CHOOSING TEAMS, CAPTAINS AND PITCHERS
Our practice is for Havelock (or, in his absence, other league officials) to make up two even teams. The results, over the years, have ranged from very successful (in 2010 almost 70% of our games ended with a 3-run or less difference) to modestly successful (above 50% within 3 runs). Opposed to a choosing-up process the system has several advantages...1) Since the aim of the chooser-uppers is to get the best team possible, it is quite likely that one chooser will outmanuever the other...2) When Havelock makes up the team, he makes sure to have the two best shortstops on opposite teams, a quality centerfielder for each team, etc. so that the overall quality of the game is as consistent as possible, 3) Havelock makes sure that if one team has a liability it is adjusted for with more high quality players on that roster...4) we get about 15 minutes more playing time by not having a choosing-up process.
For the last few years we have had captain/managers for each team. His duties have been 1) To make a batting order, 2)Assign positions and substitutions 3)Make sure an umpire is in place when his team bats, 4)Settle any disagreements with the opposing captain, 4)Make decision as to late-coming players entering the game (when there are an odd-number of players the team with less players gets the new one. when teams have an equal number of players, the team trailing at the end of an inning gets the choice of taking the new player or giving him to the other team),and 5)negotiate any trades to make the teams more even if the first game did not finish within 3-runs.
Most players do not want to take on the responsibility of being captain, so, in practice, it has turned out that about eight guys take turns.
The captain chooses a different pitcher for each game from among those players who regularly pitch. I have heard criticism of this approach, mostly from pitchers. Some desire a rotation of pitchers, others would like to engineer match-ups that are more even (say two sub-5 era pitchers going in game one and two higher-than 5 era pitchers going in game two). The results of leaving it to the captains has been more close games and a more even spread of innings pitched than when havelock used to assign pitchers.
Some time is lost between games when, after a lopsided game, captains have to come to an agreement on a trade. My suggestion is to give the captains a strict 5-minutes to do this, after which Havelock (or, in his absence, another league official) will impose a trade.
Please feel free to comment if you have a suggestion to improve these practices or if you feel we have hit on a successful way of choosing teams, etc.
16 comments:
the first thing we need to do is to find a commissioner
The teams have to be chosen this way because of our time constraints. I don't think you can argue that point. In the rare absence of Havelock, I choose up teams with another player, but I don't think we could do that every week at Heckscher and finish the second game by 11. And the games are usually close.
As for the pitching, I haven't seen much change in the distribution of innings due to the managers now choosing pitchers. The only difference is that it is easier for a non-regular pitcher to get a start. I have pitched fewer innings the last 2 seasons because I usually prefer to play the field. Same with Derek. What surprises me is that Freddie and Zach have become the #2 and #3 pitchers. Freddie wins a lot, so I suppose that's why, but I wonder how much longer we'll see guys who are well-above-average defenders on the mound. I think this trend will reverse itself, and when it does, the distribution of innings will be less of a problem.
I barely noticed this in the long post, but I am extremely opposed to anyone imposing a trade on the captains. If no trade can be made in 5 minutes, there will be no trade.
If we don't impose a trade the team which dominated the first game can just refuse to make a trade. Then we'll have two lopsided games.
I had this idea a while back:
What if we assign point values to every player.
The range would be +1, 0, and -1.
Then when choosing up teams, we make sure both sides are as equal as possible.
How would we assign these values?
Well after reading Ians ridiculous article about NBA draft picks, we could knight him as Statistician of the Round, and ask him to devise some ridiculous equation
OR
We could do it by ( early on in the season) lifetime batting average, and (if we wanted to) as the season progresses change it to the seasons batting average.
But how?
Well, lets say players with BA of .400 or above are +1
Players with BA btw. .300 and .400 are 0
Players under .300 are -1.
Now please, don't slay me, this is just a basic idea.
Havelock would still choose the teams, account for pitching and defense, but at the end of the day, both teams would know, "hey we tried to make it fair"
Using the 20 players with the most At Bats from last season, @ 2:30 am, on the fly I will proceed to try and make fair teams.
The Loonies
Ian Parfrey + 1
Zach Nilva +1
Havelock Hewes -1
Sam Melendez+1
Gil Schmerler-1
Jim O' Connor-1
Bill McLaughlin+1
Josh Balsam -1
Matt Mishkin+1
Ray Hernandez+1 (sober)(actually drunk)
Total Points=2
Vs.
The Goonies
Alex Rivera+1
Freddie Melendez+1
Eric Schulman+1
Marvin Cohen-1
Fred Lang-1
Derek Martinez+1
Mike Sulyman 0
Tony Connor 0
Chris Hall+1
Jeff Appell-1
Total points=2
With the exception of having to trade Matt from the Goonies for Mike to get the teams to add up, these are the teams I came up with.
That is, in more words than it's worth, my proposal.
-Cid "Alex" (Rivera)
I've often thought about a point system (though mine would be calibrated from 1 to 16). It would be useful, if for no other reason, to defend myself. I've had a number of games when, after team A beat team B by a ten run margin people claimed that the teams were unfair and I was able to prove that the average batting averages, OBP and slugging averages were within a few points of each other.
The point system must also take into consideration defense. As Tony Connor said to me, "I don't give a damn if someone can hit, I just want them to catch the ball." To argue Tony's point, I took your group of players and divided them "equally" by offense, but team A is the team which would win 9 out of 10 games...
