| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
ronicard
117 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2009 : 10:50:42
|
There's a question that has always been in the back of my mind and I can't come up with a logical explanation for it, so I thought I would throw it out to you guys because the general bank of knowledge on this board seems to be pretty good.
The question is: why is head-to-head thrown out as a tie-breaker by USSSA and USTBA when more than 2 teams are tied, coming out of pool play?
I have heard 2 arguments for it. One of them makes sense in a single instance, but the other one is completely illogical to me.
The 2 arguments I have heard are this:
1) Suppose the following circumstance. Teams A, B, C, and D in one pool. Team D ends up 0-2 but A, B, and C are all 1-1 with A having beaten B and B having beaten C and C having beaten A. In this situation and this one only, can I understand why head-to-head is not considered. You have 3 teams tied and there is no clear head-to-head favorite. This is therefore, the argument I endorse...but only for this one situation.
2) Suppose the following circumstance. Eight teams in one pool. Team A wins the pool at 2-0, but teams B, C, and D end up tied for second at 1-1. The only game that was played between B, C, and D was a game in which B pounds C by 5 runs but B's loss was a blowout to team A, where they lost by 15 runs. Through the current system at USSSA and USTBA, C would stand a great shot at being seeded higher than the team (B) which beat them pretty thoroughly. (I'm saying this, based on the 15 runs allowed and runs allowed is usually the next tie-breaker after head-to-head.)
This is the argument that is illogical to me and I cannot understand why this situation isn't taken into account. One supposition I can come up with for USSSA is that their seeding software isn't sophisticated enough to handle such a situation, so they take the easy way out and just throw out all head-to-heads when > 2 teams are involved. I don't think USTBA uses software for seeding (they might, but I am unaware of it if that is the case), but they may have just adopted the rule from USSSA.
Anyone have a better explanation of why I'm thinking wrong in sitatuion #2 above?
|
Edited by - ronicard on 05/21/2009 10:52:55 |
|
|
Hoyas Baseball
20 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2009 : 06:51:14
|
Don't exacly follow the second scenario all the way out. However, I think Head to head can be used in scenario #2!
You first look to head to head match ups between the three teams. Once identified that B beat C, C drops to third. You then look at the next tie breaker between B and D. The team wih the fewest runs allowed, runs scored, best run differential or whatever your #2 tie breaker is makes that team 2nd place. Once you eliminate a team from a tie breaker you don't go back to the tie breaker again and you don't include the eliminated team in future tie breakers.
But I agree this is definitely not the best way to determine who's seeded in the bracket. If the "tournament format" of choice by most hosts would go back to the "old" way it would be more of a non-issue. If every team in a pool competed against one another, we'd have clear cut seeding for a bracket.
I'm also a proponent of pool winners/placers crossing up in the bracket. For example Pool A #1 vs. Pool D #4 in the first round. IF you advance all participating teams to the bracket!! This is a better way to ensure the best teams play at the end, which is what a tournament's original "goal" is. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Old School
314 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2009 : 01:26:26
|
| Head to Head can only be used if ALL teams tied play each other. In your scenario 2, C would have to beat A, which makes it scenario 1. |
|
|
|
ronicard
117 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2009 : 11:52:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hoyas Baseball
Don't exacly follow the second scenario all the way out. However, I think Head to head can be used in scenario #2!
You first look to head to head match ups between the three teams. Once identified that B beat C, C drops to third. You then look at the next tie breaker between B and D. The team wih the fewest runs allowed, runs scored, best run differential or whatever your #2 tie breaker is makes that team 2nd place. Once you eliminate a team from a tie breaker you don't go back to the tie breaker again and you don't include the eliminated team in future tie breakers.
But I agree this is definitely not the best way to determine who's seeded in the bracket. If the "tournament format" of choice by most hosts would go back to the "old" way it would be more of a non-issue. If every team in a pool competed against one another, we'd have clear cut seeding for a bracket.
I'm also a proponent of pool winners/placers crossing up in the bracket. For example Pool A #1 vs. Pool D #4 in the first round. IF you advance all participating teams to the bracket!! This is a better way to ensure the best teams play at the end, which is what a tournament's original "goal" is.
I like that way too, Hoyas Baseball. However, in a 4 team pool, you still will usually only play 2 of the 3 teams in your pool, because most tournaments only play 2 pool games instead of 3.
Dr. Old School, I know that is the way it is NOW. I just don't understand why that is the case. It seems to me that if everyone didn't play everyone else, that's all the more reason why head-to-head should be considered. I know those 2 teams didn't play all the same teams necessarily, but when they played, they certainly established who should be the higher seed. At least that's my opinion.
To better explain it, I guess I could just sum it up this way:
If 3 teams are tied and 2 of those 3 teams played against each other, it makes sense to me that there should be no way that the loser of that game should be ranked higher than the winner of that game. |
|
|
|
Alter-Ego
802 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2009 : 13:41:05
|
Ron,
I think the Dr is trying to say, it is that way because that is "logically" the way it should be.
I have to agree with the Dr.. You are trying to apply one game to the ranking without regard for any other games that were played. It is like saying that in the college football polls, if an unranked team beats a #4 team, the unranked team should now be ranked higher than the #4 team they beat even though they have lost to 4 other unranked teams, and the #4 teams was undefeated until this game.
