Breaking ties

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Sorry, but that's exactly what I would use.

Sorry, but sending home a team after 162 games based on head-to-head run differential is ridiculously unfair. Much more unfair than sending home a team after a one game elimination game could ever be.

[Padreman]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Sorry, but sending home a team after 162 games based on head-to-head run differential is ridiculously unfair. Much more unfair than sending home a team after a one game elimination game could ever be.

I don't understand how that's unfair. They couldn't beat the teams that matter during the regular season that's their fault. They don't deserve to make the playoffs

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by Padreman

I don't understand how that's unfair. They couldn't beat the teams that matter during the regular season that's their fault. They don't deserve to make the playoffs

They beat the team that they're tied with the same amount of times as they lost to them. How is it fair that they should go home based on run differential without getting the opportunity to play a one game play-in game?

[Padreman]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

They beat the team that they're tied with the same amount of times as they lost to them. How is it fair that they should go home based on run differential without getting the opportunity to play a one game play-in game?

Ok if the head to head record is the same then yes they should have a playoff game against each other but if the head to head record favors one team then that's your tie breaking element right there

[BKL]

This discussion is exactly why we need a simple fix for this - such as the proceed to playoff button (see my earlier post) - so anyone who wants 100% customization of how ties are decided can do that. If you want the default game method, you can have that too. This is a simple fix, if coded into the game, would allow everyone to determine tie breakers as they desire.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

You aren't paying attention. I think having tiebreakingr games is wrong when one of the teams has a better head-to-head record over the other. And I don't find those games exciting. I find them unnecessary and unfair.

Which means you are against the all the classic and dramatic tie-breaking games and series which have been played over MLB's history (fourteen so far).

Originally Posted by The Wolf

And I think that making a team play TWO back to back elimination games is total BS.

I've explained to you twice now that this statement, as it regards the tie scenario you yourself laid out, is wrong. There is only one game, between the two clubs tied for the second wild card qualifying position.

Go back and reread what I've posted. I'm certain everyone else gets how you are wrong in your statement on the scenario you set out, so other than pure obstinance, I see no reason for you to simply offer a mea culpa for misunderstanding what the rules call for.

Originally Posted by Afino

I don't think anyone wants a 2 month recode that 0.1% of users will ever use.

There is absolutely no evidence provided to verify either of those statements. They are nothing but assertions. I would think, as baseball fans—and consequently in favour of hard data and statistics—we would expect something far more substantive that mere assertion.

Originally Posted by Padreman

Ok if the head to head record is the same then yes they should have a playoff game against each other but if the head to head record favors one team then that's your tie breaking element right there

So, folks want the major leagues to act like the minor leagues? That's...interesting. What other elements of the minors should the majors emulate?


I find it astonishing that some folks in this thread—people who almost certainly would be classified as baseball traditionalists in terms of things like the wild card, expanded playoffs, interleague play, and the like—are wholly willing to throw out long-standing baseball tradition which calls for extra game(s) to be played in the event clubs are tied for the pennant at the scheduled end of the regular season. They are in favour of eliminating the fourteen dramatic and classic tie-breaking series/games that have held since 1946.

The Dodgers-Giants best-of-three battle for the 1951 NL pennant? Gone. Instead, the Dodgers would have simply been handed the pennant due to its 13-9 record against the Giants that year. The 1978 game between the Yankees and Red Sox for the AL East title? Gone. Instead, the Yankees would simply have been handed the division title due to its 8-7 record against the Red Sox. And so on.

I have a theory on why some here are taking that position. Call me a cynic if you wish—and be forewarned I'll not mince words here—but it's because they are simply taking the side of the devs over what doing what is proper according to the long-standing traditions of major league baseball.

Because the devs basically said, "it's too hard at the moment for us to do it right or make it flexible" (with all due respect to them, that strikes me as a cop-out, especially considering they've not seen the particular model I have in mind, to say nothing of what detailed systems others might propose), the sycophants have emerged to defend inaction and inaccuracy. It's the old "defend the devs!" knee-jerk mentality that one can see over and over in gaming as a whole. (It's present to some degree on pretty much any game's forum.)

It's sad to see, actually. I expected better of some of the folks 'round here than to exhibit such blatant sycophantic behaviour.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Sorry, but sending home a team after 162 games based on head-to-head run differential is ridiculously unfair. Much more unfair than sending home a team after a one game elimination game could ever be.

Horsecrap. The regular season determines who gets into the playoffs, not some random one-game nonsense that sees the team with the better record get jobbed

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I've explained to you twice now that this statement, as it regards the tie scenario you yourself laid out, is wrong. There is only one game, between the two clubs tied for the second wild card qualifying position.

No. You still don't get it. There are two back to back elimination games, one between the two teams tied for the 2nd wild card spot, and then the game between the victor of that game and the team in the first wild card spot. And that's ridiculous, but then the entire wild card concept is ridiculous marketing nonsense. Win your division or go home.

And Markus is right, there's no point to coding super fancy customized playoffs when 0.1% of users - if that - would ever use them. It would be a big a waste of resources for virtually zero return as promotion/relegation or women's leagues.

[bwburke94]

What Wolf was trying to say earlier is that a team tied for WC2 in the current format (let's call them Team A) must win their next two games to advance to the Division Series.

* GAME 163: One-game tiebreaker to determine which team is WC2. If Team A wins this game, they advance to Game 164; if Team A loses this game, they are eliminated.
* GAME 164: Wild card game, the first game of the normally scheduled postseason. If Team A wins this game, they advance to the Division Series; if Team A loses this game, they are eliminated.

[Bowtie]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

No. You still don't get it. There are two back to back elimination games, one between the two teams tied for the 2nd wild card spot, and then the game between the victor of that game and the team in the first wild card spot. And that's ridiculous, but then the entire wild card concept is ridiculous marketing nonsense. Win your division or go home.

And Markus is right, there's no point to coding super fancy customized playoffs when 0.1% of users - if that - would ever use them. It would be a big a waste of resources for virtually zero return as promotion/relegation or women's leagues.

Excuse me Mr. Wolf but Markus is NOT right. Where is his evidence to prove only 0.1% of users would EVER use LGO's playoff system? Markus was just merely grabbing imaginary numbers out of thin air. And he has nada, zilch, nine, zero idea whether it would or would not be a big waste until he obtains some hard evidence to substantiate his case.

Frankly, I think LGO's playoff system would be used more than just 0.1% of users. I have not seen anything yet that LGO has developed that I didn't support.

[Padreman]

Originally Posted by Bowtie

Excuse me Mr. Wolf but Markus is NOT right. Where is his evidence to prove only 0.1% of users would EVER use LGO's playoff system? Markus was just merely grabbing imaginary numbers out of thin air. And he has nada, zilch, nine, zero idea whether it would or would not be a big waste until he obtains some hard evidence to substantiate his case.

Frankly, I think LGO's playoff system would be used more than just 0.1% of users. I have not seen anything yet that LGO has developed that I didn't support.

You're right there's probably no scientific way that he was able to come up with a number however the problem will be coding so that alone is not going to be worth his time at least now to tackle it

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Horsecrap. The regular season determines who gets into the playoffs, not some random one-game nonsense that sees the team with the better record get jobbed

Well..."It's your game, play it your way." my friend.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Bowtie

Excuse me Mr. Wolf but Markus is NOT right. Where is his evidence to prove only 0.1% of users would EVER use LGO's playoff system? Markus was just merely grabbing imaginary numbers out of thin air. And he has nada, zilch, nine, zero idea whether it would or would not be a big waste until he obtains some hard evidence to substantiate his case.

Frankly, I think LGO's playoff system would be used more than just 0.1% of users. I have not seen anything yet that LGO has developed that I didn't support.

Markus has the usage data and knows what's involved. My money is on him and not LGO.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Well..."It's your game, play it your way." my friend.

And the same to you. I think regular season records should trump everything; that does not mean that you have to.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

And the same to you. I think regular season records should trump everything; that does not mean that you have to.

I will argue that you should have the option to turn off the tie-breaking games that are scheduled by the game if you don't wish to use them (if it's not too difficult to code of course). Right now, from what I hear, the game just keeps re-scheduling them ad-infinitum and I can see how that would get annoying for someone using your system to break ties.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

...And I find your method unfair because both teams busted their butts for 162 games, and then one of them goes home because of head-to-head record between the two of them? Settle it on the field, unless of course both teams are going to make the playoffs anyway...Then it's unnecessary.

It was already settled on the field, in head-to-head matches.

That said, there's a lot to be said for the drama of the tie-breaking games so I'd rather see them than not. Besides, the head-to-head matches may have mostly occurred at the beginning of the season or when some key players were injured. So, while they may already say which is the better team, I still think we want to see who is the best at the end of the season and when both teams know it's win or go home, unlike the regular season when winning is important, but it's not critical.

[fcabanski]

I know OOTP doesn't always get it right, but I'm most interested in MLB's way.

Playoff tiebreaker rules | MLB.com

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by kq76

It was already settled on the field, in head-to-head matches.

That said, there's a lot to be said for the drama of the tie-breaking games so I'd rather see them than not. Besides, the head-to-head matches may have mostly occurred at the beginning of the season or when some key players were injured. So, while they may already say which is the better team, I still think we want to see who is the best at the end of the season and when both teams know it's win or go home, unlike the regular season when winning is important, but it's not critical.

The problem with this is when Team A has five good starters and wins the great majority of the regular season series over Team B easily, but Team B has one great starter who can crush Team A in a one-game playoff: the better team ends up staying home. Drama is nice, but fairness is better.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

The problem with this is when Team A has five good starters and wins the great majority of the regular season series over Team B easily, but Team B has one great starter who can crush Team A in a one-game playoff: the better team ends up staying home. Drama is nice, but fairness is better.

Has that ever happened? Asking from pure fan curiousity, not as the answer being part of the argument

[tward13]

If I'm playing an MLB game, I'd like MLB rules.