World Baseball Classic 52- Signups (CLOSED)

[Hannasea]

We sign up (puppets of QoD).

[Hannasea]

Ko-oren & Hannasea
WBC52 Bid

Scorination

Games will be scorinated with xkoranate using the NSFS formula. There will therefore be no style mods/park factors, and any impossible walk-off scores will be manually corrected with a note about the original output.

On current numbers, we will have 8 groups of 6. Even saying this will probably jinx us into experiencing a change from these numbers. If we go slightly over, Quintessence of Dust will withdraw, followed by asking puppets in reverse order of signup to withdraw; if we go slightly under, additional signups (including puppets) will be sought.

Teams play in double round robin format. Modern WBCs have tended to use 3 game series for each matchday, but we will revert to single games. (Meaning a group stage of 10 games, not 30.)

Scorination would occur daily, in clumps of 3 or 4, with an off-day scheduled approximately every 3rd or 4th day. This is preferable to stretching out a group stage with gaps every other day, or forcing a compressed schedule with no gaps. It would lead to a group stage about 2 weeks in length.

The tiebreakers would be sorted by record, then head to head record, then overall run differential, then head to head run differential. Ties still needing to be broken can be sorted by an IC coin flip, which can be an OOC game scorinated to a result. We will not use the RL WBC's wacky runs per defensive innings stat as a tiebreaker.

The top 16 would qualify for the playoffs, which will be single elimination (plus a 3PPO). Playoff series will be: 3 game series, scorinated as one MD, to the quarter-finals; 5 game series, scorinated 2 games on the first MD and deciding games on the second MD, at the semi-finals and 3PPO; 7 game series, scorinated 3 games on the first MD, up to 3 games on the second MD, and if needed a 7th decider on the third MD.

RP bonus

RP bonus will be non-degrading and applied on a scale that permits an unranked RPing team to reach a rank alongside that of a non-RPing Pot 1 side by the end of the group stage. Roster bonus will be worth up to 2 MDs' worth of RPing. Additionally, posting a roster is a requirement for a team's WBC ranking points to be used; any team not posting a roster will have their games scorinated as though they were unranked.

RP bonuses will not be public, but private feedback can be given if requested.

Experience

The user behind Ko-oren has recently co-hosted a Rugby World Cup, and before that successfully hosted a World Bowl, a T20 World Cup, a previous Rugby Union World Cup, and a Field Hockey World Cup, as well as being a co-host of a World Cup of (Ice) Hockey.

Hannasea has solo hosted a World Cup of Hockey and a Campionato Esportiva; the user behind said nation co-hosted World Baseball Classic 16, as well hosting various other tournaments, including the most recent World Bowl, scorination of which should be completed or nearly so by the time scorination of this tournament begins.

[Quebec and Shingoryeo]

As the most recent cohost to Mr. Ko-oren, I wholeheartedly endorse this bid.

Just one question though: Why Hannasea and not QoD?

[Hannasea]

I'm really burned out on RPing QoD tbh, and I'd like to develop Hannasea more now I have a shiny new map and exciting RP arcs afoot in the region. Plus QoD is not a very hospitable host: wintry climate, few baseball stadiums, set 150 years in the future which can be an immersion breaker for MT nations, etc. ICly, most of the QoD team over the last two WBCs have played their domestic baseball in Hannasea, which -- regardless of WBC participation -- is ICly meant to have a much stronger baseball infrastructure.

[Quebec and Shingoryeo]

Excellent. That explains everything.

This does not change my wholehearted endorsement of the bid. Good luck!

[Sarzonia]

Any reason for reverting to single matches as opposed to three-game series?

It's certainly not a deal breaker, but I am curious.

[Ko-oren]

Any reason for reverting to single matches as opposed to three-game series?

It's certainly not a deal breaker, but I am curious.

There are five reasons why we went with this bid:
OOC: 3-game series have become commonplace but that doesn't make it the one true format. There's merit in challenging the norm every so often.
OOC: 3 game series are not used in the RL WBC, Baseball World Cup, or Olympic baseball tournaments. We generally try to keep tournaments similar to their RL equivalents (e.g. 32 team World Cup, same Olympic sports).
IC: 3 game series may be the norm now but single game series have been used in many WBCs in the past. Those tournaments were frequently well RPed and produced deserving winners.
IC: With 30 games, national teams have to claim pitchers from clubs for a very long time which interferes with realism.
IC: With just 10 games, games 'matter more', giving users new RP angles and a new focus.

