There’s a problem with the WBC tiebreaker system—and it’s not that Canada was eliminated despite finishing with the same record as the US and beating them.
It’s this:
Last night, Korea was guaranteed to advance unless they lost while allowing 8 runs. Had they not scored in the eighth inning and the game had been scoreless going into the bottom of the ninth, it would have been in their best interests to issue four consecutive intentional walks, losing 1-0 and advancing to round two.
Tonight, the US faces a similar situation. With a win, of course, they advance without the need of any tiebreakers. However, if they lose 1-0, they also advance.
If they lose 2-1 or 2-0 with fewer than two outs in the ninth, they’re eliminated and Japan moves on. If they lose 3-0, 3-1 or 3-2 with fewer than one out in the twelfth they’re eliminated. If they lose while giving up 4 runs at any point, they’re out.
Mexico has only one chance to advance: to win 3-0 or 4-0 in 13 or 14 innings. If they give up a run, they’re out. If they win in fewer than 13 innings, by any score, they’re out. If they win 2-0 in 14 innings, they’re out.
If the score is 0-0 in the bottom of the ninth inning you have the situation where it is in the best interests of both teams to not try to win. If the US tries to get Mexico out, they risk giving up a 2-run homer with less than two outs, and being eliminated. If it goes to extra innings, there exists the possibility of giving up a 3-run homer or grand slam in extra innings that would eliminate them.
For Mexico, even a 4-0 win in nine innings eliminates them. They need to keep the game scoreless until the bottom of the 13th, and then try for a 3-run homer or grand slam.
So at 0-0 in the ninth, the US needs to intentionally give up a run. Four intentional walks? Well, Mexico should swing at the pitches and strike out. Hit the batters? Well, Mexico can swing at those, too, and if they get hit, they’re strikes. They can get four automatic balls by refusing to pitch to the first batter and then balk him home, or throw the ball into the stands, but the runner could abandon the basepaths and be called out. But either way, it’s in the interests of the USA to give up 1 run so they don’t give up 2, and that’s from the ninth inning on.
For Mexico, the farce starts earlier: at the first pitch. They’ll be trying to shut down the US, but on offense they need to not score—the first run they score before the 13th inning eliminates them from the tournament.
Yes you read that right, if they score, they’re eliminated.
If it gets to the 13th scoreless, it’s not enough to score, they need to hit a three run homer. So if the bases are loaded and the batter gets a base hit, a Mexican runner has to pass another runner on the basepaths so they won’t score fewer than three runs.
I’m sure that both teams will try to win—but neither should. While the US just needs to win to get in, the first run they score will eliminate Mexico which will make them try to win which could eliminate the US. So the US should try to not score, either. Mexico should be trying to keep the game scoreless until the 13th, when they should not score on anything but a 3-run homer or Grand Slam.
But it sure would be entertaining to watch it unfold.
Thanks to DKDC for coming up with some of the scenarios.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Sure they could. The maximum run differential for a given game would just be 15 runs. It's more fair than allowing 90% of the run differential to be based on the South Africa game that you won 78-1.
It should be ten, otherwise a team could be eliminated for leading 14-0 after six.
Sure they could. The maximum run differential for a given game would just be 15 runs. It's more fair than allowing 90% of the run differential to be based on the South Africa game that you won 78-1.
The mercy rule should not have anything to do with it. The tiebreaker involves only common games. Presumably, no team that has been mercy ruled would be in the mix. Or if they were, then you add a rule that if any team involved in the three way was mercy ruled by either of the others, then they are disqualified and the tiebreaker reverts to head to head between the other two,
These tiebreakers are pretty ridiculous. It might make more sense to just move to a straight bracket tournament. You'd probably want to have a loser's bracket to make it double elimination.
There's gotta be better way to do this.
I'm confused.
The scenario breakdown is awesome, though.
Sportscenter NEEDS to have Kenny Mayne do something on this tonight.
TVerik, if you're reading, get this to them and tell them I don't need any credit.
OK...
I didn't realize that Vlad was quoting me. Should I go to the hospital?