Winners
Connor 0
Melendez, F. +1
Parfrey +1
Schmerler -1
Rivera +1
Sullyman 0
Appell -1
Hewes -1
Mishkin +1
Martinez +1
+2
Losers
Nilva +1
Cohen -1
Lang -1
Melendez, S. +1
O'Connor -1
McLaughlin +1
Schulman +1
Hernandez +1
Hall +1
Balsam -1
+2
Team A has a pitching advantage (O'Connor would be going against Appell) and a hitting advantage (though both are -1, Hewes outhits Cohen, and, though they are both +1 Parfrey outhits McLaughlin) but the huge difference comes in infield defense. Team A has an infield of Schmerler at first, Sullyman at second, Melendez at third and Parfrey at short. Team B has Cohen at first, Connor at second, Ray Hernandez at third and they must pull in natural outfielder/pitcher Zach Nilva to play shortstop, meaning Fred Lang moves to the outfield.
Correction: Connor is on team A. Lang would be at seconbase for Team B.
Making trades due to a blowout also has to do with who was pitching. Sometimes when a fairly good pitchers loses a game by a blowout now that pitcher will be a good defense person on the field for the second game. I think to just make it simple is to give the best player from team A for the worst player in team B (excluding Marvin). If the second game is a blowout the other way at least 98% of the players would finish the day 1-1. Regarding pitching, I would like to go to the old system when the pitchers were pre selected and randomly given a team. The issue now is that based on teams some pitchers don't want to pitch because they don't feel like they have a fairable matchup. Also frustrating is when a captain gives the ball to someone he likes more than the other and this is why pitchers don't get to pitch the same amount of games. Here are the games from these pitchers this year: 44 by Havelock, 30 by Freddy, 26 Zach, 23 Ian, 16 Jeff, 13 Jim, 12 Dave and 10 Derek. Doesn't seem spread out evenly.
I'm good with Havelock choosing the teams and for the person that wrote we need a commissioner let them try for one year. Just one year on getting fields, paying for permits, dealing with the parks department. Getting to the games early enough to be able to choose teams and positions. Purchasing balls and supplies needed. Making sure we have bases for the game and managing disputes between teams. It's easy to write we need a commissioner without signing your name at the bottom.
Derek
Sulyman and Tony Conners are not 0 but are +1.
Lots of issues here...
1) Starts for pitchers are more evenly spread out than in years when pitchers were assigned. Havelock, Freddy Zach and Ian have almost perfect attendance so they have lots of starts. Jeff, Dave, Jim and Derek pitch about as often per game attended. This is also complicated by a manager not wanting to waste a great defensive player like Zach Nilva by pitching him when he could move a defensive liability (I won't name names) to the position and make his defense stronger in the process. 2)When it works well, the manager of the team which has been beaten by four or more runs makes a trade which strengthens his team a little bit. The problem comes when the opposing managers thinks he's giving away too much. That's why I think we need to enforce a trade if the two managers can't agree.
3) As a pitcher I agree with Anonymous that I liked the days when I made the match-ups and the opposing pitchers selected teams at random. I got lots of complaints that managers wanted a greater hand in this. When we made the change I thought it would result in more lopsided games. It did not. In fact, we've had more close games than ever before. I'll take a poll of 10 players who've played in the league under both systems (4 pitchers, 6 non-pitchers to reflect population). If 5 or more want to return to the assigned pitchers we'll consider it more seriously. Otherwise, we'll continue with managers making the decisions.
Havelock, as I said above,(You) Havelock, would account for pitching and defense to make fair teams.
Thats the point. I didnt sort those teams because of batting average, i did it based on defensive alignment.
As you can see those are very even teams.
Of course you can make unfair teams using any system, and of course you can use a complicated scale to 16, but if you want to make them fair, I was able to do so in 15 min. using a scale that involves 3 numbers. And keeping in mind defense.
And yes Tony and Mike are 0, not because their impact = 0 , but bc. their BA are btw 300 and 400.
_CAR
Having had the experience of defending myself against claims of drastically uneven teams and done the math to show that cumulative statistics for both teams were almost exactly even, and instead of an apology gotten a "you-know-you-stole-the-game-from-us" look, I'm suggesting that this 3-point system will be a poor defense. I think a 16 point system with balanced pitchers, shortstops and centerfielders should be unassailable. Even with such a system, we may not quell the wrath of the Ipso-Facto's.
From Derek,
I like the old way. Separate the pitchers first and then give them there teams. If a pitcher then sees his team and doesn't want to pitch, what do you do then?
By all accounts, Havelock has been selecting teams for years now and although sometimes the games do not seem to be fair, he tries and makes the teams as fair as possible. Sometimes players just have bad games or days and I can accept that. This way should continue.
I just read all these post n I gatta say that this year we as a hole team done better with the picks for each team. In defense for the pitchers,, yes we have alot of starts but think about it,, you guys come whenever n I think its not fair to us that just because u come this week that automaticly u suppose to pitch. To me, u gatta come more n then u have a case n I will back u up but rite now "Not". We dont need a new commish,, we need a 5man crew to make the arguements more in the best interest. Just saying,,, for I am DaGame
Dammit!!! Im number 1,, not number2 lol. I do agree with derek on the old system, put the picks behind n pick a hand for tbe captains or the pitchers. I think I be a good no wait a great captain n if you dissagree with me then I got two words for you""" SUCK IT!!!! Im prettysure that alot of the sflol agree with the way I run my team but its not up to me to be captain rite havie lol.
Post a Comment