[Sarzonia]

Yeah, I think if I were a baseball team GM and a national team wanted my best pitcher or star player for what could be a couple of months, I would have a huge problem with that.

I know club teams in soccer have problems with it but the understanding is that national teams take priority. The same isn't true for other sports.

Again, I was curious about the rationale and that was my motivation for asking. I'm very happy with the answer.

[Hebitaka]

Let us play this one

[Super-Llamaland]

Thanks to Hannasea and Ko-oren for the bid - your stepping up is greatly appreciated, and I have a lot of trust in both of your hosting capacities.

Modern WBCs have tended to use 3 game series for each matchday, but we will revert to single games. (Meaning a group stage of 10 games, not 30.)

That being said, I'm concerned that keeping a relatively generous RP bonus and NSFS as opposed to SQIS, while both pretty standard for thirty-game group stages, will lead to significantly more random group stage results for a ten-game group stage. Is this something you're worried about, and are there steps you're considering to mitigate the impact?

[Cassadaigua]

As Llama points out, the reason for the longer schedule was because of the randomness of the scorinator. The formulas within the scorinator were created using MLB statistical win percentages, not "WBC" win percentages with USA against Afghanistan (example used because it'd be the equivalent of a Pot 1 vs Pot 6 matchup here). A longer campaign evens out that randomness. I share his concern.

I also don't understand, how if scorination occurs daily, "in clumps of 3 or 4", and a 10-game schedule, how the group stage lasts more then 3 or 4 days not the stated two weeks?

[The Sherpa Empire]

As Llama points out, the reason for the longer schedule was because of the randomness of the scorinator. The formulas within the scorinator were created using MLB statistical win percentages, not "WBC" win percentages with USA against Afghanistan (example used because it'd be the equivalent of a Pot 1 vs Pot 6 matchup here). A longer campaign evens out that randomness. I share his concern.

I also don't understand, how if scorination occurs daily, "in clumps of 3 or 4", and a 10-game schedule, how the group stage lasts more then 3 or 4 days not the stated two weeks?

I think the "clumps of 3 or 4" means the number of scorinations between off days. Like 3 days of scorinating, then a day off.

I am not on board with the single games, FWIW.

[Hannasea]

I'm not aware of any SQIS baseball scorinator. If you have one, send me a copy and I'll give it a test. Otherwise I'm satisfied that FFR's adjusted NSFS formula still gives ranked nations a hefty advantage over 10 games.

not "WBC" win percentages with USA against Afghanistan (example used because it'd be the equivalent of a Pot 1 vs Pot 6 matchup here).

Which is not a good comparison. Afghanistan has no realistic chance of building a competitive baseball team. They could compete at 52 WBCs and I wouldn't expect them to win a single game. Taking that attitude to NS would give new/unranked nations absolutely no chance of ever becoming competitive.

I cannot square a complaint that the scorinator is unrealistically random, with also wanting the inherently unrealistic nature of series-based group stages requiring either wacky travel schedules or huge demands on pitchers' arms.

I also don't understand, how if scorination occurs daily, "in clumps of 3 or 4", and a 10-game schedule, how the group stage lasts more then 3 or 4 days not the stated two weeks?

That was poorly expressed on my part but Sherpa's interpretation is correct. What I meant is, for example: MD1 on Monday, MD2 on Tuesday, MD3 on Wednesday, off day on Thursday, MD4 on Friday...

[Nova Anglicana]

I can't say that the three-game series for the Ro16 nor the 3-games per matchday for the finals, nor the 10-game group stage, is something I'm totally on board with.

Nevertheless, I do have confidence in Ko-oren and Graint to run a competent WBC. Perhaps it's a good thing, after several Classics in one direction, to evaluate how a change in format could affect things. The last time we did single-game group stages was probably in the 30s(?), and the NSS environment has changed since then. Might be a good idea to test a different format in order to see how it reacts to the modern era.

[Banija]

Both Ko-oren and Hannasea are very capable hosts, and I have no worries whatsoever about their ability to put together an excellent WBC. They've both put together multiple excellent tournaments in the past, and they will do so hopefully for a long time here on NS Sports.

However, I do have some serious concerns about the format. Both the 10 game group stage and the use of 3 game series in the knockout stages. After giving myself some time to think about it after my initial reaction this morning, and reading some of the defense of the logic from the hosts, I still feel the same way. I'll try to give a reasoned out response below to the logic presented above (and quoted below).

Any reason for reverting to single matches as opposed to three-game series?

It's certainly not a deal breaker, but I am curious.

