New League Structure Discussion

Non-league talk in here. Please make NSFW *links* and not pics.
Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

New League Structure Discussion

Post by Ted » Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:05 pm

So, I'm starting to get the itch to manage a team again (didn't even last a whole real life year). However, there are simply too many things I don't like about the Brewster to come back here. Now, that's not a knock on the Brewster. It's a fine league. The problems I think it has are ones the almost every league runs into.

I do not intend to start and will not debate here. These are my feelings. If you disagree, that's fine. I am not trying to piss on the Brewster here.
I am delineating my thoughts so that my proposed league structure makes sense. This is an attempt to see if I can come up with an alternative that works, and asking for feedback on that model as to its plausibility.

Player demands:

The Brewster is a capped league and the game file settings for demands are much lower than what the engine is making the players ask for. I'm not sure if this is an issue with the very specific settings the Brewster has for financials, or if OOTP simply doesn't do this well. But I simply don't have an interest in a system where players routinely ask for 35% plus of the cap space in AAV. That's bonkers in my mind. This is the reason I left, and until it's fixed, I won't be back in the Brewster. I'm just going to assume OOTP can't work with the Brewster cap settings and try to come up with a different idea.

Contract Manipulation:

This league, and every other, is rife with players in AAA who should be in the bigs, as teams wait for development or simply don't want to start an arb clock because they aren't currently competitive. I hate this.

Tanking:

The Brewster is actually one of the best leagues I've ever been in in this regard, but it still happens sometimes, and there's a simple solution to fix it.

A Huge Ratings Spread:

Every person I know who has commished a long standing league notes that ratings creep happens. They also all note that there is a lot of pressure to "juice" the draft, as everyone wants a shiny new toy or two each season. Your last draft was abysmal and ideally wouldn't happen, but it's closer to reality than the ones you had been getting. There have been real life drafts where no one picked in the first round made it. They are exceedingly rare, but they happen. What's unrealistic about your last draft is that you will likely have very few of those pumpkins in your later rounds bump, because your ratings bloat creates little room for it. However, there have NEVER been real life drafts where the entire first round projects to be hall of famers, like the ones you'd been having. The Brewster drafts are a tricky animal due to the myriad of ways players enter the league, the overall ratings spread, which makes middling players look really unappetizing, and a ton of other factors. Regardless, I'd prefer a league with a more narrow band of talent at the top level, and only a few huge outliers if any (generational talents, etc.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Okay, so with those key issues pointed out, I'll start with my league outline. I'd like to hear any responses pertaininng to the feasibility of implementing this in OOTP. First off, we'll tackle something most people will immediately have concerns with.

No Cap:

The idea here is to create a more natural supply and demand. Caps really force an artificial lowering of player salaries overall, but they also tend to make high end player salaries elevate. This is because it is way more valuable to get 8 wins out of one player than to get 8 wins out of 4 players. When you have a cap, and have to think about signing four guys or one guy, the market moves towards very expensive superstars and cheap middling talent.

But of course everyone wondering about the inherent fairness of big market versus small market in an uncapped league. Revenue tends to snowball, so uncapped leagues get out of hand fast. The solution? VERY AGGRESSIVE revenue sharing. I'd like a system where say if the top team spends 200 mil, the median team is at 185, and the bottom could spend 185 if they wanted. Being able to spend more is a team's reward for winning and keeping their FI and FL up. But I want everyone to be able to spend enough to compete. So you give everyone max market size, and make sure it stays there. I haven't messed with the revenue sharing settings ever, but this seems possible if you do the math right.

Salary Floor:
In the above scenario, I would set a salary floor at 170 mil. That may seem high, but the idea is to prevent tanking. Sure, a team could still sign players to one year bloated contracts to get to the floor. But they can't hoard cash. And people will probably tend to look for good ways to spend money if they know they have to spend it. If you don't spend to the floor you lose a pick for each 5 mil you are under, starting with rd1. Now, you may point out that for a bad team, and with min salaries so low, it may be hard to make the floor.

