[quote:f61b058c10]too many changes from what I signed up for
[/quote:f61b058c10] :? :cry:
Please go on FD.
The Divisional structure has hardly ever been universally agreed too and I thought that the Ballpark assignments could benefit by a change.
The other proposals only afftected the amount of players being drafted in the Supplemental Draft (no change there) and the minimum number of players that had to be dropped.
I was intending to alienate anyone -- just putting some ideas up to a vote. :(
The Original USKL -- TSN Version 2011 (Chat Room)
by cirills » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:02 pm
Ok guys -- I know I am going to cause a couple of you to groan, BUT I have two more proposals to put to you. I PROMISE though, that barring any odd occurances, that THESE will be the LAST.
I am simply trying to make this the best it can be. The first one revisits the discussion that almost caused us a significant delay at the start -- DIVISIONAL ALIGNMENT. I have been thinking about this a lot and think I have come up with a good solution. Special Thanks to KD and Mike J as it were their comments especially that led to this first proposal.
[b:e49ebf3a35][size=15:e49ebf3a35]PROPOSAL # 1[/size:e49ebf3a35][/b:e49ebf3a35] -- We change the Divisional Alignment structure so that Divisions will not be aligned via this English Premiere Soccer League Rotaion method (sorry FD :oops: ). Instead we adopt the following:
[b:e49ebf3a35]Heading INTO the start of a NEW YEAR -- the Divisions (AND the FREE AGENT DRAFT ORDER) will be in order of the previous year's total combined standings.[/b:e49ebf3a35] Any ties will be broken by; 1. Head to Head results and if need be; 2. Greatest positive RS-RA differential. The league will be formed such that the EAST will be teams 1-4, the CENTRAL 5-8 and the WEST 9-12.
[b:e49ebf3a35]After our first season of play in that given year, the Divisions will be realigned (AND the ORDER OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT) based on the Win/Loss pct. of that season with the same tie-breaking procedures. [/b:e49ebf3a35]
***NOTE*** -- This year's (really last year's) Supplemental Draft was based on our Order of Merit Standings (where we give bonuses for playoff and World Series Appearances) but to make it simple and fair (since luck plays a big portion in playoffs), we will leave those bonuses JUST for the Order of Merit from now on and base our Draft Orders strictly on Win/Loss pcts.
[b:e49ebf3a35]After the Second Season is completed the following year's FIRST SEASON DIVISONS (and the FA Draft Order) will be determined by the COMBINED winning pcts. of BOTH seasons [/b:e49ebf3a35](again with the top four teams being in the EAST and the bottom 4 teams being in the WEST).
It was KD that said adopting a system like this would eliminate confusion and personally I like it because I think it gives everyone a better chance to compete at the same level. If you consistently do well you will be at the top, but if you can't hang there you go back down.
*** Please note that it will be our Order of Merit ONLY in which the special post-season bonuses will be added in to keep track of our overall points leader. ***
Let me know what y'all think and please vote:
Ayes: 7 (Sandy, KD, Stoney, NP, qk/cubit, D-T, Hawk)
Nays: 0
Remaining: 5 (FD, AFD, Ineluki, Bubba, and Big)
[b:e49ebf3a35][size=15:e49ebf3a35]PROPOSAL # 2[/size:e49ebf3a35][/b:e49ebf3a35] -- This has to do with our [b:e49ebf3a35]Chosen Parks[/b:e49ebf3a35]. Our current charter calls for us to be committed to our parks for the first three YEARS of our existence.
