Dee-Nee RBI Tournament 2003 today!

[Lips]

Finally, the title is in the my hands!!!!  YES!!!!  You don't know how ecstatic I am right now.  I am so fuckin' happy right now.  So fuckin' happy!!!!!!

I was the last one of the Dee-Nee household to claim the belt, but I don't care.  Finally...it's mine, and I get to hold the title for an entire year.  FUCKIN' YES!!!!!!

So I lost my voice...who cares?  I don't.

Yeah, there was controversy surrounding the tourney.   But you know what?  I couldn't have controlled that.  Potsie slammed the Nintendo, forcing Gantry to attempt to slaughter Jason in the final game in the Round-Robin, to get first pick (of the finals).  Gantry couldn't do it.  Therefore, I got first pick.

Anyways, I beat Gantry two games to none in the finals.  Yeah, the situation could have been different if Potsie finished his game against me, but we'll never know.  Hands off to Gantry, it was a great finale.

Here are the lines:

Game 1:
Gantry (Ca) 8, 6 Homers
Lipitz (Det) 18, 15 Homers (4 innings)

Game 2:
Gantry (Det) 18, 12 Homers
Lipitz (Bo) 19, 13 Homers (10 innings)

The second game was just insane.  In the bottom of the 9th, I homered to tie the game with two outs.  Boggs homered off of Hernandez, of all people.  The Wabbit was so clutch!!!!  After the homer, I grounded out...forcing extra innings.  Gantry stepped up and got three runs, but I came back...and I shit you not, I have no idea how.  I got it to a one run game...with a man on first, and then Stuttering Stanley came to the plate.  I took the strikeout and drank my ten.  Tony Armas stepped upto the plate...and I don't know how he did it, but he pulled one past the King of Cheese, Tom Brookens.  Both Gantry and I were stunned...but of course, I was happy to be alive.  And Ellis (Don't call me Tim) Burks stepped upto the plate.  This was my second time playing with Boston, and up until that point, Burks didn't get better than a single.  He just fuckin' sucked up until that point.  AND FINALLY, BURKS DID IT.  He HOMERED...I yelled my head off, and the title was mine.  Like I said, I'm so happy right now.

Dee-Nee-She-Nee-Nee

[MarquisEXB]

Congrats on the championship! My condolences to the losers.

This only goes to strengthen my theory - never use Willie Hernandez in the 9th.

Mike

[Vitb6]

Well the tourney is over and it definately wasn't my best showing.  I thought I had my stroke going, when I kicked Lips's ass 18-3 but then another debacle the first game against Gantry, then I lose with 26 runs and 22 HR's.  That wasn't cool.  Although I took it like a man unlike some people who punch out the screen door, drop kick the NES breaking the front panel and then throw the controller, resetting the NES and taking an automatic slaughter to fuck up the reults of the tourney for everyone else.  And to top it off went whining upstairs and slammed his door shut.  But I won't mention any names.  HATS off to Lips for winning.

BTW-  Hernandez shuts down any and all lefties he faces.  He is the absolute goods in straight pitch AGAINST LEFTIES.  If you are playing Cali and have to face Joyner and Reggie in a late game crucial situation, Hernandez is in the game.  NOW AGAINST RIGHTIES...all bets are off.  Gantry had to leave Hernandez in the game to face Burks because he didn't have another pitcher left.  Try it out with your friends.  Hurst is decent as well, which IMO is the big advantage to being BOS rather than CALI to face DET.  Because if you sub in Sheridan and Bergman in the 5 and 6 slots you have lefties batting 2-7, therefore a guy like Hurst can be a game saver rather than putting a guy like Donnie Moore.

[Gantry]

Dah Nah....

Hats off to Lips for getting that elusive RBI title.  My second straight finals defeat, and this was a bitter pill to swallow.  I don't know how Boggs got a dinger off Hernandez...

Since I have to work shortly, I'm very glad I went downstairs immediately after losing and passed out.  That'll save me some headaches in a few hours...

All that being said, I think the tourney rules need to change after this one.  We need to institute a "Potsie Rule" of sorts, because I earned that #1 seed and got screwed out of it.  I want to make sure future generations don't repeat what happened last night.  Either stricter punishments for resetting the game or something...

Maybe head-to-head slaughters as the #2 tiebreaker?

Edit - I like head to head slaughters because in a two man tie, you punish yourself by resetting the game.  A three way tiebreaker could yield the same fuckjob though.  So here's my proposed rules for tiebreakers:

1 - If you reset the game or forefitted, you are eliminated
2 - Head to head record
3 - Head to head slaughters

This puts maximum hurt on the would-be resetter, while increasing the benefits of slaughters in a head-to-head situation.  What do you think?

[Vitb6]

Personally, I think that if you reset the NES on purpose you should not only be eliminated from the tourney this year but also the following year.  The person that threw the controller probably doesn't care about his status in the tournament, hence the controller throw and the reason why if you eliminate him from the tourney it could potentially make things even worse than this year.

I personally think that slaughters shouldn't be in a tie-breaker at all.  I think that the only tie-breaker record then it should be runs scored and then if that is tied runs against and here is why.

H2H is ok but this is a tournament and the point of a tournament is to be the most consistent player and to outlast your opponents.  For example, if Jamie has the #1 spot and me and Gantry are tied (record-wise) for the final spot and we each have 2 losses-  and I out-score Gantry by 35 runs I don't think it would be fair that Gantry would make it just because he beat me twice, because Gantry lost to 2 other people that I didn't lose to.  Make sense?  Therefore the best predictor of great, consistant play is first obviously record but then total runs and then runs against.  

If someone slaughters someone it can be argued, using the above criteria, that they hurt themselves because the game didn't go all the way therefore not scroing as many runs as they could.  So to counter that I think 10 runs should be added to the total runs for a slaughter.  SO in my game against Lips where I won 18-3, I would have gotten 28 runs added to my previous total.  

In addition, by using RA as the next tie-breaker, it penalizes people for GETTING slaughtered because most likely they didn't score many runs.  That awards slaughters and disawards (?) getting slaughtered.  A perfect system in my mind.

[Lips]

It looks like I was posting my thoughts at the same time Jason was posting his.  We are kinda on the same page, with run differential.  But I firmly believe head-to-head record should be the first tie-breaker.  If you own someone in the tourney (while having the same record), you are better than him.  PERIOD.

A few questions and comments...

1 - If you reset the game or forefitted, you are eliminate

Does this mean, the guy who resets the Nintendo, is eliminated from the tourney?  If this is true, there are some issues around this rule.  What if this person resets the game in Round 1 or Round 2 (in the case of Nick, in the qualifier)?  What happens to the games he has played so far?  What happens to the games he is supposed to play next?  Are they still considered slaughters?  The reason I ask is...someone might have earned a win over the "resetter", while others will get the automatic W.  Or even worse, someone might have lost to the "resetter", while others will get the automatic W.  If a player is eliminated from the entire tourney, players are still getting penalized/rewarded, other than the "resetter".

3 - Head to head slaughters

I don't like this idea.  I feel that it doesn't weigh the importance of the entire tournament, enough.  After head to head record, it's tough to get a good tie-breaker.  I was thinking total runs, but if someone got a slaughter early, then that someone would be prone to a lesser amount of total runs (although more than 10) because he didn't play a full nine innings.  That's why we initially put total slaughters before total runs, as it showed dominance throughout the tourney.  So along the same lines, what if the second tie-breaker (after head-to-head record), was "Run Differential".  If I won three games by a total of 18 runs and lost three games by a total of 14 runs, then I would have a +4 run differential.  If the guy I tied with...had greater than a +4, he'd get the tie-breaker over me.  If the guy I tied with...had less than a +4, I'd get the tie-breaker over him.  If we tied at +4, then I would think total runs would be the next tie-breaker.

I just thought of this, so this system might be flawed.  The idea here is to get rid of the slaughters.  The run-differential will take care of them, anyways.  If I slaughtered two guys, I'll have at least a +20 to work with (outside of my other four games).  But the good thing about this system is...it also penalizes you for really bad games.  For example, Jason slaughtered me 18-3 yesterday.  That would have killed my run differential a bunch.  This system rewards the more dominating player.

BUT the question about Nintendo resets is still in the air.  What happens?  Here are a couple ways we could go about this.  If someone has another suggestion, please let me know.

1.  All resets are equal to a certain run differential, somewhere between 5 and 9?

2.  Take the run differential at the time of reset, if the resetter was losing.  For example, I was beating Potsie by 5, when Potsie reset the Nintendo...therefore, I would get a +5...and Potsie would get a -5.  If the resetter was winning (I don't why he would reset if he was winning), he's charged a loss so maybe give the resetter a -1 and the other player a +1?