Pay For Current Performance, Not Past:
My league will do what current baseball owners don't want, and what the greedy older players in charge of the union are too big of shitholes to demand. The min contract is going way up. Probably 2 or 3 mil. At 2 mil, you've got a min salary for a 26 man roster of 52 mil. At 3 mil it's 78. That's still around half the salary floor. These numbers are all fuzzy at this point, but you get the idea. Secondly, arbitration starts after any part of two seasons, full stop. You get more arb years, and I'd like to see top players making 8-10 mil by their second arb year. Say 6 years of arb total. Any player who is eligible for arbitration can sign a max length deal, which is probably 6 for FA's and 6 + (num arb years remaining - 3) for arb eligible players (so you can buy out all of arb plus some). The idea is to make people decide whether they want to gamble on a player maintaining a level of performance on a longer deal, or risk a 30 mil arb contract. Just like real life.

Minor Leaguers are in the Union:
All minor leaguers have the right to challenge for a promotion. If they believe they are having their service time manipulated, they can appeal to an independent arbitrator panel. If that panel finds that a player is toiling in AAA and there is no reason other than the big league club not wanting to win games or start and arb clock, the player immediately is granted free agency. (So yes, I will set up an anonymous snitching and review system).

Some degree of fog of war on stats:
I'm really leaning towards stats only. You'll have the generic scouting descriptions about players, and their amateur stats to make decisions on drafting, but being able to see the ratings causes so many problems and headaches and influences contracts in unrealistic ways. I'd love to have potential ratings that disappear once a player plays x number of minor league games, but that's not an option. Potential only is an option, but I really don't want to see potential ratings on older players. I want decisions based on performance, and analysis of performance.

Participation:
I think the PP system is fun, and the writing aspect of the Brewster and the rich history that creates is what makes it great. But writing can be a chore. I will have some kind of participation requirement, but I don't want as much tracking and work. And the PP system is maybe a bit overpowered. At minimum there will be a forum activity requirement and some sort of reward system.

The point of all this is to create a league where winning is about using your assets wisely, more than anything else. I want to minimize strategies that game the system, like the time honored blow it up and rebuild. That will always work, but I'd like it to be less attractive. I'd rather GMs focus on roster construction.

Depending on how much I give a crap, I may start putting a league file together soon. But I'd like some feedback. Some version of this is the league I'll be making most likely someday. Thanks for your consideration.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

usnspecialist
Ex-GM
Posts: 6652
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:39 am
Location: Manama, Bahrain
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 776 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by usnspecialist » Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:40 pm

definitely some interesting ideas (including some that the GB has already discussed on various levels). The no cap would be a tricky one for online leagues solely because it would be real hard to maintain a steady presence among teams that are struggling (even with revenue sharing), but I agree that ideally that is probably the way to go.
Randy Weigand

Havana Sugar Kings/San Fernando Bears: 32-50 (1608-1481)
Des Moines Kernels: 52-

League Champion- 34
JL Champion- 34
FL Champion- 36, 37
JL Southern- 34
FL Pacific- 37, 39
Wild Card- 33, 35, 36, 40, 43

Image

User avatar
recte44
GB: Commissioner
Posts: 43001
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:14 pm
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 1608 times
Contact:

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by recte44 » Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:52 pm

You aren’t poaching our GMs are you?

usnspecialist
Ex-GM
Posts: 6652
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:39 am
Location: Manama, Bahrain
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 776 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by usnspecialist » Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:58 pm

recte44 wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:52 pm
You aren’t poaching our GMs are you?
that is all you have to say on this? little disappointed to be honest. You may not agree with everything he put on there, but he does raise some valid points.
Randy Weigand

Havana Sugar Kings/San Fernando Bears: 32-50 (1608-1481)
Des Moines Kernels: 52-

League Champion- 34
JL Champion- 34
FL Champion- 36, 37
JL Southern- 34
FL Pacific- 37, 39
Wild Card- 33, 35, 36, 40, 43