There are five reasons why we went with this bid:
OOC: 3-game series have become commonplace but that doesn't make it the one true format. There's merit in challenging the norm every so often.
OOC: 3 game series are not used in the RL WBC, Baseball World Cup, or Olympic baseball tournaments. We generally try to keep tournaments similar to their RL equivalents (e.g. 32 team World Cup, same Olympic sports).
IC: 3 game series may be the norm now but single game series have been used in many WBCs in the past. Those tournaments were frequently well RPed and produced deserving winners.
IC: With 30 games, national teams have to claim pitchers from clubs for a very long time which interferes with realism.
IC: With just 10 games, games 'matter more', giving users new RP angles and a new focus.

OOC Point #1- This is indeed a good point in favor of the bid as written. I have no problems generally speaking with innovations that get us to think outside the box and challenge the way we do things, just because we've done them one way for a long time doesn't mean the occasional change/twist is bad for the sport.

OOC Point #2- I do have a problem with this one. I don't think it's necessarily true that we try to keep tournaments similar to their RL equivalents. We certainly do for the Olympics and the World Cup(which in fairness are the two biggest competitions in this subforum), but otherwise, we do not.

The major difference between RL and In-Game is that IG, the backbone of this subforum is international sports RPing. IRL, in baseball, the world's best 30 baseball teams all play in the same league(MLB), and the best players from all over the world want to play in Major League Baseball. It gives MLB, of course, a disproportionate amount of sway and power over how baseball works. Combine that with the general lack of prestige given to a WBC title(how many people talk about Jim Leyland's WBC title when talking about his legacy?) and the RL concerns about weather(can't play baseball in the snow), there are very good reasons a 30 game group stage wouldn't make sense even before talking about fatigue.

OOCly, a WBC in our multiverse, by and large, is worth far more than a domestic title ever would be. The WBC is the only competition where the clear and cut best baseball talent in the world is all playing against each other at the same time, whereas IRL that is only true with Major League Baseball. So it makes sense that because of those key differences, we structure this tournament differently than the RL World Baseball Classic(or Olympic baseball) would be structured.

IC Point #1- Again, mostly addressed with OOC Point #1, but logic that I am willing to accept.

IC Point #2- 30 games plus knockouts are a heavy gameload, potential of 50+ games for whomever wins the competition. However, I think the benefits of the 30 game group stage (aka slightly reducing the inherent randomnness of so few games with a sport as random as baseball) far outweigh this. The concern of domestic league fatigue because of heavy gameload is generally 'handwaved' in NS Sport, and I Think it's something that make sense. Not everyone's an iron man, but it's similar to the same reason we handwave things like geography and flying across the multiverse.

Again, I think the logic of international sports RPing being the foundational aspect of this forum outweighs the 'realism' aspect of clubs that mostly exist in the ether. Now, a few of us do RP domestic leagues (Ko-oren, South Newlandia, Cassadaigua come to mind), and many more of us have domestic leagues that exist in the background, but so much of NS Sport would break down if we ended up following the logic of less games because domestic club coaches would hate it. The IFAF is basically dead, but there's no way IRL you'd have a Gridiron World Cup with professionals. Talent imbalance aside, injury risk would never let it happen. But we run with the World Bowl and that's fine. We have a Cup of Harmony that exists as part of the World Cup cycle that likely wouldn't fly IRL for similar reason. But we run it because we value international sports RPing.

IC Point #3- I think you could go either way on this, but probably a matter of personal preference, so not much to say.

Anyways, for me, my objections right now carry the most weight for me personally regarding the bid. I would be much more encouraged about this bid if we adopted a more traditional format for the group stages (30 games- don't need to be straight up three game series) and the KO stages (best of 5 to best of 7 in the final).

[Super-Llamaland]

I'm not aware of any SQIS baseball scorinator. If you have one, send me a copy and I'll give it a test.

Sorry, I meant the Xkoranate baseball scorinator that was used in WBC31. It doesn't produce line scores, but it was much less random than NSFS and could maybe balance out a ten-game group stage more.

Otherwise I'm satisfied that FFR's adjusted NSFS formula still gives ranked nations a hefty advantage over 10 games.

I don't think we've had a ten-game group stage using the adjusted NSFS formula. Have you run tests of the formula for such a short group stage, and could you share the results with us? More generally, what was the thought process behind checking whether the formula could support a ten-game group stage?

[Hannasea]

OOCly, a WBC in our multiverse, by and large, is worth far more than a domestic title ever would be. The WBC is the only competition where the clear and cut best baseball talent in the world is all playing against each other at the same time, whereas IRL that is only true with Major League Baseball. So it makes sense that because of those key differences, we structure this tournament differently than the RL World Baseball Classic(or Olympic baseball) would be structured.