So what do you think about this?  I put Tie-Breakers 4 through 7, just in case of some really insane ties.
1.  Head-to-Head record.
2.  Total Run-Differential.
3.  Total Runs.
4.  Total Head-To-Head Differential.
5.  Total Head-To-Head Runs.
6.  Total Homers.
7.  Play a One-Game Tie-Breaker.

Well, even after writing all this...It just makes me think that someone could reset a game, late in the tourney to his advantage...or to kill his opponent's chances.  I'll have to think some more over this...

[Gantry]

Lets be honest, there really is no fair tie-breaker after head-to-head record.  Maybe we should do a one-game playoff.  But that's not fair, because who gets the team?  

Arbitrarily adding or subtracting runs for slaughters has too many flaws, because it could be too many or too little depending on when you slaughtered someone...

Everyone's points about consistency I believe are shown first and foremost with your overall record.  After you dip past head-to-head record, there are too many situations where you have to rely on other people to break a tie for you.  That's why I like head-to-head slaughters as the second tiebreaker, only you control that one.  Using our first series, I slaughtered Lipitz in about 6 innings and lost a close one by three runs.  That shows to me that I had a better series against him.  I know it ain't perfect and can easily be argued, but it's the only system I see so far where someone else playing like shit doesn't screw you...

Run differential, while probably the fairest of the systems on paper, has way too many scenarios where you can strategically lose or forefit to give yourself an advantage...

Eliminating someone for the series because they threw the controller just fucks up too many things.  Here is the harshest penalty I can think of while not screwing up the game:

1)  You lose any and all tiebreakers automatically

2)  No matter how far you make it into the tournament, you start at the lowest-level of the qualifier next year.  With potentially two qualifiers now that Sperling is back, that will hopefully discourage people...

I'm not sure about banning them from the next season because  it easy to lose it in the heat of the battle, my furniture downstairs can attest to that.  You want to be harsh, but not too harsh...

In the spirit of Jason's previous thread, I will not be rereading this message before I post.  I will read it once posting, but not edit it...

[GDavis]

I think a 1 game tie breaker is fair.  Flip a coin and the winner gets to choose either first pick of team or last licks.  If the toss winner picks a team, the loser gets last licks and vice versa.

[MarquisEXB]

Run differential, while probably the fairest of the systems on paper, has way too many scenarios where you can strategically lose or forefit to give yourself an advantage...

I don't see how losing or throwing games can help you in run diff.  

[Lips]

Well, GDavis...The problem isn't as simple as a 50-50 flip of a coin.

Although last wraps won 50% of this tournament, Detroit won over 70% of the games.  I have Potsie taking last wraps in both games against Jason.  I'm not sure if that's correct; otherwise, last wraps were slightly under 50%.  Anyways, here's the breakdown:

With Last Wraps:
Lipitz 4-2
Potsie 3-2
Gantry 0-0
Jason 0-3
--------------
Total 7-7

With Detroit:
Lipitz 4-0
Gantry 3-1
Potsie 2-1
Jason 1-2
--------------
Total 10-4

So...you can see how getting Detroit in the tie-breaker game (if that's what we go ahead and choose), must be earned...it shouldn't be something just handed to you.

Aside from that, I'm still not a fan of using head-to-head slaughters after head-to-head record.  I'm really not 100% convinced on any tie-breaker yet.  Does anyone else have a suggestion?

[GDavis]

So, how about not allowing either team to be Detroit for the tie-breaker?

[Lips]

MarquisEXB...here's one example, if we didn't eliminate the resetter from the tie-breakers.

Standings before the last game of the round robin:
PlayerA (4-1), +20, 70 Runs
PlayerB (4-2), +10, 100 Runs
PlayerC (2-4)
PlayerD (1-4)

Let's assume PlayerA and PlayerB tied 1-1, head-to-head.  Therefore, PlayerA should know that as long as he doesn't get slaughtered against PlayerD (in the final game)...Player A will get first pick in the finals.  Why?  Because his run differential is 10 better than PlayerB's, and it will still be better than PlayerB's as long as he doesn't get slaughtered.  So if PlayerA got to the point where he might get slaughtered by PlayerD, he could simply reset the game (taking the -9 run differential or whatever).  Making the final round-robin standings...