Image

User avatar
bcslouck
BBA GM
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:09 am
Location: Millersville, MD
Has thanked: 355 times
Been thanked: 292 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by bcslouck » Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:36 pm

It's a discussion like anything else. He said he wants feedback, not GM's. I mean, I like being here but there are things that I think could be better. Just like in my other league. Hell, just like the league I ran that is now gone. This is a goooooooood group of GM's in varying OOTP participation to throw out ideas and hear what others have to say and what works, including you Matt.
Brandon Slouck
Rocky Mountain Oysters (2058 - present)
Cairo Pharaohs (2057)
Charm City Jimmies (2029 - 2049)
Paris Patriots (2028)

User avatar
niles08
BBA GM
Posts: 2507
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:15 pm
Has thanked: 168 times
Been thanked: 424 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by niles08 » Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:39 pm

Hi Ted,

I just walked out of work but you'll be getting a lengthy review and feedback after I've had the night to digest this and am back in front of a computer tomorrow.

Whether or not you value my feedback is another story entirely lol but I will try anyhow.
Image

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by Ted » Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:47 pm

recte44 wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:52 pm
You aren’t poaching our GMs are you?
I've got nothing going right now, so don't worry. And when I do start recruiting, I will not actively post here to do so. There are some of you I have talked with before when I brought up making a new league that expressed interest. But for the sake of fairness, I will not accept anyone from the Brewster as a GM who doesn't maintain their team here. At least until things have been running for awhile.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by Ted » Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:52 pm

Ted wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:47 pm
recte44 wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:52 pm
You aren’t poaching our GMs are you?
I've got nothing going right now, so don't worry. And when I do start recruiting, I will not actively post here to do so. There are some of you I have talked with before when I brought up making a new league that expressed interest. But for the sake of fairness, I will not accept anyone from the Brewster as a GM who doesn't maintain their team here. At least until things have been running for awhile.
And apologies Recte. I completely respect your concern. I asking here, because as Slouck pointed out, this is a good group of GMs who would have valuable feedback. That's all. I should have been more clear. Sorry man.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
JimBob2232
BBA GM
Posts: 3657
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:54 pm
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 222 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by JimBob2232 » Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:37 pm

Interesting ideas. I actually think this league is pretty good as is. Can it be better? Sure. What can’t get better?

I do like your PP idea. Ive never been a huge fan, but I appreciate some of the history that it brings. As more leagues move to slack and other means of collaborating, forum posts start to become less meaningful.

Also, if scouts were worth a damn, I’d be fully in favor of fog of war. But I’m skeptical. If whoever has the best scout wins...that’s no fun.

I actually think our financial issues are mostly resolved. Years ago we could sign guys cheap for long term. That’s done. Players are asking for close to realistic numbers most of the time. The algorithm needs some work so that FAs demand about what market price would be. But that’s an OOTP issue in my mind, not a league setup issue.

Interesting ideas, but not sure how they all play together.

bschr682
Ex-GM
Posts: 8038
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:24 am
Has thanked: 306 times
Been thanked: 383 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by bschr682 » Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:56 pm

I just read through this probably too quickly but my gut reaction is you are gonna have a really hard time keeping GMs running the teams that aren’t any good.

I’ll re read this and give you more feedback soon.
GM Vancouver Mounties

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by RonCo » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:26 pm

Player demands:

The Brewster is a capped league and the game file settings for demands are much lower than what the engine is making the players ask for. I'm not sure if this is an issue with the very specific settings the Brewster has for financials, or if OOTP simply doesn't do this well. But I simply don't have an interest in a system where players routinely ask for 35% plus of the cap space in AAV. That's bonkers in my mind. This is the reason I left, and until it's fixed, I won't be back in the Brewster. I'm just going to assume OOTP can't work with the Brewster cap settings and try to come up with a different idea.
I think player demands are fundamentally driven by the game settings for stars and whatnot—but the top players will tend to start asking for roughly twice the “Average,” and then work down over time. The rate they fall are dependent upon how good the player is, and what tht bidding has been like. Our “superstar players” are set at $14M, and our top players ask about $26-$30M as starting places. At that point, our market drives final price.
A Huge Ratings Spread:

