|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 22:35:58 GMT -5
I think any serious schedule change we discuss should take effect in 2017... While it is possible to leave the current schedule completely in tact, it takes away one of the largest advantages of consolidating the league. It's highly unlikely that we would have scheduled 2 matchups against non-division rivals if the option to have a more balanced schedule had been available from the outset. I considered the increased variety to be an improvement. Without the flexibility to change the schedule to at least take advantage of some variety which this would make possible, then the cost/benefit of consolidation needs to be re-evaluated.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Feb 12, 2016 22:41:14 GMT -5
Let me clarify that, then...
I wouldn't be opposed to switching to full on intraleague for this season if we went that route. But if we were going to shorten playoff weeks to create interleague play and do all the shuffling that would entail, I think it would make more sense to have that happen in 2017, to give us a LOT more time to really look at options and decide what works best.
If we make a change for this season, it has to happen very quickly. And while I think switching to full intraleague scheduling would be likely an overwhelming choice (and automatically fair and balanced), the options of juggling schedule to make interleague happen get pretty complicated and there may be a lot of good ideas of how to make that work (that might not present themselves for months...)
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Feb 12, 2016 22:50:34 GMT -5
From a pure metagame standpoint, the teams that would most benefit this season from switching to an interleague schedule are the teams in the AL West and the NL West. They currently have the toughest schedule, and would see weaker opponents after a change. The teams that would be hurt most by a change would be those in the AL East (who would be swapping a full slate of AL Central opponents for a slate of AL West opponents). The effect of change for the NL Central, NL East, and AL Central teams is minor. All three of them would be facing a slightly more difficult schedule than before, but not dramatically so.
Drastically helped by a change: NL West, AL West Drastically harmed by a change: AL East Slightly harmed by a change: AL Central, NL Central, NL East
There's a small chance that this could change in the last few rounds of free agency, but for the most part, teams have already largely committed on how hard they are going for it this year. Some divisions have a lot more contenders, some have a lot more rebuilders...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2016 23:34:50 GMT -5
Wow. I don't agree with that assessment, and had no idea it was viewed that way.
Perhaps we moved a little too fast. This idea seemed like a clear improvement for the league as a whole. I didn't even think it needed a vote. The advantages appeared overwhelming. We would have used a single league from the beginning if it were an option, and the use of 4 leagues had been one of the primary criticisms I generally received from new applicants. Stephen had the right idea though: To make sure there wouldn't be any unforeseen repercussions it should be presented to the league.
If making this change throws doubts on my motives, then there's no way I will continue to support this change. This really hadn't even been part of my analysis.
We should open a discussion about the possibility of consolidating and improving the schedule in 2017.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2016 23:48:17 GMT -5
I think we should do one league and do intra league schedule for the first year and then we can decide later on the 2017 playoff schedules.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Feb 13, 2016 0:14:26 GMT -5
Wow. I don't agree with that assessment, and had no idea it was viewed that way. Perhaps we moved a little too fast. This idea seemed like a clear improvement for the league as a whole. I didn't even think it needed a vote. The advantages appeared overwhelming. We would have used a single league from the beginning if it were an option, and the use of 4 leagues had been one of the primary criticisms I generally received from new applicants. Stephen had the right idea though: To make sure there wouldn't be any unforeseen repercussions it should be presented to the league. If making this change throws doubts on my motives, then there's no way I will continue to support this change. This really hadn't even been part of my analysis. We should open a discussion about the possibility of consolidating and improving the schedule in 2017. Adam, I was in no way suggesting that your motives were impure. My professional career is built around looking at secondary and tertiary effects of decisions (sometimes to the point of ridiculousness). While I believe my comments are accurate about which teams are most affected this season by such a change, and can be easily verified if you sit down for an hour and peg the various teams into "contenders" and "rebuilders", that doesn't in any way suggest I thought this was your reasoning for opening the topic. I think literally everyone here would have preferred that we have a schedule that involves facing more than 9 teams a season from the very beginning. I think we all understood why it was impractical initially. And at the time that you laid out the rotating division matchups you had no way of knowing which teams would choose to contend and which would choose to rebuild. I would just prefer to drag that particular secondary effect into the light well before any voting takes place, so that we avoid any issues later on with someone realizing it three months from now and thinking there was a supervillain plan at work here. I am among the teams whose schedule would get harder as a result of a change to full intraleague play this season, and I am still 100% in favor of such a change for 2016. (The question of interleague I would like us to take more time with for a possible 2017 rollout).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 13, 2016 0:20:33 GMT -5
I would like the intra-league schedule too, or anything that takes advantage of the ability to have more than 9 opponents.
However, if TJ can demonstrate that the AL West benefits from a change, then it can't happen. It would be wrong for me to continue promoting a self-serving idea.
Truly, I'm ok with that. We have a nice place to play. An inferior scoring site is better the risk of an abuse of authority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2016 0:46:17 GMT -5
But like TJ said there are teams that will benefit and teams that won't. We should be looking at it it it benefits the league as a whole to have one league and everybody in each league plays the same teams. No body will think you are abusing your power just because right now on paper you might have a better schedule. It just happens it falls that way that you are in that division. And, you are putting it out for vote and not making a executive decision on your own. Right now it's a overwhelming vote in favor of it so nobody is thinking you are doing this to give your team a advantage. And I don't think it's going to change a team's chances by changing it. You have a contending team or a rebuilding team. I also think it would be even better and maybe even more fun wild card race.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Feb 13, 2016 0:59:54 GMT -5
Agree with Dave. As much as I appreciate Adam trying to err on the side of caution, there is a difference between being open about whether a proposed rule change might benefit or harm certain teams and then allowing a vote to go through with that knowledge public... vs just forcing a change as commissioner that benefits specific teams.
