tiebreaker question for LGO

thehef · 08-20-2013, 05:32 PM

From another thread...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Prior to 1951, postponed games had to be made up before the scheduled end of the regular season (and it's still the case in the minor leagues today). If they can't, then they're gone. Consequently, teams often played differing numbers of games. The pennant went to the club with the best winning percentage based on the game played.

Was there ever a time when games ahead/behind was the first tiebreaker, regardless of win %? If so, logically it seems this would've had to have been prior to 1951 since from '51 on, postponed games would've been made up, thus resulting in no scenarios where games played would not be equal for "tied" teams (not counting scenarios for teams not in playoff contention, where you're simply determining lower division standings).

I have a note somewhere that indicates that "If Games Behind are equal, teams are tied, with playoff home field going to 1) best win %, 2) head-to-head...," but I don't know where that's from, to what league(s) it applies and when, etc.

Thanks in advance.

Le Grande Orange · 08-20-2013, 08:40 PM

In the majors it's always been winning percentage*. See, for example, the 1915 Federal League standings. In the minors, certainly in the older days, it was also winning percentage—see the 1902 or 1928 International League standings for example. I had assumed that was still the case in the minors.

But in 2009 in the PCL there was a tie for the North Division title of the Pacific Conference between Colorado Springs and Tacoma. The clubs' records were 73-69 .5141 and 74-70 .5139, respectively. Based on winning percentage Colorado Springs should have been the division winner as it just barely had the superior percentage. But instead the PCL considered the two clubs tied.** It then proceeded to use the first (non-game) tie-breaker which was head-to-head record. The clubs had split the season series 8-8. The next tie-breaker was divisional record, in which Tacoma had the advantage (27-21 to Colorado Springs' 24-24). So Tacoma was awarded the division title.

I don't know how common it is in the minors for standings ties to be determined based on games behind rather than winning percentage. It's an obscure bit of detail that tends not to be publicized. Also, two clubs finishing tied for first in games behind but with different winning percentages is a rare occurrence so there are few examples to reference.

From a fairness perspective, games behind does seem a better measure if clubs tend not to end up playing the same number of games during a season. Games behind doesn't penalize a club for having played fewer or more games than its rival. With winning percentage, the club with fewer games played usually has the edge in winning percentage by the smallest of margins, and one could make the case that had the club had to play the missing games it might have lost them and thus ended up in a straight W-L record tie.

*With the exception of the NL from 1876-82 when the standings were based on number of games won. I have no idea what it would have done had clubs finished with the same number of wins. My guess is that was one of the reasons to switch to winning percentage.

**It's possible that the PCL considered the clubs tied not just because of games behind but also because it rounds winning percentage to only three decimal places, in which case the clubs would have been tied on that basis. I'd tend to doubt that as the explanation though.

08-20-2013, 08:40 PM	#2
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,642	In the majors it's always been winning percentage. See, for example, the 1915 Federal League standings. In the minors, certainly in the older days, it was also winning percentage—see the 1902 or 1928 International League standings for example. I had assumed that was still the case in the minors. But in 2009 in the PCL there was a tie for the North Division title of the Pacific Conference between Colorado Springs and Tacoma. The clubs' records were 73-69 .5141 and 74-70 .5139, respectively. Based on winning percentage Colorado Springs should have been the division winner as it just barely had the superior percentage. But instead the PCL considered the two clubs tied.* It then proceeded to use the first (non-game) tie-breaker which was head-to-head record. The clubs had split the season series 8-8. The next tie-breaker was divisional record, in which Tacoma had the advantage (27-21 to Colorado Springs' 24-24). So Tacoma was awarded the division title. I don't know how common it is in the minors for standings ties to be determined based on games behind rather than winning percentage. It's an obscure bit of detail that tends not to be publicized. Also, two clubs finishing tied for first in games behind but with different winning percentages is a rare occurrence so there are few examples to reference. From a fairness perspective, games behind does seem a better measure if clubs tend not to end up playing the same number of games during a season. Games behind doesn't penalize a club for having played fewer or more games than its rival. With winning percentage, the club with fewer games played usually has the edge in winning percentage by the smallest of margins, and one could make the case that had the club had to play the missing games it might have lost them and thus ended up in a straight W-L record tie. With the exception of the NL from 1876-82 when the standings were based on number of games won. I have no idea what it would have done had clubs finished with the same number of wins. My guess is that was one of the reasons to switch to winning percentage. *It's possible that the PCL considered the clubs tied not just because of games behind but also because it rounds winning percentage to only three decimal places, in which case the clubs would have been tied on that basis. I'd tend to doubt that as the explanation though.