If it's 0-0 in the top of the ninth, the US needs to try to lose. HAS to.
Cuba was mercy ruled in round 1 and they've advanced to round 3.
Actually, I think they need bigger pools. This is only a problem in the event of a three way tie, right?
Cuba was mercy ruled in round 1 and they've advanced to round 3.
Yes but that was in a meaningless game. Both Cuba and PR had already advanced. If Cuba had been 1-1 instead of 2-0 prior to that game, it's unlikely PR blanks them 10-0.
What is much more unlikely is that a team is in a 2-1 or 1-2 three way tie with a team which mercy ruled them. And if that case does come up, make the mercy rule the first elimination.
Which will happen 50% of the time. There's only 4 ways for the standings to end up.
What about ties? Rare and unlikely, sure, but possible.
That's something I wasn't sure about, so I checked.
Everyone is mentioning that the US needs to win or lose while giving up fewer than X runs. Turns out that a tie advances the US, too, so a 21-21 tie advances the US.
Isn't this about the only way that head-to-head comes into play?
These other scenarios are insane, but the US advancing ahead of Canada doesn't bother me one bit, and I'm not just saying that as a US citizen who remembers the devastation of the
US-Canada war
The alternative is Mexico advancing despite losing to the US, or Canada advancing despite losing to Mexico - There is no one solution that makes perfect logical sense, but the tie has to be broken somehow.
Instead of these incredibly complex tiebreakers with the absurd incentives, they should have had the 3 teams send one representative each for a sudden death HR derby - you supply your own pitcher, if he can't throw gopherball strikes its too bad.
If A-Rod goes deep and the other 2 don't, US is in, and the other 2 alternate pitches until one homers and the other doesn't, and one team is eliminated.
Not the purest way to decide a baseball match but at least its fair and sure beats a team going into a game hoping they win but don't score until the 14th inning.
Well, there's seeding. Two teams can be tied at 2-1 and so it determines who is the #1 seed. For example, DR should be the #1 seed against Cuba (and, thus, I presume the home team) given the head to ehad result.
Also, with ties, you can have a standing like this:
Team A 2-0-1
Team B 1-1-1
Team C 1-1-1
Team D 0-2-1
The head to head result of B/C would come into play.
It doesn't bother me, either, for the same reason. But I've heard a ridiculous amount of complaining about it.
Because people are illogical. Any tournament with a similar setup would have the same possibilities. It's Canada's fault for giving up so many runs. They should have shut down Varitek if they wanted to advance.
Therefore, the US can't play to lose the game 1-0, at least not in a way that makes Mexico THINK that that's what they're trying to do.
Yes, they need to do it in a non-obvious way, so Mexico thinks they're trying to win, so they won't try to win. But once the bottom of the ninth rolls around, the farce is on because there's nothing Mexico can do to stop it, except force a tie.
Of course, they won't do it like that, but if the US loses 3-0 in 13 innings because they played to win, I'm never going to stop harping on this.
They may not try to win, but it'll eliminate the passing the baserunner/intentional walk/balk scenario, which is what makes it really farcical.
And then pick the opposite of what it says.
This sounds just like the South Park softball tournament.
Well, not really. The coach mentioned it as an intriguing possibility, but a subsequent investigation concluded that they tried to win.
Another solution is to have two eight-team pools, and the top two teams in each pool go to the semis, and there's a smaller chance of tiebreakers coming into play. But then you'll have 20 more games.
Wait... I have no problem with that.
In the 13th, Mexico can win with a 3-run homer or grand slam, and the US would be eliminated with a grand slam. It's then in the US's best interests to intentionally walk in a run, and it's in Mexico's best interests to try to only hit a 3-run homer.
So maybe we'll end up seeing 12½ innings of hard-played baseball, and then 1½ innings of a farce.
Except that Mexico should never swing in regulation until the US scores and eliminates them. If they draw a walk, they should get picked off.
That's at least half a farce. Or 75%; US full effort on O and D, Mexico only on D.