With that logic, you would have a hard time ever coming up with an agree ranking.
I understand your point because you are trying to just look at the two teams by themselves but what you can't answer with that tie breaker is how the third team will be ranked in regards to the others. At that point you have to move on to the next tie breaker that all three have in common.
That is why record is the first tie breaker. You don't want to have a 1-3 team ranked higher than a 3-1 team, even if the loss was to the 1-3 team.
It creates CHAOS!!!! 
I could follow your logic if you said to look at the common opponent that both teams played, and take that into consideration. |
|
|
|
ronicard
117 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2009 : 14:58:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alter-Ego
Ron,
I think the Dr is trying to say, it is that way because that is "logically" the way it should be.
I have to agree with the Dr.. You are trying to apply one game to the ranking without regard for any other games that were played. It is like saying that in the college football polls, if an unranked team beats a #4 team, the unranked team should now be ranked higher than the #4 team they beat even though they have lost to 4 other unranked teams, and the #4 teams was undefeated until this game.
With that logic, you would have a hard time ever coming up with an agree ranking.
I understand your point because you are trying to just look at the two teams by themselves but what you can't answer with that tie breaker is how the third team will be ranked in regards to the others. At that point you have to move on to the next tie breaker that all three have in common.
That is why record is the first tie breaker. You don't want to have a 1-3 team ranked higher than a 3-1 team, even if the loss was to the 1-3 team.
It creates CHAOS!!!!
I could follow your logic if you said to look at the common opponent that both teams played, and take that into consideration.
AlterEgo,
Thank you for the response. I will respectfully disagree, but I see your point.
Regarding the football analogy, I would have to point out that it is severely flawed. The scenario I'm describing is dealing with 2 games in a pool play that is attempting to put a ranking on something. Furthermore, if the unranked team has 4 losses, they won't be "tied" with the ranked team. In the scenario I'm describing, both teams would have to be tied for the head-to-head to come in.
To put an appropriate football analogy on it, however, look at the Texas - Oklahoma situation from this past year. The BCS voters voted Oklahoma above Texas at the end of the year, despite the fact that both teams only had 1 loss and Oklahoma's loss was to Texas by 10 points on a neutral field. I contended then and now that the situation was a travesty. You can NEVER convince me that Oklahoma was a better team than Texas. Why? Because they played a game. On a neutral field. And Texas beat them.
Perhaps I can give a better example:
Suppose Team A and Team B area both AAA teams. Team A beats Team B by 15 runs in a pool game but loses by 1 run to Team C, which happens to be the #1 ranked elite Major team in the country in their other pool play game. Team B goes on to beat the worst AA team in the southeast by 1 run. Meanwhile, there is a third team, Team D that also is 1-1, so we have 3 teams tied at 1-1. In this scenario, the fact that Team A killed Team B and fought the good fight against a team that should be superior to them is disregarded in the seedings and Team B might end up with a higher seeding.
I see the point of the lack of common opponents, but it just seems to me that Team A should have been rewarded for beating Team B and they won't be in the current environment.
|
|
|
|
Alter-Ego
802 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2009 : 23:04:48
|
| I guess I can't see how you rank A, B, and C, which are all 1-1, without using something that is common among them. If two play each other, it is easy to determine the order, but how do you rank the other team? Does it go above these two, below these two, or between them? |
|
|
|
bmoser
1633 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 08:32:59
|
After head-to-head, I'd use common opponents to complete the ranking.
quote:
Originally posted by Alter-Ego
I guess I can't see how you rank A, B, and C, which are all 1-1, without using something that is common among them. If two play each other, it is easy to determine the order, but how do you rank the other team? Does it go above these two, below these two, or between them?
|
|
|
|
ronicard
117 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 08:55:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alter-Ego
I guess I can't see how you rank A, B, and C, which are all 1-1, without using something that is common among them. If two play each other, it is easy to determine the order, but how do you rank the other team? Does it go above these two, below these two, or between them?
I agree. I know there's no perfect solution because many would disagree with my opinion. But, to my thinking, you would take the team that had lost the head-to-head and they would go to the bottom of the 3. Then, you would use the runs allowed and other tie breakers to settle who is #1 and #2 out of the tie. |
|
|
|
Alter-Ego
802 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2009 : 10:52:19
|
| But why wouldn't the other team be last and the team that lost the head-to-head be #2? That is where the difficulty comes in. How you incorporate in other teams. I agree with you that I hate to see a team that beat another team seeded lower because it seems to diminish the win but to have an overall view of the teams, for seeding, you need something they have in common, which is why record, runs allowed, runs scored, and differential are used. |
|
|
|
Hurricane
351 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2009 : 13:34:31
|
| I think Head to Head should be used over everything else if possible. I saw a team advance to bracket play in a tournament this past weekend-Rec Allstars, 3 teams were tied 2-1 record. Team A beat Team B, Team B beat Team C, Team C didnt play team A, Team C played a weaker team than Team B got for their second win, how can you let Team C who lost to team B advance in a tournament when team B already beat them? |
|
|
|
BREAMKING
323 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2009 : 15:45:54
|
| After reading these post I got a headache from all these letters. Brings me back to college math trying to follow all this stuff. lol. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Why not consider head-to-head?
