2nd Round Playoff Seeding

[Blue Jays GM (Stephen)]

This is a similar proposal from last year with a little difference. My main concern with my proposal last year was the fact that people should not be in a position where they are trying to intentionally lose to get in a worse playoff spot to have what is actually an easier road to the finals.  

Last Year's Proposal: baseknock.proboards.com/thread/8357/playoff-seeding

This year, I would like to tweak the proposal a little bit to only apply to the winners of wildcard weekend advancing to the 2nd round. The reason for this is that it seems like a disadvantage in the past 2 seasons to be the one seed over the two seed. The one seed should be rewarded with an easier matchup regardless of whether the other person won a division or not. This would also make sure that if the 3rd division winner is better than the 1st wild card, then the 1 seed is still rewarded with an easier matchup vs. just putting the 3 vs. 6 match up vs the 1 automatically.

Official Proposal for Poll above

The wild card weekend winners would be reseeded as 3 and 4 using the following parameters:

1. Overall Record
2. Division Winner?
3. Points Scored
4. Head to Head Record

Example based on standings as of 8/28/19

Seedings:
1. Col (14-2)
2. Mil (13-3)
3. Phi (12-4)
4. SF (14-2)
5. CHC (11-5)
6. Pit (11-5)

The first round would be as normal of 3 v. 6 and 4 v. 5. Let's say 3 and 4 win.

Under the new proposal, SF and PHI would be reseeded based on Record first which would put SF as the 3 seed in the 2nd round with Phi in the 4 seed to play Col.
1. Col (14-2)
2. Mil (13-3)
3. SF (14-2)
4. Phi (12-4)

1 v. 4 and 2 v. 3 would occur. This would result in Colorado (the one seed) playing the worst team (record wise) remaining in the playoffs), while not sacrificing the importance of the division winner getting an easier matchup in the first round.

Thoughts?

[Astros GM (Will)]

What if the 3 seed has more points scored than the 4 seed despite the worse record?

[Pirates GM (Max)]

Aug 4, 2019 18:46:39 GMT -5 Astros GM (Will) said:

What if the 3 seed has more points scored than the 4 seed despite the worse record?

Then they’re still a worse team? We ultimately determine everything here by record first after division winner so idk why that would change

[Blue Jays GM (Stephen)]

Astros GM (Will), this change is just to basically flip 1 and 2 of current rules in the 2nd round. Yes, your scenario could happen, but unfortunately record is king in this league over "points for" so a team with a better record is considered "the better team". Just ask Max. Typically , more PF correlates to a better record, so that scenario shouldn't happen too often I wouldn't think.

[Astros GM (Will)]

These would be teams in two different divisions though so if Seed 3 played in a tougher division than Seed 4 and scored more points then why are stripping them their advantage in the playoffs? I don’t think this is really solving any problems.

[D'backs GM (Kyle)]

Why have divisions? 🤷🏽‍♂️

[Blue Jays GM (Stephen)]

Points for doesn't tell the whole picture either though... if you have a couple of poor weeks but are generally good it can tank your PF if they are especially bad, so that is why I would use record over points. I would be ok with using "True Record" which would probably be the best metric, but that requires that being updated consistently, which you have this year, but I don't want to force anyone to do that work every year to do playoff seedings.

[Blue Jays GM (Stephen)]

Also, if I am being completely honest, if I was the commissioner of a major sports league I would have divisions and conferences for scheduling purposes only during the regular season. All top teams make the playoffs and have a huge bracket, but that is my preference. It drives me nuts to see teams get in over better teams because they were in a bad division or conference.

[Pirates GM (Max)]

Aug 4, 2019 19:21:15 GMT -5 Astros GM (Will) said:

These would be teams in two different divisions though so if Seed 3 played in a tougher division than Seed 4 and scored more points then why are stripping them their advantage in the playoffs? I don’t think this is really solving any problems.

What advantage are we stripping them of? It's just that in the second round, the best division winner (1 seed) is being prioritized. The NFL does it the same way, just with four divisions and two wild cards.

Essentially, we are keeping the integrity of divisions in tact by having the three division winners still be the top three seeds (two byes and the top seed of the first round games). Once we are in the second round, the #1 seed gains the advantage of playing the worse of the two teams who advanced from the first round. It's no longer about division winner or anything - now it is about giving the #1 seed the greatest advantage, because they deserve it. Fantasy baseball obviously has no home field advantage - right now, as Stephen lays out, there's a good chance the 1 seed is playing a team with a better record than the 2 seed is playing. It's not crazy to want to give the 1 seed some kind of tangible advantage at the one chance there is to provide it.

I also am not sure what your point is - I think you're saying that #3 seed (third div winner) may have a worse record but more PF in a better division than the #4 seed (best WC) - maybe I am misinterpreting, but you mention points so I'm not sure. If that is what you mean, then my rebuttal is that it is less about stripping the #3 seed of its advantage and more about giving the #1 seed its due advantage. The #3 seed got its advantage in the first round by getting to play the worst WC team; now, it is about giving the #1 seed the advantage.

[Astros GM (Will)]

I'm just trying to point out scenarios where this may have unintended consequences. I also think this is ultimately such a very minor change that doesn't actually make the league any better. It's just an extra rule that will force Alex to manually reseed the playoffs. He already works hard enough as it is.

Also, I think that Stephen is intentionally proposing this as his team would stand to directly be affected by it, thus why he is proposing it for this year. The Giants are used as an example instead of the Blue Jays - who are set to be the 4th seed with a better record than the 3 seed. This would line them up to play the 2-seed Red Sox, who in Week 17 just put up less than 200 points and made no meaningful upgrades to their team at the deadline. The proposal seems to be in a bit of bad faith, in my opinion and shouldn't be implemented til 2020 if it really is this popular of an idea. 

Playoffs should just be to score as many points as possible each week and it doesn't matter if you get bumped in the 2nd or 3rd Round, ultimately. You will end up playing good teams regardless. This is coming from a team who managed the 2018 Astros (388 pts in Rd 2) who got bounced by a higher scoring 5-seed (Cubs, 395 pts in Rd 2) in the 2nd Round instead of the lower-scoring Marlins (307 pts in Rd 2). Max of all people should be a proponent of this idea: just score more points than whoever you're playing that week. It's worked out great for you this season.

[Pirates GM (Max)]

Aug 5, 2019 1:50:49 GMT -5 Astros GM (Will) said:

I'm just trying to point out scenarios where this may have unintended consequences. I also think this is ultimately such a very minor change that doesn't actually make the league any better. It's just an extra rule that will force Alex to manually reseed the playoffs. He already works hard enough as it is.

Also, I think that Stephen is intentionally proposing this as his team would stand to directly be affected by it, thus why he is proposing it for this year. The Giants are used as an example instead of the Blue Jays - who are set to be the 4th seed with a better record than the 3 seed. This would line them up to play the 2-seed Red Sox, who in Week 17 just put up less than 200 points and made no meaningful upgrades to their team at the deadline. The proposal seems to be in a bit of bad faith, in my opinion and shouldn't be implemented til 2020 if it really is this popular of an idea. 

Playoffs should just be to score as many points as possible each week and it doesn't matter if you get bumped in the 2nd or 3rd Round, ultimately. You will end up playing good teams regardless. This is coming from a team who managed the 2018 Astros (388 pts in Rd 2) who got bounced by a higher scoring 5-seed (Cubs, 395 pts in Rd 2) in the 2nd Round instead of the lower-scoring Marlins (307 pts in Rd 2). Max of all people should be a proponent of this idea: just score more points than whoever you're playing that week. It's worked out great for you this season.

I didn’t realize the proposal was meant to be for this year - I do agree that there’s no way it should take effect now. However, I was the one who originally came up with the idea to make it apply to the second round only. Built off of Stephen’s idea from last year, but I suggested applying it to the 2nd round only - but certainly not for this season.

[Blue Jays GM (Stephen)]

No, this would be a next season rule change. That is how all rule changes are. Yes it happens to effect me this year, but I proposed a similar rule last offseason as well and I don’t care if it effects me or not going forward. I just think it shouldn’t be better to be a 2 seed than a 1 seed.

[Astros GM (Will)]

Okay got it, even so, swapping the 3 and 4 seed in the second round only in certain circumstances seems like such a small change... is it really even worth bothering over? The first seed already gets a bye, this helps out a potential 4-seed more than the 1-seed if anything, and the playoffs are already very volatile and random and this doesn’t seem like it’s a great solution.

I guess my leading objection is that this requires manual adjustment every year, which is probably something we should look to reduce rather than increase.

Like Kyle said, why even play head to head every week of the regular season? We can just do points roto until Week 20 then seed by points scored. Baseball scheduling is already built on randomness so might as well embrace it in the playoffs. The 1-seed already receives an immense advantage with the bye week as it is.

[Pirates GM (Max)]

Aug 5, 2019 13:58:06 GMT -5 Astros GM (Will) said:

Okay got it, even so, swapping the 3 and 4 seed in the second round only in certain circumstances seems like such a small change... is it really even worth bothering over? The first seed already gets a bye, this helps out a potential 4-seed more than the 1-seed if anything, and the playoffs are already very volatile and random and this doesn’t seem like it’s a great solution.

I guess my leading objection is that this requires manual adjustment every year, which is probably something we should look to reduce rather than increase.

Like Kyle said, why even play head to head every week of the regular season? We can just do points roto until Week 20 then seed by points scored. Baseball scheduling is already built on randomness so might as well embrace it in the playoffs. The 1-seed already receives an immense advantage with the bye week as it is.

Well the 1 and 2 seed are receiving the same advantage with the bye and in many scenarios, the 1 seed ends up facing a better team which is then giving the 2 seed the advantage over them. I don’t think we should be worried about disadvantaging the 4 seed when it’s in the name of providing the 1 seed with a true advantage over the rest of the field. Otherwise, as we have it now, the 1 and 2 seed are essentially equal and it’s dependent on how good the 3rd division winner is that determines who faces the worse of the two teams that win in the first round (if the 3 seed is better than the WCs and wins, then all is as it should be, but I don’t know if this is typically the case and it certainly is not this year in either league).

In regards to the manual adjustment, yes that is the biggest flaw I see. But it is a one time thing that legitimately takes no more than a minute to do. If Alex doesn’t want to do it, I’m sure someone else will - I’ll volunteer to do it if needed.