This is where game theory comes in. If the US is going to avoid losing in a way that eliminates them to the avoidance of winning, they can only succeed if Mexico tries to not score until the 13th, and they will ultimately succeed. So Mexico is essentially eliminated before the game begins -- they can only advance if they try to not win, and if they try to not win, the US can only be eliminated if it chooses to allow itself to be eliminated.
So if they accept this from the outset, then all they can do is knock the US out of the tournament by scoring in the first eight innings, which is the only time the US wouldn't be willing to give free runs. So for the first eight innings at least, Mexico will be trying to win, and once they or the United States scores a run, they'll be officially eliminated, so they'll of course try to win.
But if the game gets to the 13th scoreless, it is plausible that Mexico can win, so at that point they'll do everything they can to not score via anything other than a 3-run homer or grand slam, and the US will do everything they can to not allow Mexico to score via a 3-run homer or grand slam, including giving up a run.
As do I -- unless the game reaches the 13th scoreless. At that point, the US will advance if Mexico wins 2-0 or 1-0, and Mexico will be eliminated.
So all there would be to play for is a 3-run homer or grand slam, and they'll HAVE to do everything they can to avoid scoring fewer than 3 runs.
If the game is tied at 1-1 in the tenth, then the US needs to not score and let Mexico score. Since Mexico has nothing to gain by not scoring, they probably won't intentionally make outs, then the US needs to issue four free passes.
The US is in a situation where they might be foreced to throw the game. I think the only thing that can be done to prevent it right now is if Bud Selig announces he will suspend anyone who throws the game, perhaps for life, or at the very least the IBAF needs to do something.
Yeah, that will get more players to want to participate.
This was screwed up at the start. You can't blame the players. The point is to advance, no? You put players in a situation where the goal is to win the tournament, and then craft rules so the possibility exists where their continued participation is guaranteed if they lose one way, but eliminated if they lose another. You can't then punish them for choosing option a, which is completely within the rules. Didn't bob Brenly once walk Bonds with the bases loaded because he thought it improved his chances of winning?
Ahh, but it improved his chances of winning the game.
That's why this is different. There's no reason to throw a game in the regular season or postseason other than money. In baseball, runs allowed aren't a tiebreaker. But in this tourney, they are, and it creates this scenario which I doubt any of these players have ever faced, where for one team a 1-0 loss is a good thing and for the other a 15-0 win is a bad thing.
Think about that for a second. Mexico could win this game 50-0 and be eliminated, but if they win 3-0 in the 13th, they're in.
I just realized another simple solution to this problem. Very simple. They can do it right now:
Make the US the home team tonight. Then they can't give Mexico a free run without risking more.
What are you, a neanderthal? Don't you realize how useless such a small sample size is? You should use the PROJECTIONS for each team. That way you already know who your champion is.
I agree.
If you reach a situation in the late innings where the tiebreaker rules become integral than you will see teams adopt strategies that may otherwise seem sub-optimal.
Otherwise, this is not what typical rational actors will do. The US realizes that if it wins it is in, so the easiest thing to do is play your normal game. Mexico realizes that it will take some unique circumstances, one of which is shutting out the US, so they will play to win and may try some sub-optimal strategies like run prevention earlier than normal (bringing infield in in a middle inning run scoring opportunity).
I watched both games last night. If the players were trying to rig the score in any way other than beating the other team, they did a good job of acting. It was an emotional game, where both teams knew that the best strategy was to win the game. And that's how it looked like they played.
Its fun to work the math problems, but I doubt Matt Holliday has out his spreadsheet trying to figure out how to do anything other than hit the damn ball.
This is my first attack on the WBC, but couldn't they have gotten a better tiebreaker system?
Suggest one.
Okay, here is my crack at a better tiebreaker system.
1) Head to Head
2) Fewest innings played in victories.
3) Most innings played in losses. (For the purposes of steps 2 and 3, games terminated by weather and other non-mercy rule related reasons shall be counted as 9 innings.)
4) Most innings holding an unrelinquished lead.
5) Most innings holding an unrelinquished tie or lead. (For the purposes of steps 4 and 5, unplayed innings due to the mercy rule shall be added.)
