Post Reply 
FA Draft Tweaks (2050 version)
Author Message
havana Offline
SysOp
*******

Posts: 7,440
Joined: Oct 2002
Post: #31
RE: FA Draft Tweaks (2050 version)
here's a timely article i enjoyed reading about NBA tanking. as usual, got me thinking about parallels with Weaver owners.
https://theringer.com/tanking-the-game-5....ca48h392i


While we're on the subject of the wildcard... here are some of the pros/cons as I see it.
Pros:
- 4 new playoff teams join existing 4 (2 per league). 3 divisions, 1 wildcard means teams can avoid getting stuck behind an unbeatable powerhouse.

- most HTML reporting issues are cosmetic: we just get used to the register as a reference for all missing info as opposed to history.htm


Cons:
- No way to implement wildcard/extra playoff rounds in BBPRO with existing 24 team setup; either need to change simulators (OOTP?) or expand the association from 24 to 28 teams. (later bullet pts work on expansion assumption as changing simulators has a whole other set of issues that would need to be worked out)

- new 4 teams should be human-owned to minimize issues associated with unbalanced schedule. Playoff races being decided by which teams get the most "body bag games" and when they get them seems unfair.

- to actually attract new owners to the league, those 4 teams would need to be reasonably competitive... Expansion Draft! This draft would mean you'd have to expose both vets AND prospects to stock the new teams.

- association history gets wiped out with expansion: Hall of Fame emptied out, but career stats of current players are retained. Potential HOF inductees no longer judged in comparison to current guys already in; does this water down the Hall? Current retirees waiting for the call now would have to be voted in by the owners.

- minor issues: register/virtualgm code would need some rewrites, free agent pool (freepool.htm) also would get cleared out and replaced with a new set of guys

- some owners have expressed interest in calling it quits over such a major change


Summary
For me, adding the wild-card is a no-go because the pros and cons are so heavily tilted towards NO. If the majority of owners want to add the wild card though, I won't stand in the way. We just need to find a new Commish ready and willing to move the league in that direction.

I'm interested to see how the FA Draft lottery plays out the next few seasons. I hope it has some effect in boosting parity, and that it helps minimize the overuse of "power rebuilds" and tanking. Hopefully we'll also see some additional turnover at the top of the divisions and that things are not so predictable.

Seeing the same teams win over and over again because we don't have rules in place to help keep things competitive makes me think that I am wasting my time, and that is definitely not a healthy mindset for any Commish to have. My plan is to serve as Commish for as long as I have time/energy and as long as the experience is an overall plus.

As a contingency exercise, though, I recently asked a few candidates to see if they had any interest in serving as Commish. While they might be able to step up "when the time comes", right now their time constraints won't allow it, so for now you guys are stuck with me for a bit.

We'll revisit this issue again in a few seasons (2055?), and see if something needs to be done then to keep the league fun and exciting for everyone.

Register - http://register.weaverball.com
VirtualGM - http://virtualgm.weaverball.com
01-26-2017 07:11 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
halpa32 Offline
Veteran
***

Posts: 977
Joined: Jul 2007
Post: #32
RE: FA Draft Tweaks (2050 version)
Its a fun league though if you have one of the powerhouses.lol

The only other idea I have is to actually show player potentials so drafts are not such a crap shoot. FA protection is actually a waste of time to be honest. Just have a FA draft of 10 players helping the 10 worst teams of boosted players from the shitty FA pool?? There are ways to improve the league imo.

The future starts today, not tomorrow.
Pope John Paul II
The game isn't over until it's over.
Yogi
If music be the food of love, play on.
Shakespeare
I have a sweet tooth for song and music. This is my Polish sin.
Pope John Paul II

WARSAW OWNER old Tokyo team
01-27-2017 10:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
strac Offline
Rookie
**

Posts: 428
Joined: Feb 2009
Post: #33
RE: FA Draft Tweaks (2050 version)
....c'mon Frank...its fun even if your not a powerhouse, just ask me...its also fun figuring out in the "crapshoot" if i picked THAT guy that is a stud, don't like knowing the potentials......Smile

Baseball is a skilled game. It's America's game -- it, and high taxes.
Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)
01-27-2017 10:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
halpa32 Offline
Veteran
***

Posts: 977
Joined: Jul 2007
Post: #34
RE: FA Draft Tweaks (2050 version)
Ian,
The powerhouse is the Swedes

The question was how to make the league have more parity so I threw in my 2 cents,I like the league the way it is too.

