NationStates

Should tiebreak 3 be heard to head run difference instead of H2H runs for? If not, why did you use H2H runs for and H2H runs against but not H2H RD?

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:Should tiebreak 3 be heard to head run difference instead of H2H runs for? If not, why did you use H2H runs for and H2H runs against but not H2H RD?

Seconding this. Also, Saintland, why have you elected to use another puppet to host this?

Maklohi Vai wrote:

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:Should tiebreak 3 be heard to head run difference instead of H2H runs for? If not, why did you use H2H runs for and H2H runs against but not H2H RD?

Seconding this. Also, Saintland, why have you elected to use another puppet to host this?

IC reasons. Currently, Saintland is a warzone where Gregoryisgodistani and Republican troops are locked in the trenches shooting at each other on behalf of their ally within the royal family. I want to end it soon and RP a cease fire effectively making the two Saintlands permanent, but that hasn't happened yet.

Saintland wrote:

Maklohi Vai wrote:Seconding this. Also, Saintland, why have you elected to use another puppet to host this?

IC reasons. Currently, Saintland is a warzone where Gregoryisgodistani and Republican troops are locked in the trenches shooting at each other on behalf of their ally within the royal family. I want to end it soon and RP a cease fire effectively making the two Saintlands permanent, but that hasn't happened yet.

Ok, so that explains why Saintland or the Republic can't host, but why this puppet specifically?

Maklohi Vai wrote:

Saintland wrote:
IC reasons. Currently, Saintland is a warzone where Gregoryisgodistani and Republican troops are locked in the trenches shooting at each other on behalf of their ally within the royal family. I want to end it soon and RP a cease fire effectively making the two Saintlands permanent, but that hasn't happened yet.

Ok, so that explains why Saintland or the Republic can't host, but why this puppet specifically?

Currently, I'm either phasing out or have stopped using most of my other nations besides the 2 Saintlands and the FFR. I figured that the best choice of a puppet to bid with was the nation that I have major plans for going forward, rather than some nation that I'm not going to be using much going forward.

Ilyseum wrote:

Maklohi Vai wrote:Ok, so that explains why Saintland or the Republic can't host, but why this puppet specifically?

Currently, I'm either phasing out or have stopped using most of my other nations besides the 2 Saintlands and the FFR. I figured that the best choice of a puppet to bid with was the nation that I have major plans for going forward, rather than some nation that I'm not going to be using much going forward.

Alright, fair enough. You're a good host, so I have no OOC concerns with the bid beside the point Greg brought up.

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:Should tiebreak 3 be heard to head run difference instead of H2H runs for? If not, why did you use H2H runs for and H2H runs against but not H2H RD?

I chose to use H2H Runs for over H2H runs difference simply because I feel that the better offensive team should advance above the less offensive. The reason RD is next is that against all competitors (outside of group and in), balance matters. It really came down to what I valued more in each context. However, I have no quarrel changing it if people want that instead.

New Cape Land's newly established National Baseball team wishes to participate in this years World Baseball Classic

In

Frenline Delpha wrote:

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:Should tiebreak 3 be heard to head run difference instead of H2H runs for? If not, why did you use H2H runs for and H2H runs against but not H2H RD?

I chose to use H2H Runs for over H2H runs difference simply because I feel that the better offensive team should advance above the less offensive. The reason RD is next is that against all competitors (outside of group and in), balance matters. It really came down to what I valued more in each context. However, I have no quarrel changing it if people want that instead.

So a team that wins 10-9 deserves to advance over a team that won 9-0? That's questionable at best.

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:

Frenline Delpha wrote:I chose to use H2H Runs for over H2H runs difference simply because I feel that the better offensive team should advance above the less offensive. The reason RD is next is that against all competitors (outside of group and in), balance matters. It really came down to what I valued more in each context. However, I have no quarrel changing it if people want that instead.

So a team that wins 10-9 deserves to advance over a team that won 9-0? That's questionable at best.

That's a fair complaint. I can agree with your point.