6) Run differential.
Steps 7-13 apply to the second round only.
7) Overall head to head.
8) Overall record.
9-13) Steps 2-6 applied to overall record.
14) The classic baseball version of the coin flip. Representatives from each team alternate hands on a bat and whoever grabs the knob wins.
Steps 2 and 3 affirm the obvious. A mercy rule win is better than a regular win, which is better than an extra inning win, which is better than an extra inning loss, which is better than a regular loss, which is better than a mercy rule loss.
Steps 4 and 5 borrow heavily from NASCAR (laps led.) The difference is that we don't want to reward a team for leading 8 innings and blowing it in the ninth, hence the word "unrelinquished" is added. (Think win qualification for a pitcher.)
Run differential is knocked down to step 6 as an acknowledgement of the inequalities set up by the mercy rule, since you don't know who would have won by more had the games been played to completion.
By this time, the tie should already be broken, but if it isn't, in round 2 we can go back to round 1 results. We don't want to do that any sooner because (borrowing an NFL term) strength of schedule comes into play. But if we have no choice, overall tournament play is a valid tiebreaker.
This system (or a variation thereof) would be better because, a) it is easier to understand and b) it doesn't make the ridiculous assumption that somehow a 2-0 victory is better than a 9-7 win. That is just a matter of taste.
For the record, I'd rather see ties broken by some sort of playoff, but in a three way tie (which most are in this format), that could be a mess. This system rewards getting a lead early and keeping it, which isn't necessariliy better than a comeback win, but as a tiebreaker, seems less arbitrary than rewarding defense over offense. Also, the ridiculous scenario described above wouldn't happen, it would be replaced by a scenario of a team playing the third inning like it was the ninth. This may also be a little offbeat, but at least the teams will be playing for a lead and a win.
I know. My point was that it's not against the rules to intentionally walk in a run, and it has been done.
I just realized another simple solution to this problem. Very simple. They can do it right now:
Make the US the home team tonight. Then they can't give Mexico a free run without risking more.
Brilliant!! It's simple, elegant, effective. Very outside the box.
What are the samllest odds one could calculate? 1 in a googleplex? I don't think the odds of this happening are that high. A ham handed "We'll ruin the career of anone not giving their all" threat is far more likely. The most likely is that Bud and co are doing nothing and hoping it won't come to pass. I mean, they never ran out of players in an AGS, right?
Congratulations to the Oakland A's for winning the first inaugaral World Cup.
In principle, you might benefit by throwing a game or two to drop from division winner to wildcard in order to gain a more favorable DS matchup.
And the only ones which matter. Two way ties are 2 teams 2-1 and 2 teams 1-2. the two 2-1 teams advance, so no tiebreaker necessary.
I still submit run differential among the three tied teams is best. The mercy rule would rarely come into play, and if it did, eliminate the mercy ruled team and revert to head to head.
Obviously, a DMB sim is in order.
It solves everything - since there's no injury risk, you can eliminate the pitch-count limits. You can sim as many games as you like, thereby eliminating sample-size bias.
Heck, since we don't need the actual players, we can just send them all to their respective camps, making George Steinbrenner very happy.
We can announce the winner via press release.
I don't see a downside here.
I meant more along the lines of, "If the United States makes an indisputably intentional play to lose the game all the players who don't walk off the field and withdraw from the tournament will be banned from professional baseball for life." It's not about giving your all -- it's just about not trying to lose.
Oh and if you reverse the rule to RS instead of RA and team will intentionally concede runs in order not to invoke the mercy rule so they can score more.
Change the rule to run difference, please. Looking at the tie in Pool B was USA zero, Canada -6, Mexico +6. And looking at the actual results, it's fair enough - in those three games there was one big win, and it was Mexico over Canada, so that eliminates Canada and puts Mexico top of the group. That seems fair enough.
Going into this, RD would be Japan +4, USA +1, Mexico -5. Which would mean Mexico would have to win by 10 runs or more and any other Mexican win would put Japan through. Again, Japan 6, Mexico 1 ought to give Mexico a big hill to climb.
