|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 14:20:36 GMT -5
Whereas this wasn't a possibility previously, now it is. For your consideration:
Some advantages of consolidating into 1 Fantrax league:
- Teams won't have to annually switch leagues.
- It allows a greater variety of opponents. (The easiest selection is "random", which would reduce some of the divisional rivalries, but allow a greater variety of opponents - 18 in total instead of 9.)
- It allows easy comparison of the standings and strengths. (Under the current system, my plan was to publish standings on Proboards every Monday morning. This would no longer be necessary if they are easily viewable.)
- It allows easier monitoring of player transactions. (If you trade for a player, its easier to tell when he may be added to your roster.)
- It allows easier monitoring of teams not setting their lineups.
- It allows the potential for better record keeping.
- Playoff teams would not need to be transferred into a separate league. (Running a consolation bracket now becomes a possibility also.)
Some disadvantages:
- Potential for future change back to the 4 league format. At present, I can ensure that the fee required for a league of this size would get paid for 2016 and 2017. Considering its a free league though, I would reserve the right to return to the 4 league format in 2018. (The expectation is that it would continue going forward, but personal situations and costs make it uncertain.)
- Division rivalries. (At present, they don't have any way to weight the schedule toward division rivalries. It's said to be coming soon. If we want weighted schedules, they would have to be inserted manually.)
- Possible strategical changes. (If someone was preparing for the season based on the previously expected schedule, we would need to take that into account.)
- Effort to accept an invitation again, and re-populate your roster.
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis GM (Bert) on Feb 12, 2016 15:46:12 GMT -5
You can't set up the divisions in a single league? I think the division thing is huge, that's a great idea.
If you could could one league and have the divisions face off, or set it up so NL teams play mostly NL teams... it would be awesome. Can you manually set schedules?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 15:58:45 GMT -5
The divisions are still in tact. Ideally, I would love to still see us play our division rivals twice a year, with 10 random matchups.
Yes, matchups can be manually set. My fear though is that we've used up our quotient of good will. What controversies will be sparked by granting the commissioner the ability to set the schedule? Perhaps there's a formula to retain 100% randomness of the non-divisional matchups.
|
|
|
|
Post by natew4041 (Nate, BAL) on Feb 12, 2016 16:06:39 GMT -5
I'm all for switching to one big league. Also makes it easier to see what players are available
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 16:07:12 GMT -5
Not much to be gained from it, but if you want to take a look at it, the playoff league has been converted. (It can be returned to its previous settings based on the outcome of this poll.) Currently it has a randomly generated schedule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 16:11:18 GMT -5
I'm all for switching to one big league. Also makes it easier to see what players are available "Which players are available" is usually an indication of "who's not setting their lineup". But it is true that some overlooked free agents will be easier to spot. |
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis GM (Bert) on Feb 12, 2016 16:13:11 GMT -5
The divisions are still in tact. Ideally, I would love to still see us play our division rivals twice a year, with 10 random matchups. Yes, matchups can be manually set. My fear though is that we've used up our quotient of good will. What controversies will be sparked by granting the commissioner the ability to set the schedule? Perhaps there's a formula to retain 100% randomness of the non-divisional matchups. I'm not sure how many weeks are in the season, but the majority should be against your divisions, then if possible maybe one week against every other team in the league (not everyone, the NL for NL, AL for AL) and if anything is left we have interleague games. The formula should be random, but the bulk of it would be set by the inter-divisional set up like we currently have. |
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis GM (Bert) on Feb 12, 2016 16:17:37 GMT -5
Ok, so there are 18 non-playoff scoring periods... *getting out my calculator*
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 16:23:16 GMT -5
The simplest solution would be to eliminate interleague play: Twice against the 4 divisional teams, once each against the rest of the AL or NL. Would we be ok never playing the other league except for the World Series participants?
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis GM (Bert) on Feb 12, 2016 16:24:36 GMT -5
Just throwing this one out there, a few options...
1 - Play division teams twice (8 periods), all other league teams once (10 periods) = 18 periods.
2 - Play division teams thrice (12 periods), random three teams from other two league divisions once (6 periods) = 18 periods
I like 2 because you face your division more, and it will engender hatred and rivalry, but need a good randomizing of the other teams. 1 is probably the easiest to schedule and removes issues of randomness, but also reduces contempt and hatred. Tough call.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 16:32:45 GMT -5
If we're ok without interleague play at all, #1 would be the easiest to institute. I'm confident we could do a good enough job of never pairing the same two teams on back to back weeks etc.
Interleague is rare enough in the 4 league setup, that it would likely not be missed. (Plus if I never have to face Stuart's pitching staff, all the better.)
Avoiding potential complaints due to strength of schedule sounds great in my opinion. Option number 1 looks good in that regard. However, if there are different opinions, they could be tackled after this initial question is decided.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Feb 12, 2016 17:18:13 GMT -5
Whilst playing your own division twice and the rest of you league once is enticing (old school baseball!) I'm not sure how keen I am on the idea that I'll never ever have a matchup against half of the people I enjoy the league with.
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis GM (Bert) on Feb 12, 2016 17:40:28 GMT -5
Whilst playing your own division twice and the rest of you league once is enticing (old school baseball!) I'm not sure how keen I am on the idea that I'll never ever have a matchup against half of the people I enjoy the league with. How do we do that with 18 weeks to work with? I agree with you on the sentiment, but unless you want to do my #2 and instead of three teams from the other divisions you play four in your own league and two in the other I don't see how we make it work. The randomness finger pointing will get nastier the more you have teams mingling. Unless we want to pull some kind of reward for trying hard like higher win % teams from the previous season play lower win % ones, or punish (higher win % faces higher win %). It's just more work for the Commish(es) figuring out a fair schedule. |
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Feb 12, 2016 17:50:12 GMT -5
Me (Rangers):
4 AL West opponents twice each = 8 weeks
5 AL Central opponents once each = 5 weeks
5 AL East opponents once each = 5 weeks
Total = 18 weeks
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 18:05:18 GMT -5
The idea of selecting two divisions per year makes sense, so as to avoid hand-picking teams. If we want to work interleague into the schedule though, some years will by necessity have 8 divisional and 10 interleague matchups.
|
|
