|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 8, 2013 20:15:05 GMT -5
I just had an epiphany. In order to balance the one per generation and one per lifetime, why not have both? I'm thinking of franchise tag points where the career WAR of said player is deducted. The higher the WAR the less you have left to spend on players later. Some teams may tag 4 players or just 2 over the course of 60+ years of siming So like 250 war? Can have 6 42.5s. 5 50s. Etc? Something like that. I need to toy/study it further in the next couple days. First thought (without testing it) is 250 WAR total, career WAR to be subtracted + number of picks (jumped). Meaning if you jumped 10 picks (measured from projected draft value per AI versus actual draft position---determined by Commish), that's another 10 franchise tag points. This would be in addition to the forfeiture of picks per Jeremy's idea. Can select any number of players, but cannot tag another player for at least 5 seasons, etc. Again, still thinking. |
|
Spencer
General Manager 
Posts: 5,921
|
Post by Spencer on Oct 8, 2013 20:17:43 GMT -5
Fun to have some more strategy involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 8, 2013 20:58:55 GMT -5
I still dont really get the negativity towards this idea. Can I suggest actually reading people's posts? Including the many contributions/suggestions to actual rulemaking? But very short: you sign up for a sim league with certain rules, one sim in they want to add a league defining rule where a whole hoist of Hall of Famers are unavailable to you and reserved to certain teams only. A league starting in 1953 where you could map out your history and acquire some Hall of Famers in the process was a major selling point for you to join. See where the problems arise? So, I really don't get how anyone can not see why this would make certain people unhappy. Instead we get constantly berated for it. Imagine this rule being in place from the start, you do all your research, select which player to pick when, do your due diligence and what not, and then one sim in, the whole concept gets canned. Flowers would come out of your mouth, I bet. And this turned out way too long again. A waste, no doubt. If you want, you can reply in STFU prose again. I certainly won't miss this. We're just trying to improve the league. Isn't that what you always tell me? |
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 8, 2013 21:04:37 GMT -5
IDK. My ideal is about as far from GABL as it can get. My leagues flourished with board activity. Hyper active, fast pace. Very addictive. More than one way to skin a cat though. GABL has been every bit as successful as your leagues, and it's done so without the gimmicks. Your leagues had problems. GABL has/had problems. And eventually, this league will have problems. You also have to keep in mind who is playing the game. I know your old basketball sim league probably didn't have anybody over the age of 22-25 in it at one point. GABL has a bunch of guys in their 30's and 40's. Family and jobs come first. I get that you like a league where you make friends, and converse about life. I have other "online places" that I do that, and frankly don't have time to do it here, or at GABL. I actually worry a bit that I've already stretched myself a little too thin. Time will tell. I just wanted to point out that just b/c something works somewhere else, doesn't mean it's the only way to do things. I agree that GABL is getting a little boring. That is why this league excites me. It isn't crazy like some of the other leagues out there, but it's basically GABL with a few new things (for me at least) that will keep it fresh and exciting. |
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 8, 2013 21:19:39 GMT -5
I just had an epiphany. In order to balance the one per generation and one per lifetime, why not have both? I'm thinking of franchise tag points where the career WAR of said player is deducted. The higher the WAR the less you have left to spend on players later. Some teams may tag 4 players or just 2 over the course of 60+ years of siming That is a little more complicated than most would like it. I think we can incorporate the element of strategy with the generational thing, and not making teams pre-select players. I'm also not really for replacing any franchised player with a dummy player to take his place. Kind of defeats the realism, and a bit of the purpose. If we're down to generational players, I just don't see that as a necessity. It will also overload the league a bit with "studs". |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 8, 2013 23:18:48 GMT -5
i'll take just maddux and chipper
|
|
bigmark
General Manager
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by bigmark on Oct 9, 2013 3:09:36 GMT -5
Ya ha ha at my brother telling me his White Sox are just as bad off generation wise as my Indians. Lets see 54-69 - Carlton Fisk 70-89 - Harold Baines 90-99 - Frank Thomas 00-now - Paul Konerko or maybe by then Chris Sale Would have to talk Big Hurt.....as much as I like Robin Ventura and Jack McDowell but by that time I may be the Blue Jays gm...so its pointless...... |
|
K.