PlayerA (4-2), +11
PlayerB (4-2), +10
PlayerC (2-4)
PlayerD (2-4)

Of course, if we did what Gantry said and eliminated the resetter from all tie-breakers...PlayerB would get choice of team/controller in this case.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUT...here's a case where the resetter hurts someone else.  And this is why run differential doesn't work 100%.

PlayerE (5-1)
PlayerF (3-3), +30, 70 runs
PlayerG (2-3), +20, 100 runs
PlayerH (1-4)

Assuming PlayerF and PlayerG tied 1-1, head-to-head...PlayerG would need to slaughter PlayerH in the final game, to get to the finals.  If PlayerH reset the game, PlayerG would get screwed.  Making the final round-robin standings...

PlayerE (5-1)
PlayerF (3-3), +30
PlayerG (3-3), +29
PlayerH (1-5)

Remember, I am using a -9/+9 for a reset.  This number doesn't matter though, as the resetter could still use whatever number to his advantage (in different cases).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Lips]

GDavis...that's tough, too.  In this tournament, Detroit was played all 14 games, California followed just behind with 10 games, while Boston was played 4 times.  It just doesn't seem right for an entire round-robin to be played (12 games), and then have the first California-Boston (most likely) game of the tourney.  I don't think that's fair.

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.

[GDavis]

Valid points Lips.  How about these.  

For tie-breaker games, you cannot use a team that you have previously used in that round (a bit of strategy to see if someone tries to save detroit for a tie breaker).

or

For Tie-Breakers, you pick your opponents team, instead of your own team (maybe disqualifying Houston).

or

Even teams...I'd say Minn/SF/NY are all evenly matched teams, so pick from those 3.

In Addition:

A player waiting on the tie breaker must choose a side, and drink along with that side, based on Dee-Nee rules.

[sucka free]

How about having a home run hitting contest to break up a tie-breaker?  Each player gets 3 innings to hit as many HR as they can.  Every hit that is not an HR is an out.  Pitchers pitch down the middle.  At the end of the 3rd inning, reset and its the other guys turn.  This method also solves the drunk problem because it is easier to hit straight pitchers when you are smashed, and a tie-breaker will alsways end on a HR which is cool and by cool, I mean totally sweet.  This could add an entirely knew aspect to the tourny.  You have to be a skilled player but you also have to be a skilled HR hitter in case you need a tie breaker.  It also meshes both the curve style and striaght pitch style of the game together (if you play the tourny curve style.  You also do not have to keep track of who uses what team and who scored how many runs.  Plus, HR hitting contests rocks!!!!!!!

[Vitb6]

That HR hitting contest idea is a great idea.  There is never going to be a perfect solution because since everyone plays everyone, they all have a hand in the final outcome of every series.  Therefore, nothing can be perfectly intamperable (is that a word?).  By having the HR derby you hold your own fate.  It is perfect.  The only thing is that everyone would HAVE to be the same team.  Since we all pick Detroit anyways, that is an easy solution.  And the person that is pitching should be forced to continuously press the 'A' button so there is no slowing down the momentum of the hitter.  I like it a lot.

[GDavis]

Agreed.  The HR derby sounds really cool.

[Gantry]

You know what, I kind of like the home run derby too!  Simple and exciting...   and there aren't 78 scenarios where losing 22-16 instead of 22-18 fucks you. Lips?

Some quick ideas for rules:

1 - You can pick your team, but both guys can use the same team.  

2 - Whoever got second pick in the head-to-head series gets to choose when he wants to go.  

[sucka free]

I'm glad the HR contest is gaining some popularity.  The next time a HR contest may be needed, It might be something short enough to videotape and put on the website.  That would be sweet!

I need to get my ass to chicago and play in one of these fricking tournaments....Is shy-town a fun place for a 25 year old?

[sucka free]

Vit, intamperable is not a word.  You should learn to re-red your posts.  LOL...

Gantry, here is another interesting aspect with the HR contest.  The 9th batter in the order.  Players will have to decide on whether they use their normal pitch hitters for weak batters, or if the save for the pitchers spot in the order.  This could add some startegy to how you appoarch the derby.

Vit, why would everyone have to use the same team?  If I wanted to use boston or houston, why couldn't I.  I would only object to someone using an all-star team.