Originally posted by J Geoff:
If we did it they way I (the commish) have always done it, I think he'd (DM) win. You came up with the AVG tiebreaker, conveniently since you had a nice high AVG.
Excuse me, but it was absolutely and positively
YOU who said batting average was the tiebreaker.
Here…..
Starting the middle of page 6, on June 13th.
I know it’s a lot to read but I’d appreciate it if you would since it’s upsetting when you claim that I offered an opinion which was self-serving - i.e saying that batting average should be the tiebreaker - when
I repeatedly said that I didn’t care how you did it, just pick one way and stick to it Originally posted by plawrence:
One of you guys - JG or DM, anyway - refresh my memory if you can.
How does ESPN determine among the four of us who is in first, who is in second, etc.?
The reason I ask is 'cuz it would be helpful to know that - I think, anyway - in deciding which categories to concentrate on.
Originally posted by plawrence:
How have you been determining who the monthly winners have been? By however ESPN has us listed at the end of the month?
Originally posted by J Geoff:
Whoever had 2 (or 3) out of the 3 categories was declared winner
Originally posted by plawrence:
What if three different people each win one category?
Originally posted by J Geoff:
I haven't had a problem declaring a clear winner in all the months we've played over the years. At least no one's ever complained, so no sense in changing it now, especially mid-season. However, if a senario like that comes up in the future, I will default to ESPN...
Originally posted by plawrence:
So if someone wins two (or all three, obviously) out of the three categoties, then they're the winner?
That makes sense.
And if three different people each win one of the categories, then your'e gonna go by whatever ESPN says?
Which brings me back to my original question:
One of you guys - JG or DM, anyway - refresh my memory if you can.
How does ESPN determine among the four of us who is in first, who is in second, etc.?
Originally posted by J Geoff:
Most of the time we've had a clear winner -- someone winning 2 or 3 of the categories. I suppose we could work out a tie breaking system if we need it. So I'd be curious how ESPN determines their Triple Crown standings....
Originally posted by plawrence:
winning 2 out of 3 is fine for picking the winner.
If you want to say that the tiebreaker is batting average if we have three different winners, that's fine also.
Whatever you say.
But let's just decide now, so if and when it does happen it's clear to everyone what our rules are.
Originally posted by plawrence:
So whadda ya wanna do, Commish?
Originally posted by plawrence:
You still need to decide and post what the tiebreaker is if we have a different winner in each of the three categories.
You wanna use average, fine. Or homers or RBIs.....Whatever you like.
Just let us know, because it could make a difference in strategy, not to mention the avoiding of arguments if you make a decision after the fact.
Originally posted by J Geoff:
I guess AVG first, then HR, then RBI...
Good?
Originally posted by plawrence:
Whatever you say is fine with me, just so we know, although IMO a 4-3-2-1 system would be more accurate because it reflects how we are doing in relation to our entire group and takes into account all the categories.
However, as I say, whatever you wish is fine with me.
So, after it was clearly
you who decided that batting average was the tiebreaker, the conversation resumes on July 5th, page 8
Originally posted by plawrence:
But we’re still going by who wins the most categories to determine our winner, not the order that ESPN places us in, right?
And If three different people each win one category, the tiebreakers are Average, Home Runs, and then RBIs, in that order?
Originally posted by J Geoff:
Yeah, something like that... 
There you go, starting to waver…..
Originally posted by plawrence:
So, JG.....
If the month were over based on the totals so far, I'd be the winner, right?
Suppose I win in batting average, and someone else wins in RBIs, and we tie in home runs?
Do I win because average is the tiebreaker?
Originally posted by J Geoff:
I think 17 more RBI is worth more than .035 in BA... so no, probably not. But as I said, come 30/31 days into it, it hasn't been an issue (yet) after all these years...
Originally posted by plawrence:
Yeah, but one day it may be a problem.
How can we have a game without knowing what the basis for winning or breaking a tie is?
If it seems like I'm breaking balls, sorry, but this is silly.
I agree, 17 more RBIs is worth more than .035 in batting average.
So where do you want to draw the line? Suppose the differnce is greater in average, and less in RBIs? How much greater or less swings the balance to the other player?
When I ask if the season ended based on the stats I quoted and you say "no, [b]probably not", that doesn't strke you as a problem?
What you seemingly want to do is decide, subjectively once the month is over, who the winner is if nobody wins 2 out of the 3 categories.
I say that just like in any other game, it needs to be spelled out exactly so there are no arguments. [/b]
Originally posted by plawrence:
Like should I go strictly for an RBI guy now, or try to increase my lead in average, or go for homers, or what?
Just to be redundant here....
You said average would be the tiebreaker.
I lead in average, and I'm tied for the lead in homers.
DJ lead in RBIs, and is tied for the lead in homers.
So, in effect, we each lead in one category and are tied for the lead in another.
So if average is the tiebreaker, how would I not be the winner, since I lead in the tiebreaker category?
If you want to say that a lead of 17 RBIs is worth more than a lead of .035 in average, fine - I agree that it is - but then you're making RBIs the tiebreaker.
Where do you want to draw the line?
How about a 10 RBI lead vs. .050 in average?
How about a 5 RBI lead vs. .035 in average?
How about a 20 RBI lead vs. .100 in average?
How about any of the thousands of different possibilities?
Give us something definite to go on so it's not simply a judgement call on your part when the month is over.
Originally posted by J Geoff:
Let me give it some thought. The rest of the field could jump in w/ their ideas, too... but I gotta get ready for Bon Jovi Originally posted by plawrence:
We did that two weeks ago, and you decided that average would be the tiebreaker.
Now you're wavering....
Originally posted by plawrence:
Blah blah blah blah blah (more discussion about how ESPN does it)
As long as we're sticking to our method of deciding on our winner - win at least two out of the three categories, or if three different people win one each, then the tiebeaker is Batting Average.
That is how we're doing it, right?
JULY TOTALS
7/25 H/AB HR RBI AVG H/AB HR RBI AVG
DM Tejada 4/4 0 1 1.000 35/82 12 36 .427
PL ARamirez 2/4 1 3 .500 40/91 13 28 .440
DJ DNP -/- - - .--- 31/86 11 39 .360
JG ARamirez 2/4 1 3 .500 32/113 11 22 .283
AL ARamirez 2/4 1 3 .500 13/36 3 9 .361
Originally posted by plawrence:
So if the month were over, I'm the winner, right?
Originally posted by J Geoff:
(I really hope the winner is crystal clear this month, like every month in the past few years! 
)Originally posted by plawrence:
So if the month was over now, I'd be the winner, right?
Whoever wins 2 out of 3 categories, with average as the tiebreaker, right?
I agree, BTW, that margin of victory in a category should be weighted, and included.
Originally posted by J Geoff:
if you need to know, sure, we'll try your method this month - even tho it's never been a problem in the past... Originally posted by plawrence:
And no, we shouldn't try my method this month -- we've been playing the whole month under a certain set of assumptions.
Now you want to change the criteria with 6 days to go? 
You want to try it, let's try it next month.
AFAIC, this month should be what you said it was way back when:
The winner is whoever wins two out of the three categories.
If no one does, the tiebreaker is Batting Average. Originally posted by J Geoff:
[quote]Originally posted by plawrence:
[b]Now you want to change the criteria with 6 days to go? I never wanted, or have yet felt the need, to change the criteria. It's you (only) who's been bitching about it. But watch, I can see it now - THIS month will be the one that'll be questionable.
[/b][/quote]
Originally posted by plawrence:
I don't feel the need to change it either.
But DM raised some interesting points, last month and again this month, which I agreed with.
The problem is that when I first raised the subject last month because it seemed like it might be really close, and then again this month for the same reason, it seemed as though you started to equivocate and waver about exactly what the criteria for winning was.
AFAIC, the citeria for winning - which is what it always has been and which I have no real need to change (I was only suggesting alternate methods because you seemed unhappy with the method you were using, hence your equivocation, and I thought that altho the way we were doing it was OK, there might be a better way - and so did DM) - is as follows:
[b]Win two out of three categories. If no one wins two out of three, then the tiebreaker is Batting Average.
Just tell us for sure that that's the way we're doing it, and it's the last you'll hear from me on the subject.
Look at the race between me and DM this month.
If I know for sure that batting Average is the tiebreaker, I might sit out and force him to catch me .
He's at 35-82, .427.
I'm at 40-91, .440
If I play and go a simple 0-4, and he plays and goes a simple 2-4, DM passes me in batting Average, as I drop to .421 and he goes up to .430
But if I sit out, then he needs to go 6-10 or better to pass me.
What should I do? Play or not? It looks like it will be much harder for him to catch me if I don't play, right?
That's why I have to know for sure what the scoring system is.
Surely you can't think I'm being unreasonable here, can you? [/b]
Originally posted by plawrence:
Could you [b]please answer the question already, once and for all? [/b]
Originally posted by J Geoff:
OMG... after all that, this month we're doing it the way we've always done it. If a problem arises, then we'll think of something for the future.
Originally posted by plawrence:
I said this a bunch of times:
I don't care how we do it.
I suggested a way to weight the scores that I thought made sense and was fair. You have a different way you wanna do it, that's fine with me.
Just make a decision.
My only complaint is that after you said that for the month of July you were gonna continue to decide the winner based on the way we always had --
The winner is whoever wins two categories,
If no one wins two, then Batting Average is the tiebreaker --
You started to waver.
So I take all of that to mean that if no one wins two categories, the tiebreaker is batting average.
That’s why I sat out the night that I did – to protect my lead in batting average.
How can you say a day before the month ends and after saying twice the batting average is the tiebreaker, that now maybe you’ll pick the winner some other way?
I'll say this yet agian:
use any scoring system you like.
Keep doing it where the winner is whovever wins two categories, and pick a tiebreaker.
Use a 4-3-2-1 system.
Use a system that weights the totals.
I DON'T CARE.
Just pick something and stick to it,unless you want to change it at the beginning of the month.
But don;t tell me we were playing this month based on any other scenario but the first, or that it was me who said batting average should be the tiebreaker because I had the lead in that category.