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:

Frenline Delpha wrote:I chose to use H2H Runs for over H2H runs difference simply because I feel that the better offensive team should advance above the less offensive. The reason RD is next is that against all competitors (outside of group and in), balance matters. It really came down to what I valued more in each context. However, I have no quarrel changing it if people want that instead.

So a team that wins 10-9 deserves to advance over a team that won 9-0? That's questionable at best.

Actually, that's a bad example. If we were to use the tiebreakers as they originally were, we'll call the team that won 10-9 Team A, and the other team Team B.

So, the first tiebreakers is points. Since they both got the same amount of points, we move on to the second. They both have a record of 1-1 against each other, so on to the tiebreaker of contention. With H2H runs, Team B would win because they scored 18 runs to Team A 10. So, that was a bad example to use. If they were in different groups, the H2H tiebreakers would be completely null because they didn't play each other.

Frenline Delpha wrote:

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:
So a team that wins 10-9 deserves to advance over a team that won 9-0? That's questionable at best.

Actually, that's a bad example. If we were to use the tiebreakers as they originally were, we'll call the team that won 10-9 Team A, and the other team Team B.

So, the first tiebreakers is points. Since they both got the same amount of points, we move on to the second. They both have a record of 1-1 against each other, so on to the tiebreaker of contention. With H2H runs, Team B would win because they scored 18 runs to Team A 10. So, that was a bad example to use. If they were in different groups, the H2H tiebreakers would be completely null because they didn't play each other.

I see you've changed the bid, if I'm not mistaken?

Maklohi Vai wrote:

Frenline Delpha wrote:Actually, that's a bad example. If we were to use the tiebreakers as they originally were, we'll call the team that won 10-9 Team A, and the other team Team B.

So, the first tiebreakers is points. Since they both got the same amount of points, we move on to the second. They both have a record of 1-1 against each other, so on to the tiebreaker of contention. With H2H runs, Team B would win because they scored 18 runs to Team A 10. So, that was a bad example to use. If they were in different groups, the H2H tiebreakers would be completely null because they didn't play each other.

I see you've changed the bid, if I'm not mistaken?

I have. I just noticed this, though, so I thought I'd point it out.

Frenline Delpha wrote:

Maklohi Vai wrote:I see you've changed the bid, if I'm not mistaken?

I have. I just noticed this, though, so I thought I'd point it out.

Yup, no problem. And thanks for changing it.

Frenline Delpha wrote:

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:
So a team that wins 10-9 deserves to advance over a team that won 9-0? That's questionable at best.

Actually, that's a bad example. If we were to use the tiebreakers as they originally were, we'll call the team that won 10-9 Team A, and the other team Team B.

So, the first tiebreakers is points. Since they both got the same amount of points, we move on to the second. They both have a record of 1-1 against each other, so on to the tiebreaker of contention. With H2H runs, Team B would win because they scored 18 runs to Team A 10. So, that was a bad example to use. If they were in different groups, the H2H tiebreakers would be completely null because they didn't play each other.

I don't think you're using this example correctly. You're assuming the two games were against the same teams, like Team A 10-9 Team B, and Team B 9-0 Team A. I think what Greg implied was that the games were Team A 10-9 Team B, and Team C 9-0 Team D, questioning why Team A deserved it over Team C.

It doesn't matter though, since you've changed the bid.

Drawkland wrote:

Frenline Delpha wrote:Actually, that's a bad example. If we were to use the tiebreakers as they originally were, we'll call the team that won 10-9 Team A, and the other team Team B.

So, the first tiebreakers is points. Since they both got the same amount of points, we move on to the second. They both have a record of 1-1 against each other, so on to the tiebreaker of contention. With H2H runs, Team B would win because they scored 18 runs to Team A 10. So, that was a bad example to use. If they were in different groups, the H2H tiebreakers would be completely null because they didn't play each other.

