Suggestion for "League of Champions" - Page 5

potatoman · 01-10-2005, 01:40 PM

It would be awesome if people not in the league act as sports writers, so we'll have a continuing ESPN like homepage with trade rumors, big deals, trade analysts and stuff

potatoman · 01-10-2005, 01:56 PM

Also, run 20 years and then reset everything and make CPU draft to make all teams kind of fair. 20 years will allow us to have some developed players already, some HoFers and some young spects...

halofan26 · 01-10-2005, 02:23 PM

I have excel so feel free to send away

ortonius · 01-10-2005, 03:08 PM

SMLB will be happy to nominate someone to send. I will send out an email to my owners and have them nominate someone right away.

Chip
Commish, SMLB
http://smlb-ootp-online.com

halofan26 · 01-10-2005, 03:24 PM

lol i know it isnt me

Cyclone792 · 01-10-2005, 06:21 PM

I think Mike should be nominated from ULB. I mean, I've never seen a team fight, scratch, kick, scream and claw their way into last place with so much glory. They're the only team I've ever seen to have a scroll bar in their disabled list menu, but they held steadfast courage through those rough times and fought their way up to last place with a king's determination!

halofan26 · 01-10-2005, 06:30 PM

Rofl

Cliche · 01-10-2005, 07:26 PM

what a great idea.... the cream of the crop!

Cyclone792 · 01-10-2005, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NealMusser

Only 1 GM can be nominated per league

If a league nominates more than 1 GM, then I will decide which GM enters the League of Champions.

Fair enough. I guess it depends on the interest... and I understand the dilemma with offering two spots to some leagues while only offering one to other leagues. It's a shame because there's two or three guys that may get the shaft, though they are extremely deserving. Ah well, gotta work with what ya can and set the limit somewhere.

jm47048 · 01-12-2005, 01:54 PM

I have been reading this thread and I thought it was a great idea. I don't know if someone has said this already or not, but if you are going to have a league of champions represented by a nominated owner, perhaps each leagues winning all star team could be the team that represents the league. I don't know how much work this would take, but basically it would be the best of the best players, and the best GM all get together and duke it out to see who the all time great OOTP players and managers are. What do you all think?

IatricSB · 01-12-2005, 03:06 PM

I think there is too much disparity in the leagues when it comes to ratings to make this work. In one league I'm in, there's countless numbers of players that have 8 contact or above and/or 10 discipline. While in another league, anything over 6 for contact is a star and only a few players have 10 for discipline. Also there would be the same type of disparity for real vs fictional and historical vs current leagues. The only way I could see it working would be if there was some kind of normalization, but I can't see that working either.

IatricSB · 01-12-2005, 03:07 PM

Also, we have a plan we've been working on but I'm not sure whether or not to share it. Seems like a good thing to share with everyone but I don't know if the other committee members would think I'm letting the cat out of the bag. I'll check with them and see if we can go public with the idea we're kicking around.

What do you think committee? Seems like a good thing to discuss openly unless you know of reasons to not go public yet.

jm47048 · 01-12-2005, 03:26 PM

Well, perhaps you could just use the owners then, or adjust the players so that they are evenly competitive. Does that make sense?

Steve T · 01-12-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jm47048

Well, perhaps you could just use the owners then, or adjust the players so that they are evenly competitive. Does that make sense?

The difference in ratings between the different leagues in the OOTP Community would make this impossible to do. The game engine will not be able to handle so many different rating system's being inputted into the game. Plus, it takes some challenge away, as the GMs are being handed a team that they are familiar with. Most likely, we will use a fictional league set-up, so it will be fair for all GMs.

Stacy, I see no reason why we should not let the public know about the idea's for the LOC. They might have some good suggestions

By the way, we have 10 GMs as we stand, and I know of at least 8 more GMs, include Mike's 7, that will be nominated in the forseeable future.

IatricSB · 01-12-2005, 04:19 PM

Well alrighty then....

I can't remember the name of the race, but it's something like the "Race of Champions" that has been staged in the past. The race was made up of Indy, F1, and Nascar drivers who were all given identically set up Camaros to drive (or some other kind of car). The idea of the race was to have the skill of the driver be what determines the outcome, not how good their car is set up.

