After my pithy comment in the last sim thread about expanding the playoffs, I've done a lot of thinking about how to improve the chances of all of the teams in the league. Short of getting rid of the divisions and making it a 12-team league, there isn't really a fair way to ensure that the best teams get into the postseason. If we did that, this is how the standings would look heading into the final week of the season:
- Seattle - 116 wins
- Brick - 97 wins
- Mepkin Abbey - 84 wins
- Appalachian - 81 wins
- Maui - 80 wins
- Antelope Valley - 77 wins (tie)
- Shackamaxon - 77 wins (tie)
- Houston - 75 wins
- Brooklyn - 64 wins
- Atlanta - 63 wins
- Highland - 59 wins
- Norfolk - 57 wins
So, under that criteria, the four teams that would make the postseason are Seattle, Brick, Mepkin Abbey, and Appalachian, with four teams on their tail heading into the final week: Maui, Antelope Valley, Shackamaxon, and Houston. That's eight teams, two-thirds of the league, with legitimate postseason hopes as the season winds down.
I see both an advantage and disadvantage to ditching the divisions. The advantage is since the schedule is already balanced, and each team plays a similar schedule (regardless of what division they're in), the divisions are purely ceremonial and arbitrary divisions of teams. The disadvantage is that divisions foster rivalries, and both the Zotti and Adams divisions have existed since the start of the league over 15 or so years of real-time play that we have had.
Should we keep the divisions as-is and add a second wild card team? That's probably the easiest fix, and would invite, in our current system, Appalachian in, but with the same teams on their tail heading into the final sim.
Or, should we think more radically and both expand the postseason and re-align the divisions? I've thought about that, too, and I think using natural rivalries and geography make some easy placements:
Zotti Division (aka, Eastern):
- Brick
- Brooklyn
- Shackamaxon
- Mepkin Abbey
Adams Division (aka Western):
- Seattle
- Maui
- Antelope Valley
- Appalachian
Signorino Division (aka Southern):
- Houston
- Norfolk
- Highland
- Atlanta
If we aligned this way and added a second wild card, the (expected ) division winners this year would be Brick, Seattle, and Houston, with Maui, Appalachian, and Antelope Valley in the new division of death with Seattle and in a good dogfight for the two wild card spots.
Here are the teams ranked by average number of wins over the past 10 seasons, 2020-2029. Of course, the 2029 season isn't complete yet, but the averages shouldn't shift that much:
- Seattle (115.1 wins)
- Brick (91.1 wins)
- Maui (88.2 wins)
- Shackamaxon (80.8 wins)
- Brooklyn (80.4 wins)
- Antelope Valley (79.3 wins)
- Appalachian (77.9 wins)
- Mepkin Abbey (75.4 wins)
- Norfolk (74.1 wins)
- Atlanta (69.4 wins)
- Houston (68.7 wins)
- Highland (67.5 wins)
Here's how a simple re-alignment would look by ranking the teams that way:
Adams Division:
- Seattle
- Antelope Valley
- Norfolk
- Highland
Zotti Division:
- Brick
- Brooklyn
- Mepkin Abbey
- Houston
Signorino Division:
- Maui
- Shackamaxon
- Appalachian
- Atlanta
Again, the division winners this year would be Seattle, Brick, and Maui, with Mepkin Abbey in wild card #1 spot, and Appalachian in wild card #2. Antelope Valley and Shackamaxon would both be in play for the postseason.
I think this is the fairest system. While I personally like the idea of the geographical divisions, as it would preserve my rivalry with Brick, I think this would open up the chances for more teams.
Or, we could have a draft! Seattle, Brick, and Maui would get to pick their division-mates in a snake draft. That might be fun to do.
As far as adding a second wild card, I think the consensus last time we talked about this was, if we were going to do it, have it be a play-in game or short series. I think a three-game (Home-Away-Home) series would be best. The winner of that series would be ranked #4 in the postseason tournament tree. A one-game winner-takes-all (like the current MLB system) is also an option.
What do you think?
Another radical idea is to realign the divisions every year, based on last year's win loss record. This is what my fantasy football league does - puts the worst 4 teams in one division to give everyone a chance. Or you could go the other way and put the worst 3 in with Seattle - giving teams an incentive to get better.
ReplyDeleteOr you can go random every year.
ReplyDeleteIn no particular order, here are my two cents.
ReplyDeleteI support a second wild card team.
I like divisions, and would prefer to keep them.
I support realignment, but don't care much as to how the divisions are constructed. If I had to pick, I'd choose to realign either randomly or based on recent records over geography, because geography is pretty artificial here and changes regularly with new owners.
Bill's idea about regular realignment is intriguing, but I defer to the commissioners on whether they're willing to accept that workload.
More data:
ReplyDeleteRankings over the last five seasons, with the ten-season rankings in parenthesis:
1. Seattle (1st)
2. Brick (2nd)
3. Mepkin Abbey (8th)
4. Antelope Valley (6th)
5. Maui (3rd)
6. Shackamaxon (4th)
7. Appalachian (7th)
8. Brooklyn (5th)
9. Atlanta (10th)
10. Norfolk (9th)
11. Houston (11th)
12. Highland (12th)
So, re-distributing the teams with this method gives us these divisions:
Adams: Seattle, Shackamaxon, Atlanta, Highland
Zotti: Brick, Maui, Brooklyn, Houston
Signorino: Mepkin Abbey, Antelope Valley, Appalachian, Norfolk
This season's playoff teams would be Seattle, Brick, Mepkin Abbey, and likely Appalachian and Maui. Again, this seems rather fair, so we can use either the 5 or 10 year records to determine re-alignment.
I'm not sure Bill's idea of putting the worst four teams in one division solves our problem at all; the reason we are discussing this is that the three-or-four best teams are often in the same division, so this would just flip the problem on its head.
As far as the overhead of changing the division alignment each season, while I can't speak for Zev, I don't have a problem with it as a commissioner.
I may be a little biased, but I think adding a 2nd wild card similar to the current MLB system makes the most sense. I'd probably lean towards a 3 game series over a single game, but I don't have feelings either way.
ReplyDeleteRegarding divisions, I have no strong feelings there either. Sure, I'd love to be in a weaker division, but all I (or anyone) really wants is a fighting chance at the playoffs, and I think the 2nd wild card does that without shaking things up too much.
Thinking about it some more, I don't feel strongly about it, but realignment every single season seems extreme. Maybe every three to five years?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I would vote for a one-game playoff between the two wild card teams. High drama and it cuts down on the time off for the other playoff teams. But a short series would be fine too, if that's what people wanted.
I think every year the team with the worst regular season record should get to draft one player or prospect of his choice from Seattle. Just because. :)
ReplyDeleteAs for the actual topics at hand, as stated earlier I fully support adding another wild card spot. I don't have a strong opinion about whether it should be a one-game playoff between wild card teams or a series, but if forced to choose I would probably lean toward a 3-game series.
I am also fine with realignment if the majority are in favor. I agree that geographic realignment doesn't really make sense in a fictional universe.
I know me and my cousin Thomas have been Mia for most of season due to our stream being broken, I think realignment would be good every 5 seasons and think maybe you go off ranking the last 10 seasons like Michael showed. We're still trying to fix game so good luck in playoffs.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, here's my two cents.
ReplyDeleteDivision alignment:
In theory, I don't have a problem with reshuffling the divisions every now and again. In practice, I have not tested it out and while I don't think it would break anything, I'd like to give it a test or two before deciding to go ahead.
As for the mechanics of it, I have two thoughts on the matter.
1. My preference is for no human involvement. I'd rather have it be random or based on some formula.
2. If we're going to base the realignment on win-loss records, I would rather have it not be based on simply the previous season. There are too many things that can drastically change a team's record over the course of one season. In addition, it would remove a potential incentive for a team to tank once they see the playoffs are out of reach.
Playoff expansion:
I am not a big fan of the idea of playoff expansion. As things stand, 33% of the teams make it to the playoffs. I think that's on the high side of acceptable - I don't really relish the idea of making it higher. However, as with all things before this, if enough of you want it, I'm certainly willing to put it to a vote.
Zev
Hi congratulations to the division winners...in looking at the responses to making changes and believe that changing the alignment will be a good thing...I like the last one you suggested in the blog Michael and think you could switch with Maui to be in the same division as me....on the other subject i think a extra wild card is fine but a three game series is most fair . sorry i didn't write response sooner but was quite busy
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised no one else liked my idea of a schoolyard draft. But, using random or historical-win-based selection of the new divisions is fine.
ReplyDeleteWith the final sim of the season in the books, the updated ten-year win rankings are:
1. Seattle - 115.7 wins/year
2. Brick - 91.5 wins/year
3. Maui - 88.8 wins/year
4. Shackamaxon - 81.2 wins/year
5. Brooklyn - 80.5 wins/year
6. Antelope Valley - 79.8 wins/year
7. Appalachian - 78.2 wins/year
8. Mepkin Abbey - 75.7 wins/year
9. Norfolk - 74.3 wins/year
10. Atlanta - 69.5 wins/year
11. Houston - 69 wins/year
12. Highland - 69.9 wins/year
All four of the Zotti Division teams finished in the top-7 in wins (with three of the four in the top-4). Only four of the twelve teams, total, have a greater than .500 winning percentage over the last decade.
The league is heavily imbalanced, and we really should fix it. Having more teams in the playoff hunt increases engagement, and adds excitement to the final sims of the season. It happened to be that this season, the top four teams all made the playoffs, but that's not always the case. Here are some examples from the 2020s:
2020 -- Ohio (now Appalachian) wins 101 games and doesn't make the playoffs. Hickory (now Highland) wins the Adams division with a losing record. Zotti's fourth place team, Shackamaxon, finished with two more wins than Hickory, and Houston, second in their division, had three more wins.
2021 -- New York (now Norfolk) won 91 games and missed out on the wild card, but Brooklyn won their division with 87 games.
2022 -- Top four teams all made the playoffs. 90 win Barstow (now Brick) just misses out on the Wild Card.
2023 -- A non-Zotti division team (Hickory) wins the Wild Card. This is the only time this has happened in the 2020s.
2024 -- Top four teams all made the playoffs.
2025 -- Brick finishes with 84 wins, good enough to finish third in the Zotti division, while 82 win Brooklyn won the Adams.
2026 -- Top four teams all made the playoffs. The two-non playoff teams in the Zotti Division finished with 87 and 81 wins. Only one other non-playoff team had more than 81 wins.
2027 -- Top four teams all made the playoffs.
2028 -- Top four teams all made the playoffs, but 95 win Antelope Valley just missed out on the Signorino division (2GB) and Wild Card (1GB). In order to pump up 5 teams with win more than 95 wins, four teams lose 100 games.
A short one or three-game Wild Card round wouldn't really upset the order of the game (especially since the Wild Card winner is likely to get steamrolled by Seattle), but would increase the chances for many teams.