Other 
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Oct 9, 2013 8:13:52 GMT -5
Also its pretty obvious that Chris' stint in BBSBL inspired him to do something much closer to BBSBL then GABL here. Something to be said for that. You got me. In the end, I am striving for historical accuracy and care as with GABL, but with a little bit more flexibility as with BBSBL (PD Reversals and a very limited cash/point system). Which was the initial outlay of the league and which I knew when I signed up. If I had major problems with it, I wouldn't have joined. The initial outlay of the league and the heaps of work you have put in are tremendous. Though now just after the league is started a divisive issue cropped up and no matter how even mindedly and diligenty you handled it, which you are still doing in admirable fashion, in the end I don't see any way how on these issues you can satisfy everyone or at least not dissatisfy them too much. I bet you wish this had been proposed just a bit earlier so it could have been part of the initial makeup of the league. Because then noone who disliked the idea would have been part of the league, whereas now you have people who joined for that GABL setup with some extra flexibility but not for what is on the table now. |
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Oct 9, 2013 8:18:52 GMT -5
I agree with darryl, if there can be slightly more civility, I'm OK with banter. Again, I blame Shale =) As I said to Spencer when I convinced him to not quit GABL (fancy that! - btw, Spencer, I also had a hand in getting Mays' hits talent up to brilliant, one from my many suggestions during the startup of the league) as he had announced: I don't mind the odd banter either. Activity on a message board is fun and good. What I dislike is the incivility, the blatant post boosting and so on. |
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Oct 9, 2013 8:19:57 GMT -5
Can I suggest actually reading people's posts? Including the many contributions/suggestions to actual rulemaking? But very short: you sign up for a sim league with certain rules, one sim in they want to add a league defining rule where a whole hoist of Hall of Famers are unavailable to you and reserved to certain teams only. A league starting in 1953 where you could map out your history and acquire some Hall of Famers in the process was a major selling point for you to join. See where the problems arise? So, I really don't get how anyone can not see why this would make certain people unhappy. Instead we get constantly berated for it. Imagine this rule being in place from the start, you do all your research, select which player to pick when, do your due diligence and what not, and then one sim in, the whole concept gets canned. Flowers would come out of your mouth, I bet. And this turned out way too long again. A waste, no doubt. If you want, you can reply in STFU prose again. I certainly won't miss this. We're just trying to improve the league. Isn't that what you always tell me? I don't call you names for defending your points, which you do in a polite, argumented matter. Again: I don't mind there being such a proposal, I am objecting to the way people react to others when they say they don't like it or point out potential pitfalls. Oh and how ironic it is that the main defender of the status quo in GABL in recent years has been the originator of this proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 9, 2013 8:25:54 GMT -5
We're just trying to improve the league. Isn't that what you always tell me? Oh and how ironic it is that the main defender of the status quo in GABL in recent years has been the originator of this proposal. Two completely different leagues. |
|
bigmark
General Manager
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by bigmark on Oct 9, 2013 11:31:55 GMT -5
Oh and how ironic it is that the main defender of the status quo in GABL in recent years has been the originator of this proposal. Two completely different leagues. And Sandy Koufax isnt coming up next draft in GABL  |
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 9, 2013 11:35:48 GMT -5
When I first proposed this rule, I didn't have Koufax in mind. Matter of fact, I didn't have any players in mind specifically. I'm not really a Dodgers' fan, I am a life-long Cardinals fan.
GABL is too established, and has been too successful for too long, IMO, to start making wholesale changes that don't need to be made.
This is a new league, and already has some of the "gimmicky" quarks, for lack of a better term, so I figured why not? And again, if I get Koufax, every other team is going to land a similar player at some point, so I'm not really gaining an advantage.
|
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Oct 9, 2013 14:36:19 GMT -5
Still find it ironic.
Especially when reading on here you wanted wholesale changes to GABL when the league caught up with real life, amongst others to do something about the teams buried in a financial burden, but not that long thereafter when a proposal is put forward to change the financial side just a bit to the side of the poorer teams, to make them less buried, you fight it tooth and nail.
I quite like the Dodgers btw. I didn't ask for them as I figured you were a Dodgers fan and would want them. Same with the Mets and Shale actually. No denying his fanhood though!
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 9, 2013 14:53:55 GMT -5
Yea, I find it ironic, but not that it's a bad thing. GABL needed changes because it caught up with real time and we're caught up in that twilight zone. No one, including myself, stepped up with a solution. There will never be a perfect solution. I will have the same problem with HOFFBL when we catch up to real time.
In the end, this is a new league and I like to run things like an open book. I'm open to new ideas. I care if an idea ruffles a few feathers because I want to know why so that I can come up with a solution that everyone is OK with.
Yes, I would have preferred the franchise idea in the beginning, but I obviously can't fault anyone on that, lol. I love the idea and in order to find a solution that is OK (not perfect!), I am open to feedback. The banter is good, but make sure it is constructive coming out, and try to perceive it as constructive coming in. And ideally, it is related to HOFFBL, not GABL, BBSBL, CBL or anything else please.
Looking forward to the weekend so I can post the new franchise player rules and just be done with it.
|
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Oct 9, 2013 15:00:53 GMT -5
Who will get Nolan Ryan thrown in his lap?