A human arm can only throw so many pitches, so hard, so many times. That basic limit is what the RL WBC and similar tournaments are structured around, nothing to do with prestige. Now, OK, in NS not all the arms are human, and those of Bardney might disagree, too, but we use a scorinator that aims to be essentially "realistic", and our format should reflect that.

IC Point #2- 30 games plus knockouts are a heavy gameload, potential of 50+ games for whomever wins the competition. However, I think the benefits of the 30 game group stage (aka slightly reducing the inherent randomnness of so few games with a sport as random as baseball) far outweigh this.

Which probably cuts to the core of the point. Repeated objections have been expressed about too much randomness, but randomness is far more intrinsic to baseball than it is to other sports. If a soccer team's center midfielder has a bad game but the rest of the team is still overwhelmingly superior to the opposition, they will still win, at the kind of 90%+ rate that's being advocated here. If a baseball team's pitcher has a bad game, then even if the rest of the team are strong fielders and hitters, they still have a higher chance of losing. Baseball is far more dependent on the performance of one individual -- and thus more prone to randomness.

Again, I think the logic of international sports RPing being the foundational aspect of this forum outweighs the 'realism' aspect of clubs that mostly exist in the ether. Now, a few of us do RP domestic leagues (Ko-oren, South Newlandia, Cassadaigua come to mind), and many more of us have domestic leagues that exist in the background, but so much of NS Sport would break down if we ended up following the logic of less games because domestic club coaches would hate it. The IFAF is basically dead, but there's no way IRL you'd have a Gridiron World Cup with professionals. Talent imbalance aside, injury risk would never let it happen. But we run with the World Bowl and that's fine. We have a Cup of Harmony that exists as part of the World Cup cycle that likely wouldn't fly IRL for similar reason. But we run it because we value international sports RPing.

That is a reasonable point. I don't disagree international gridiron makes little IC sense.

Anyways, for me, my objections right now carry the most weight for me personally regarding the bid. I would be much more encouraged about this bid if we adopted a more traditional format for the group stages (30 games- don't need to be straight up three game series) and the KO stages (best of 5 to best of 7 in the final).

Your appeal to tradition falls a little flat. As far as I'm concerned this is the traditional format.

---

I'm not aware of any SQIS baseball scorinator. If you have one, send me a copy and I'll give it a test.

Sorry, I meant the Xkoranate baseball scorinator that was used in WBC31. It doesn't produce line scores, but it was much less random than NSFS and could maybe balance out a ten-game group stage more.

I see. I'm not real familiar with that scorinator and I had a memory of it being disfavoured by the community for some reason so didn't consider using it. Having tested it, you're certainly right that it produces vastly less randomness! It's not clear to me this is desirable in a short group stage as it gives lower ranked sides almost no chance of progression.

I don't think we've had a ten-game group stage using the adjusted NSFS formula. Have you run tests of the formula for such a short group stage, and could you share the results with us?

Yes. I ran 120 tests of 10 groups of 6. If there's a way of coding this it's beyond my means so I had to do it manually which limited my sample size and forced me to compromise: instead of increasing maxpoints and RP bonus every day, as would be done in the tournament, I only increased maxpoints and RP bonus 4 times. The teams were:

A - high rank, earning 80% of max bonus every time
B - high rank, earning a minimal bonus, associated with rostering and RPing no further
C - medium rank, earning 80% of max bonus every time
D - medium rank, earning a minimal bonus, associated with rostering and RPing no further
E - unranked, earning 80% of max bonus every time
F- totally unranked

Over the 120 tests of 10 groups:

A achieved an average of 7.8 wins. A achieved an average position in the group of 1.4. A made the playoffs in 88% of groups.
F achieved an average of 1.1 wins. F achieved an average position in the group of 5.6. A made the playoffs in 4% of groups.
The average finishing position flipped B and C.

Of course, 120 is still a very small sample size, but I'm not motivated to undergo substantially larger testing because I in no way believe any numbers I could produce will convince anyone to actually change their position. :)

Which is fair enough because, in part, my attachment to single game series isn't statistical, it's emotional. I remember how excited I was when I won my game against Liventia in my second WBC. Having that accomplishment reduced to the statistical noise of winning one-third of a series would never have had the same impact.

More generally, what was the thought process behind checking whether the formula could support a ten-game group stage?