However, as it is now in QK's Keeper League, [b:e49ebf3a35]I am proposing that we adopt the similar rule of allowing the choice of a different park for each SEASON we play. [/b:e49ebf3a35]
My reason for this is as follows. While it IS the intent of this league to recreate as close as possible what it's like to be the GM of your own team -- we have to acknowledge that in Real Baseball -- the park results do NOT change as liberally as they do here in SOM unless they; 1) drastically altear those dimensions or 2) drastically alter the makeup of their team (ie; going with more LH or RH's depending on the players they have coming up). While they have the understanding of what they are doing we are then sort of trapped by their results. So that nice LH park we have has suddenly become neutral or in fact now favors RH's. Being "stuck" with that for 3 years doesn't seem fair. Also, by being allowed to change parks after each season, an owner whose team has NOT faired well gets a change to see how his team will perform under a different set of conditions. If you LIKE your current stadium then by all means you may stay, [b:e49ebf3a35]but I am proposing that if you WANT to leave then you may choose to so, via (like the Drafts) the inverse order of the win/loss pcts.[/b:e49ebf3a35]
Again, feel free to share your thought and please vote:
Ayes: 6 (Sandy, KD, Stoney, qk/cubit, Hawk, AFD)
Nays: 3 (NP, D-T, FD)
Remaining: 3 (Ineluki, Bubba, and Big)
If you have made it this far then you are TRULY committed and think that I should be committed (to an institution). You have my sincere thanks.
[b:e49ebf3a35]Proposal # 1 has already passed folks (7-0)![/b:e49ebf3a35]
[size=15:e49ebf3a35][b:e49ebf3a35]but Proposal # 2 STILL needs to be decided!!![/b:e49ebf3a35][/size:e49ebf3a35]
I am simply trying to make this the best it can be. The first one revisits the discussion that almost caused us a significant delay at the start -- DIVISIONAL ALIGNMENT. I have been thinking about this a lot and think I have come up with a good solution. Special Thanks to KD and Mike J as it were their comments especially that led to this first proposal.
[b:e49ebf3a35][size=15:e49ebf3a35]PROPOSAL # 1[/size:e49ebf3a35][/b:e49ebf3a35] -- We change the Divisional Alignment structure so that Divisions will not be aligned via this English Premiere Soccer League Rotaion method (sorry FD :oops: ). Instead we adopt the following:
[b:e49ebf3a35]Heading INTO the start of a NEW YEAR -- the Divisions (AND the FREE AGENT DRAFT ORDER) will be in order of the previous year's total combined standings.[/b:e49ebf3a35] Any ties will be broken by; 1. Head to Head results and if need be; 2. Greatest positive RS-RA differential. The league will be formed such that the EAST will be teams 1-4, the CENTRAL 5-8 and the WEST 9-12.
[b:e49ebf3a35]After our first season of play in that given year, the Divisions will be realigned (AND the ORDER OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT) based on the Win/Loss pct. of that season with the same tie-breaking procedures. [/b:e49ebf3a35]
***NOTE*** -- This year's (really last year's) Supplemental Draft was based on our Order of Merit Standings (where we give bonuses for playoff and World Series Appearances) but to make it simple and fair (since luck plays a big portion in playoffs), we will leave those bonuses JUST for the Order of Merit from now on and base our Draft Orders strictly on Win/Loss pcts.
[b:e49ebf3a35]After the Second Season is completed the following year's FIRST SEASON DIVISONS (and the FA Draft Order) will be determined by the COMBINED winning pcts. of BOTH seasons [/b:e49ebf3a35](again with the top four teams being in the EAST and the bottom 4 teams being in the WEST).
It was KD that said adopting a system like this would eliminate confusion and personally I like it because I think it gives everyone a better chance to compete at the same level. If you consistently do well you will be at the top, but if you can't hang there you go back down.
*** Please note that it will be our Order of Merit ONLY in which the special post-season bonuses will be added in to keep track of our overall points leader. ***
Let me know what y'all think and please vote:
Ayes: 7 (Sandy, KD, Stoney, NP, qk/cubit, D-T, Hawk)
Nays: 0
Remaining: 5 (FD, AFD, Ineluki, Bubba, and Big)
[b:e49ebf3a35][size=15:e49ebf3a35]PROPOSAL # 2[/size:e49ebf3a35][/b:e49ebf3a35] -- This has to do with our [b:e49ebf3a35]Chosen Parks[/b:e49ebf3a35]. Our current charter calls for us to be committed to our parks for the first three YEARS of our existence.
