The playoff conundrum – what’s best for the game?

In every sport, teams who feel as though they’ve put themselves out to secure success often don’t quite understand how they can be pipped at the post by other sides. Sometimes this is down to an inflated sense of skill and talent, sometimes pride (actually, often pride) and sometimes because they feel the opponents haven’t played fair.

In British Baseball in particular, a gripe among the teams finishing second and third is often around the winning percentage; a number that is in its entirely objective measurement completely subjective.

A team plays one game, wins one game. They have a 1.000 winning percentage. Statistically, every time they play, they win.

A team plays 20 games. They win 15, lose five. They have a .750 winning percentage. Statistically, they’ll win three times out of every four.

Which team is better?

Last season, this reared its head especially around AAA South – notably the Essex Redbacks (point of fact – I play for the Redbacks so if you notice any conflict of interest do feel free to raise it) finishing second despite having played, and won, more games than the Bristol Badgers, who finished first. The Redbacks completed their schedule, playing all 30 games that they were due to play during the year.

In fact, the Badgers played only 80% of their games, but also won almost 80% of those they did play.

Which team was better?

The Badgers won five of the six games between the two sides over the season and, based on results and the way they played, they deserved to win the Championship.

However, in winning 21 games, the Redbacks won two more than the Badgers, with both teams benefitting from roughly the same number of forfeited games from their opposition.

Again, the debate raged on.

In finishing second, the Redbacks played against the Oxford Kings – who finished third – for a one-game playoff to take the second NBC place at the national finals. The Kings themselves didn’t complete their schedule, but neither did the London Metros, who finished joint third with exactly the same record (including number of games played/number of games scheduled).

Both the Kings and the Metros had not managed to fit in their games against the Badgers at the end of the season, but neither had they claimed a forfeit or handed one over. An incomplete schedule is the bane of British Baseball’s hard-working statisticians, and unfortunately one that needs to be dealt with each summer.

The playoffs themselves are of irrelevance in this debate, but it did highlight a significant issue that needed to be addressed: is it better to win the first game of the season and not play again, or continue playing at the risk of losing?

That question itself is an extreme scenario, and in truth the column that decides the position in the league is games-back rather than wins or winning percentage (e.g. a team that has won its only game all season will still be a couple of games behind a team that has won five and lost two).

But it is something to consider. If teams are tactically choosing not to play baseball to preserve their record, therefore denying baseball players the chance to compete, something may need to be done. While this hasn’t necessarily been the case in the past, certainly the holiday season is traditionally when more games become postponed that then can’t be made up by the end of the regular season or start of the playoffs.

As both baseball and softball look to expand to reach out to more people, I thought it might be interesting to work out the percentage of games within the schedule that teams fulfilled last season. It is one way of working out ‘success’, as surely it is the taking part that counts, not just the winning? At least, that’s where the funding tends to rest.

In a relatively quick analysis of the stats from last season, I valued a completed schedule as much as an unbeaten one. By then adding the two scores (win percentage and completed schedule percentage) I acquired a statistic that was out of 2 – the closer to two that teams were, the more they played and the more they won. Teams at less than 1.3 tended to lose often, while there were some interesting stats for teams that didn’t play as much as they should, but still won when they did.

Forumla for the calculations

(W-(F/2))/P + (P/S)

Where:
W = wins
F = Forfeits (For every two forfeits, a team is supposed to lose one win)
P = Games played
S = Games scheduled

There were only a few changes in terms of final standings and revised standings, entirely accounting for forfeits and postponed/not made-up matches. Numbers in brackets are overall rankings where the division was split into pools.

NBL

Split into two pools last year, the Lakenheath Diamondbacks, Southampton Mustangs, London Mets and Richmond Flames were more successful than other teams on the diamonds in terms of winning percentages.

Adjusting for forfeits (two for Lakenheath) and unplayed fixtures (two each for Lakenheath, Richmond and Southampton, one for London), what appeared to be a great debut season for Lakenheath (ranked first on win percentage) saw them drop to third overall (second in their pool) with a score of 1.646 – meaning they’d have had to playoff for a place at the NBCs. The Mets, who lost to eventual champions the Southern Nationals in that one-off game, would have qualified automatically with 1.653. The bottom four stayed as they were, but Essex Arrows switch with Bracknell Blazers on account of completing their schedule.

AAA North

The Liverpool Trojans had a revised total of 1.92/2 – the second highest of any team in the country, based on failing to complete only two games and winning the other 22. The Halton Jaguars still beat the Manchester As in the race for second, but much more convincingly. Both had five postponements, but the As also had three forfeits, and Halton had one more win through the summer. Menwith Hill Patriots, now reformed and doing well, were the worst team in British Baseball last season, with a 0.55/2 record on account of their 16 forfeits after they dropped out of the league. However, they only didn’t ‘complete’ two fixtures as they uploaded their forfeits.

AAA South

The league that started it all saw the most significant change. The Redbacks (1.7/2) pipped the Badgers (1.59) into second place, while the Metros and Kings still retained joint third (before head-to-head) on 1.58. Here, you can see the benefits of the system to teams who play all their games, as both London and Oxford were officially three games back on winning record, but only .01 away from second place based on games completed as well.

AA North

The Bolton Robots of Doom still led (1.78) but the Humber Pilots (now Hull Scorpions – score of 1.54) would have replaced the Sheffield Bladerunners (1.46) in second. The Pilots (13-11) completed their schedule, while the Bladerunners forfeited two and had two unplayed by the end of the summer in their 13-9 season.

AA Midlands

The only division with no forfeits AND a completed schedule, the results were exactly as they turned out. MK Bucks (19-1 out of the 20 played and scheduled games) were clear and deserving outright winners – with 1.95 they were the best team in the country, showing that playing all your games can be better than going unbeaten.

AA South

Again, a Pool-based system with playoffs, but the Latin Boys (1.86) were still well ahead. The Essex Archers, who were second in Pool A, were sixth in overall standings from both the original (13-7) and revised (1.56) statistics. However, while Guildford won Pool B, they wouldn’t have qualified for the playoffs in the revised numbers. The Mavericks (16-4) scored 1.71 as they had two unplayed games, while the Poole Piranhas jumped ahead of them into first (second overall) with 1.77 thanks to their completed schedule and the Sidewinders – unfortunate to miss out on the post-season – improved to 1.72, third overall and second in Pool B.

Elsewhere in AA South, things were as they finished. Pool B was highlighted as stronger in 2011, and although the Herts Hawks, Croydon Pirates III, Richmond Dragons and Essex Redbacks II all occupied spots 8-11, none could bust out a playoff position with the altered standings. Here it was evident that the teams who completed more of their schedule rose higher in the standings.

A South

The Cambridge Royals were unbeaten all season, and in posting a 1.86 score, they showed that even though they had two unplayed games, they would almost certainly have won those as well! The Southampton Mustangs II also did as well according to the model as they did in reality (1.79) while only the final standings, not the playoff spots, were altered (London Marauders leapfrogged Old Timers by a score of 1.57 against 1.54 on account of a completed schedule).

Obviously there are many factors that can explain the statistics; a lot of sides are unwilling to present or demand a forfeit despite the unlikelihood of one team being able to complete a fixture, while in almost every occasion – especially this year – the weather plays such a key part to the success of the sport, whether that is in playing or being victorious.

So there we are – food for thought this week as teams are hoping to revise their summer plans to complete as much baseball as possible. If this proposal would be acted upon, winning itself could be attained by simply taking part.

Either that, or put in a points-based system like most other sports!

Please note that all information was taken retrospectively from the results and scheduling available on the BBF website last season. If errors in amending or changing postponed fixtures had not been updated, or games that were replayed but were duplicated, with one set of results not changed, then this will have altered the outcomes, but on research into the extensive reports from last season it is unlikely that this has occurred.