… Regardless, I'd prefer a league with a more narrow band of talent at the top level, and only a few huge outliers if any (generational talents, etc.
On the whole I agree with you, but good luck here. The “best” way to do this is probably to stop all rating adjustment, including keeping PCMs all at 1.0. But you’ll always see ratings drift in OOTP.
No Cap:

The idea here is to create a more natural supply and demand. Caps really force an artificial lowering of player salaries overall, but they also tend to make high end player salaries elevate. This is because it is way more valuable to get 8 wins out of one player than to get 8 wins out of 4 players. When you have a cap, and have to think about signing four guys or one guy, the market moves towards very expensive superstars and cheap middling talent.

But of course everyone wondering about the inherent fairness of big market versus small market in an uncapped league. Revenue tends to snowball, so uncapped leagues get out of hand fast. The solution? VERY AGGRESSIVE revenue sharing. I'd like a system where say if the top team spends 200 mil, the median team is at 185, and the bottom could spend 185 if they wanted. Being able to spend more is a team's reward for winning and keeping their FI and FL up. But I want everyone to be able to spend enough to compete. So you give everyone max market size, and make sure it stays there. I haven't messed with the revenue sharing settings ever, but this seems possible if you do the math right.
Revenue sharing is a false strategy for evening the competitive field because shared revenue does not affect budgets. Gate revenue sharing (which the BBA does), is the only thing that affects budget—and hence aids competitive balance in the bigger picture. All other revenue sharing only helps spending on 1-season deals.

In my studies of competitive environment in OOTP leagues, the biggest impact by far is the existence of a fairly stringent salary cap. There are reasons for this, but I’m trying to keep this “short.” [grin] The issue, of course, is that as soon as you enact a salary cap, you change the business structure of the game from what it is in the real MLB.
Salary Floor:
In the above scenario, I would set a salary floor at 170 mil. That may seem high, but the idea is to prevent tanking. Sure, a team could still sign players to one year bloated contracts to get to the floor. But they can't hoard cash. And people will probably tend to look for good ways to spend money if they know they have to spend it. If you don't spend to the floor you lose a pick for each 5 mil you are under, starting with rd1. Now, you may point out that for a bad team, and with min salaries so low, it may be hard to make the floor.
Salary floors are attractive in theory, but fall apart fairly quickly. You can do that to a degree with raising the min salary dramatically as you’re suggesting elsewhere…but that will almost certainly have some interesting impacts on Free Agency—especially for very low budget teams (a team like our own Des Moines franchise is limited by budget—so even cash infusions won’t help them.
Minor Leaguers are in the Union:
All minor leaguers have the right to challenge for a promotion. If they believe they are having their service time manipulated, they can appeal to an independent arbitrator panel. If that panel finds that a player is toiling in AAA and there is no reason other than the big league club not wanting to win games or start and arb clock, the player immediately is granted free agency. (So yes, I will set up an anonymous snitching and review system).
Really the only way to get rid of this behavior in a productive way (IMHO) is to just not use the arbitration system/CBA. I think you can kill the whole concept and then guys go straight to free agency/extensions after a year or two or whatever. Or just allow teams to sign 10 year deals right away. I dunno.

At the end of the day, real life teams fiddle with service time because that’s the system that the players union agreed to, and because sabermetricians have learned a lot about player value by age. It is incredibly bad business by a GM to make decisions that lower their organization’s overall value. It will be interesting to see what the MLB CBA looks like in 2021.
Some degree of fog of war on stats:
I'm really leaning towards stats only. You'll have the generic scouting descriptions about players, and their amateur stats to make decisions on drafting, but being able to see the ratings causes so many problems and headaches and influences contracts in unrealistic ways. I'd love to have potential ratings that disappear once a player plays x number of minor league games, but that's not an option. Potential only is an option, but I really don't want to see potential ratings on older players. I want decisions based on performance, and analysis of performance.
Stats only is really the best way to play the game anyway. To be honest, a lot of my promotion and rostering decisions are highly influenced by the concept of using stats as my guide. IMHO, this is even more important in our use of relative ratings. Bottom line, I’d be in heaven if BBA went to stats only, but IMHO most OOTP GMs don’t seem to like it.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by RonCo » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:33 pm

bschr682 wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:56 pm
I just read through this probably too quickly but my gut reaction is you are gonna have a really hard time keeping GMs running the teams that aren’t any good.

I’ll re read this and give you more feedback soon.
My findings while coming to the BBA was that leagues with no salary cap tend to result in a few super teams and a lot of turnover in the lower ranks of teams that wind up with low budgets. This is actually one of the reasons that I came to the BBA.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by RonCo » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:36 pm

JimBob2232 wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:37 pm

Also, if scouts were worth a damn, I’d be fully in favor of fog of war. But I’m skeptical. If whoever has the best scout wins...that’s no fun.
Scouts are horrible. The best way to increase Fog of War is stats-only, or go to a 1-5 rating scale.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

bschr682
Ex-GM
Posts: 8038
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:24 am
Has thanked: 306 times
Been thanked: 383 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by bschr682 » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:44 pm

I love the idea of stats only but in practice I can’t see it working in a large league.
GM Vancouver Mounties

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by RonCo » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:46 pm

Stats only requires a collection of pretty fervent GMs.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

User avatar
handaspencer
GBC GM
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by handaspencer » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:51 pm

If you had 30 equal caliber gms some of these ideas would work. Uncapped leagues end up with 2-3 gms winning 90% of the titles. Because it’s impossible to get 30 equal caliber gms at once, a salary cap levels the playing field from my experience. Utilizing service time is just simply smart and done by mlb gms, so not sure why this is even an issue. Stats only is awesome and I wish that’s the way we was.

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by RonCo » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:57 pm

handaspencer wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:51 pm
If you had 30 equal caliber gms some of these ideas would work. Uncapped leagues end up with 2-3 gms winning 90% of the titles. Because it’s impossible to get 30 equal caliber gms at once, a salary cap levels the playing field from my experience. Utilizing service time is just simply smart and done by mlb gms, so not sure why this is even an issue. Stats only is awesome and I wish that’s the way we was.
A very good GM can eventually win in a non-cap league, even when there are behemoths in it...but it is a very, very long slog.

But, yes. In non-cap leagues, it's generally a race to the to of the hill...because once you're there, it's hard to know you off.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

User avatar
handaspencer
GBC GM
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:17 pm
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by handaspencer » Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:00 pm

I was part of an uncapped league with revenue sharing and it did help with international spending but the gap between big market vs small market was so large that revenue sharing did very little to equal the playing field.

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by RonCo » Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:01 pm

Honestly, the very bestest financial system I've played in was the one in the FOBL ... which was done completely outside the game, and was predicated on EBAY-based bidding in a custom-made web application. Even it could have been improved a little, but it was set-up in a way that it worked in a similar fashion as a salary cap...because, well, there was a salary cap/cash cap, and because revenue was also created outside the game. :)
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19815
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1982 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: New League Structure Discussion

Post by RonCo » Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:02 pm

handaspencer wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:00 pm
I was part of an uncapped league with revenue sharing and it did help with international spending but the gap between big market vs small market was so large that revenue sharing did very little to equal the playing field.
As I said above, revenue sharing (outside Gate revenue) will never work to even the palying field in OOTP because it does not affect budgets. Budgets are hugely important.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “Off Topic Chatter”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests