Tiebreaker System

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Since it came up, I wanted to lay out my thoughts on our tiebreaker. Herenow, my thoughts:

We had a discussion about this over the offseason, and decided to simplify it to the system we have now. Under this system, ties are possible. That is fine as far as I am concerned, even though ties are impossible in actual baseball, All-Star Games excepted. This is because baseball games do not end until the tie is broken. They go into extra innings. As much as we strive for realism here, this is not an option we have. We are playing a set week, and the only way to extend a matchup would be to manually add additional days into the previous week's score until the tie is broken, which would be problematic for a number of reasons, double-counting among them. Therefore, we implemented a single tiebreaker. We could have more options, but all that would be doing is introducing what would essentially be random category grabs into the system, and if you've had a matchup good enough to go to a second tiebreaker, it's hard to picture something more frustrating than losing in the end because we chose to have our second tiebreaker be OPS/WHIP instead of BA. So the decision was made to accept regular season ties in those situations. I stand by it. Post away with thoughts.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

There definately is an option here, ties have been broken in tons of leagues for decades. You don't have to add days to the end of the week like extra innings, thats just amazing that example would even be thought of.

Creating a statistical tie breaker to encourge teams to be balanced isn't the purpose of a tie breaker. A tie breaker is to not allow ties, that simple.
There are plenty of other ways to encourage or discourage balance

This is about a tie breaker and too much overthinking of it. A team can't win it outright, let them complain about the simplicity of the tie breaker. (like blaming a kicker for the loss in football at the end of the game, screw the other 59 min) just pick one that actually breaks tie games and call it a day

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

I really don't see a problem with regular season ties when teams end in such grid lock. What's the big deal?

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

Happy with the Home Team being awarded the win in the case of a tie-breaker, if we need to break a tie at all.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Apr 8, 2014 5:21:16 GMT -8 Rays GM (Donavan) said:

Happy with the Home Team being awarded the win in the case of a tie-breaker, if we need to break a tie at all.

Really really really anti this idea. "Home team" is completely random.

[Padres GM (Amy)]

I'm good with there being ties in regular season, but whats the plan in such a case in postseason?

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Apr 8, 2014 4:56:14 GMT -8 Nationals GM (Preston - Old) said:

I really don't see a problem with regular season ties when teams end in such grid lock. What's the big deal?

Fine, if you want ties thats ok, then at least don't waste time by even having a Tie breaker....if it ends in a tie, leave it a tie while it uses all the stats....don't make up some BS and call it a tie breaker that "creates balance"..using less stats than the orginal tie and you can end up tied again.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

The four pronged tiebreaker is perfectly reasonable. If that tie between four variables is still not broken, then those teams were equal. End of story.

Also this shouldn't be an issue now. We made the rule in the offseason. It's cut and dry. In the playoffs, the winner is the higher seed. The chances of a tie and then a tie of the tiebreaker is really unlikely, even if it did happen this week.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Apr 8, 2014 5:47:27 GMT -8 Nationals GM (Preston - Old) said:

The four pronged tiebreaker is perfectly reasonable. If that tie between four variables is still not broken, then those teams were equal. End of story.

Also this shouldn't be an issue now. We made the rule in the offseason. It's cut and dry. In the playoffs, the winner is the higher seed. The chances of a tie and then a tie of the tiebreaker is really unlikely, even if it did happen this week.

Completely agree.

After a tie in 12 categories, a more narrow focus can help delineate the true nature of any contest. It is the base logic for sudden death in RL sports. In arenas such as politics, many jurisdictions have legal thresholds for recounts. If it is close, then recount. Some places even have thresholds for statistical 'ties' that trigger a special election. A "fifth variable" introduced to completely ward off the unlikely event of a tie would have to be completely random. As in a flip of the coin. Which gets me to a final point:

Why are people arguing in favor of an inequitable tiebreaker? The Cubs have 7 Away weeks and 14 Home weeks. You guys really itching to hand over an advantage like that?

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Misguiding is calling something a tie breaker that doesn't break ties.

Misguiding is saying that using 4 categories creates better balance in the league when there are 12 categories that do that already.

Misguiding is saying that a rule is cut and dry when it already presented an issue in its 1st week of application.

Misguiding is saying it won't be an issue now but doing the same thing.

Fantasy baseball has been around for over 20 years and somehow leagues everywhere don't have ties. You keep the current tie breaker rule, you will have ties and you will keep adjusting it to try and break ties til one day you have had enough and will just pick something that actually breaks ties every time. Did it, done it, seen it done and it always ends up the same place. Everyone thinks they have created the ultimate tie breaker but if it doesn't break ties its just alot of fluff, waste of time and creates issues more than its worth.

way, way too much overthinking a tie breaker that doesn't accomplish its goal of breaking ties.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

One thing I just noted for the actual tiebreaker for this year in the rules as written. True ties remain ties in the regular season. However, in the playoffs the higher seed advances.
In the championship game it is possible for two #1 seeds (or #2, #3, etc..) to meet in for the final game. In that case we do not have an actual tie-break to go to.

This needs to be fixed now.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

great point Twins and great catch before it happens.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

That's the only issue with the system as far as I'm concerned.

Something such as record could be the next tiebreaker (if they didn't play head to head), then maybe something such as total roto points, but that would suck if a championship ever came down to this (and it won't).

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

If a true coin flip type Home/Away tie-break is unacceptable, I would suggest a 1 category tie-break with as little possibility for continued ties as can be managed.

1) Either ERA or WHIP for the first tiebreak. Elite pitching in real baseball is probably more valuable than elite hitting. These stats are also the best indicators of overall pitching quality. I would favor WHIP, but whatever. Much MORE importantly they have 3 significant figures to reduce the probability of continued ties. W, H, SV, K have only 1 or at most 2 significant figures and for that reason absolutely should NOT be used, regardless of how important to real baseball they may or may not be. Only one category (ERA or WHIP) should be used for first tie-break. If you use both, you again reduce the number of possibilities dramatically.

The better team in this one category wins. It's a tie break, we've gotta have something that will do the job.

2) If the tie astonishingly continues then a similar hitting category, AVG or OPS should be used. I'd say OPS, but again who really cares. Crucially, we should NOT use HR, SB, R, or RBI again because there is a much smaller range of outcomes involved and so more likely continued ties.

2 more tie-breaks are there if necessary.

3) To be thorough, we then go back to the unused pitching category ERA or WHIP

4) And finally, ridiculously unlikely the 4th tie-breaker unused earlier AVG or OPS.

Next year, I'd be happy using this system during the regular season, too. Again, if the Home/Away thing proves unacceptable.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

I'll jump back in here by asking why tiebreakers are even necessary. Ties simply count as .5 wins and .5 losses for the standings, and are an accurate reflection of what happened that week. What is wrong with that?

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

In my conversations with the CO, I now realize that my understanding of the tiebreaker was incorrect. I assumed tiebreak still went by category not by total points. Regular scoring is done by winning categories, 12pts possible. So if you won HR that was 1 category hence 1 point for tiebreak.

Hence my frustration. This is clearly bad.

I now understand that we sum the total points in those categories and compare those two final numbers. The team with the highest total wins. This is better and will result in much fewer though likely still some ties. That said, I don't think this is spelled out anywhere clearly. My assumption was consistent with all other scoring, so I've asked the CO to state this more clearly in the tiebreak rules.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

And I believe all the rules have been edited. If I missed one, let me know.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

After reading the Tie Breaker rule.

1) still the Twins point on the championship game possibly ending in a tie holds true? 2 of the same seeds can meet in the game, is there a idea, plan to cover it, swear after this much discussion we increased the odds of a tie actually happening now.

2) noticed the last tie breaker rule was Wins...no wonder everyone stockpiled SPs.....