So using that as a background, we're considering having every single team be identical at the beginning of the league (talent turned on but ratings turned off). The owner that identifies talent the quickest will hopefully be rewarded the first season. From that starting point, it would be trades and drafting that makes or breaks the team. The teams would have the same "player" under the hood, but the names would be changed to protect the innocent (and make teams unique as far as names go).

Since ratings are off, we'd sim some history (anywhere from 2 to 20 years) to build up enough history to assist the owners in picking their lineup. After the simming of history, either we'd have to live with the random ratings changes or if possible, all players would be edited back to their original ratings.

Still some kinks to work out since having identical teams would be easy to accomplish until the history is simmed.

So, any new suggestions along the line or comments?

Cyclone792 · 01-12-2005, 10:05 PM

Stacy, forgive me for probably missing something because I'm fairly confident I am (that or I'm just tired and easily confused right now, lol) but my initial reaction is if every single team is identical in the beginning, doesn't that require every player to be rated identical? The more I read your post and the more I'm reading my response so far, the more I realize I've just gotta be missing something, but I can't put my finger on what it is, lol

potatoman · 01-12-2005, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IatricSB

Well alrighty then....

I can't remember the name of the race, but it's something like the "Race of Champions" that has been staged in the past. The race was made up of Indy, F1, and Nascar drivers who were all given identically set up Camaros to drive (or some other kind of car). The idea of the race was to have the skill of the driver be what determines the outcome, not how good their car is set up.

So using that as a background, we're considering having every single team be identical at the beginning of the league (talent turned on but ratings turned off). The owner that identifies talent the quickest will hopefully be rewarded the first season. From that starting point, it would be trades and drafting that makes or breaks the team. The teams would have the same "player" under the hood, but the names would be changed to protect the innocent (and make teams unique as far as names go).

Since ratings are off, we'd sim some history (anywhere from 2 to 20 years) to build up enough history to assist the owners in picking their lineup. After the simming of history, either we'd have to live with the random ratings changes or if possible, all players would be edited back to their original ratings.

Still some kinks to work out since having identical teams would be easy to accomplish until the history is simmed.

So, any new suggestions along the line or comments?

I don't understand the concept of all teams being the same. So, are you saying that one team could basically have a lineup with the same exact player 9 times?

Also, I think ratings turned off = good...

Stars also should be turned off....Talent ratings should be 2-8 to make it harder to gague.

Also, if you put their talent back to their original ratings, it wouldn't be much of a challenge since we know how they could turn out...

-edit- I had a suggestion but it would be way too much work and I think the easiest way is to have th computer draft the whole thing and each team is assigned a random number and we choose a number and that's the team we get. The CPU should draft fairly evenly (if not a good team now, it should have decent talent)...

tibbotobbins · 01-12-2005, 10:45 PM

No, not EVERY single player is the same. All the teams are comprised of players with the same ratings. What that means is, every team would have, say, a 1B with 8-7-4 talent ratings. That doesn't mean every player would be 8-7-4. It means every team would have an 8-7-4 1B. And a 3B that is 5-5-7 would be on every team. A 3-7-6 RF on every team. The names would be different, but the ratings the same. It gives it a bigger challenge. Get it now?

potatoman · 01-12-2005, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tibbotobbins

No, not EVERY single player is the same. All the teams are comprised of players with the same ratings. What that means is, every team would have, say, a 1B with 8-7-4 talent ratings. That doesn't mean every player would be 8-7-4. It means every team would have an 8-7-4 1B. And a 3B that is 5-5-7 would be on every team. A 3-7-6 RF on every team. The names would be different, but the ratings the same. It gives it a bigger challenge. Get it now?

I do not understand what the challenge in that is, if every team has the same player...let's say I have a weak RF and I want someone to fill that space, everyone else's RF will be weak too so there's no point in trading for one...

tibbotobbins · 01-12-2005, 10:55 PM

Eh, that's the way I understand it. This idea is Stacy's brainchild, so it would be best for him to answer.