However, as it is now in QK's Keeper League, [b:e49ebf3a35]I am proposing that we adopt the similar rule of allowing the choice of a different park for each SEASON we play. [/b:e49ebf3a35]
My reason for this is as follows. While it IS the intent of this league to recreate as close as possible what it's like to be the GM of your own team -- we have to acknowledge that in Real Baseball -- the park results do NOT change as liberally as they do here in SOM unless they; 1) drastically altear those dimensions or 2) drastically alter the makeup of their team (ie; going with more LH or RH's depending on the players they have coming up). While they have the understanding of what they are doing we are then sort of trapped by their results. So that nice LH park we have has suddenly become neutral or in fact now favors RH's. Being "stuck" with that for 3 years doesn't seem fair. Also, by being allowed to change parks after each season, an owner whose team has NOT faired well gets a change to see how his team will perform under a different set of conditions. If you LIKE your current stadium then by all means you may stay, [b:e49ebf3a35]but I am proposing that if you WANT to leave then you may choose to so, via (like the Drafts) the inverse order of the win/loss pcts.[/b:e49ebf3a35]
Again, feel free to share your thought and please vote:
Ayes: 6 (Sandy, KD, Stoney, qk/cubit, Hawk, AFD)
Nays: 3 (NP, D-T, FD)
Remaining: 3 (Ineluki, Bubba, and Big)
If you have made it this far then you are TRULY committed and think that I should be committed (to an institution). You have my sincere thanks.
[b:e49ebf3a35]Proposal # 1 has already passed folks (7-0)![/b:e49ebf3a35]
[size=15:e49ebf3a35][b:e49ebf3a35]but Proposal # 2 STILL needs to be decided!!![/b:e49ebf3a35][/size:e49ebf3a35]
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by Ninersphan » Tue Jun 20, 2006 7:50 pm
Sandy, you have to e-mail bigmahon, he doesn't hang on the boards anymore.
- Ninersphan
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by fowldawg » Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:04 pm
hey, i am in it for the long haul, dont get me wrong. And I appreciate your efforts to make this league go. You above all others have made that happen.
My comment had to do with the divisions, yes. It was actually one of the wrinkles that made me excited about this league being a soccer fan myself. But clearly, though it was originally agreed upon, i have been outvoted.
My meaning in "too many changes" is this:
1) we are changing number of draft picks (no big deal)
2) divisional alignments (not to my liking)
3) stadiums (not to my liking)
4) roster expansion (ok if #5 werent being abused)
and the biggest 5) player usage.
So basically there are four major changes that I didnt sign up for that I disagree with. I have every intention of staying in the league, I would just like the opportunity to lobby against changes I disagree with.
#5 is actually my biggest complaint. Maybe some people have forgotten, but the original intent was for a frozen 25 man roster so people wouldnt bring players up for match-ups and injuries. I have refused to do this throughout the season even though others have (obviously looking at the transactions) because it is not supposed to happen. I also realize that this is happening largely due to the chaos which took place in getting running again and all of the tunover in original owners. Once again, not blaming you... I resepct what you've done as our leader.
My comment had to do with the divisions, yes. It was actually one of the wrinkles that made me excited about this league being a soccer fan myself. But clearly, though it was originally agreed upon, i have been outvoted.
My meaning in "too many changes" is this:
1) we are changing number of draft picks (no big deal)
2) divisional alignments (not to my liking)
3) stadiums (not to my liking)
4) roster expansion (ok if #5 werent being abused)
and the biggest 5) player usage.
So basically there are four major changes that I didnt sign up for that I disagree with. I have every intention of staying in the league, I would just like the opportunity to lobby against changes I disagree with.
#5 is actually my biggest complaint. Maybe some people have forgotten, but the original intent was for a frozen 25 man roster so people wouldnt bring players up for match-ups and injuries. I have refused to do this throughout the season even though others have (obviously looking at the transactions) because it is not supposed to happen. I also realize that this is happening largely due to the chaos which took place in getting running again and all of the tunover in original owners. Once again, not blaming you... I resepct what you've done as our leader.
- fowldawg
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by qksilver69 » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:43 pm
FD - sorry, when agreeing to take over for Cubit (temporarily) I wasn't aware that the intention (yours or league's) was to freeze rosters, rather to limit them to 25. I have no issue with eliminating callups, i don't think it's that big a deal.
