Gentlemen:
The crew and I are trying to devise a way to come up with a fair tiebreaker system. Last year a tossed controller by Potsie gave Lipitz the tiebreaker, giving him first team in the finals. This year we want to come up with a better system.
Last year if teams were tied, head-to-head record determined the winner. We still wish to stick to that, but after head-to-head is what is sticking us. I think a one-game playoff is needed after that. But complications with 3-way ties and extra games make it difficult...
Let's hear some tiebreaker ideas. Yes, this email is lacking in detail but check out the other threads below...
To reply to lipitz last email from last year (don't ask):
"I'm not entirely against having a tie-breaker game. But the problem
there is...the guy sitting in first place (watching the tie-breaker
game between second and third), is getting some recuperation time.
And if the guy sitting in first place didn't even have to play the
final game (12th game) of the round-robin, he'll have about an hour
to relax...while the other players got more drunk. Therefore, giving
the guy in first place more than just a team selection advantage."
I don't consider this any reason for not doing a tiebreaker. The guy with the best record should have all the advantages. If the 2-3 guys haven't proven they belong there, they should fight for it. Not to mention that Sperling, Potsie and I aren't about to stop drinking for an hour...
It could be a big advantage for the 1st place guy, but to me it's not enough to nix it...
Anyone else?
Home run derby. 9 at-bats. team of your choice. Neutral pitcher. down the middle pitches only.
I wouldn't mind a home run derby in future tourneys, but it's too soon to implement something we've never done before. We would all be too green for this tourney...
I think home run derby for a three-way might be worthwhile. But I'm pretty firm on a one-game playoff on a two-way tie to advance, assuming they went 1-1 head to head...
How about most runs scored in h2h games?
We had a similar rule before, but slaughters screw that up. And nobody liked the slaughter rule. I just think if you have the same record and tie h2h, play another game. Everyone else is too close to determine a winner...
Well, then if you don't like that rule bc of the slaughter factor, then perhaps you should use greatest margin of h2h wins...
that's if you guys don't agree on a tie breaker game--that's really the best/most decisive.
I am against a one game tie breaker for the reason stated by Lipitz. It is very valid. Plus who gets to use Detroit?
I think personally that runs per inning should be used. That way if you slaughter someone in the 2nd inning (lets say 10-0) that would equate 5 runs per inning. That is HUGE. So it still keeps slaughters very beneficial, but not the end-all-be-all. In addition, it gives credence the to player that is most consistant for the course of the tourney. If only score 5 runs one game that will hurt a lot. Also if you lose 30-26 (like i did last year) both teams played a great game. But the losing player gets nothing for scoring 26 runs. If you use runs per inning then that game *may* help *if* there is a tie.
I don't like that HR derby mainly because it isn't something that is within the tourney. I would hate for someone to get into the finals because they can swing better for 9 batters.
There has to be something that within the tourney can tell if you played better. IMO that is runs per inning.
RPI is the best system without a tiebreaker. But if RPI if close it's a shitty way to lose. At least with a playoff, you lose on the field...
The person who gets Detroit is the person who won the RPI battle. That way RPI has a benefit but isn't the end all. RPI is also the choice of first team if the finalists have the same record and tied h2h...
The "one more game to drink argument" to me is really weak. Like I said, most of us drink during games anyway. Most of us aren't going to stop drinking because of one more game. And if it's that big of a deal, make the tiebreaker a no-drinking affair. I think you should drink since you haven't proven yourself "worthy" of the finals anyway. But if the fact that someone has to drink an extra two beers is the deciding factor, then eliminate drinking rules for the tiebreaker...
If two people tie and they have the same head-to-head record, anything else to determine who goes on is going to cause controversy. That's why playing a final game should be the deciding factor...
Quote from: Gantry on 05/18/04, 09:25:37 PM
We had a similar rule before, but slaughters screw that up. And nobody liked the slaughter rule.
How about if slaughters were disabled? ;)
Nightwulf
Then you get "penalized" for a slaughter. You win 10-0, it's a disadvantage for total runs. That's why I like Jason's runs per inning stat. While it's a good tradeoff, I just don't like any stat determing who goes on for all the marbles. If the RPI is 1.4 to 1.25, that to me doesn't determine dominance...
One more game to go on. If the extra drinking is an issue, then eliminate it. I'll be drinking between games if I'm in the tiebreaker or not. No bitterness, it gives everyone a chance to win. You make it to the finals because you won more games than the guys who didn't make it...
I understand, but I just feel that the finals should be set from what you did on the field during the games. Not put everything in 1 basket in one game. Using RPI for the first team is a good compromise, but I don't really understand the problem with using RPI period. It may be close it may not be. So what if it is? If that is the rule then everyone knows beforehand.
