New 30-team league format: opinions

[bernieh]

As I mentioned at the top of my accompanying "What's to come" post: now that I've built support for the 26-team, 4-division, 2-league format of the Major Leagues of 1986, we technically have the support for any arbitrary league format. This could be a slippery slope - in the past our attempts at offering more rules choices have resulted in spreading the manager-base too thin - but I wanted to gauge the interest in an optional alternate scheme to the current 12-team format - most likely a 30-team league similar to the current structure of the Majors.

Specifically:
- Would you welcome the new format as an option, in addition to the default 12-team league? Which do you think you would play more if both were available?
- Would you prefer an exact parallel of the current MLB format (30 teams, but asymmetrically 14 in the AL + 16 in the NL), or a more symmetrical one (5-5-5, 5-5-5)?
- Or would you prefer an alternate format other than 30 teams?

Thanks in advance for your input.

[LMBombers]

I think the 30 team league would spread the player pool too thin for popular use except maybe in ATG which has an enormous player pool.

I love it as an option for us hardcore players but I don't think it would get a tremendous amount of use as most people want their teams filled with good players at most positions. This would not be possible in a one year format with 30 teams.

[keyzick]

Q. Would you welcome the new format as an option, in addition to the default 12-team league?

A. I'd love the 30 team format as an additional option.


Q. Which do you think you would play more if both were available?

A. If both formats would fill within a week's timeframe, I'd probably play the 30 team format more. However, I doubt that would be the case, and only the hardcore managers would gravitate towards the 30-team format.


Q Would you prefer an exact parallel of the current MLB format (30 teams, but asymmetrically 14 in the AL + 16 in the NL), or a more symmetrical one (5-5-5, 5-5-5)?

A. 5-5-5....since it's not exact franchise duplication, even spreading of the teams in each division makes the most sense.



Q Or would you prefer an alternate format other than 30 teams?

A. I think a 16-team format (4-4 , 4-4) would get a lot of action, and also allow for better teams than the 30 team format, since 30 teams worth of players will be spread out over those 16 teams. Playoff possibilities could be best overall in each league gets a bye, and the other division winners plays respective wild cards. Winners square off vs. #1 in each league, with those LCS winners then playing for the Championship.

[geekor]

I agree with Keyzick repsonse 100%

I'd like to add keep the autoleagues as is, but give options.

I'd like to add that i this was added, there would need to be a significant upgrade to the draft portion (there should be anyways).

There is no way in a 30 team league the current format would not give some teams an unfair advantage. I'd like to see at least a few things added to the draft format.

1) position indicator, ie I draft Escobar for RF not CF (even though CF is his main) then I get a different RF if I miss out. No one drafts Frisch to play 3b, I want a 2b replacement for him. This NEEDS to be added, even if nothing else is.

2) When missing out, include players who are available at that position, not just those with that as the main poistion. For middle infielders, keep def no more than 3 and corners no more than 4. OR better yet allow a def range maximum. Missing out on a RF, you should be allowed to get another OF who also plays Rf, even if it isn't his main position.

3) Move down the list. I put Pujols first and miss him, give me my #2 pick as my #1. Is sucks to lose your first 3 picks, it would be nice to get some of your top picks, one way or another.

[Terry101]

I think it would be a nice option to have and I know I would play it, but I believe something with a little less teams would be more manageable. Like this:

Three six team divisions.

Playoffs: Three division winners plus three wild cards (same percentage of
playoff teams as now)

Playoff system: Objective is 1.To reward the best record teams (a common complaint on these boards) 2. To add a seven game playoff system for the final two rounds. (also a common wish on these boards over the years)

Three division winners D-1 best record D-2 next best record D-3 third best record. Three wild cards W-1 best non title record W-2 next best record W-3 next best record


F[b:5e2213e28c]irst round:[/b:5e2213e28c] D-3 vs W-1 Best of 5

W-2 vs W-3 Best of 5

[b:5e2213e28c]Second round[/b:5e2213e28c]: D-1 vs Winner of W-2,W-3 Best of 7

D-2 vs Winner of D-3, W-1 Best of 7

What this does is allow the best two teams to rest their inured players and set their rotations. The teams that have a first round games would be subject to injuries and their rotations may not be ideal. This would give the better home teams a "true" home advantage that would mimic the home advantage in real baseball.