I don't think you're using this example correctly. You're assuming the two games were against the same teams, like Team A 10-9 Team B, and Team B 9-0 Team A. I think what Greg implied was that the games were Team A 10-9 Team B, and Team C 9-0 Team D, questioning why Team A deserved it over Team C.

It doesn't matter though, since you've changed the bid.

I actually addressed that in the last part. I bolded it in this quote chain

Frenline Delpha wrote:

Drawkland wrote:I don't think you're using this example correctly. You're assuming the two games were against the same teams, like Team A 10-9 Team B, and Team B 9-0 Team A. I think what Greg implied was that the games were Team A 10-9 Team B, and Team C 9-0 Team D, questioning why Team A deserved it over Team C.

It doesn't matter though, since you've changed the bid.

I actually addressed that in the last part. I bolded it in this quote chain

Not necessarily, since groups have either 4 or 6 teams from your bid. Meaning that Team A and Team C could be in the same group without playing each other, as you assumed.

Drawkland wrote:

Frenline Delpha wrote:I actually addressed that in the last part. I bolded it in this quote chain

Not necessarily, since groups have either 4 or 6 teams from your bid. Meaning that Team A and Team C could be in the same group without playing each other, as you assumed.

What? It's multiple round robins. They will have to play each other.

Frenline Delpha wrote:

Drawkland wrote:Not necessarily, since groups have either 4 or 6 teams from your bid. Meaning that Team A and Team C could be in the same group without playing each other, as you assumed.

What? It's multiple round robins. They will have to play each other.

Sorry, I worded that incorrectly. I mean that there could be a situation where the 10-9 game and the 9-0 games could happen in the same group, but not between the same 2 teams, and be deciding on who advances past the group stage.

Drawkland wrote:

Frenline Delpha wrote:What? It's multiple round robins. They will have to play each other.

Sorry, I worded that incorrectly. I mean that there could be a situation where the 10-9 game and the 9-0 games could happen in the same group, but not between the same 2 teams, and be deciding on who advances past the group stage.

Still, that would only affect their non-H2H tiebreakers, of which RD is the first one.

Frenline Delpha wrote:

Drawkland wrote:Sorry, I worded that incorrectly. I mean that there could be a situation where the 10-9 game and the 9-0 games could happen in the same group, but not between the same 2 teams, and be deciding on who advances past the group stage.

Still, that would only affect their non-H2H tiebreakers, of which RD is the first one.

Ah, alright, I see now. Thanks for clearing up my mistake.

Drawkland wrote:

Frenline Delpha wrote:Still, that would only affect their non-H2H tiebreakers, of which RD is the first one.

Ah, alright, I see now. Thanks for clearing up my mistake.

No probs. Glad to clear up any confusion.

In a two way tie, it doesn't matter. It could in a three way tie though. Consider the following scenario (and yes, I know it's six Round robin not single, so imagine it happenig six times.)

Team A beats Team B 10-9 and loses to Team C 10-9. Their RD is 0, they have one H2H win and 19 RF.

Team B loses 10-9 to team A as mentioned above and beats Team C 9-0. Their RD is +8 and they have 18 RF. They have one H2H win.

Team C loses to team B 9-0 and beats team A 10-9. They also have one H2H win with a RD of -8.

They're tied on H2H wins since they all split, but team B had the best H2H RD of the three. Why shouldn't they go through over the other two?

Gregoryisgodistan wrote:In a two way tie, it doesn't matter. It could in a three way tie though. Consider the following scenario (and yes, I know it's six Round robin not single, so imagine it happenig six times.)

Team A beats Team B 10-9 and loses to Team C 10-9. Their RD is 0, they have one H2H win and 19 RF.

Team B loses 10-9 to team A as mentioned above and beats Team C 9-0. Their RD is +8 and they have 18 RF. They have one H2H win.

Team C loses to team B 9-0 and beats team A 10-9. They also have one H2H win with a RD of -8.

They're tied on H2H wins since they all split, but team B had the best H2H RD of the three. Why shouldn't they go through over the other two?

It's been changed Greg. I said I agreed with your point.