,1 pts), my total is 70 pts. If another team finishes middle of the road in all categories (5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5, we both end up with 70 pts total. Under the current rule, the latter team would win by virtue of head to head (8 categories to 6). We’re not a head to head league, and every team is constructed differently. Yet, the tiebreak in place turns it into an arbitrary H-2-H battle to determine a winner.
AG, good point. To me though, draft positioning is less important that standings to determine $$ winners. I don’t care how it’s selected, coin flip, H-2-H category match-up, etc.
Very biased analysis, not what I was looking for. Why in the first teams example did you use 3 and 4 to make your example, but in the second team you chose all 5′s? I’m looking for real world application that makes logical sense and had an unfair outcome. For instance, a team that dominates HR, RBI, OPS, will probably not be scoring a 3 in Runs, so the example would not hold up. Give me categories and a more thorough example if you want me to give validation to your argument.
Biased? How is this the point of the debate? 101 was 3rd in HR’s and 7th in RBI’s, but what does that prove. I think what you say makes sense, and it’s more likely that a team that hits HR’s will have a high OPS and RBI’s, etc. But that’s the wrong fight in my opinion.
Can you tell me why a team who scores more points in a head to head battle of categories should be rewarded ahead of a team that scores the same amount of total SOT points? The goal of SOT is to score the most total points.
I know winning is important here, and I agree 100% with you that in a perfect world we’d be able to find a winner through some type of tie-break scenario. But we copied this from another league, one that looks nothing like the current version of SOT and probably didn’t have a couple grand in play to the winners. If we were playing for fun, I wouldn’t care how we determined the winner. But we’re a 24/7 365 day league, and to select a winner though H-2-H category battle comes off as a bit arbitrary to me.
It sounds like you, me, and AG are the only one’s interested here though, so maybe I’m making a mountain out of molehill.
If teams are aware ahead of time that a h2h tie-breaker exists, then shouldn’t they take this into account when building a team? All teams now know the tie-break exists.
I still don’t see how h2h results in an “unfair winner”. You still have not shown me an example of this.
Perhaps we could set up a tie-breaker for order of finish (draft purposes) and then have all money issues resolved with a split?
I guess teams could, but I still don’t see how that proves one team is superior to another when both teams have the same point total across 14 categories.
We’re asking the same question of each other, which means it’s now in the hands of the voters.
I’ve written a book already on why I don’t see how H-2-H proves anything in SOT. We build teams to accumulate points in total, not individual categories. If you believe teams shouldn’t be allowed to punt categories, then ok, I can see your point. But you haven’t said that yet.
Perhaps we could set up a tie-breaker for order of finish (draft purposes) and then have all money issues resolved with a split?
- I like it, but I’m just one vote, and we’re just two voices. Rock the Vote!
What are the 2009 payouts for 1st, 2nd, & 3rd?
No idea yet. Will be working on them over the Break.
Want to see what a split would mean as far as money before a vote.
Ballpark figures: $1600 $700 $350
Just finished processing EE/WTNY 2009 H2H, reason I picked them was they finished 1.5 points apart.
Drum roll please!
EE was better in all but one hitting category and WTNY was better in all but one pitching category.
EE 7, WTNY 7
I’m going to go back to the 163 game fiasco of 2008 and see what would have happened if we needed to use this tie-breaker in the advent of a tie that year.
Just finished processing EE/______ 2008 H2H, reason I picked them was they finished .5 points apart.
EE was better in all but one hitting category and ______ was better in all but one pitching category.
EE 7, _____ 7
You know what was interesting, in both H2H tally’s EE only lost SB and N-SB both years in the hitting categories and only won HD both years in the pitching categories.
I’m starting to think this isn’t a good measure for a tie-breaker and if in both of these cases there was a tie we would have had to go to another tie-breaker to decided the “superior” team.
I’m still voting for Team OBP as a tie-breaker.
Just curious, what from this data makes you think this “isn’t” a good tie-breaker? The fact that two tied (virtually) teams ended up square in a h2h matchup? Not sure I follow your reasoning.
Also, I don’t like OBP, because it seems a bit arbitrary to have a stat that our team does not need use for scoring (individually), decide the outcome of the season. Why don’t we just use SLG?
Good question, I guess I don’t have a real problem with this H2H (often times I don’t think before I type I just go bananas and let the chips fall where they may). T
If we keep the H2H as the 1st tie-breaker the issue now becomes agreeing on, and figuring out what the 2nd tie-breaker should be. With the complexity of our league I think it might be very difficult to determine another fair tie-breaker.
OBP is the name of the game, getting on base is where it’s at. Also, Theo loves OBP, our league is called SONS OF THEO, seemed appropriate to me. Another thing, I’m just brainstorming, spitballing, ya know.
“Perhaps we could set up a tie-breaker for order of finish (draft purposes) and then have all money issues resolved with a split?”
What about that suggestion?
I like it.