The future starts today, not tomorrow.
Pope John Paul II
The game isn't over until it's over.
Yogi
If music be the food of love, play on.
Shakespeare
I have a sweet tooth for song and music. This is my Polish sin.
Pope John Paul II

WARSAW OWNER old Tokyo team
01-30-2017 10:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rastasquad Offline
Uber Fanaticus Weaverus
*****

Posts: 4,548
Joined: Oct 2002
Post: #35
RE: FA Draft Tweaks (2050 version)
how about we make fa picks tradable in the off season only. if u trade your fa pick it is swapped with the owner fa pick that u traxed with . this is don3 post lottery. trades have to be approved by Monday.

teams 1-12 have to submit lists and are due wed. 13-24 submit list and do Friday. something like that?

just an idea

1997-2027 Complete Train Wreck!!!
2028,2029, 2037, 2039, 2040 and 2041 Roehm Division Champions
2029, 2037, and 2041 Blizzard League Champions
2029, and 2037 Winners of the Weaver Cup of Ultimate Power!!!
01-30-2018 08:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Max Offline
Uber Fanaticus Weaverus
*****

Posts: 2,873
Joined: Mar 2003
Post: #36
RE: FA Draft Tweaks (2050 version)
Just want to briefly note I'm very glad we put the draft lotto in effect. Sitting 15 games behind Honolulu, in most seasons past I would have been obliged to tear it down as best I could and go for future seasons... but I'm only 3 games behind Sydney for 2nd place, so I also now have the option of going for the silver medal and hoping I get a high FA pick.

That said, I think the rule is still a little soft. It would be a lot more fun if 2nd place was a *guaranteed* pick 1-4. As much as I like the current rule, I don't see people actively gunning for 2nd place, and that is likely because the chances that it will actually help their team remain quite small in comparison to trading their vets for picks. I'm also still not seeing the argument that tanking teams should get top FA draft picks as well as top ammis.... we are still too tilted toward that strategy.

M

********

2050, 2044, 2043, 2030, 2027, 2025, 2022 Weaver Cup Winners
2038, 2037, 2036, 2033, 2028, 2023, 2021 IL Champs
25 Polanski Pennants from 2012-2050
1 Weaver Cup, 2 IL Champs, 12 Polanski Pennants 1998-2011
04-05-2018 08:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
havana Offline
SysOp
*******

Posts: 7,440
Joined: Oct 2002
Post: #37
RE: FA Draft Tweaks (2050 version)
Yeah, I'm pretty happy with the results of the first few FA draft lottos as well. Ryan summarized it best: when Rio got boosted into the top3, they were able to select RHP Han Xuri in the FA draft to keep the ball rolling and ended up making the Weaver Series.

It's had the main effect I've wanted to see, that teams "hopelessly behind" or that teams in 2nd/3rd/4th keep playing to win, as opposed to just packing it in. I don't really think it has any effect on stopping the tankers at all actually; this just seemed a good way to give the 2nd place teams a reward (an asset they actually could use) from a group of teams that wouldn't really value it (and would look to trade it away immediately for, you guessed it, picks and prospects).