However, what I can say is that THE attraction for this format, for me, is to think & act as close to a MLB GM/mgr as possible. That includes being able to send a guy down who isn't hitting well, bring up a spot starter from the minors on occasion, and putting a guy on the DL & bringing in a decent sub in his place if you have one in the organization.
In fact, I was just bragging to Cubit in email abt my "maestro touch" in calling up Luis Rodriguez for the injured Orlando Hudson. L-Rod then proceeds to hit 3 dingers in 16 ABs. I love that sh*t! 8)
I know it's all luck of the dice with that small sample, but certainly to me a truly frozen roster would be incredible boring & unlike real life in MLB.
I am fine either way on divisions as well, if it's more fun for you as a soccer fan, why not continue here? I haven't seen a really convincing argument one way or the other.
Stadiums I think would be much more interesting if we can flip them. I think the points in favor are clear, if you have points against we should hear them.
Anyway, dem's my 2 cents...
However, what I can say is that THE attraction for this format, for me, is to think & act as close to a MLB GM/mgr as possible. That includes being able to send a guy down who isn't hitting well, bring up a spot starter from the minors on occasion, and putting a guy on the DL & bringing in a decent sub in his place if you have one in the organization.
In fact, I was just bragging to Cubit in email abt my "maestro touch" in calling up Luis Rodriguez for the injured Orlando Hudson. L-Rod then proceeds to hit 3 dingers in 16 ABs. I love that sh*t! 8)
I know it's all luck of the dice with that small sample, but certainly to me a truly frozen roster would be incredible boring & unlike real life in MLB.
I am fine either way on divisions as well, if it's more fun for you as a soccer fan, why not continue here? I haven't seen a really convincing argument one way or the other.
Stadiums I think would be much more interesting if we can flip them. I think the points in favor are clear, if you have points against we should hear them.
Anyway, dem's my 2 cents...
- qksilver69
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by fowldawg » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:54 pm
QK- not blaming you at all... its really no ones fault and you are by no means that only one. I would prefer we not go ahead with many of the proposed/approved changes, but Im not so against them it would lead me to quit.
Why I am against the Stadium replacement is I see it as a way for people to cover for the lack of performance by their players. I have lets say Hernandez great for a hitters park with no BPHR and no BPS on one side. Hes nowhere as good next year. He will probably have plenty of BPHR... in fact my whole pitching staff is that way... I move to a pitchers park. I would be for changing parks if it were close to your original location. Example, two years ago Minute Maid was a lefty field and now its opposite. In that case I would agree that the owner should be able to swith, but the options should be limited to the field(s) closest resembling their current location.
As for player usage. 25 man rosters is pointless if we can use all 40 at any time. Why not just say 28 man rosters do what you want? If Im a major league manager I dont demote people because they dont match-up well to my nightly opponent. I demote them because of performance. The one situation I disagree with the regular rule is injuries. The original rule was made "to prevent teams from loading up on injury-ridden players". Injuries are a much more realistic reason for making transactions. I have played through JD Drew, Crosby, Guillen injuries and have played without a SS for a time because we are not supposed to make transactions for those purposes. The only transaction I have made was for performance reasons.
Why I am against the Stadium replacement is I see it as a way for people to cover for the lack of performance by their players. I have lets say Hernandez great for a hitters park with no BPHR and no BPS on one side. Hes nowhere as good next year. He will probably have plenty of BPHR... in fact my whole pitching staff is that way... I move to a pitchers park. I would be for changing parks if it were close to your original location. Example, two years ago Minute Maid was a lefty field and now its opposite. In that case I would agree that the owner should be able to swith, but the options should be limited to the field(s) closest resembling their current location.
As for player usage. 25 man rosters is pointless if we can use all 40 at any time. Why not just say 28 man rosters do what you want? If Im a major league manager I dont demote people because they dont match-up well to my nightly opponent. I demote them because of performance. The one situation I disagree with the regular rule is injuries. The original rule was made "to prevent teams from loading up on injury-ridden players". Injuries are a much more realistic reason for making transactions. I have played through JD Drew, Crosby, Guillen injuries and have played without a SS for a time because we are not supposed to make transactions for those purposes. The only transaction I have made was for performance reasons.
- fowldawg
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cirills » Wed Jun 21, 2006 7:22 am
I hear you on both counts FD and respect your comments as well.
I never even knew that anyone had a prob with the roster movement because I thought that was the whole point behind having an Unlimited Roster. We originally discussed it being a 25 man hard roster but there were several adamant voices aginst at that time (mine and KD's for sure) and I thought we had moved past that. I know there were plenty of moves made in our oneseason last year.
As for the stadium designation -- it just seemed to me that it was very restrictive and somewhat subjective to SOM's tendancy to change them for year to year. The Metrodome went from a LH favoring park to a neutral one. Did there dimensions change? No, the makeup of their team changed which led to the numbers changing.
However, if YOUR team makeup doesn't change should you have to be subjected to that kind of alteration to your team makeup? That didn't seem fair to me, and I also thought it would be way to increase enjoyment/chanes of success for teams that didn't fare so well in the first season of the year, so that they didn't feel like they were simply plopping down another 25 buckst o the better teams merely out of a committment. The goal is to make this the most competitive league possible, while also keeping with the theme of trying to emulate as closely asd possible how a real GM/Team Owner would operate.
In any case, that's why I put these proposals up for votes and I absolutely encouraged as much vocalism as possible so I appreciate both your comments and committment. :D
I never even knew that anyone had a prob with the roster movement because I thought that was the whole point behind having an Unlimited Roster. We originally discussed it being a 25 man hard roster but there were several adamant voices aginst at that time (mine and KD's for sure) and I thought we had moved past that. I know there were plenty of moves made in our oneseason last year.
As for the stadium designation -- it just seemed to me that it was very restrictive and somewhat subjective to SOM's tendancy to change them for year to year. The Metrodome went from a LH favoring park to a neutral one. Did there dimensions change? No, the makeup of their team changed which led to the numbers changing.
However, if YOUR team makeup doesn't change should you have to be subjected to that kind of alteration to your team makeup? That didn't seem fair to me, and I also thought it would be way to increase enjoyment/chanes of success for teams that didn't fare so well in the first season of the year, so that they didn't feel like they were simply plopping down another 25 buckst o the better teams merely out of a committment. The goal is to make this the most competitive league possible, while also keeping with the theme of trying to emulate as closely asd possible how a real GM/Team Owner would operate.
In any case, that's why I put these proposals up for votes and I absolutely encouraged as much vocalism as possible so I appreciate both your comments and committment. :D
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by qksilver69 » Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:13 am
[quote:312786abdc]I have played through JD Drew, Crosby, Guillen injuries and have played without a SS for a time because we are not supposed to make transactions for those purposes.[/quote:312786abdc]
Hey FD, didn't I see you in The DaVinci Code? You had a whip & looked like you needed a suntan??? :lol:
Hey FD, didn't I see you in The DaVinci Code? You had a whip & looked like you needed a suntan??? :lol:
- qksilver69
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cirills » Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:12 am
Meanwhile, I am sad to announce the departure of Charter Member Bigmahon. He will be missed but Chris is all but cutting out of SOM completely. For those of us in this league who are fortunate enough to also particiapte in the NLD we will get to enjoy Big's company there.
However, I am proud to announce the addition of Cummings2 into our fold. Chuck also belongs to Qk's similar Keeper League so he is up to speed on ours and in fact has already placed a vote on the second proposal (aye).
Thus, I feel the time is right for me to post an updated version of our league's charter so that we can all see just where we are at this time.
I promise that I have no more "proposals" left in me at this time, but will always be willing and wanting to hear every input possible.
The goal is to make this the best and most competitive league possible. :D
Meanwhile, please welcome Chuck (Cummings2) into our fold. :)
However, I am proud to announce the addition of Cummings2 into our fold. Chuck also belongs to Qk's similar Keeper League so he is up to speed on ours and in fact has already placed a vote on the second proposal (aye).
Thus, I feel the time is right for me to post an updated version of our league's charter so that we can all see just where we are at this time.
I promise that I have no more "proposals" left in me at this time, but will always be willing and wanting to hear every input possible.
The goal is to make this the best and most competitive league possible. :D
Meanwhile, please welcome Chuck (Cummings2) into our fold. :)
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to Individual League Chat
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests