Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

Posted on: December 25, 2011 4:47 pm
 
Well...we finally made it through another tiebreaker season.  It's been interesting, especially in the AFC West and with all the potential ties at 9-7 in both the AFC and NFC.  I'm putting out Week 17 scenarios a little early since all AFC games are done for week 16 and the NFC is pretty cut and dry now.

Also...you should know that the scenarios below were simplified as two potential scenarios that would come down to Strength of Victory (SOV) tiebreaker are already locked up.  If BAL wins and NE loses, the battle for the #1 seed comes down to SOV as they would be tied in conf record and common opponents.  BAL has already secured the better record among teams they have defeated (SOV) over NE, otherwise we might have had some games with playoff impact that are not directly related to BAL-NE.  The other scenario where SOV may come into play is a 4-team tie at 9-7 between CIN-NYJ-TEN-OAK (needs CIN loss, NYJ win, TEN win, OAK win and DEN win).  CIN would drop out on conf record and NYJ-TEN-OAK don't have enough common opponents so it goes to SOV.  OAK has already secured better Win-Loss-Tied percentage among defeated opponents (assuming scenario above) over TEN and NYJ.

Also....TEN is probably the most interesting scenario to figure out.   If you look at TEN scenarios below, basically they need another team to match up with them and CIN at 9-7 to avoid losing H2H to CIN.  If Jets win...they win that 3-way with NYJ-CIN-TEN on common opponents over NYJ after CIN drops out on conf record.  BUT...they can't have OAK as Wild Card potential at 9-7 as well because in that case CIN drops out and not enough common opponents for NYJ-TEN-OAK and OAK wins that tiebreaker on Strength of Victory.    BUT....if OAK is there as potential WC at 9-7 (both DEN and OAK win), TEN can advance if NYJ loses as then it would be TEN-CIN-OAK and CIN would drop out on conf record and TEN beats OAK on common opponents.  So TEN gets in if they Win and CIN loses and either NYJ wins or OAK wins (and doesn't win division)...BUT NOT BOTH.  Weird.

So, we're left with below:

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF PICTURE (also includes remaining 2 Week 16 games):

NFC

  CLINCHED:    Green Bay Packers -- North Division and first-round bye.
San Francisco 49ers -- West Division.
New Orleans Saints -- wild card spot.
Detroit Lions -- wild card spot.
  ELIMINATED:  Arizona, Carolina, Minnesota, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Seattle, Tampa Bay, Washington.

 GREEN BAY PACKERS
  Green Bay clinches homefield advantage throughout NFC playoffs:
   1) one GB win or tie
   2) SF loss or tie

 SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS
  San Francisco clinches a first-round bye:
   1) SF win
   2) SF tie + one NO loss or tie
   3) one NO loss
  San Francisco clinches homefield advantage throughout NFC playoffs:  
   1) SF win + two GB losses

 NEW ORLEANS SAINTS
  New Orleans clinches NFC South Division:
   1) one NO win or tie
   2) one ATL loss or tie
  New Orleans clinches a first-round bye:
   1) two NO wins + SF loss or tie
   2) one NO win + one NO tie + SF loss

 NEW YORK Giants
  NY Giants clinch NFC East Division:
   1) NYG win or tie

 DALLAS Cowboys
  Dallas clinches NFC East Division:
   1) DAL win

 ATLANTA Falcons
  Atlanta clinches NFC South Division:
   1) two ATL wins + two NO losses
  Atlanta clinches a wild card spot:
   1) one ATL win or tie
   2) one CHI loss or tie

 CHICAGO Bears
  Chicago clinches a wild card spot:
   1) two CHI wins + two ATL losses

 AFC

  CLINCHED:    New England Patriots -- East Division and a first-round bye.
Houston Texans -- South Division.
Baltimore Ravens -- wild card spot.
Pittsburgh Steelers -- wild card spot.
  ELIMINATED:  Buffalo, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Miami, Jacksonville, San Diego

 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS
  New England clinches homefield advantage throughout AFC playoffs:
   1) NE win or tie
   2) BAL loss or tie + PIT loss or tie

