How does seeding work?

[default]

We were at a tourney this past weekend and I did not get how they seeded teams after pool play. During pool play 2 teams tied and their records became 1-1-1 team A is considered the winner because of runners on base. Team B becomes the loser. Now when the tournament seedings are done, Team A is seeded 2nd over a team that was 2-1 (no ties). How does that work where a team with 2 actual wins is seeded below a team that is 1-1-1? I guess I just don't understand seeding rules, could one of you experts please explain? They also seeded a 1-2 team above the other 1-1-1 team so that kind of threw me off too as how could a team with 2 actual losses be ahead of a team that is 1-1-1? Thanks for your help!

 

[default]

do you have the tournament rules--they should explain how the seeding would take place.

I'm asking because there could be several ways to seed from pool play where ties occur.
There isn't a technically correct way so however the rules for this particular tournament defined their seeding process is what should have ocurred.

 

[default]

One possibility:

Pool 1
3-0
2-1
1-2
0-3

Pool 2
1-1-1
1-1-1
1-1-1
1-1-1

You would have a #1 seed at 1-1-1 and a #2 seed at 2-1

You would also have a #3 1-2 seed and a #4 1-1-1 seed

Each pool is seeded upon itself.

I am sure there are many more ways. That was just the one that popped out at me.

 

[default]

We were at a tourney this past weekend and I did not get how they seeded teams after pool play. During pool play 2 teams tied and their records became 1-1-1 team A is considered the winner because of runners on base. Team B becomes the loser. Now when the tournament seedings are done, Team A is seeded 2nd over a team that was 2-1 (no ties). How does that work where a team with 2 actual wins is seeded below a team that is 1-1-1? I guess I just don't understand seeding rules, could one of you experts please explain? They also seeded a 1-2 team above the other 1-1-1 team so that kind of threw me off too as how could a team with 2 actual losses be ahead of a team that is 1-1-1? Thanks for your help!

1-1-1 should ALWAYS seed over a team that is 1-2 if going by best record.. which is usually the first tie-breaker in the decision process of proper seeding.. that being best record.

Sounds like the "fix" was in for seeding ...... :lmao:

 

[default]

If u recall... NSA States... some years back... Due to weather conditions... Teams that finished in ties were awarded WINS based on number of runners to 3rd base... So even though the team finished 1 - 1- 1... the tie could have been assigned a WIN based on runners to 3rd base and thus the team finished 2 - 1 (i.e. the tie never happened - they WON!). Go team!

You have to love those TIE - WINS... my daughters team had two of them that weekend.

 

[default]

First you till up the ground, then you plant seed, then you cover the seed, then you water the seed, then you have what ever you were seeding for.

 

[default]

First you till up the ground, then you plant seed, then you cover the seed, then you water the seed, then you have what ever you were seeding for.

;& You beat me to it coop...

 

[default]

If u recall... NSA States... some years back... Due to weather conditions... Teams that finished in ties were awarded WINS based on number of runners to 3rd base... So even though the team finished 1 - 1- 1... the tie could have been assigned a WIN based on runners to 3rd base and thus the team finished 2 - 1 (i.e. the tie never happened - they WON!). Go team!

You have to love those TIE - WINS... my daughters team had two of them that weekend.

Come on MS....we're all trying to forget about that weekend. Now I need to go call my therapist....... :lmao:

 

[default]

Wubbamom

They just got one over on you ? or honest mistake did you ask or see rules

 

[default]

Yes, both teams that were put over the other teams were their teams.
The teams were as such:
1 seed - Team A 3-0
2 seed - Team B 1-1-1
3 Seed - Team C 2-1
4 Seed - Team D 1-2
5 Seed - Team E 1-1-1
6 Seed - Team F 0-3

That was how they were seeded. I did not understand how this could happen.

Thanks for your input -
Wubba

 

[default]

Don't look right to me but don't have rules. Below based on most common formula

I would guess it should have been in order of #1 seed to # 6 seed

Team A
Team C
Team B and E depending on head to head and less runs allowed
Team D
Team F

 

[default]

Yes, both teams that were put over the other teams were their teams.
The teams were as such:
1 seed - Team A 3-0
2 seed - Team B 1-1-1
3 Seed - Team C 2-1
4 Seed - Team D 1-2
5 Seed - Team E 1-1-1
6 Seed - Team F 0-3

That was how they were seeded. I did not understand how this could happen.