The measure of a successful tournament is whether it produces a good roleplaying environment. For all the hand-wringing over there being "too much roleplaying" in modern NSS, at least in WBC terms that does not hold up and -- with WBC50 something of an outlier for historic reasons -- there's ample evidence that older, single game tournaments were just as well RPed, often RPed to a much greater volume, than some modern tournaments featuring series. Amount of randomness was not the primary consideration in any case; the factors Ko-oren mentioned earlier were.

[Bahia Roja]

Sure

[Cassadaigua]

The host bidding deadline has been reached. Voting will commence in 24 hours to allow for discussion of the bid by Hannasea and Ko-oren.

[Super-Llamaland]

Those NSFS test numbers are actually pretty encouraging to me - definitely better than I was expecting. Before I vote, I'll probably have a dig through the late 20s and see if they were as bad as I remember from a randomness POV, because that could also be biasing my opinion on this.

This isn't a deal-breaker for me, but I am curious why the finals are being scored three games at a time, especially when the hosts have also provided the below as a reason not to score three games at a time in the group stage:

IC: With just 10 games, games 'matter more', giving users new RP angles and a new focus.

We've had some really fun, well-RPed final series in the past few years (including the GOAT WBC series in my opinion, the WBC41 finals against Newmanistan ), and I feel like if they had been scored three games at a time, a lot of the excitement would have been sucked out.

[Milchama]

One question and one comment:

1. Do I get a vote on the host? It's fine if not but I don't know how legacy WBC things work so I don't want to throw away a vote if I have it but also if I'm not eligible then it doesn't matter.

2. Historically, there was a big debate about 3 game v. 1 game series. The questions then are the questions now it's a question of randomness versus tradition (then 1 game series were traditional) versus interest. In the pre-WBC baseball world we did a three game series with 1 game everyday. That tournament took 2 WC cycles to compete and one of the main objections (really the most important objection_ was that length of tournament. It looks like people found a workaround with 3 games in 1 day which is good. The basic question is how much do we want the tournament random or not random. I'm perfectly fine with a somewhat random tournament because why not?

I also think some of the fun of the WBC in the earlier time was the randomness involved. The better teams usually wound up winning even with 1 game in the group stage etc. You can look at the history of the WBC and it's the same names; myself, Newmanistan, Cassadaigua etc even with one game series so it's not like these tournaments were completely random. Just wanted to give my 2 cents.

[Nova Anglicana]

I'm not aware of any SQIS baseball scorinator. If you have one, send me a copy and I'll give it a test.

Sorry, I meant the Xkoranate baseball scorinator that was used in WBC31. It doesn't produce line scores, but it was much less random than NSFS and could maybe balance out a ten-game group stage more.

Otherwise I'm satisfied that FFR's adjusted NSFS formula still gives ranked nations a hefty advantage over 10 games.

I don't think we've had a ten-game group stage using the adjusted NSFS formula. Have you run tests of the formula for such a short group stage, and could you share the results with us? More generally, what was the thought process behind checking whether the formula could support a ten-game group stage?

WBC 31 xkoranate scorinator was definitely less random, as #1 seed SLL didn't lose a game. I wouldn't recommend going back to that.

I echo what SLL has said about scorinating 3 finals games at once. I'd prefer 2 per MD.

[The Sherpa Empire]

One question and one comment:

1. Do I get a vote on the host? It's fine if not but I don't know how legacy WBC things work so I don't want to throw away a vote if I have it but also if I'm not eligible then it doesn't matter.

2. Historically, there was a big debate about 3 game v. 1 game series. The questions then are the questions now it's a question of randomness versus tradition (then 1 game series were traditional) versus interest. In the pre-WBC baseball world we did a three game series with 1 game everyday. That tournament took 2 WC cycles to compete and one of the main objections (really the most important objection_ was that length of tournament. It looks like people found a workaround with 3 games in 1 day which is good. The basic question is how much do we want the tournament random or not random. I'm perfectly fine with a somewhat random tournament because why not?

I also think some of the fun of the WBC in the earlier time was the randomness involved. The better teams usually wound up winning even with 1 game in the group stage etc. You can look at the history of the WBC and it's the same names; myself, Newmanistan, Cassadaigua etc even with one game series so it's not like these tournaments were completely random. Just wanted to give my 2 cents.

Here is the list of people that can vote: viewtopic.php?p=38697952#p38697952 -- so looks like you are not eligible.

But of course you can still share your thoughts.

[Venmere]

If you are still accepting signups, I'm definitely in.

[Eshialand]

I'm guess I'm in, because why not?