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 9, 2013 15:00:55 GMT -5
Yea, I find it ironic, but not that it's a bad thing. GABL needed changes because it caught up with real time and we're caught up in that twilight zone. No one, including myself, stepped up with a solution. There will never be a perfect solution. I will have the same problem with HOFFBL when we catch up to real time. Not true. I proposed a number of ideas. Most were pretty radical. Stuff like completely starting over. Some kind of universal reset of financials. Contraction. Changing games to a fresher version of OOTP, regardless of what changes me made. My ideas were met with very little support, from Commish (honestly don't remember who it was at the time, maybe Chris, but I honestly don't recall) all the way down to the owners that show up for their top 5 draft pick every year, and a handful of exports. The people voted, and they didn't want the changes. As for why I was for change then, and don't appear to be now? Easy.....that was a good time to make radical, wholesale changes. Implementing what I consider to be minor, needless, often times intrusive "fixes" that aren't addressing the problems at all? I don't like it. But K already knows that. Sorry for having this discussion over here Chris. Wasn't my intent. I like what you've done with this league, and I was ready for the fresh start HERE, in this league. |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 9, 2013 15:03:04 GMT -5
Who will get Nolan Ryan thrown in his lap? Angels |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Oct 9, 2013 15:03:49 GMT -5
Yea, I find it ironic, but not that it's a bad thing. GABL needed changes because it caught up with real time and we're caught up in that twilight zone. No one, including myself, stepped up with a solution. There will never be a perfect solution. I will have the same problem with HOFFBL when we catch up to real time. Not true. I proposed a number of ideas. Most were pretty radical. Stuff like completely starting over. Some kind of universal reset of financials. Contraction. Changing games to a fresher version of OOTP, regardless of what changes me made. My ideas were met with very little support, from Commish (honestly don't remember who it was at the time, maybe Chris, but I honestly don't recall) all the way down to the owners that show up for their top 5 draft pick every year, and a handful of exports. The people voted, and they didn't want the changes. As for why I was for change then, and don't appear to be now? Easy.....that was a good time to make radical, wholesale changes. Implementing what I consider to be minor, needless, often times intrusive "fixes" that aren't addressing the problems at all? I don't like it. But K already knows that. Sorry for having this discussion over here Chris. Wasn't my intent. I like what you've done with this league, and I was ready for the fresh start HERE, in this league. Sorry, I had meant no one stepped up with a be-all end-all perfect solution. |
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Oct 9, 2013 15:08:22 GMT -5
Who will get Nolan Ryan thrown in his lap? Angels What a horrendous trade that was... |
|
Spencer
General Manager
Posts: 5,921
|
Post by Spencer on Oct 9, 2013 15:08:45 GMT -5
IMO if this league ever catches up to real time we should just go fake.
Probably something that should be discussed now.
In BBS we had GM created players. I asked some Gms to create draft prospects. They make up scouting reports. Ratings. Tendencies. Etc. Then gave them article credit for them. Worked really well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sha-Le Unique on Oct 9, 2013 15:08:48 GMT -5
Ryan for Jim Fregosi...what were the Mets thinking?!!?
|
|
K.
Other
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Oct 9, 2013 15:11:12 GMT -5
Not true. I proposed a number of ideas. Most were pretty radical. Stuff like completely starting over. Some kind of universal reset of financials. Contraction. Changing games to a fresher version of OOTP, regardless of what changes me made. My ideas were met with very little support, from Commish (honestly don't remember who it was at the time, maybe Chris, but I honestly don't recall) all the way down to the owners that show up for their top 5 draft pick every year, and a handful of exports. The people voted, and they didn't want the changes. As for why I was for change then, and don't appear to be now? Easy.....that was a good time to make radical, wholesale changes. Implementing what I consider to be minor, needless, often times intrusive "fixes" that aren't addressing the problems at all? I don't like it. But K already knows that. Sorry for having this discussion over here Chris. Wasn't my intent. I like what you've done with this league, and I was ready for the fresh start HERE, in this league. Sorry, I had meant no one stepped up with a be-all end-all perfect solution. Probably because there is none. |
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Oct 9, 2013 15:14:00 GMT -5
Not true. I proposed a number of ideas. Most were pretty radical. Stuff like completely starting over. Some kind of universal reset of financials. Contraction. Changing games to a fresher version of OOTP, regardless of what changes me made. My ideas were met with very little support, from Commish (honestly don't remember who it was at the time, maybe Chris, but I honestly don't recall) all the way down to the owners that show up for their top 5 draft pick every year, and a handful of exports. The people voted, and they didn't want the changes. As for why I was for change then, and don't appear to be now? Easy.....that was a good time to make radical, wholesale changes. Implementing what I consider to be minor, needless, often times intrusive "fixes" that aren't addressing the problems at all? I don't like it. But K already knows that. Sorry for having this discussion over here Chris. Wasn't my intent. I like what you've done with this league, and I was ready for the fresh start HERE, in this league. Sorry, I had meant no one stepped up with a be-all end-all perfect solution. There is no such animal. With what, 30 owners, impossible to make everybody happy. *shrugs* |
|
Spencer
General Manager
Posts: 5,921
|
Post by Spencer on Oct 9, 2013 15:14:17 GMT -5
Sorry, I had meant no one stepped up with a be-all end-all perfect solution. Probably because there is none. RESTART! No. But contraction was probably the right thing to do. And it seems like fake players wouldve been better then a generation of Jrs. |
|
