Championship determination with no playoffs and unequal number of games

mjj55409 · 01-22-2012, 11:31 AM

As someone obsessed with simulating the early years of baseball, this is something that I've longed to see fixed for quite a while.

From a historical perspective, this situation arises in the 1870s (when using the real, as played schedules). The number of games played by teams is unequal. For instance, most of the teams will play 50-55 games, a couple of teams will play 5 games. The problem is in the championship determination. The standings will listed teams in an order that makes sense--that is, the teams with the most wins will be on the top of the standings. However, when the season concludes and the champion is determined (remember, no playoff), the logic for the championship determination uses winning percentage exclusively. So if one of the teams that played only 5 games happens to win all 5 games, they are declared the champion; even though that team is not listed at the top of the standings report.

I see two approaches in fixing this:

1. Have an option to choose how to determine a champion in the absence of a playoff (i.e., games won, winning percentage, etc.).

2. This might be an easier fix: have championship determination logic be the same as the logic which orders the standings report.

At least with #2, you would no longer have the annoying case of the 5-0 Baltimore Marylands being declared the champion over the 55 win New York Mutual.

Markus Heinsohn · 01-22-2012, 12:21 PM

Hmmm... I wasn't ware of this problem. I will have a look and fix it

mjj55409 · 01-22-2012, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Hmmm... I wasn't ware of this problem. I will have a look and fix it

Thanks, Markus!

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-playoffs.html

Logged as a defect in 2007.

scott1964 · 01-22-2012, 07:56 PM

Something along those lines is to have the ability to fold teams.

Le Grande Orange · 01-23-2012, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjj55409

From a historical perspective, this situation arises in the 1870s (when using the real, as played schedules). The number of games played by teams is unequal. For instance, most of the teams will play 50-55 games, a couple of teams will play 5 games. The problem is in the championship determination. The standings will listed teams in an order that makes sense--that is, the teams with the most wins will be on the top of the standings. However, when the season concludes and the champion is determined (remember, no playoff), the logic for the championship determination uses winning percentage exclusively. So if one of the teams that played only 5 games happens to win all 5 games, they are declared the champion; even though that team is not listed at the top of the standings report.

For what it's worth, in real life it was the number of wins, not the winning percentage, which determined the NA champions and which determined the NL champion from 1876-1882 (according to Retrosheet, at any rate).

There is also the smalller question of how ties in the standings are broken for non-playoff teams. It could be done either by using the record from the previous season, or it could use the head-to-head record from the current season.

Biggio509 · 01-23-2012, 12:53 AM

It is a pit of a pain to see Olympic win with 7 out 9 wins or as you state Maryland wining in these scenarios. What always gets me though is if retro-sheet is correct '83 was the year winning percentage started being used. Almost every game I play in 1890 BAL wins the AA because they were the replacement team from Brookly that rejoined the league in August, IIRC. I had a couple of really good St. Louis Browns teams not win the AA in '90 due to Baltimore having a high wp over just a few games!

Tie breakers are an issue too. In my current league Boston would have won 2 NA titles but tied for 2 others. I have no idea what the RL tie breakers were.

kq76 · 01-23-2012, 01:04 AM

I think you could end up with an undesirable winner either way, by wins or win%. I understand the reasoning of a 84-56 (.600) team getting the nod over a 5-2 (.714) team, but what about the same 84-56 (.600) team vs an 83-55 (.601) team? In the latter case I think I'd rather give it the team with the better winning %. I suppose you could do like they do with awards and require a minimum # of games and then you go by win%, but what's the minimum # of games?

mjj55409 · 04-13-2012, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Hmmm... I wasn't ware of this problem. I will have a look and fix it

Ok, seriously? This is still not fixed?

AUGH!!!!

Can I check out the code and fix the **** thing myself?

mjj55409 · 07-17-2014, 03:20 PM

And...still not fixed.

01-22-2012, 11:31 AM	#1
mjj55409 All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,166	Championship determination with no playoffs and unequal number of games As someone obsessed with simulating the early years of baseball, this is something that I've longed to see fixed for quite a while. From a historical perspective, this situation arises in the 1870s (when using the real, as played schedules). The number of games played by teams is unequal. For instance, most of the teams will play 50-55 games, a couple of teams will play 5 games. The problem is in the championship determination. The standings will listed teams in an order that makes sense--that is, the teams with the most wins will be on the top of the standings. However, when the season concludes and the champion is determined (remember, no playoff), the logic for the championship determination uses winning percentage exclusively. So if one of the teams that played only 5 games happens to win all 5 games, they are declared the champion; even though that team is not listed at the top of the standings report. I see two approaches in fixing this: 1. Have an option to choose how to determine a champion in the absence of a playoff (i.e., games won, winning percentage, etc.). 2. This might be an easier fix: have championship determination logic be the same as the logic which orders the standings report. At least with #2, you would no longer have the annoying case of the 5-0 Baltimore Marylands being declared the champion over the 55 win New York Mutual. __________________ FABL -- Chicago Chiefs

01-22-2012, 07:56 PM	#4
scott1964 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver Posts: 5,561 Blog Entries: 19	Something along those lines is to have the ability to fold teams. __________________ This just feels more like waiting in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles. PETA.....People Eating Tasty Animals.

01-23-2012, 01:04 AM	#7
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 10,693	I think you could end up with an undesirable winner either way, by wins or win%. I understand the reasoning of a 84-56 (.600) team getting the nod over a 5-2 (.714) team, but what about the same 84-56 (.600) team vs an 83-55 (.601) team? In the latter case I think I'd rather give it the team with the better winning %. I suppose you could do like they do with awards and require a minimum # of games and then you go by win%, but what's the minimum # of games? __________________ My OOTP Wishlist Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project)

07-17-2014, 03:20 PM	#9
mjj55409 All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,166	And...still not fixed. __________________ FABL -- Chicago Chiefs

01-22-2012, 12:21 PM	#2
Markus Heinsohn Developer OOTP Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Germany Posts: 24,737	Hmmm... I wasn't ware of this problem. I will have a look and fix it __________________ Buy Out of the Park Baseball 25 now! Download OOTP Go 25 for iOS Download OOTP Go 25 for Android

01-23-2012, 12:53 AM	#6
Biggio509 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,027	It is a pit of a pain to see Olympic win with 7 out 9 wins or as you state Maryland wining in these scenarios. What always gets me though is if retro-sheet is correct '83 was the year winning percentage started being used. Almost every game I play in 1890 BAL wins the AA because they were the replacement team from Brookly that rejoined the league in August, IIRC. I had a couple of really good St. Louis Browns teams not win the AA in '90 due to Baltimore having a high wp over just a few games! Tie breakers are an issue too. In my current league Boston would have won 2 NA titles but tied for 2 others. I have no idea what the RL tie breakers were.