Suggestion for "League of Champions"

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by potatoman

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...

That's exactly the way I understand it too, lol

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by potatoman

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)...

I might disagree with turning stars off, but that's only due to the way that I use them. For the most part, I ignore stars anyway except as a time saving method when sorting through players. I'm going to come to the same exact conclusions on any specific player whether their star rating is showing or not. Having the star rating turned on just saves me the time and hassle of sorting through dozens of players only to come to the conclusion that they're terrible, lol.

[Cliche]

im not a big fan of the talent only rating system (of course thats my problem)... and I'm also a bit confused by this identical teams idea...

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

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

Now it's late for me, so I may be missing your question but yes what I'd do is make every team identical. Possibly by importing the same team (historical) over and over again and edit the team name and player names. But however it's done, they would be identical. But I think that we should sim at least two years prior to the start of the league to give the owners some history to look at to help them decide who to play (since current ratings would be off). However, simming a couple of seasons would cause some players to get talent bumps/hits and possibly age/develop slightly differently on each team. So after simming two seasons, the teams are no longer identical. At that point the option is to shrug and say "Oh well" or else take the time to edit the players so they're back to being exactly equal in ratings once again. Is that what you're asking?

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by potatoman

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...

Very good points. I knew the first season would end up being a little more luck than skill since everyone could potentially have identical lineups. It was my hope that in the 1st season, the trick for the owners would be to make sure they're playing the best players and also how well they set up their and use their team/player strategies. After the 1st season, drafting would come into play and trading would make more sense but still trading might be diminished for several seasons.

Another alternative would be to have each team have players with same ratings (ie - every team would have a 8-3-7 player and a 5-7-2 player and maybe a 6-5-5 player like in the original suggestion) but scramble the positions they play. So for example, one team may have the three players mentioned (in the previous sentence) playing 1B, SS, RF whereas another team would have the 3 at LF, C, 2B. By scrambling the positions, it would make trading more viable and make it harder for each owner to figure out who should start (they wouldn't be able to copy other team's strategies). But the downside is that since talent would be on, the owners could probably figure out who is who based on that.

I don't know, it's just an idea I thought would be fun (having everybody on a perfectly level playing field), but I always came up with negative/downside things and I'm sure others can thing of more downsides. But hopefully it will spark some discussion as to what people would like to see.

[IatricSB]

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?

That's what I'd like to accomplish. Any ideas on how to accomplish this. I guess one alternative would be to run test sims (in replay mode) tracking wins per team for 10 seasons and see if the totals are similar. Then tweak the teams at the top and bottom to bring them closer to the "average". But please suggest away. I'd love to have a level playing field so owners win or lose on their own ability instead of luck of the draw when assigning teams.

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by potatoman

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

I sure hope so.

[IatricSB]

At the risk of repeating myself, nothing is finalized and I'm glad to see everyone give their input/ideas. I was just hoping to find a way where good owners are rewarded for good decisions (and being the first to recognize talent) and not just rewarded by being lucky and being given a better team.

I'm not confident a draft is the way to go either. When I first thought of the league, I thought it would be one with a determined ending. In other words, instead of just going forever and ever, have the owners commit to some kind of league length like 5 or 10 years (or whatever) then "crown" the GM of GMs at that time. Because of this, drafting the best team would give an owner a huge advantage (plus some owners prefer to draft young and would not win for a while unless the league lasts longer). I could be wrong though, but I've never liked dispersal drafts because of the length of time it takes.

However I'm open to all suggestions. So in addition to deciding what type of league it is (similar teams, fictional, whatever else that may apply), the length of the league should be also decided (5 yr commitment, 10 yr, indefinite with owners being replaced if/when they drop out, other, etc).

[f.montoya]

In order to truly even the playing field and to enable the All-Star GM's to show their stuff, I suggest this:

1. Nominations of All-Star GM's should be limited to a total of 6 with remaining teams being run by the AI.

2. The All Star GM's should be given the 6 worst franchises from any given decade(or decades), if historical or 6 purposely made, equally bad teams of fictional players. All-Star GM's would be placed in separate divisions.

3. Turn off th DH.

4. The first GM to win a World Series, no matter how many seasons it takes, will be crowned Champion of Champions in OOTP.

An alternate idea would be that a commission is set up to actually create 6 bad teams.

Also, depending on the sim scheduling, you could feasibly set up 4 leagues like this in a tournament bracket style and have the winners from each move on to semi-finals and then finals in a matter of a year. This would give us an anual champion. This set-up could accomodate 24 GM's from all the participating leagues.

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by IatricSB

Now it's late for me, so I may be missing your question but yes what I'd do is make every team identical. Possibly by importing the same team (historical) over and over again and edit the team name and player names. But however it's done, they would be identical. But I think that we should sim at least two years prior to the start of the league to give the owners some history to look at to help them decide who to play (since current ratings would be off). However, simming a couple of seasons would cause some players to get talent bumps/hits and possibly age/develop slightly differently on each team. So after simming two seasons, the teams are no longer identical. At that point the option is to shrug and say "Oh well" or else take the time to edit the players so they're back to being exactly equal in ratings once again. Is that what you're asking?

Yep, that was what I was asking. In theory, it sounds like it could work, but the main caveat, as pointed out in another thread I think, is the luck issue. Setting the strategies up properly would help; people who know how to fiddle with the stolen base strategies would have a definite advantage. Whether that's enough to offset luck, I haven't a clue.

[Steve T]

We now have 19 GMs. Keep em' coming!

[potatoman]

Originally Posted by NealMusser

We now have 19 GMs. Keep em' coming!

Looks good, looks good...

[Steve T]

We only have 19 GMs...Could use more!

[IatricSB]

If it's looking like 19 is how many we got, I think I'll start working on the creation of the league with 24 teams (but want to get feedback). We could go with 20, but by going with 24 we could accomplish a couple of things.

o 24 teams would give us a nice two leagues with two divisions each with each division having 6 teams

o By limiting to 6 teams per division, we wouldn't need to mess with wildcard teams. Personally (though I'll go with the majority), I think if you don't win a division of just 6 teams, you should have a shot at the playoffs.

o I've always had a curiosity at how good the CPU is compared to humans. Everyone always criticizes the CPU for making bad picks and yet in a league like 20CC that has good owners, the CPU teams have been beating us like a drum. IMO (and again I'll go with majority), it would be fun to have 20 owners (5 in each division) with each division having a CPU controlled team.

Any ideas? Should I begin with the creation of the league? Anybody want to take a shot at designing a main page for the web site? I have some time today during the playoffs so I'm going to create the web site (the subdirectory, message board, etc). I could even put up league files while the league is being created (I plan to sim two to five years to get some player history so this could be uploaded so people can see progress is being made).

[Steve T]

Just to note: We now have 20 GMs. I am expecting at least 1 more.

[Steve T]

My calculations were off. We now have 20 GMs.

[rem]

P.S.: Boys of Summer sends Stacy Bond. Go Get 'em!

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by remangiii

P.S.: Boys of Summer sends Stacy Bond. Go Get 'em!

Thanks, but if I'm simming the league I shouldn't have a team I don't think. A great choice for BoS would be the Mighty Quinn. I think he has four titles but he has also had a stretch where he won the American League title 9 out of 10 years.

As for me, if I was a representative of a league, I thought I had a better record in ChefJimi's Wild Things (plus I wasn't Commish of the league so there wouldn't be any conflict of interest). Don't know if Chef wants anyone to participate or if he even is aware of this league.

[rem]

I was mostly making a joke, however if you want someone from BoS to come....feel free to invite 'em.