 BALTIMORE RAVENS
  Baltimore clinches AFC North Division and a first-round bye:
   1) BAL win
   2) BAL tie + PIT loss or tie
   3) PIT loss
  Baltimore clinches homefield advantage throughout AFC playoffs:
   1) BAL win + NE loss

 PITTSBURGH STEELERS
  Pittsburgh clinches AFC North Division and a first-round bye:
   1) PIT win + BAL loss or tie
   2) PIT tie + BAL loss
  Pittsburgh clinches homefield advantage throughout AFC playoffs:
   1) PIT win + BAL loss or tie + NE loss

 DENVER Broncos
  Denver clinches AFC West Division:
   1) DEN win
   2) DEN tie + OAK loss or tie
   3) OAK loss

 OAKLAND Raiders
  Oakland clinches AFC West Division:
   1) OAK win + DEN loss or tie
   2) OAK tie + DEN loss
  Oakland clinches a wild card spot:
   1) OAK win + CIN loss + TEN loss or tie
   2) OAK win + CIN loss + NYJ win
 
 CINCINNATI Bengals
  Cincinnati clinches a wild card spot:
   1) CIN win or tie
   2) NYJ loss or tie + OAK loss or tie
   3) NYJ loss or tie + DEN loss or tie
 
 NEW YORK JETS
  NY Jets clinch a wild card spot:
   1) NYJ win + CIN loss + TEN loss or tie + OAK loss or tie
   2) NYJ win + CIN loss + TEN loss or tie + DEN loss or tie

 TENNESSEE Titans
  Tennessee clinches a wild card spot:
   1) TEN win + CIN loss + NYJ win + OAK loss or tie
   2) TEN win + CIN loss + NYJ win + DEN loss or tie
   3) TEN win + CIN loss + NYJ loss or tie + OAK win + DEN win

Comments

Since: Dec 27, 2006
Posted on: December 30, 2011 6:46 am
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

Brett,

My take on MLB play-off philosophy is that they play only as many games as needed to eliminate teams. Single-elimination, if you will.

They also take the position that  breaking the division/wil-card tie does not absolutely require a ply-off game. It can be decided on other factors. A team tied for first place does not have an inherent 'right' to play for 1st place. 

There is also the need to accomplish this quickly. 

In a 3-way tie with one qualifier, they play only 2 games. They could determine in a 3-way where 2 will qulaify , although I too could not parse this from the explanatory text, that once they rank the teams, the bottom 2 play-off and that is it.


Similarly for the 15-team 81-81 scenario, I would expect that only 10 games would be played.



   


      
;     &nbs
p;


   

 



Since: Dec 9, 2008
Posted on: December 29, 2011 9:00 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

Yes Vito That is what I did.  Sorry, your post got lost.



Since: Dec 18, 2008
Posted on: December 29, 2011 5:56 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

Just to be clear:

I'm "hypothesizing" because the "all teams tied at 81-81" scenario is not specifically outlined in the MLB tiebreaking procedure. However, all of the decisions I made in my hypothesis, were based around the existing MLB tiebreaking procedure and all the cases specifically outlined in the procedure. I'm also hypothesizing what I think the league WOULD do, not what I think the league SHOULD do.



Since: Jan 8, 2010
Posted on: December 29, 2011 5:54 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

AGN, I think it might be possible that the baseball-reference link you sent is out of date. I thought the league removed the need for drawing straws within the last two years. I could be wrong. But if I'm right it begs the question of what else is out of date. -Cheers -Jerry



Since: Dec 18, 2008
Posted on: December 29, 2011 5:50 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS


Pillbox, to give text a blue background:  highlight the text, then click on the blue colored quotation marks on the text formatting bar.
Agn said:
As to your baseball 81-81, you wrote your post as if that was the published method. I don't think it is. i'm sure you realize that you are just hypothesizing, but the introdutory words of your post make it look like its been vetted. Just a question of style I guess.
You are correct. I need to make it more clear that I am hypothesizing. I used the word "appears" towards the beginning, but I need to continue using similar hypothesizing words througout.
For one thing, I would be quite sure that teams that lose their first play-in game would not be in contention for wild-card. There would not be two distinct tournaments, the losers of the division championship games would play-off for the wild-cards.
You are likely right about this. For some reason I was thinking this would not be conistent with the current format, but I now see that it is. Nice call.



