"House rules" for online leagues

[Corsairs]

As the commissioner of a fledgling fictional OOTP league, I'm interested to learn about the kinds of special out-of-game rules that other leagues implement. Whether it's to circumvent a shortcoming of the game, to expedite play or to add a creative twist, I think "house rules" can really add character to a league. But while I'm sure there are a bunch of really clever ideas out there, there's nowhere to look to find a collection of those ideas. Maybe this thread can serve as a repository for unique rules and a reference for commissioners looking for ideas to improve their own league.

Being a young league, PEBA's special rules are in a state of development. We've been focusing on things that solve problems with the game or add extra realism. Here are some examples of house rules we're using

• Players are rewarded for exporting, posting and writing league-related articles with Contribution Points (CPs) that can be exchanged for various benefits during the Winter Meetings. Reason: I want to do everything I can to encourage owners to contribute to our league and make it the best it can be. CPs are dangled as an incentive. They can be exchanged for benefits including cash, increased fan loyalty or market size, improved ratings for a player, increased stadium capacity, new team art or even just adding a nickname to a beloved player. It's my opinion that the CP system has really sparked a lot of extra owner participation.
• All player waiver claims are handled through the forum. Reason: This is a response to problems we've had with in-game waiver claims (detailed here). Rather than risk having waiver claims ignored by the game, owners post their claims in our forum and I execute them during the sim.
• All personnel hirings are handled through the forum. Reason: Another response to a shortcoming with how the game processes new staff hirings in online leagues (detailed here). Again, owners post desired hiring in our forums. We use a waiver system and each time a team executes a successful claim they get placed at the bottom of the priority list. This can lead to a fun mini-game where owners jockey for waiver position and use their higher priority to trump other owners' claims.
• Contracts containing a 20% increase/drop in yearly salary or total bonuses in excess of 50% of the contract's highest yearly salary are subject to review. Reason: Sometimes the game allows contracts that are structured in odd ways which you'd most likely never see in real life. These two restrictions are in place to steer owners towards realistic contracts and prevent them from "gaming the system".
• Extensions to players under 30 which buy out four or more years of free agency must have an average yearly salary at least equivalent to the league average salary. Reason: This was implemented after a team extended a player for 10 years at an average of $590k/season (just $210k over league minimum). We operate in a financial environment that resembles current-day MLB's, and no modern-day up-and-coming player would be likely to give away their best (and most expensive!) years so cheaply. The theory behind this rule is that if you feel strongly enough to commit to a player long-term, that commitment should also be demonstrated financially.
• Players cannot be traded within 60 days of signing a new contract. Reason: This was implemented after a team signed a slew of scrub minor league free agents and immediately tried to package 16 of them in two separate deals for players of actual current value. Again, we're simulating a modern MLB environment and you don't usually see the kind of sign-and-trades there that you would in, say, the NBA. The Players' Union wouldn't allow it, so we have this rule to force owners to make a modest commitment to a newly signed/extended player.

So what about your league's house rules? Things like sim scheduling in the off-season - Do you move faster/slower than the regular season? Do you move more slowly during the free agency period? Also, special financial rules - Do you restrict owners from making trades that would put them over budget? Do you enact penalties for teams that finish in the red?. What about creative twists, like Dog Days' distinctive city advantages? Hopefully the more we share our ideas, the more we can improve our leagues.

[Corsairs]

Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time...

Seriously, there have got to be some online league commissioners out there who would benefit from this kind of sharing of ideas. How about those of you who were calling for a Commish League Subforum to talk shop? Anyone? Bueller?

[Bobble]

I'll play along.

I don't play online however, there's a thread currently on the front page about park maintenance in solo play. I'd like to see that aspect played out more in an online league. The profits from your team and your Contribution Points (TM) all go to stadium upkeep, stadium expansion, advertising to maintain fan loyalty and market size, etc.

I like the idea of Contribution Points (TM) but I'd like to see them limited to the off-the-field stuff.

My $.02.

[Recte44]

All that stuff and more is already in place in the GUBA, which has come from the MBBA and the FIBB; and my new league the MBWBA. We've been doing stuff like this for like 7 years of real time, and it works super.

If I could recommend one thing, it'd be to stay away from editing actual player ratings. Intangibles, sure, but not ratings.

[Corsairs]

PEBA does have rules allowing CPs to be spent on park improvements such as increased seating capacity, altered dimensions and relocation. The GUBA's system was actually part of the inspiration for that; they indeed have a very thorough park maintenance system that takes a great deal of factors into account. I love the way their system is setup. However, I don't think such a system would work as well with my group; I fear it might be a bit too much overhead for some of the owners. Guess that's where it's important to know what you're working with.

