Is it the taking part that counts? BBF 2012 review – Part 3
Last year I ran some numbers on the 2011 season to see if the best teams were really the best teams. Well, sort of. In my infinite wisdom, and with the idea that surely playing the game is winning itself, and therefore should be recognised, I calculated win percentage and games-played percentage (as a substantial number of teams did not complete a full season) to arrive at what was widely heralded to be a waste of time!
However, in 2011 we saw that teams who completed all their games, as well as being most successful on the field, deserved a slightly higher acknowledgement of their effort; time and again we’ve been told that getting a team out is a success in this sport, so I figured that we’d tip our caps to those that did.
The findings weren’t amazing, although it did mean that a couple of sides should perhaps have been better placed by the end of the year. The Essex Redbacks were denied a shot at top spot in AAA South in 2011 because other teams failed to fulfil fixtures, thus not dropping their win ratio, while the Lakenheath Diamondbacks in the NBL were deemed to have placed two spots higher than they should have in compiling the best winning percentage, because they also forfeited two games and failed to play one of their 28 scheduled matches.
There were far fewer shake-ups in the 2012 standings, especially among the leaders, with the Liverpool Trojans, Hove Tuesday, Nottingham Rebels and Guildford Mavericks each scoring over 1.8 in the adjusted tables (maximum 1 for going unbeaten + maximum 1 for completing all fixtures). The Trojans, Rebels and Mavericks had been there or thereabouts in 2011, although the Mavericks’ failure to complete 9% of their fixtures had dropped them two places, but still no team in the past two years has hit the magic 2 – having played all their scheduled games and won the whole lot – during the regular season. We’ll call this statistic the ‘CP number’, where competitiveness and participation are combined.
The wider perspective
Best divisions for playing all games
2011
AA Midlands – 5 teams play all games (100%)
A South – 5 teams play all games (62.5%)
AAA South – 2 teams play all games (33%)
NBL – 3 teams play all games (30%)
AA South – 3 teams play all games (25%)
AA North – 1 team plays all games (20%)
AAA North – 0 teams play all games (0%)
19 teams play all fixtures (38%)
2012
A South – 7 teams play all games (64%)
AAA South – 5 teams play all games (62.5%)
AA Midlands – 3 teams play all games (60%)
NBL – 3 teams play all games (37.5%)
AA South – 3 teams play all games (21%)
AAA North – 0 teams play all games (0%)
AA North – 0 teams play all games (0%)
21 teams play all fixtures (36%)
Total games completed
2011
AA Midlands – 50 games (100%)
NBL – 123 games (96%)
A South – 54 games (95%)
AA South – 124 games (94%)
AAA South – 84 games (93%)
AA North – 56 games (89%)
AAA North – 41 games (85%)
2012
A South – 53 games (96%)
AA Midlands – 38 games (95%)
AAA South – 97 games (93%)
NBL – 101 games (90%)
AA South – 109 games (83%)
AA North – 72 games (80%)
AAA North – 64 games (71%)
What does this prove?
Other than the northern divisions either struggling because of the harsher weather or postponements that probably should have been forfeits that weren’t recorded, it shows no division is fantastic at making sure games are played. Considering the size of the Midlands division, where there have been only five teams in each of the past two seasons, it’s unsurprising that it finishes in the top two both years.
And due to the importance of the NBL, both in being the figurehead of the domestic game here in Britain and the focus when talking about our domestic leagues abroad, a 90%+ completion rate on fields where there are often no facilities to protect against the weather is not too shabby. Especially as if you consider the professional County Cricket circuit has put up a similar number, if not worse, over the past couple of summers across all formats of the game, which is played every day of the week during the summer months.
Also, it does highlight how shocking a summer it was last year with the weather, as completion rates both for the number of teams completing a whole season and the number of games played in total were reduced in 2012.
The evidence suggests in many divisions that the teams at the bottom of the league that complete the lowest number of games, although it’ll be interesting to find out whether that’s because of their low league position meaning fewer people want to play and lose each week, or instead that they’re at the bottom of the league because games are being postponed and not rearranged, reducing their chances of moving back up the table.
Over the last couple of years I’ve probably been the most vocal, and at times the only voice, suggesting at least an investigation into how the league should be decided, given that teams with better winning percentages go top despite their inability to complete scheduled matches. The weather is one factor, but on an island as small as ours, with as few teams as we have, it’s difficult to play to Major League rules on wins and losses, games back and percentages.
Especially when on so many occasions even the rain dates are rained off. Regularly so, last season.
There is an argument perhaps to introduce a points-scoring system, with two points for a win, one point for a tied-game after the regulation innings and then a further point to the winner. In addition, there could be three points for a team that wins by 10 or more runs, enforcing the mercy rule.
The added points way of deciding the outcome might not be the preferred American way of doing it, but then no one said that there was only one right way to do anything. The Six Nations has a different points-scoring system to other international or domestic rugby competitions; the Cricket World Cup differs in the group stages to how league tables are worked out in amateur domestic games. Football may be standardised in terms of points scoring, but the league structure is vastly different between countries, where second or third teams could play in the same league system, or there could be no relegation or promotion, so again proving there’s no right way to do anything.
Moreover, if there were a change to the way the UK’s baseball structure decided league standings, there would be no major alterations to the league standings. As shown by my calculations, only those teams who failed to complete all of their fixtures would possibly be compromised, and while the best teams may suggest that they’re worth their value at the top of the standings, if they’ve completed all their fixtures during the season then it’s something no one could deny.
No team, I hope, is deliberately trying not to play games in order to remain at the top of the table or preserve a playoff position, because the opportunities to play baseball in Britain are so limited. However, were there a reward for teams making the most effort to complete their games, such as in this altered standings system or something like it, then surely that can only be a good thing to continue to encourage people to take part?