Thanks for your input -
Wubba

As I said, the "fix" was in.

 

[default]

WubbaMom,

Have you ever thought that maybe the ties you mention were actually NOT ties? There are NEVER ties at the Spano Dome Qualifier or in Poland at their qualifier. The games always had a clear winner determined by runners on third, or second, or first (until a clear winner is determined). Sometimes, they even go back to the previous inning of play to determine a winner if the inning hasn't finished when the time is up. I have seen some tournaments FLIP coins which I personally hate. I would much rather have a determination based on something IN the book. Ask your coach, ask the TD (respectfully), or ask another experienced parent. I would bet that it's not bc they are out to get your team or put their team at an advantage. What good would that do them for returning customers?

Stirring the pot awfully early in the season aren't we gentlemen?

 

[default]

1. Best Record
2. Head to Head
3. Runs given up
4. Runs scored
5. Coin Flip

Now, sometimes, a TD will use that 1-1-1 record and see if the two teams played a common opponent ( in a situation where you did not play ALL of your pool teams ) ( could happen in 2 pool - double eliminations events ) and if they did.. do the "who won against common opponent " tie breaker as Number 3 in the list above.

Now, as far as I know, NSA uses the runners positioning to decide games so there are not ties. And bless them for them working with scorekeepers who have two different books that say different ;&

 

[default]

... During pool play 2 teams tied and their records became 1-1-1 team A is considered the winner because of runners on base. Team B becomes the loser. Now when the tournament seedings are done, Team A is seeded 2nd over a team that was 2-1 (no ties). How does that work where a team with 2 actual wins is seeded below a team that is 1-1-1? I guess I just don't understand seeding rules, could one of you experts please explain? They also seeded a 1-2 team above the other 1-1-1 team so that kind of threw me off too as how could a team with 2 actual losses be ahead of a team that is 1-1-1? Thanks for your help!

As others have pointed out, it sounds like they treated Team A's record as 2-1 and Team B's record as 1-2.

I've never seen anyone handle tie games like that. I don't think the idea of converting ties to win/loss before comparing records would go over out here exactly for the example you've shown.

 

[default]

Gannon

Don't think Wubba was stirring pot. She just had honest question. As far as answers people were trying to give insight maybe even a lil joking. No names or Org. were mentioned. So no bad just honest opinions.

 

[default]

WWolf
I didn't think WubbaMom was stirring the pot. Notice I said, "gentlemen." You edited your original post. Initially it said something to the effect of Ohioquakerman's thoughts about "fixing" the seeding.

 

[default]

While I never understand why it's necessary to declare teams winners or losers in pool games that they've tied, clearly in this case they used some kind of runners on base variation. Once that was used, the teams no longer have a 1-1-1 record but either 2-1 or 1-2 ... then I assume they use some other tiebreaker to determine which team that is 2-1 or 1-2 is seeded higher than the other. In the end, if you want to win a tournament, you need to beat everyone else there anyhow so sometimes seeding is "overrated" in my mind (unless it means you get the 8AM game Sunday morning!).

 

[default]

While I never understand why it's necessary to declare teams winners or losers in pool games that they've tied, clearly in this case they used some kind of runners on base variation. Once that was used, the teams no longer have a 1-1-1 record but either 2-1 or 1-2 ... then I assume they use some other tiebreaker to determine which team that is 2-1 or 1-2 is seeded higher than the other. In the end, if you want to win a tournament, you need to beat everyone else there anyhow so sometimes seeding is "overrated" in my mind (unless it means you get the 8AM game Sunday morning!).

I will say that I agree about seeding not being that important. BUT anything to avoid the 8am game. And we have only won tournaments that we have been the #1 seed out of pool play.

I think the higher level of team you have the less important the seeding is. My reasoning is that the best teams should be getting to the level that whoever plays well that day wins. That the overall talent is pretty even so it comes down to who is able to execute in crunch time. Which will often go back and forth between the top teams.

While at he lower levels I think the seeding will dictate who is the most talented. So if you are playing the highest level teams for your age group the seeding will not be as important. While if you are playing at a "B" level the seeding will probably follow your teams talent level in contrast to the other teams you are playing.

 

[default]

Edited because you took offense to it didn't mean it that way at all as I'm sure quakerman didn't. We all need thicker skin. JMHO