Recte44, may I ask why you'd recommend against editing player ratings? We're currently allowing owners to use CPs for a one-time improvement to player ratings, so I'd be very interested to hear why this might be a bad idea.

[Recte44]

Sure- Our experience through the MBBA was that over time, the ratings got way too good because of the mods we made, and it ended up knocking the league settings out of whack.

This becomes even more magnified with OOTP2007/8.

[Corsairs]

Did you have any limitations in place on how often a player could be improved? I'm hoping that our "once only" cap on boosting ratings will help prevent this (although I admit I'm not sure since we haven't progressed far enough to witness the results). The other thing I'm banking on is that I've resisted spelling out the exact ratings gain, saying only that it will be "reasonable". Hopefully that provides some wiggle-room to make non-game breaking adjustments.

My goal is to let owners make a modest yet noticeable improvement once (and only once). I'd definitely consider rethinking that plan if enough people have had bad experiences with it. Has anyone else experimented with ratings improvements for players in online leagues?

[Corsairs]

Alright, specific question for online players: What kind of a schedule do you set during the playoffs? I know a lot of leagues sim 7 days at a time. Do you keep that pace during the playoffs or slow things down to allow for more fine-tuning of lineups/rotations? We're about to hit our first post-season and I'd be curious to learn how other leagues handle things.

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by Corsairs

Alright, specific question for online players: What kind of a schedule do you set during the playoffs? I know a lot of leagues sim 7 days at a time. Do you keep that pace during the playoffs or slow things down to allow for more fine-tuning of lineups/rotations? We're about to hit our first post-season and I'd be curious to learn how other leagues handle things.

We do 15-day sims during the regular season. For the playoffs, we have a live sim - everyone is welcome to join our chat on AIM. I write a summary of the game, and then export the box score and game log. I give the option to participating teams of modifying their lineup and rotation at any time between games, and notify them of fatigue and injuries. We only have one playoff round, but I suppose it could be extended to 4-team playoffs easily.

[mikev]

In the GUBA we sim 1 round at a time. It would take way too long to get through the playoffs doing it any other way, and generally the sims are done as soon as possible - IE when each team posts on the forum that they've done a playoff export, we sim.

With a 36 team league, having 8 teams in the playoffs makes it a little boring for the other 28 owners.

Also, I can't stress enough that, over time, modifying player abilities is a bad move. The GUBA, and the MBBA and FIBB before that, uses 1-10 talents, and 1-20 actual ratings. What happened with the MBBA was players with a 7 or 8 contact talent (15-16 actual rating) wout end up being .240 hitters, and the league was full of roided up hitters with 8/9/9/8/6 ratings who were essentially league average.

***THIS WOULD BE A FANTASTIC TOPIC TO HAVE IN AN ONLINE LEAGUE COMMISH FORUM***

[Long_Long_Name]

Originally Posted by mikev

In the GUBA we sim 1 round at a time. It would take way too long to get through the playoffs doing it any other way, and generally the sims are done as soon as possible - IE when each team posts on the forum that they've done a playoff export, we sim.

With a 36 team league, having 8 teams in the playoffs makes it a little boring for the other 28 owners.

Also, I can't stress enough that, over time, modifying player abilities is a bad move. The GUBA, and the MBBA and FIBB before that, uses 1-10 talents, and 1-20 actual ratings. What happened with the MBBA was players with a 7 or 8 contact talent (15-16 actual rating) wout end up being .240 hitters, and the league was full of roided up hitters with 8/9/9/8/6 ratings who were essentially league average.

***THIS WOULD BE A FANTASTIC TOPIC TO HAVE IN AN ONLINE LEAGUE COMMISH FORUM***

I agree with you - I'd never, ever let participation artificially boost a team's performance, with one notable exception: I give a tiny sum (I think it's 100,000) to people who recruit other owners, which helps the league for a tiny amount of money. Whether it's stadium or player mods, I think it's a bad idea. But if others like it, good for them .

[Corsairs]

Thanks for the tips guys. We'll be sending 8 teams to the playoffs, so I may lean towards the GUBA's way of handling things (although I really like the idea of a live sim and the handwritten recap). If I can coordinate it with my owners, I might see about running the first round in one sim and then splitting the final two rounds up over two sims each.

I guess I'll have to look very hard at the "Winter Ball" aspect of our CP system that allows for player improvement. I had been hoping that making small adjustments wouldn't upset the balance too greatly. We use a 1-100 rating scale, but I guess that doesn't make any difference since the editor uses a 1-200 scale regardless. Certainly it'd be bad news to end up with massively overpowered players through editing.

