Semifinals

[mesquiton]

At least 125 managers signed up and played at least one event. The first 2 events each had 10 leagues. That’s 120 managers each, but not all the same managers played in both events. So, fair to say the Tour started with at least 125 participants.

With 36 of 125 starters making the playoffs, everybody has a 28.8% chance at the playoffs.

The real-life AL has 14 teams. With 4 teams making the playoffs, everybody has…guess what…a 28.8% chance at the playoffs.

Each of the final 2 events has only 7 leagues. So, 3 leagues, 36 managers, have dropped out…in most cases probably because their low early round scores left them little hope to make the playoffs.

Under the old top-12 finals format, last year started with 11 leagues and finished with only 6 (similar to previous years). That’s a dropout rate of 45%, vs. a dropout rate of only 30% this year.

With 36 managers in the playoffs, more managers have more reason to participate in more events, more get to enjoy the fun of the playoffs, and each has exactly the same chance at the playoffs as the real-life Yankees and Red Sox. Doesn't seem silly to me.

And, I'd guess that with 3 playoff leagues, there's about a 33.3% chance that the Champion will come from the top 12, which I think fairly accurately reflects the relative skill levels of the top 36. :wink:

[teepack]

We're going with 36.

[J-Pav]

I wish I had a clever metaphor (that hasn't already been used) to best describe my anguish about a Live Draft. Having said that, has there been any discussion about why we are using the autodraft for the semis? It seems that after posting strong enough scores to reach the semis, the teams should have a rank order advantage in selecting individual players, no? The autodraft to me seems very disadvantageous here to the players who have posted the highest scores over 5-6 leagues, and very advantageous to those who have posted the lowest qualifying scores. It means that in [i:d789b19580]only one[/i:d789b19580] autoleague a low ranked player can get lucky enough to overcome what took the top manager five or six times to prove in order to get to the next level.

Anybody else have thoughts?

[visick]

I gotta agree with J-Pav on this one.

Makes sense to me.

visick

[mesquiton]

Some things to consider:

1. Adding live drafts at this late date would mean the Championship League doesn't start until after next year's cards come out, when interest in this Tour will vanish. Maybe a better idea for next year, along with starting the Tour a month or two sooner...?

2. Unless you mean something other than the standard serpentine live draft, draft order really doesn't give much overall advantage anyway...that's why it's serpentine. If you mean the top-ranked managers would pick first in every round, I think that would be an unjustifiable, unfair advantage.

3. Why are autodrafts "advantageous" to lower-ranked managers? Most of the Tour events were autodrafts. Presumably, top-ranked managers must also be the most skillful autodrafters. If not, they must have "earned" their ranking at least in part just by being lucky in all those autodrafts. In that case, why should they not face that same luck factor in the playoffs?

4. Relative rank among the playoff qualifiers is mostly due to luck. Everybody has proven themselves over 5-6 leagues, not just those at the very top...they've just been a little bit luckier. There are at least 2 recent Tour champs and a bunch of ex-finalists who won't even make the semifinals...they've been just a little bit un-luckier this year. If not for a dice roll or two along the way, the top-ranked managers might be the bottom ranked, or even out of the playoffs.

5. Each manager gets 35,000+ dice rolls in the course of the Tour. Just one roll can make a difference of 10 or 20 rungs in the rankings. (Typical example: I'm currently ranked 42nd. My lucky Event 6 team should put me in the top 20. A single dice roll in Event 4 could have won me another division title, and a likely finish in the top 10.) Doesn't make sense to me to give a big advantage to a manager in the playoffs just because of a lucky dice roll or two over the course of 6 events.

6. If top-ranked managers really think they got their ranking due to superior skill, then they should be more than satisfied with the HUGE advantage they must get by being seeded with only far "inferior" opponents in their division. Be not afraid, boys, surely your overwhelming talents will prevail against any luck those bottom-feeders can throw at you! :wink:

7. None of this really matters to me (this year), as I'll likely be in the middle of the playoff pack regardless, if I make it at all. But fun to note that managers lucky enough to rank high (this year) want to minimize luck in the playoffs to favor high-ranking managers (this year). Last year, the 1st place manager (surprise!) wanted to eliminate "luck" by eliminating the Championship League altogether... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[J-Pav]

[quote:751fcd3a89="mesquiton"]Some things to consider:

1. Adding live drafts at this late date would mean the Championship League doesn't start until after next year's cards come out, when interest in this Tour will vanish. Maybe a better idea for next year, along with starting the Tour a month or two sooner...?[/quote:751fcd3a89]

I don't think live drafts running concurrently would necessarily add more than a week, and interest will only vanish for the 24 teams eliminated. I wholeheartedly agree that the tour schedule needs to be adjusted. I recommended starting a new event every first of the month beginning with May 1 (or, last league done by Nov 30).

[quote:751fcd3a89="mesquiton"]2. Unless you mean something other than the standard serpentine live draft, draft order really doesn't give much overall advantage anyway...that's why it's serpentine. If you mean the top-ranked managers would pick first in every round, I think that would be an unjustifiable, unfair advantage.[/quote:751fcd3a89]

No, I mean serpentine, and I am not opposed to "drafting" your draft spot if people think it's inequitable to HAVE to pick first or second. That is, if the top guy wants to go sixth, he can go sixth.

[quote:751fcd3a89="mesquiton"]3. Why are autodrafts "advantageous" to lower-ranked managers? Most of the Tour events were autodrafts. Presumably, top-ranked managers must also be the most skillful autodrafters. If not, they must have "earned" their ranking at least in part just by being lucky in all those autodrafts. In that case, why should they not face that same luck factor in the playoffs?[/quote:751fcd3a89]

I'm arguing that earning it five times should not equal to earning it one time, that's all. So my opinion is, the guy that proved it most shouldn't be forced to win a coin toss against the guy who proved it the least. The top managers probably were not just "lucky" five times. But I think you'll agree that they can be unlucky [i:751fcd3a89]one[/i:751fcd3a89] time. That one time shouldn't be in a playoff situation after taking nine months to get there. I think the fairest way is to pick the players. Just one guy's opinion.

[quote:751fcd3a89="mesquiton"]4. Relative rank among the playoff qualifiers is mostly due to luck. Everybody has proven themselves over 5-6 leagues, not just those at the very top...they've just been a little bit luckier. There are at least 2 recent Tour champs and a bunch of ex-finalists who won't even make the semifinals...they've been just a little bit un-luckier this year. If not for a dice roll or two along the way, the top-ranked managers might be the bottom ranked, or even out of the playoffs.[/quote:751fcd3a89]
I agree and I don't. Leagues are close yes, and I think it's a mistake how we reward (what I think) are too many "bonus" points for making playoffs. An 89 win runner-up is punished too much for finishing second to a team that wins first place with 90 wins but automatically gets 100 tour points (and more). I think points should equate with [i:751fcd3a89]wins only[/i:751fcd3a89], to include playoff wins. Two 90 win finalists who go seven games get 97 and 96 points respectively. In my opinion, this is a truer measure of the teams comparative performance.

I totally disagree that the top 36 are separated by luck only. The game [i:751fcd3a89]is[/i:751fcd3a89] a "game of inches" so to speak, but so what? Olympic athletes are often separated by nothing more than thousandths of a second. Should we give 36 gold medals because the top 36 are only separated by luck?

I will say that this [i:751fcd3a89]might[/i:751fcd3a89] be true for the top twelve. That's why I'm personally not in agreement with this whole semi-final format. I think it's unfair to the top 12 (and this coming from a guy who finished 13th three years ago).

[quote:751fcd3a89="mesquiton"]5. Each manager gets 35,000+ dice rolls in the course of the Tour. Just one roll can make a difference of 10 or 20 rungs in the rankings. (Typical example: I'm currently ranked 42nd. My lucky Event 6 team should put me in the top 20. A single dice roll in Event 4 could have won me another division title, and a likely finish in the top 10.) Doesn't make sense to me to give a big advantage to a manager in the playoffs just because of a lucky dice roll or two over the course of 6 events.[/quote:751fcd3a89]

This happened to me as well. That's why I would argue to abolish "bonus" points as I explained earlier. I agree that one roll can be very costly. But there does have to be a line in the sand [i:751fcd3a89]somewhere[/i:751fcd3a89]. Just like one field goal can be costly, or one three foot putt. That, however, is what games of skill come down to sometimes.

To boot, I don't think the Top 36 in [i:751fcd3a89]any[/i:751fcd3a89] field are equal, whether it be golf or baseball. Our field is more akin to a golf field than just about anything else (minus Tiger Woods). There's parity to a degree, but #36 is not #2. So the argument can become "What would be the best criteria for a Tour Champ?" Top 12 in overall points plus a winner take all Live Draft in a championship round makes sense to me.

By your criteria, and we can both relate to the small margin thing, the greatest grievance would be to win 95 games and miss the playoffs because the division champ won 96 and the wildcard team won 96. Then, the two 96 win teams still have to prove it AGAIN in another champions league, where they are subject to the same "bad dice roll" thing [u:751fcd3a89]again[/u:751fcd3a89]!! Why bother playing for nine months then??? The more games there are, the more the outcome depends on luck. It's like the kid who keeps saying "best of three" then "best of five" then "best of seven" until he gets his way.

[quote:751fcd3a89="mesquiton"]6. If top-ranked managers really think they got their ranking due to superior skill, then they should be more than satisfied with the HUGE advantage they must get by being seeded with only far "inferior" opponents in their division. Be not afraid, boys, surely your overwhelming talents will prevail against any luck those bottom-feeders can throw at you! :wink: [/quote:751fcd3a89]

I get that you're poking fun, but I hope it's okay that I don't agree with how you use "huge" and "inferior" as both are exaggerating the real situation. And again, I go back to the five does not equal one thing. If I'm number one playing against number 36, he can get the best of me in any given autodraft. Why should he get that opportunity in the playoffs? Can't I as number one at least get a live draft opportunity so I can't say "geez, I averaged 96 tour points per event, but in the semis I got 10 of 25 in one [b:751fcd3a89][i:751fcd3a89]AUTODRAFT[/i:751fcd3a89][/b:751fcd3a89] and never had a chance to recover?"

[quote:751fcd3a89="mesquiton"]7. None of this really matters to me (this year), as I'll likely be in the middle of the playoff pack regardless, if I make it at all. But fun to note that managers lucky enough to rank high (this year) want to minimize luck in the playoffs to favor high-ranking managers (this year). Last year, the 1st place manager (surprise!) wanted to eliminate "luck" by eliminating the Championship League altogether... :lol: :lol: :lol:[/quote:751fcd3a89]

I remember [b:751fcd3a89]cristano[/b:751fcd3a89]'s argument and I didn't agree then and I don't agree now, although I sympathize to the extent that he did demonstrate skill that was unrewarded (I believe the Champions league was draft ordered by lottery and he was stuck with 12th pick, although he finished as one of the top two (?) teams. Still, it took Game Seven of the finals for [b:751fcd3a89]Hawg[/b:751fcd3a89] to eliminate him).

Me personally (I'm the one challenging the point here), I have never argued for anything but a Top 12 format. I am very disappointed in the "semis" format. But that is just one voice. I'm curious to see if anyone else besides us has an opinion.

[J-Pav]

Oh, and by the by...

the participation thing is a very real problem. I think the answer is that there should be a discount priced tour package where managers are required to buy six teams for some set price. Managers can refuse to compete after x number of events, but the package is "tour only" so they would be throwing away money by not participating.

Just one suggestion, and maybe there are others. I just don't happen to agree that the best thing for the tour is to give players who are not posting points an equal chance to compete with those who are, just so they'll remain "interested."

[Roscodog]

36 would make it easy to get the final 12, or top 28 with the top 4 getting a buy to the finals and the other 24 needing to make the playoff in the semi finals leagues.

[dadnsam]

I have a couple of thoughts

I think changing the format (or the number of teams qualifying for the playoffs) for the semi's should be off the table for [b:d73a2f6f09]this[/b:d73a2f6f09] [b:d73a2f6f09]year[/b:d73a2f6f09] since the format was established before the tourney began and to me changing the rules right before we head into the playoffs would be wrong. I realize this may sound self serving since I should finish somewhere in the mid teens (which is also right where I finished last year). However, I can honestly say that would be my opinion regardless of where I finished.

Personally, I would love to see all the playoffs and more tour events for that matter go to live drafts. I realize with the cumbursome nature of the live drafts I am in the minority on that one. But I have participated in 2 tours now and am 5 for 5 in making the playoffs in live draft events and 1 for 6 in auto drafts. Even so, I still think it would be wrong to change the semi's to a live draft at this point in time.

For next year though - I like having 36 teams move into a semi-final round. However, instead of having everything riding on the semi-final event - why not retabulate the total scores after the semi's to determine the final 12.

I also really like a couple of J-Pavs points. I agree that the playoff bonus points are too much and that adding a teams playoff wins to their total wins for a given event would be more reasonable. I also like his suggestion to create a Players Championship package that you would buy to help keep participation up in the later rounds.

Also for next year, although I personally woud love to see more live drafts, and have the semi's switch to a live draft, I can see how keeping a mixture of event types brings forth a champion that has the versatility to win in any and all formats.

[J-Pav]

[b:41bdb5344c]dadnsam[/b:41bdb5344c]:

Thanks for joining in.

The semifinals format was [b:41bdb5344c]NOT[/b:41bdb5344c] established at the start of the year. I believe it was added only recently to the tour page. That's why I'm raising an argument against it here. It was just left blank until [b:41bdb5344c]teepack[/b:41bdb5344c] (?) decided to go with an autodraft. I agree with you that if it were established before the start of the tour, we should leave it alone, but unless I'm mistaken, that is not the case.

Also, the "36 team" decision was also made mid-stream, with a sort of "let's wait and see" approach. I wish we would have decided something earlier and made it a little more definitive, but I too failed to raise the issue at any earlier time.