Since: Jan 8, 2010
Posted on: December 29, 2011 5:45 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

I appreciate all of the insights all of you have provided on the MLB tiebreakers. I was considering adding a MLB section to PlayoffRace for the upcoming season but I don't want to unless I can be certain of the OFFICIAL tiebreaking language. I might write the office of the commissioner and see what they have to say about it too. I'll be able to engage more on the blog here when I get back from vacation. -Cheers -Jerry



Since: Dec 18, 2008
Posted on: December 29, 2011 5:42 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS


Even in the current format, what would the MLB do if 3 teams are tied for 1st place in a division when 1 of those teams would be the Wild Card winner?

After thinking about this...
I think they would first do the 3 team tiebreaker for the division:  C plays the winner of A vs. B.
Then the two non-division winning teams would play each other for the Wild Card.

The same theory would be applied in the future if 3 teams are tied for 2 Wild Card spots. They would have to play each other until both spots are determined - they would not be able to automatically (via tiebreakers) advance one team to the playoffs while the other two teams play for the 2nd Wild Card spot.





Since: Dec 27, 2006
Posted on: December 29, 2011 5:10 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

1)  I believe all this discussion on hypothetical tiebreaking changes, and the personal likes and dislikes of each step, have been fair game all season. It's the discussion about the inefficiencies/redundancies/ambigui

ties of the current language that has been put on hold until after the season is over. Joe said he would set up a new blog for this after the season is officially over, which would be sometime after Sunday's games.


Well, you'd have to ask him. He seconded my request that we not get involved in TB philosophy right from the start. We are splitting hairs as to what constitutes change vs language change. To me they are the same.

He will set up his blog when he does. We can all repeat our most salient posts there.

The tie-break season IS over.

As to your baseball 81-81, you wrote your post as if that was the published method. I don't think it is. i'm sure you realize that you are just hypothesizing, but the introdutory words of your post make it look like its been vetted. Just a question of style I guess.

For one thing, I would be quite sure that teams that lose their first play-in game would not be in contention for wild-card. There would not be two distinct tournaments, the losers of the division championship games would play-off for the wild-cards.



Since: Sep 1, 2011
Posted on: December 29, 2011 3:29 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

Good read.



Since: Dec 18, 2008
Posted on: December 29, 2011 2:39 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

re: all 30 MLB teams are 81-81.


With Houston's move to the American League West, there will be 5 teams in every division so we only need to consider 5-team divisions. (Although, the procedure could be modified easily for 4 or 6 team divisions.)

It appears that all division ties would be broken first in a single elimination format.

A plays B, C plays the winner of D and E, then A or B  plays C, D, or E for the division championship. Then, the 4 non-division winning teams are eligible for the Wild Card (potentially 2 Wild Cards, potentially beginning in 2013).

Since (clearly) not all the teams involved in the tie will make the playoffs, the only tiebreaking step used is collective head-to-head records. Ties not broken by head-to-head record will be sorted by random draw. The tiebreakers, in this case, merely determine priority in selecting the A, B, C, D, or E  position.

After the division winners are determined, a second single elimination tournament will played (in each league) to determine the Wild Card team(s). Ties will be sorted in the same fashion as they were for the divisional single elimination tournament. If there are 2 Wild Card teams, then the tournament would stop before the final game. At that point, the two remaining teams would declared the 2 Wild Card teams, and homefield priority between the 2 Wild Card teams would be determined according to the full list of tiebreaking steps.
1) Head-to-head record
2) Division record (even if tied teams are from different divisions)
3a) Intraleauge record (full record)
3b) Intraleauge record (second half record)
4) Intraleauge record ("second half plus 1" until the tie is broken, but not including head-to-head games).

It wasn't clear to me if step (3a) or (3b) or both (3a) and (3b) would be used.

It seems possible that the league could decide to have only the 2nd place teams from each of the division tournaments compete in the Wild Card tournament - although that could get tricky if there are 2 Wild Card spots for the three 2nd place teams. In fact, it would be tricky ANY TIME there are 3 teams tied for 2 playoff spots.

Even in the current format, what would the MLB do if 3 teams are tied for 1st place in a division when 1 of those teams would be the Wild Card winner?


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com