I think there is something to be said with letting people sober up before the finals. I think that is a huge deal. Just my 2 cents though.
It isn't about dominance. Its about having the better tourney. Slim margin or not.
RPI is a stat, and while it's the best stat come up with so far, it can still cause trouble. If it's a big disparity, then it can tell dominance. But a couple lopsided wins can skew your other 4 games. For example, Potsie plays much worse at the end when he's drunk. We all know this... If you average 3 RPI against Potsie because you got him at the end and can't field, that may put you over the edge. If you RPI 1.4 to 1.25, that's 1.4 more run per nine innings. That small of a ratio leaves a bunch of variables. It's just not a good way to lose...
And none of us are going to sober up before the finals. Sperling, Potsie and myself drink from start to finish. One 30 minute game isn't a deal breaker for me. I'd rather win or lose on the field than lose by a .2 of a statistic...
I'm more than happy to eliminate drinking rules for the tiebreaker or make the other finalist pick someone he has to drink with to level the field. Anything to have a system where the people who won the most games go on...
Edit to remove drinking comments...
Rock Scissors Paper
Quote from: Jaydee on 05/19/04, 03:04:11 PM
Rock Scissors Paper
Very good idea. I've always been partial to whoever has the larger shoe size (because I win most of the time.)
QuoteVery good idea. I've always been partial to whoever has the larger shoe size (because I win most of the time.)
I like that idea! I win!
The one game playoff is the best option. I understand that by adding another drinking game to the mix, if that person wins, he'll have an uphill struggle against his opponent in the finals because he'll probably be more drunk. That is the price you have to pay for being tied with someone else and not clinching a spot.
True, Lips, Pots, and I drink throughout the tournament, but it's not the same compared to drinking because someone hit 10+ homers in the game. That's why even though drinking will still happen, the guys playing the game will drink more and be drunker.
However, I feel that there still is a benefit to the person playing a tie breaking game. They get one more game to get swings in while the guy already in the finals sits and waits. Sometimes it's all about timing.
My vote is one game playoff, with drinking to decide the 2nd person into the finals.
Quote from: Sperling on 05/19/04, 06:33:32 PM
True, Lips, Pots, and I drink throughout the tournament, but it's not the same compared to drinking because someone hit 10+ homers in the game. That's why even though drinking will still happen, the guys playing the game will drink more and be drunker.
Exactly... I was gonna post those exact thoughts earlier, but I totally got side-tracked at work.
I'm cool with a tie-breaker game, too. Through the years, I have always hated the concept of losing a chance to goto the finals, because of a tie-breaker. It's the ultimate DAH-NAH!!!!
As for who gets choice of team...runs per inning is ok. But what about run differential (or a combination of the two)? I just think there is something to be said for holding an opponent to a low score. I think RPI and RD both have their positives and negatives. I asked Jason this question the other day...what does everyone else think:
Which is a better game, winning 25-24 or winning 20-11?
I like RPI, since your opponent has more control over his runs than you do with your runs. A similar comparison:
What's better?
Losing 14-3 in one inning
Winning 22-14
Winning 28-25
That's a 0 RD yet a very good RPI. You didn't much chance to prove yourself in game one...
But I really don't want to debate it too much, lets just vote on it. My vote is for RPI as a tiebreaker...
Everyone knows my vote, especially since I gave the Lipitz those exact 2 scenario's before.
Oh well. Just work on getting a 4thb person. Only 3 people is going to suck and then there is much more controversy. If Zorb has to be the 4th then so be it.
Well, since we have 3 of five then one-game tiebreaker is confirmed, right? 5 being Lips, Jason, Gatnry, Mark and Pots...
Next vote is RPI vs RD. My vote is for RPI per tiebreaker..
Potsie confirmed that Todd Cratty will be the 4th. He's not a worldbeater at RBI, but he's way better than Zorb. Dee-Nee!
Cratty will be more of a challenge then Z. Plus, I haven't seen Z's game in years, so I was looking forward to it. I was talking to Brian and I think him and Zorba would be a good match. Brian's never won a game of RBI before.
Damn, I wish I was involved in these tournaments. I'm so fucking jealous....
Anyways, here is my two cents. I think Vit's idea about RPI is the superior avenue to decide a tiebreaker. However I think RPI doesn't include an essential element to your overall tournament play. I think RPI NEEDS to incorporate "Beers Drank". Maybe something like, (runs/innings) * Beers Drank. By multipling the RPI by number of beers that you drank should create a more encompassing stat for overall performance.