One quick way to solve most of the silliness would be not to count tack-on runs on a walk-off homer. Then Mexico couldn't win and would only be playing for pride.
Whoa.
Over the WBC?
Seriously?
Or, I suppose, to help the other team get a better playoff position so you have an easier postseason opponent. But even in that situation, it just changes your opponent, not your getting into the playoffs.
Over the WBC?
Seriously?
Do you really want fans to think that these players would ever play for anything less than victory?
They do it all the time in exhibition games.
I don't think people really expect players to play to win in the All-Star Game, for example.
Fixed.
But I think if a team blatantly threw the All-Star Game it would be a major scandal.
Yes, because there can be nothing but nefarious reasons for throwing an ASG. There is a legit, baseball-related, competition incentive to throw this game in a particular way.
I also agree we're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
I guess, but a lifetime ban from global professional play? Seems harsh, especially when the rules are set up in such a Byzantine way.
I mean, really, all we're talking about something that aesthetically unpleasing and distasteful, not something that violates the sanctity of the game. The players wouldn't be throwing the game because gamblers paid them to do it, they would be throwing the game because the tournament dictates that that's a way to successfully advance and win the whole thing, which is ostensibly what we're trying to encourage.
It seems to me that the solution would be to change the rules structure.
I think we can all agree we really want to see the United States throwing the ball into the stands while Mexican runners pass each other on the basepaths and swing at pitches that are 10 feet behind them.
Concluding with a walk-off 3-run homer in the bottom of the 13th.
But Mexico shouldn't be faulted for doing it -- that's the only way they can advance. It's the USA that should be forced to try to score runs and prevent runs from scoring. Mexico is forced into this situation by circumstances, the US would be choosing to do it.
Asking the ump for a forfeit would be a seriously bush-league move by Martinez.
I would seriously tune in to see this.
That is probably why they're not doing it. Works nicely.
I would too. I have to go to work, but I'm taping the game in the hopes that this happens.
In any case, my point was more that the existence of this possibility disrupts the game theory calculations. Yes, you should try and hold off until the 13th, but you can't do whatever you want to achieve that goal.
I can agree with that in the case of three 2-1 teams, if you buy into not rewarding beating up on an 0-3. However, in the case of three 1-2 teams, I'd kind of like to reward the team that plays the 3-0 team toughest. (I do acknowledge, however, that my system doesn't really accomplish this, either, unless somebody takes the 3-0 team to extra innings.)
My guess is the reasoning behind the WBC's tiebreaker over a simple run differential is that, in a misguided attempt at promoting "good sportsmanship" and "world peace", the organizers didn't want to reward teams for "piling" on "meaningless" runs. This is why I chose to base my proposed tiebreakers on innings and holding onto leads rather than on raw run totals. We all know, of course, that adding onto a lead increases your chances of holding onto it, but to the organizers, it might be more pleasing to reward holding onto a 1-0 lead for nine innings equally with taking a 1-0 lead and expanding it throughout the game. I won't say my way is better than simple run differential, but it might sell better to the organizers in the interest of "international diplomacy."
I agree. And from what I've seen of the WBC, players are taking this seriously. There have been some very intense games, with intense crowds, and big shows of emotion.
Its kind of cute in a joke sort of way to show the outcome permuatations. And it may effect micro-strategy to a degree.
I don't think the action algorithm is the one that many people are articulating when talking about applications of "game theory."
The USA will come out to win. Mexico will try to shut out the US. If the opportunity presents itself, a team may optimize its advancement capability, but otherwise they are likely to just play baseball.
It isn't a case of deciding if you are going to keep pace with the rabbit in a long distance run.
Concluding with a walk-off 3-run homer in the bottom of the 13th."
That would be a definite contender for the coolest game in the history of the sport.
