Starters Missing the Cut - More Discussion
I thought it would be good to capture a conversation Aaron and I had via email and let the other owners chime in with comments. The topic is how to penalize starters that do not make the cut. With the latest rule change David had concerns that it could potentially result in the wrong team winning. I tried to give Aaron an example of how this could happen and he responded... here's the complete transcript - feel free to comment with your thoughts.
Jim: "We might make another change to the way we calculate scores for players that miss the cut. instead of assigning everyone that misses the cut with the highest score, we should probably only assign one player from each team with that # and then go to the next worst score for the next player, etc. it ends up being a lot more fair. clear as mud, eh?"
Aaron: "Why is that more fair? If you miss the cut shouldn't it be a really stiff penalty? And if you have more than one miss the cut I think the penalty should be worse, not better. That's my two cents."
Jim: "Well, the best i can do is give you an example and have you respond.
let's say you have three guys miss the cut and your opponent has one miss it. your two remaining guys finish 1-2 in the tourney. three of your opponent's guys finish in the middle of the pack and his third guy completely tanks over the weekend.
AC
player #1 = -10
player #2 = -9
Jeff
player #1 = E
player #2 = E
player #3 = E
player #4 = +15
Who should win this week? I'd argue you should win, even though fewer of your guys made the cut. but if we apply the current rule this is what it looks like:
AC: -8, -6, +18, +18, +18 = 40
Jeff: 0, 0, 0, +15, +18 = 33 (WINNER)
If you step the penalty the way I'm thinking, this is what it looks like:
AC: -8, -6, +18, +3, +3 = 10 (WINNER)
Jeff: 0, 0, 0, +15, +18 = 33
I'm sure there are more scenarios that might make this clearer, but this is what I came up with on short notice. I just want to make sure the "right" guy wins week to week. I also don't think it's right to be rooting for one of your players to tank on the weekend just so your opponent gets cement shoes.
What do you think?"
Aaron: "I think it's more fair to reward the guy who has the most players make the cut. I think the reason you have ten players and have to strategize every week is because you need as many players as possible to make the cut. Allowing a guy to ride two or three good players negates the reason for having a draft and strategizing in the first place. By your reasoning, if LeBron puts up 35 a night, his team should win every night, no matter what the rest of his team does. The way it is structured now, people get rewarded for making good picks deep in the draft and starting these guys. Witness Jon against me with Nick O'Hern - the guy missed the cut in the Players and Bellsouth and has only played one other time in the US this year. But right now it looks like Jon made a nice call with him. If I have two guys who shoot lights out and he has five guys like Nick O'Hern, then I might win even with three guys who miss the cut. I don't like that. As we discussed in the beginning, if a guy doesn't make the cut then he should suffer the most because his guys weren't good enough to even make the weekend. And in every other pool I'm in, if your guys don't make the cut you're out. I vote to keep it the way it is."
Jim: "We might make another change to the way we calculate scores for players that miss the cut. instead of assigning everyone that misses the cut with the highest score, we should probably only assign one player from each team with that # and then go to the next worst score for the next player, etc. it ends up being a lot more fair. clear as mud, eh?"
Aaron: "Why is that more fair? If you miss the cut shouldn't it be a really stiff penalty? And if you have more than one miss the cut I think the penalty should be worse, not better. That's my two cents."
Jim: "Well, the best i can do is give you an example and have you respond.
let's say you have three guys miss the cut and your opponent has one miss it. your two remaining guys finish 1-2 in the tourney. three of your opponent's guys finish in the middle of the pack and his third guy completely tanks over the weekend.
AC
player #1 = -10
player #2 = -9
Jeff
player #1 = E
player #2 = E
player #3 = E
player #4 = +15
Who should win this week? I'd argue you should win, even though fewer of your guys made the cut. but if we apply the current rule this is what it looks like:
AC: -8, -6, +18, +18, +18 = 40
Jeff: 0, 0, 0, +15, +18 = 33 (WINNER)
If you step the penalty the way I'm thinking, this is what it looks like:
AC: -8, -6, +18, +3, +3 = 10 (WINNER)
Jeff: 0, 0, 0, +15, +18 = 33
I'm sure there are more scenarios that might make this clearer, but this is what I came up with on short notice. I just want to make sure the "right" guy wins week to week. I also don't think it's right to be rooting for one of your players to tank on the weekend just so your opponent gets cement shoes.
What do you think?"
Aaron: "I think it's more fair to reward the guy who has the most players make the cut. I think the reason you have ten players and have to strategize every week is because you need as many players as possible to make the cut. Allowing a guy to ride two or three good players negates the reason for having a draft and strategizing in the first place. By your reasoning, if LeBron puts up 35 a night, his team should win every night, no matter what the rest of his team does. The way it is structured now, people get rewarded for making good picks deep in the draft and starting these guys. Witness Jon against me with Nick O'Hern - the guy missed the cut in the Players and Bellsouth and has only played one other time in the US this year. But right now it looks like Jon made a nice call with him. If I have two guys who shoot lights out and he has five guys like Nick O'Hern, then I might win even with three guys who miss the cut. I don't like that. As we discussed in the beginning, if a guy doesn't make the cut then he should suffer the most because his guys weren't good enough to even make the weekend. And in every other pool I'm in, if your guys don't make the cut you're out. I vote to keep it the way it is."
posted by Jim Storer at
3:22 PM
3 Comments:
I say keep it the way it is. If the math works out poorly, then so be it.
This may bite me this week, but if you picked the wrong players, that should weigh more heavily than a convoluted scoring formula.
Let's just keep it simple. You miss, you get +3. And so on and so on and so on.
Jeff
By
Jeff Cutler, at 10:17 AM
Man arrested after Lehman's car shot; Lehman injured
April 5, 2006
GolfWeb Wire Services
By
Jeff Cutler, at 10:36 AM
Reply from David via email:
Ok...
I just read the blog regarding the rule change. Simply stated the problem is as follows:
First, I completely agree that players that do not make the cut should be significantly penalized. However, the penalty should be fixed (i.e. 3 strokes for the first player, 5 for the second, 7 for the third, 9 for the fourth) rather than increase inversely with the performance of an opposing player. It is unfair for the penalty to vary week to week. For example,
Week 1
Team A
Player 1 -7
Player 2 -5
Player 3 -2
Player 4 X (21)
Player 5 X (21)
Total 28
Team B
Player 1 E
Player 2 E
Player 3 2
Player 4 6
Player 5 18
Total 26
In week 1, Team B wins because the effective penalty for player 4 not making the cut is 15 strokes (21-6).
Now let's assume that during Week 2, all scores are identical except for Player 5 on Team B.
Week 2
Team A
Player 1 -7
Player 2 -5
Player 3 -2
Player 4 X (16)
Player 5 X (16)
Total 18
Team B
Player 1 E
Player 2 E
Player 3 2
Player 4 6
Player 5 13
Total 21
In week 2, Team A wins because the effective penalty for player 4 not making the cut is 10 strokes (21-6).
Therefore, an owner is clearly conflicted during the weekend with the goal of one of his players absolutely cratering. Again, the overriding problem with the current rule is that it is inherently inconsistent and thus unfair week to week. My proposal would be a flat stroke penalty that increases based on the number of players that miss the cut; essentially the players are removed and there is a reverse handicap.
By
Jim Storer, at 3:45 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home