01-10-2005, 01:40 PM	#81
potatoman Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 2,410 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	It would be awesome if people not in the league act as sports writers, so we'll have a continuing ESPN like homepage with trade rumors, big deals, trade analysts and stuff __________________ GFBL - Storm - 5 seasons - 500 - 310 New Jersey Nighthawks (1227-717) Last 5 seasons 2011: 118-44 2012: 100-62 2013: 111-51 2014: 106-56 2015: 108-54 OTBA Champions: 2008, 2010,2011

01-10-2005, 01:56 PM	#82
potatoman Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 2,410 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	Also, run 20 years and then reset everything and make CPU draft to make all teams kind of fair. 20 years will allow us to have some developed players already, some HoFers and some young spects... __________________ GFBL - Storm - 5 seasons - 500 - 310 New Jersey Nighthawks (1227-717) Last 5 seasons 2011: 118-44 2012: 100-62 2013: 111-51 2014: 106-56 2015: 108-54 OTBA Champions: 2008, 2010,2011

01-10-2005, 02:23 PM	#83
halofan26 All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Anaheim, Ca Posts: 1,491	I have excel so feel free to send away __________________ Mike Lambert Sim League Central President Home of the Halofan roster set THE best baseball info and fan site ever The best Angels fan site "Because i got high" - Afroman

01-10-2005, 03:08 PM	#84
ortonius Minors (Single A) Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 79	SMLB will be happy to nominate someone to send. I will send out an email to my owners and have them nominate someone right away. Chip Commish, SMLB http://smlb-ootp-online.com __________________ Commish / Simi Valley Super Squirrels GM - EOTD EOTD - Explorers of the Diamond Texas Rangers GM-'07, '09 AL West Champs SMLB - Simulated Major League Baseball Alabama Slammers - POTD Pioneers Of The Diamond Baltimore Orioles - Shagadelic (AL Champs 1961, WS Champs - '62, '64) Shagadelic Baseball League (Circa 1961) Texas Rangers - PSBL PSBL 2005 Rosters

01-10-2005, 03:24 PM	#85
halofan26 All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Anaheim, Ca Posts: 1,491	lol i know it isnt me __________________ Mike Lambert Sim League Central President Home of the Halofan roster set THE best baseball info and fan site ever The best Angels fan site "Because i got high" - Afroman

01-10-2005, 06:21 PM	#86
Cyclone792 All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Posts: 572	I think Mike should be nominated from ULB. I mean, I've never seen a team fight, scratch, kick, scream and claw their way into last place with so much glory. They're the only team I've ever seen to have a scroll bar in their disabled list menu, but they held steadfast courage through those rough times and fought their way up to last place with a king's determination! __________________ Jason POTD: Co-Commish and Glacier Bay Ice Pirates

01-10-2005, 06:30 PM	#87
halofan26 All Star Starter Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Anaheim, Ca Posts: 1,491	Rofl __________________ Mike Lambert Sim League Central President Home of the Halofan roster set THE best baseball info and fan site ever The best Angels fan site "Because i got high" - Afroman

01-10-2005, 07:26 PM	#88
Cliche Minors (Triple A) Join Date: May 2003 Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Posts: 209	what a great idea.... the cream of the crop! __________________ GUBA - Bogota Toros

01-12-2005, 01:54 PM	#90
jm47048 All Star Starter Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,244	I have been reading this thread and I thought it was a great idea. I don't know if someone has said this already or not, but if you are going to have a league of champions represented by a nominated owner, perhaps each leagues winning all star team could be the team that represents the league. I don't know how much work this would take, but basically it would be the best of the best players, and the best GM all get together and duke it out to see who the all time great OOTP players and managers are. What do you all think? __________________ The New York Yankees World Series Champions 1923, 1927, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1958, 1961, 1962, 1977, 1978, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2009 American League Champions 1921, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2009