I don't know if it could beat Pirates/Giants on July 17, 1914, though. From BBL:
"At Forbes Field, Rube Marquard and Babe Adams each go a marathon 21 innings before Larry Doyle's 2-run home run gives the Giants a 3–1 win over the Pirates. Adams yields no walks and 12 hits, the longest non-walk game in ML history. Marquard walks two (one intentional) and yields 15 hits. In the 6th, Honus Wagner goes from first to 3B on a hit by Jim Viox. When New York CF Bob Bescher throws to 3B Milt Stock, the ball bounces out of his hands and disappears. Wagner scores before it's discovered that the ball bounced up under his arm and stayed there as he ran home. Wagner is called out for interference, and the Bucs protest. Manager Clarke is then ejected by umpire Bill "Lord" Byron. In a fitting ending to this unusual game, Giants OF Red Murray is knocked unconscious by a bolt of lightning after catching a fly ball for the final out. Murray is uninjured. Marquard's win is his last in 1914. He will lose 10 straight on his way to a 12–22 record."
I agree, double-elim works nice for a baseball tournament.
I think the reason they are doing it, is its the common pool play algorithm that's used in many different world tournaments.
You end up with hokey permuatations in soccer too. So far its been a great tournament, and the chase has been almost as good as the reward.
There have been a few controversies, but it has been well received, and produced some wonderful games.
Now Korea can lose to Japan and be 2-1 against them in the WBC but still not make the finals. I hope Korea pounds 'em. Hell, I hope Korea goes undefeated.
As Charles Barkley says, "The best rapper's white; the best golfer's black."
Immortal Technique is white!?!?!?
Vijay Singh is black?!?!!!!!
And after the game, Jorge Cantu admitted that Mexico played the game assuming that the best they could do was eliminate the U.S.
Makes sense to me. Probably the best outcome short of winning the whole damn thing.
Now next time perhaps the US team will take the WBC seriously.
I think the outcome, and the positive reaction from fans, will make star players more inclined to participate next time.
They need to hold the tourney when pitchers are ready and then do two eight team pools with the top two from each advancing to a four team, double elimination toun
Whether they took it seriously or not, the result may not have been any different. I have no doubt the USA team would finish ahead of the Mexican team if they played 162 games, but with everything riding on one game, anything can happen.
The US team played well and I see no reason at all to be disappointed in them. Its not like they got their butts kicked. They and Mexico played a great pitchers duel.
Congrats to Japan anyway, they deserve to advance after that stupid sac fly call.
This would have been unfair to Japan, because it would have guaranteed the US 9 fielding innings, which is what they would have needed to advance with a 2-1 or 2-0 loss. It turns out that this was exactly the score, so it would have been devastatingly unfair.
My suggestion in the Lounge was that they should not appoint a home team each game; rahter they should appoint a team who gets to choose whether they will bat first or not (like football -- at least they do that at the Superbowl -- frankly I haven't ever watched the beginning of a regular season NFL game). If they had done that, Mexico would have chosen to bat first and the US would have advanced if all else stayed the same.
There are probably rules-history experts here who know more about this than I do, but I seem to remember that in some distant point in baseball's past home teams had the option of batting first if they chose. In present-day baseball Rule 4.02 specifies that the home team must take the field first.
In the first round, play 1 v 4 and 2 v 3, followed by a winners-bracket game, winner advancing and the loser playing the winner of the losers-bracket game, the winner of that advancing as the runner-up.
In the second round, Pool 1, play Pool A winner v. Pool B runner-up, Pool B winner v. Pool A runner up, and in Pool 2 do the same for C v. D. Winners bracket winner goes to the final round, loser plays the winner of the losers-bracket game, and advances as runner-up.
For the final four:
Gold semi-final: Pool 1 winner v. Pool 2 winner
Silver semi-final: Pool 1 runner-up v. Pool 2 runner-up
then
Elimination game: Gold loser vs. Silver winner
then
Grand final: Gold semi-final winner v. Elimination game winner.
No need for tie-breakers. No meaningless games. The most number of games a team would play is nine, as opposed to the present eight. The only compelling reason not to do it is the lack of a set schedule of games, but the predictable schedule already pretty much goes out the window after the first round of games as it is.
The biggest negative is that the bad teams only get to play two games instead of 3.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main