Team of the Century

[MilkSpiller22]

the problem with giving points per win is that it really is too based on strength of division... and it is a little bit irrelevant...

I just think all Division winners should be treated the same for this only because it is what we actually count...

We remember the division winners, but does anyone remember the Ranking of it??


Look at what flags teams post up... It really is only division wins, League championships, and WS championships...

 

[obxyankeefan]

your formula is too WS based


And my formula did include the regular season

5 points- Regular season division title
3 points for WC
***new rule*** 1 point for WC, 2 points for WC play in game
_________________________________

10 points for League Championship
25 points for WS win

I don't think i would put any points anywhere else...

I read that in your first post as Division series wins.

 

[obxyankeefan]

the problem with giving points per win is that it really is too based on strength of division... and it is a little bit irrelevant...

I just think all Division winners should be treated the same for this only because it is what we actually count...

We remember the division winners, but does anyone remember the Ranking of it??


Look at what flags teams post up... It really is only division wins, League championships, and WS championships...

The problem with not giving any thing to wins is the Mariners 90+ win seasons in 02 and 03 count the same as the Tigers 43 win season in 03. The amount you give to each is debatable, but there should be something to show the difference between the two.

 

[obxyankeefan]

Okay first column is my scoring rank, second is Milk's rank, the third is Cal's rank without individual awards and wins, the fourth is Cal's with wins, the fifth one is average.

01,01,01,01,01 Cardinals
03,03,03,02,02.75 Red Sox
04,02,02,03,02.75 Giants
02,04,04,04,03.5 Yankees
05,06,06,05,05.5 Angels
06,05,05,06,05.5 Phillies
13,07,07,08,08.75 Diamondbacks
11,09,09,07,09 White Sox
10,08,08,11,09.25 Tigers
07,10,15,09,10.25 Braves
08,14,12,10,11 Dodgers
12,11,11,13,11.75 Rangers
09,13,17,12,12.75 A's
15,15,10,14,13.5 Marlins
14,12,16,15,14.25 Twins
17,17,13,16,15.75 Astros
18,16,14,17,16.25 Rays
16,21,21,18,19 Indians
19,19,20,19,19.25 Cubs
25,18,18,20,20.25 Rockies
20,27,24,21,23 Mariners
22,22,26,23,23.25 Reds
24,25,22,24,23.75 Brewers
21,28,25,22,24 Mets
29,20,19,29,24.25 Royals
26,23,27,26,25.5 Padres
28,26,23,28,26.25 Orioles
27,24,28,27,26.5 Nationals
23,30,30,25,27 Blue Jays
30,29,29,30,29.5 Pirates

 

[calsnowskier]

I think 1 point for a reg season win is WAY too much. At most, I think 1/4 for a reg win, if anything at all.

I am also a fan of rewarding ROY, CY and MVP, MAYBE even Manager, but that award is kinda bunk, like GG.

1 pt for ROY
4 pt for CY
4 pt for MVP

1/2 pt for 163 loss
3 pt for div Title

1 pt for WC loss
3 pt for LDS loss
8 pt for LCS loss
20 pt for WS loss
50 pt for WS win

I think this may work. I would like to see how doing 1/4 for reg wins would affect it.

StL - 213
SF - 211
Bos - 183
NYY - 168

I did not calculate any other teams. These results pass the sniff test.

 

[StanMarsh51]

I think 1 point for a reg season win is WAY too much. At most, I think 1/4 for a reg win, if anything at all.

I am also a fan of rewarding ROY, CY and MVP, MAYBE even Manager, but that award is kinda bunk, like GG.

1 pt for ROY
4 pt for CY
4 pt for MVP

1/2 pt for 163 loss
3 pt for div Title

1 pt for WC loss
3 pt for LDS loss
8 pt for LCS loss
20 pt for WS loss
50 pt for WS win

I think this may work. I would like to see how doing 1/4 for reg wins would affect it.

That's way too many points you're giving individual awards (no way should an individual award be worth more than the team making the playoffs), but I really don't like the concept to begin with, as it in a sense hurts teams that might be well rounded but just not have that one MVP/Cy superstar.

 

[calsnowskier]

That's way too many points you're giving individual awards (no way should an individual award be worth more than the team making the playoffs), but I really don't like the concept to begin with, as it in a sense hurts teams that might be well rounded but just not have that one MVP/Cy superstar.

It is only more than a WC team that does not make it to the LCS. Div winners that lose the LDS take 6 points total.

 

[StanMarsh51]

It is only more than a WC team that does not make it to the LCS. Div winners that lose the LDS take 6 points total.

It's still way too much to have an individual award even count 2/3 as much as a team making the playoffs.

I mean, the '98 Yankees were one of the most well-rounded teams ever (led the league in both runs and ERA), but wouldn't get any "individual award points" using that point system as they were just so good at everything and didn't need to rely on an MVP caliber player. The 2012 Tigers by comparison who relied heavily on Cabrera to make the playoffs, get points for Cabrera's performance.

 

[calsnowskier]

It's still way too much to have an individual award even count 2/3 as much as an entire team making the playoffs.

I mean, the '98 Yankees were one of the most well-rounded teams ever (led the league in both runs and ERA), but wouldn't get any "individual award points" using that point system as they were just so good at everything and didn't need to rely on an MVP caliber player.

The 50 pts more than makes up for that.

By that same logic, is it fair that Seattle only earned 11 (16 with individual pts) points in '01? Why not award them 50 points just because they were so damned good?

 

[StanMarsh51]

The 50 pts more than makes up for that.

By that same logic, is it fair that Seattle only earned 11 points in '01? Why not award them 50 points just because they were so damned good?

The points system shouldn't be that you need to rely on something else to makeup for that.

Seattle should get more than 11 points in 2001...as I mentioned earlier, I believe that regular season wins should count somehow, whether it be assigning some point value to each win or giving points for each win over a certain amount (ie - every win over .500 or something).

 

[calsnowskier]

The points system shouldn't be that you need to rely on something else to makeup for that.

Seattle should get more than 11 points in 2001...as I mentioned earlier, I believe that regular season wins should count somehow, whether it be assigning some point value to each win or giving points for each win over a certain amount (ie - every win over .500 or something).

Seattle actually earned 16 using my method.

 

[calsnowskier]

The points system shouldn't be that you need to rely on something else to makeup for that.

Seattle should get more than 11 points in 2001...as I mentioned earlier, I believe that regular season wins should count somehow, whether it be assigning some point value to each win or giving points for each win over a certain amount (ie - every win over .500 or something).

Again, though, it is only more points than a WC team that loses in the LDS. A WC team that does nothing in the POs should not get any recognition, IMHO.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Seattle actually earned 16 using my method.

But if they had won the division with 85 and performed exactly the same as they actually did in the playoffs (lose in ALCS), your method would assign the same point value as it does to them winning 116 games. I think all those extra wins should count for something.

As someone pointed out earlier, the 2003 Tigers get the same point value (0) as a team that didn't make the playoffs and didn't have any award winners...but were those two teams the equivalent, particularly if the other team won 90 games for instance.

 

[StanMarsh51]

Again, though, it is only more points than a WC team that loses in the LDS. A WC team that does nothing in the POs should not get any recognition, IMHO.

But why should a team that has the MVP/Cy but doesn't make the playoffs get any recognition? Because of just one player (who may in some cases not have even been the best candidate)?

 

[calsnowskier]

But why should a team that has the MVP/Cy but doesn't make the playoffs get any recognition? Because of just one player (who may in some cases not have even been the best candidate)?

Because award winners are forever remembered and helps establish team images.

Seattle fans are still talking about RJ as one of their own, and he left before the '01 team.

 

[calsnowskier]

But if they had won the division with 85 and performed exactly the same as they actually did in the playoffs (lose in ALCS), your method would assign the same point value as it does to them winning 116 games. I think all those extra wins should count for something.

As someone pointed out earlier, the 2003 Tigers get the same point value (0) as a team that didn't make the playoffs and didn't have any award winners...but were those two teams the equivalent, particularly if the other team won 90 games for instance.

Team of the century is about making a difference. Not being a more effective road block to teams that made a difference.

If you did not make the playoffs, then GTFO.

 

[obxyankeefan]

Team of the century is about making a difference. Not being a more effective road block to teams that made a difference.

If you did not make the playoffs, then GTFO.

Team of the century should take into affect every season that team had, irregardless of weather they made the playoff or not. The Tigers should get points for making the WS twice, but they should also lose something for having the second worst season in MLB history.


If not just count the number of Titles and say that the Giants and Red Sox are tied as TOTC.

 

[calsnowskier]

Team of the century should take into affect every season that team had, irregardless of weather they made the playoff or not. The Tigers should get points for making the WS twice, but they should also lose something for having the second worst season in MLB history.


If not just count the number of Titles and say that the Giants and Red Sox are tied as TOTC.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

I couldn't care less if you finish in second in your division, one game out of the WC, or 47 games back of the 3rd Div champ in your league. You basically did not show up in either case.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Maybe do a negative 3 for last place in division...

But the problem with doing negatives is that the last place teams are not really recorded like the playoff teams... you would have to go through the standings year by year...

Its much easier to find out who made the playoffs, and sometimes simple is best....

 

[StanMarsh51]

Because award winners are forever remembered and helps establish team images.

Seattle fans are still talking about RJ as one of their own, and he left before the '01 team.

And people won't remember historically good and bad regular season teams forever? The 1906 Cubs, 1962 Mets, 1998 Yanks, 2001 M's aren't forgotten by any means for their regular seasons.

I get the feeling that you like the award winners and dislike giving any regular season points because both of those stances helps the Giants, no?