As for the CP system in general, I'm somewhat torn. On the one hand I see the potential for trouble. About 60% of our owners are heavily active and earning large chunks of CPs. The others do a fine job with their teams, but they do so quietly and therefore aren't keeping pace with the vocal owners in the CP race. Not surprisingly I suppose, it's generally the owners of more "challenged" teams who are less vocal.

My intention behind a CP system is to give them an incentive to talk to one another, do some league writing, etc. The problem is, while that idea seems to be working beautifully for the strong teams, the weaker teams aren't taking advantage. So definitely there's a concern that the net result will be the rich get richer.

What's frustrating to me is that there's no inherit reason why it should work like that. The same opportunity is being offered to everyone. I'm really reluctant to remove the incentives for participation. At least for the time being I'd prefer to keep trying to educate my owners about the benefits they can gain from participation and see if the message starts to sink in.

Originally Posted by mikev

***THIS WOULD BE A FANTASTIC TOPIC TO HAVE IN AN ONLINE LEAGUE COMMISH FORUM***

Quoted for truth.

[mrbill]

I run a league (OOTP 5) and refuse to add to my league a reward for participation, or even join a league that does it.

My primary responsibility (as I see it) is to run my team to the best of my ability. I chat when I have time, I don't when I don't. I don't have time to manage my team AND maintain a baseline of activity that's as high as everyone else in the league, when that baseline might actually be pretty high.

I also don't expect to be able to constantly recruit people who have that much free time, so I don't want to build in an implicit penalty for not doing extra stuff.

The leagues I've been in get chatty with the right set of owners anyway.

And, as it is, the people who have the most time are likely already doing more for their teams than the ones who don't, as they spend time researching for trades, drafts, articles and the like. It's most likely a 'rich get richer' scenario in many ways.

[Recte44]

Mrbill, I respect that. However, the rich get richer aspect is decreased by having a PP minimum, like we do in the GUBA and MBWBA. Not everyone wants to be in a super-active league, but there's certainly a call for it. PP minimums are a prevent against issues like you mentioned.

[Corsairs]

We also have a minimum requirement on CPs. But let me ask this: are those of you using CPs/PPs employing a maximum on how many can be earned per season? We cap seasonal earnings at 200 to prevent an owner from amassing so many points that he becomes an unstoppable force.

So basically owners have to earn 1/4 of the maximum CPs available for a year to stay on with the league. At our standard exchange rate (40 CPs/$1M in cash), that's the difference between $1M with minimum CPs earned vs. $5M with maximum CPs earned.

With three months remaining before the Winter Meetings (when owners cash in CPs), 20 of 24 owners have 80 or more CPs and no one is below 50. 8 of 24 teams are within 31 points of maximum. The majority of the group is hovering around 100 CPs.

If nothing changed between now and the Winter Meetings, the top earning teams would be pulling in $2-$3M more than the bottom ones (assuming they use their CPs on cash). In the absolute worst case scenario, the gap would likely be $4M. How does that compare to the potential CP/PP potential earnings gaps in other leagues?

[hurn0003]

We do a lot of things, but we do 3 things that I haven't seen a lot of other leagues doing.

1. Talent Protection-All GMs may designate 3 minor leaguers to be protected against all talent hits. There is no cost to GMs for so designating these players. The list may be altered during the course of the season at the cost of 25 participation points per change, however changes cannot be made retroactively. Additional minor leaguers may be protected at the cost of 500 participation points per season.

In addition, GMs can protect players on their major league roster against talent hits. The cost for this is 100 per player age 24 or younger or 50 points for players 25 or older. Players over the age of 30 cannot be protected.

If a protected minor leaguer is promoted to the majors, the GM must pay the points in order to continue to have him protected.

All first round picks will be protected from developmental talent hits for their first season, after that they must be protected like any other player.

Such protections only apply to players talent decreases which appear on the developmental report.

2. Pitcher Conversion-5 points of Endurance can be converted to add 1 point on both potential and overall on a pitcher's stuff, movement or control. The player must be left with a minimum 15 endurance.

Such a pitcher may be reconverted back to starting at the cost of 300 participation points by the GM. The added points will be removed and endurance will be restored with a 10% deduction.

3. Position Addiing-200 Points to teach a player a new position.

When teaching and IFer the OF they get all their IF ratings carried over.

When teaching an OFer the IF they get their OF ratings carried over, but recieve a 10% deduction to both range and error. Double play will be an average of range and arm.

When teaching a C an new position, his range will be equal to his speed, rrror will be equal to his catcher ability, and arm equal to his C arm plus 25%.

