The Brewster Baseball Association
http://montybrewster.net/forums/
Right. Jeff's arguments would be spot on if the 8-team divisions were like the old MLB structure with sixteen teams where only one team went to the post season. But I'd expect a different competitive environment in this approach, and as we noted, the scheduling is massively better in 4/8 than it is in 8/4.
There's logic to why MLB expanded divisions. And, yes, 6 divisions is an option and usable. It gives teams something to strive for. Trying to finish 4th in your division so that you can sneak into the playoffs isn't as fun as trying to win one's division, even if that would only make you the #4 seed. It's banner worthy when you win and that makes the game more fun. I'm not sure why a league would resort back to the 50's for a model when the league clearly isn't fashioned after that model.
You wouldn't be bothered by divisions of different sizes? That seems to be a lot worse than 8 team divisions.Bumstead wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 11:46 amThere's logic to why MLB expanded divisions. And, yes, 6 divisions is an option and usable. It gives teams something to strive for. Trying to finish 4th in your division so that you can sneak into the playoffs isn't as fun as trying to win one's division, even if that would only make you the #4 seed. It's banner worthy when you win and that makes the game more fun. I'm not sure why a league would resort back to the 50's for a model when the league clearly isn't fashioned after that model.
No, I would find it more fun to compete for a division title than to try and weed through 8 team divisions like it's the 1910's through the 1960's or whatever it was...I think it is always more beneficial for more teams to have a chance to win a division title than to have less teams with a chance. 8 divisions makes more sense with 32 teams than 6; I can't logically decipher the logic of increasing teams and going to 8 divisions...Lane wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 1:36 pmYou wouldn't be bothered by divisions of different sizes? That seems to be a lot worse than 8 team divisions.Bumstead wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 11:46 amThere's logic to why MLB expanded divisions. And, yes, 6 divisions is an option and usable. It gives teams something to strive for. Trying to finish 4th in your division so that you can sneak into the playoffs isn't as fun as trying to win one's division, even if that would only make you the #4 seed. It's banner worthy when you win and that makes the game more fun. I'm not sure why a league would resort back to the 50's for a model when the league clearly isn't fashioned after that model.
Like last time, I'm.....let's say less than excited about expansion. But the division structure doesn't really matter if the number of playoff teams are the same in both arguments. It's just that in one, you are battling for a division win and in another, you are just battling to be in the top 6 (with a division win having a big bonus of a bye).Bumstead wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 2:05 pmNo, I would find it more fun to compete for a division title than to try and weed through 8 team divisions like it's the 1910's through the 1960's or whatever it was...I think it is always more beneficial for more teams to have a chance to win a division title than to have less teams with a chance. 8 divisions makes more sense with 32 teams than 6; I can't logically decipher the logic of increasing teams and going to 8 divisions...Lane wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 1:36 pmYou wouldn't be bothered by divisions of different sizes? That seems to be a lot worse than 8 team divisions.Bumstead wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 11:46 am
There's logic to why MLB expanded divisions. And, yes, 6 divisions is an option and usable. It gives teams something to strive for. Trying to finish 4th in your division so that you can sneak into the playoffs isn't as fun as trying to win one's division, even if that would only make you the #4 seed. It's banner worthy when you win and that makes the game more fun. I'm not sure why a league would resort back to the 50's for a model when the league clearly isn't fashioned after that model.
This league seems to complicate so many things from signing coaches, minor league roster limits, still have FA comp, and on and on...Now we are adding teams and shrinking the number of divisions...can not compute...Let's just go to 1 division, then we won't have to have playoffs...
All this said. It's just my opinion. I would find the league more entertaining given a better opportunity to "challenge" for a division title vs 4 divisions of 8....seems like going backwards to me...but, that's my opinion, which y'all probably know by now most likely won't change easily.
I missed this comment back in May. Wouldn't players who are turning over on Jan 1 (i.e. 3 years 0 days players) be INELIGIBLE for the draft? The rule says "All players with three professional seasons or less on draft day will be automatically protected." Isn't 3 years, 0 days exactly 3 seasons, fitting within the 3 seasons or less?RonCo wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 10:48 amGood questions/comments. Given how OOTP does things, it's a little...um...complicated because pro years toggle on January 1. Given this:
1) Players with 2 years (and any number of days) of professional time today will be eligible for the draft. (*)
2) Players with 1 year (and any number of days) of professional time will not be eligible for the draft
(*) They will go to 3 years, 0 days on January 1, then begin accruing additional days as the season progresses, so by expansion draft day they will have 3 years, XXX days as a professional.
Yes, I wrote that when we were in 2038. As of today:udlb58 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:51 pmI missed this comment back in May. Wouldn't players who are turning over on Jan 1 (i.e. 3 years 0 days players) be INELIGIBLE for the draft? The rule says "All players with three professional seasons or less on draft day will be automatically protected." Isn't 3 years, 0 days exactly 3 seasons, fitting within the 3 seasons or less?RonCo wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 10:48 amGood questions/comments. Given how OOTP does things, it's a little...um...complicated because pro years toggle on January 1. Given this:
1) Players with 2 years (and any number of days) of professional time today will be eligible for the draft. (*)
2) Players with 1 year (and any number of days) of professional time will not be eligible for the draft
(*) They will go to 3 years, 0 days on January 1, then begin accruing additional days as the season progresses, so by expansion draft day they will have 3 years, XXX days as a professional.
Meaning anyone who currently says 3 pro seasons would need to be protected; but all players with 0, 1, or 2 years would not be eligible for the draft.
Perfect. That makes complete sense.RonCo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:41 amYes, I wrote that when we were in 2038. As of today:udlb58 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:51 pmI missed this comment back in May. Wouldn't players who are turning over on Jan 1 (i.e. 3 years 0 days players) be INELIGIBLE for the draft? The rule says "All players with three professional seasons or less on draft day will be automatically protected." Isn't 3 years, 0 days exactly 3 seasons, fitting within the 3 seasons or less?RonCo wrote: ↑Sun May 19, 2019 10:48 amGood questions/comments. Given how OOTP does things, it's a little...um...complicated because pro years toggle on January 1. Given this:
1) Players with 2 years (and any number of days) of professional time today will be eligible for the draft. (*)
2) Players with 1 year (and any number of days) of professional time will not be eligible for the draft
(*) They will go to 3 years, 0 days on January 1, then begin accruing additional days as the season progresses, so by expansion draft day they will have 3 years, XXX days as a professional.
Meaning anyone who currently says 3 pro seasons would need to be protected; but all players with 0, 1, or 2 years would not be eligible for the draft.
- any player that is currently listed with 2 years (and any number of days) will be automatically protected.
- any player listed with 3 years (and any number of days) will need to be protected.