Adam, if you were coming down from the mountain with the stone tablets and they said we needed to make a move that benefitted your team, there might be reason to balk. But I see absolutely ZERO conflict of interest with you being willing to put this out to a vote even though it may benefit your team (as well as Dodgers, Rangers, Diamondbacks, and the other contenders in those two divisions).
You can even vote against the change, if you feel the need to. But it seems to me that the opportunity here is too good, and it's one that the whole group should vote on.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 13, 2016 3:01:10 GMT -5
I apologize for the expression of being shocked. We have our differences, but I know we are on good terms TJ.
The comment, though, has given me so much to think about. It was unexpected, and shines a completely different light on things. Even if no one is truly doubting motives at this point, what if it's true that the AL West benefits? Or what if it's perceived? Or what if it is faulty, but could come true? This idea of consolidating and enjoying a more diverse schedule involves me more than anyone else in the league. It's a purely optional choice, and I would need to be comfortable that it's the right decision. There's a whole new angle to this that I hadn't considered.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Feb 13, 2016 3:23:59 GMT -5
I think you can comfortably put the topic up for a vote, and just spell out the various reasons for and against. If the vote is 16-14 in favor, well then maybe we don't make a change because it's a pretty big move that would have a small majority behind it. But if the vote is 27-3, I hardly think there is an issue.
Someone else may find other concerns with it, and it would be good to have all those potential issues in the light. I was simply bringing up the question of strength of schedule. But as I said, even though I am (in a minor way) negatively affected by the change, I would still be very much in favor of switching to a system where we play our entire league. It's just far superior in principle, and I think it makes the league more attractive to future GMs whenever we have turnover.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Feb 13, 2016 6:32:51 GMT -5
I've only seen this on my phone so far so don't know if there are voting options attached to this or a deadline or what, but I'd like an opportunity to sit down and see if I can come up as an idea that might satisfy all (probably not, but it wasn't working last night when I was fuelled by a lot of gin).
Just for the record, my personal thoughts: I really like the idea of an even schedule for everyone in the same league. As well as being fair I'm really keen to build some real inter-divisonal and inter-league rivalries. Yet I would be a bit gutted if the only NL/AL matchup of the season was in the WS. I think it would be a real shame if me and Stuart or me and TJ or me and whoever could share this league together for a decade without ever having the fun of a single matchup together. Personally I'm very weary of cutting down the playoff matchups. (I'm a roto guy, and my biggest objection to H2H is the luck of the playoffs - and 2 week matchups helps me to believe that the more deserving team will prevail most of the time). I like our playoff structure. I had not considered that this might benefit the AL West (I'll be honest, a lot of the time I don't even look at the trades which go on, let alone other rosters), but it seems to me that there is confidence that this is a discussion aimed to get the best from the league as a whole, and not ourselves. A further thought - the original pairings themselves were based on nothing more than chance, so I'm not sure how 'unfair' changing it would actually be. I think for 2016 there are two options: as it stands (with paired divisons) or intra-league only (twice against your own div, once each against the rest of your league). Anything outside that would have to wait until 2017/beyond.
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Stephen) on Feb 13, 2016 19:18:37 GMT -5
I'm having a play with a schedule that would see intra-league play every other year (say on the evens) and rotating inter-league play on the other years. The schedule I want to check would see you playing your own division twice every season, your intra-league rivals 8 times every 12 years, your inter-league local rivals (ie AL Central vs NL Central) 4 times every 12 years, and your inter-league non-rivals twice every 12 years.
A little complicated perhaps, but I'm not sure how else we might arrive at a schedule which allows in-season divisional schedule equality as well as long-term matchups against every division.
|
|
|
Post by Pirates GM (TJ) on Feb 13, 2016 20:40:49 GMT -5
One version which would add a bit of interleague play, would keep the schedule balanced, and wouldn't disrupt the multi-week playoffs:
Full intraleague schedule (8 weeks against your own division and 10 weeks against the other divisions in your league) Make the "short" week at the All-Star Break be an interleague matchup against your ranking match from the other league (1st vs 1st, 2nd vs 2nd, last vs last).
While I would still prefer to ultimately find a way to do a week each against opponents from all three divisions, this might be an easy taste of interleague to spice up the otherwise boring (for fantasy players) All-Star week.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 13, 2016 23:23:51 GMT -5
Having had a little time to think about this, here's kind of where I am:
Consolidating into a single league isn't the issue in terms of creating advantages or disadvantages relative to our current schedule. I feel very strongly that it's a positive development for the entire league. Therefore, if the voting approves it, I will still support that end of things.
Because of the (real or perceived) advantages and disadvantages caused by changing schedules, I would like it to have a separate vote. Stephen and TJ can work on one or multiple acceptable options and create a poll. I would insist that keeping the current schedule should also be represented on that poll. As my personal decision, I will refrain from participating or voting.
I suspect that the outcome is easy to predict, but my conscience will allow me to sleep at night.
Would this be acceptable?
|
|