When teaching a player C, C ability will be range divided by 2 and C arm will be Arm divided by 2.

A player learning an easier defensive position gets 50% experience, a player learning a harder one gets 25% experience. This of course will rise over time.

If a player does not need base ratings transferred he will recieve 100% of experience if he is moving down the defensive spectrum, 50% experience if he is moving up the defensive spectrum.

Spectrum
SS 2B CF 3B RF LF 1B

[hurn0003]

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more with your take on this. I run a league w/ participation points system and I think the GMs really enjoy it. Everyone has access to making a decent number of points through a betting book we use. There are extra opportunities to earn points through recruiting, holding league jobs, writing articles, and exporting.

I feel like this system gets GMs more invested in their teams and keeps interest level high throughout the league. GMs are able to put finishing touches on their teams. We just finished our first season and the participation level of the league exceeded my expectations.

For me it isn't a question of asking GMs to do extra stuff, it is them participating in a league in a way in which it is fun for everyone. Certainly some GMs would prefer to be in 14 leagues and do no more than export, but I think that leagues that have a community where GMs chat with one another and talk about the league is infinitely more interesting. Without that community and participation it might as well be a solo league.

I think a participation system can be useful for filling holes in the game and as I indicated above we use them to solve the issue of massive talent hits to completely developed young major leaguers that aren't accompanied by injuries and adding positions between IF and OF players (among others).

Originally Posted by mrbill

I run a league (OOTP 5) and refuse to add to my league a reward for participation, or even join a league that does it.

My primary responsibility (as I see it) is to run my team to the best of my ability. I chat when I have time, I don't when I don't. I don't have time to manage my team AND maintain a baseline of activity that's as high as everyone else in the league, when that baseline might actually be pretty high.

I also don't expect to be able to constantly recruit people who have that much free time, so I don't want to build in an implicit penalty for not doing extra stuff.

The leagues I've been in get chatty with the right set of owners anyway.

And, as it is, the people who have the most time are likely already doing more for their teams than the ones who don't, as they spend time researching for trades, drafts, articles and the like. It's most likely a 'rich get richer' scenario in many ways.

[Corsairs]

Originally Posted by hurn0003

For me it isn't a question of asking GMs to do extra stuff, it is them participating in a league in a way in which it is fun for everyone. Certainly some GMs would prefer to be in 14 leagues and do no more than export, but I think that leagues that have a community where GMs chat with one another and talk about the league is infinitely more interesting. Without that community and participation it might as well be a solo league.

I think that's a great quote and I agree with the sentiments completely. It's not about forcing people into drudge work; it's really about building a sense of community and camaraderie, as well as building a believable alter-reality for the league. Like hurn0003, our league is near the end of its first season and I'm blown away by how much the owners are coming together. I credit the CP system at least in part with facilitating that.

We also have a system for exchanging CPs to allow players to learn new positions - it helps correct an oversight with the game's player development system (you'd think it'd be natural that players wouldn't be limited to just catcher, infielder or outfielder). The other two ideas listed are new to me and I find them to be interesting, particularly the talent protection one. Seems like it'd add an extra strategic wrinkle to the mix.

hurn0003, do you allow participation points to be exchanged for cash? If so, what exchange rate do you use and what's the maximum that an owner can get in one season (if there is a max)?

Since this topic is developing a little bit, let me just put this out there: anyone interested in examining our Contribution Points system can look over that section of our league Constitution. The various awards are listed in the articles directly below the one I just linked.

[Ktulu]

If the league is good enough people will participate, incentives just give those who have more time an advantage over those who do not. I've been on both sides of having a lot of online time to waste and having very little... it's not very fair to gain an advantage on others by writing articles or whatever, nor is it fair to see competitors gain an advantage over you when you can't participate.

If your league is good and and you have a good forum/website, people will participate when and how they can. Some of the people who don't have time to post regularly or write articles end up being the people who make the greatest contributions (mods, graphics, utilities etc.)

[Corsairs]

Any chance we can get this topic moved to the new OOTP Commissioner's Corner forum?

I'll admit that I'm too novice to be able to definitively say that participation point systems work. I can only say that it's been my experience so far that our system has been a positive influence on our owners. Beyond posting and writing articles, owners are getting points for things like contributing art and graphs, bringing on new owners, participating in special events (like our upcoming PEBA college hoops tourney bracket), etc. I believe there'd still be these kinds of contributions without the system, but I think the extra incentive provides extra effort.

Of course we'll have to see how things are going after a few years before I can say for certain whether the system is a success or not, but for now I feel very good about it.