as for tanking/rebuilding teams not getting top amateur picks, the tricky thing is: how do you balance punishing tanking without making sure you're not kicking down a team permanently? i think there's also a difference between teams that are doing a "temporary" rebuild, working to get out of the cellar as fast as possible, and teams that are embracing a more cynical style: lets swim in the slop for 3, 4, 5 seasons, what the heck, why not. I don't mind so much the former, but the latter... eh. And then when these teams cycle to the top and are so stacked with prospects that their competition window is artificially long? ugh

i believe the death penalty lottery would get rid of extreme tanking in short order: certainly never see a challenger for worst record (16-146). its something i keep in my back pocket and will get deployed if I feel tanking is starting to hit an uncomfortable extreme. As a refresher, what is the death penalty? Pick a threshold, say 100 losses. For every loss over, a team gets 1% chance of having their R1 pick moved back to after all sub-500 teams. So if a team wants to lose 140 games, fine, go ahead... you might get that #1 pick, but you could also have a 40% chance of having it move down to 11th overall. Each team gets their own lottery too, so Team1 might have a 40% chance of dropping down, Team2 36%, Team3 34%, etc. One team getting the drop doesn't spare the others of the same potential fate.

as for the talent glut at the top, i'd like to see teams get broken up faster as well (previous swimmers in the slop). Weaver Cup champs only getting 4 FA protects, division winners getting 5 FA protects. This one has the potential for more unintended side effects, though... what if an old team struggles for a long time and finally makes a breakthrough, wins a division title and loses in the LCS? losing player6 might really hurt them, and with retirements, totally smash their chances. In an ideal world, we'd have some sort of provision where this would impact repeat winners. The main argument against this usually is "why are you punishing winning"; I would counter that keeping good teams together in Weaver is artificially easy (only losing 1 player to FA each season, no salary cap to force you to make tough decisions or deal with the impact of poor signings) and that making player movement more fluid would increase competition and excitement.

Register - http://register.weaverball.com
VirtualGM - http://virtualgm.weaverball.com
04-05-2018 11:01 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Edmonton Offline
MVP
****

Posts: 1,933
Joined: Nov 2002
Post: #38
RE: FA Draft Tweaks (2050 version)
There is an old saying in baseball that a team is guaranteed to win 40 games and lose 40 games, it's what you do with the other 80 that matter. In BBPRO and especially in Weaverball, that is far from true. Hitters with 70s in CH and PH can be absolutely awful or have a couple of incredibly good seasons depending on a myriad of factors. The same is true with pitchers. An 80 EN, 90 CO pitcher with three 70s should be serviceable, but not always. Sometimes they are just shelled. Reaching 40 wins can be a challenge even with players who have above-average ratings.

Now look at the 1962 Mets who only won 40 games (out of 160). Their lineup included 2B Charlie Neal (Gold Glove winner, All-Star, and World Series Champion with the White Sox), LF Frank Thomas (All-Star 3 times, 4th in MVP voting 1958), and 1B Gil Hodges (Gold Glove, 8 time All-Star, Most HR and RBIs in Dodger History). Their pitching staff was awful, especially the bull pen (all but one reliever had a 6.22 ERA or higher). I suspect that in Weaverball/BBPRO, those pitchers would be been rocked even harder and that weak lineup would be even less effective.

As for rebuilding, in my horrid years with wins less than 20, I traded every scrap of goodness, including my All-Timer, and had a team of guys who should have been in the Free Agent Pool. It took a while but that process did lead to a Weaver Cup. But, I agree that looking at the standings with teams having win totals in the 20s and basically automatic wins for everyone else doesn't make a competitive league.

As a Commissioner, I would want the last place team to occasionally sweep the first place team, or at least have a chance at making a difference in the top of the standings. So, what if we implemented a different way of making teams at the bottom better instead of punishing them for 100+ losses? I propose that Free Agents acquired by the first 8 picks (or maybe just the bottom 4 teams) cannot be dealt until the following season.

Here's my rationale. Those players being selected are almost always being taken with the intent to trade them. Few are being targeted to actually remain on the squad and be paired up with next year's free agents. I think this rule would make me want a 29 or 30 year old quality player over a 39 year old fading star that I could flip faster than a foreclosed house I hastily refurbished. Also, that new talent would make the team more competitive, lead to more wins, and impact the divisions in a positive way.

-J.J.
Orcas GM

Weaver Champions: 2033

Roehm Division Champions: 2017
Roehm Division Champions: 2016
04-09-2018 05:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)