01-12-2005, 03:06 PM	#91
IatricSB Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: California Posts: 3,493	I think there is too much disparity in the leagues when it comes to ratings to make this work. In one league I'm in, there's countless numbers of players that have 8 contact or above and/or 10 discipline. While in another league, anything over 6 for contact is a star and only a few players have 10 for discipline. Also there would be the same type of disparity for real vs fictional and historical vs current leagues. The only way I could see it working would be if there was some kind of normalization, but I can't see that working either. __________________ Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow! What a Ride!" Chicago(N) - Boys of Summer Oakland - 20th Century League Bakersfield - Wild Things Brooklyn - QBA Dodge City - NBSL California - ABC Dodger's Senioriest fan on the OOTP Boards

01-12-2005, 03:07 PM	#92
IatricSB Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: California Posts: 3,493	Also, we have a plan we've been working on but I'm not sure whether or not to share it. Seems like a good thing to share with everyone but I don't know if the other committee members would think I'm letting the cat out of the bag. I'll check with them and see if we can go public with the idea we're kicking around. What do you think committee? Seems like a good thing to discuss openly unless you know of reasons to not go public yet. __________________ Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow! What a Ride!" Chicago(N) - Boys of Summer Oakland - 20th Century League Bakersfield - Wild Things Brooklyn - QBA Dodge City - NBSL California - ABC Dodger's Senioriest fan on the OOTP Boards Last edited by IatricSB; 01-12-2005 at 03:09 PM.

01-12-2005, 03:26 PM	#93
jm47048 All Star Starter Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1,244	Well, perhaps you could just use the owners then, or adjust the players so that they are evenly competitive. Does that make sense? __________________ The New York Yankees World Series Champions 1923, 1927, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1958, 1961, 1962, 1977, 1978, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2009 American League Champions 1921, 1922, 1923, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1947, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2009

01-12-2005, 04:19 PM	#95
IatricSB Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: California Posts: 3,493	Well alrighty then.... I can't remember the name of the race, but it's something like the "Race of Champions" that has been staged in the past. The race was made up of Indy, F1, and Nascar drivers who were all given identically set up Camaros to drive (or some other kind of car). The idea of the race was to have the skill of the driver be what determines the outcome, not how good their car is set up. So using that as a background, we're considering having every single team be identical at the beginning of the league (talent turned on but ratings turned off). The owner that identifies talent the quickest will hopefully be rewarded the first season. From that starting point, it would be trades and drafting that makes or breaks the team. The teams would have the same "player" under the hood, but the names would be changed to protect the innocent (and make teams unique as far as names go). Since ratings are off, we'd sim some history (anywhere from 2 to 20 years) to build up enough history to assist the owners in picking their lineup. After the simming of history, either we'd have to live with the random ratings changes or if possible, all players would be edited back to their original ratings. Still some kinks to work out since having identical teams would be easy to accomplish until the history is simmed. So, any new suggestions along the line or comments? __________________ Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow! What a Ride!" Chicago(N) - Boys of Summer Oakland - 20th Century League Bakersfield - Wild Things Brooklyn - QBA Dodge City - NBSL California - ABC Dodger's Senioriest fan on the OOTP Boards

01-12-2005, 10:05 PM	#96
Cyclone792 All Star Reserve Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Cincinnati, Ohio Posts: 572	Stacy, forgive me for probably missing something because I'm fairly confident I am (that or I'm just tired and easily confused right now, lol) but my initial reaction is if every single team is identical in the beginning, doesn't that require every player to be rated identical? The more I read your post and the more I'm reading my response so far, the more I realize I've just gotta be missing something, but I can't put my finger on what it is, lol __________________ Jason POTD: Co-Commish and Glacier Bay Ice Pirates

01-12-2005, 10:45 PM	#98
tibbotobbins Minors (Single A) Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 66	No, not EVERY single player is the same. All the teams are comprised of players with the same ratings. What that means is, every team would have, say, a 1B with 8-7-4 talent ratings. That doesn't mean every player would be 8-7-4. It means every team would have an 8-7-4 1B. And a 3B that is 5-5-7 would be on every team. A 3-7-6 RF on every team. The names would be different, but the ratings the same. It gives it a bigger challenge. Get it now?

01-12-2005, 10:55 PM	#100
tibbotobbins Minors (Single A) Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 66	Eh, that's the way I understand it. This idea is Stacy's brainchild, so it would be best for him to answer.