[b:5e2213e28c]Finals[/b:5e2213e28c]: Winners of the two semi-final series Best of 7

IMO this would be the best of a lot of worlds and address some of the concerns managers have had. I would pay 1.00 more per team for the extra work for Bernie or HAL- if in fact it would be extra work.

[/b]

[Roscodog]

I really like the idea of an option for more teams, i've always thought it was a good idea. 30 might be alot but what about 24 with 4 6 team divisions. it could be more like baseball in the 80' and early 90's. Win you division then play a 7 game series to get to the World Series. Of course since there would be 24 teams instead of 12 the prizes would also have to relfect that. Maybe 1 credit to all 4 division winners and then 2 more to the champion = 6 credits given away.

I'd probably play the bigger leagues more.

[Valen]

I would not play 30 team leagues. I might play in a 24 team league. That would make for a pair of 12 team leagues of 3 divisions. One round of playoffs are added. Credit awards say basically the same. You get 1 credit for each of the playoff rounds you win.

On Geekor's suggestions...

1) position indicator, ie I draft Escobar for RF not CF (even though CF is his main) then I get a different RF if I miss out. No one drafts Frisch to play 3b, I want a 2b replacement for him. This NEEDS to be added, even if nothing else is. [size=18:63f5c6405e][color=darkblue:63f5c6405e]AMEN[/color:63f5c6405e][/size:63f5c6405e]

2) When missing out, include players who are available at that position, not just those with that as the main poistion. For middle infielders, keep def no more than 3 and corners no more than 4. OR better yet allow a def range maximum. Missing out on a RF, you should be allowed to get another OF who also plays Rf, even if it isn't his main position. [color=darkblue:63f5c6405e]AMEN[/color:63f5c6405e]

3) Move down the list. I put Pujols first and miss him, give me my #2 pick as my #1. Is sucks to lose your first 3 picks, it would be nice to get some of your top picks, one way or another. [color=darkblue:63f5c6405e][size=18:63f5c6405e]DOUBLE AMEN[/size:63f5c6405e][/color:63f5c6405e][size=12:63f5c6405e][/size:63f5c6405e]

[LMBombers]

[quote:c6a0a3cc44="Valen"]
3) Move down the list. I put Pujols first and miss him, give me my #2 pick as my #1. Is sucks to lose your first 3 picks, it would be nice to get some of your top picks, one way or another. [color=darkblue:c6a0a3cc44][size=18:c6a0a3cc44]DOUBLE AMEN[/size:c6a0a3cc44][/color:c6a0a3cc44][size=12:c6a0a3cc44][/size:c6a0a3cc44][/quote:c6a0a3cc44]

Lets say you have Pujols as your #1 pick and Vizquel your #2 on your draft card. Lets also say that you miss Pujols. You want the draft to give you Vizquel as your first pick in that case? I understand that but then when do you get your replacement first baseman? After your 25th pick on your card?

The more I think about what I just said the more I think that would work. We only get guys that are not on anyone else's AD card anyway so why not get them at the end and bump up your next highest choice? I like it! 8-)

[geekor]

[quote:3e1a9a3fc2]Lets say you have Pujols as your #1 pick and Vizquel your #2 on your draft card. Lets also say that you miss Pujols. You want the draft to give you Vizquel as your first pick in that case? I understand that but then when do you get your replacement first baseman? After your 25th pick on your card?[/quote:3e1a9a3fc2]

yes that is what I was thinking. I imagined it like this (I'll stop at 10, this is just an example)

Original Pick - New Pick - Replacement pick

1. SS (miss)
2. 1b -> #1
3. SP -> #2
4. LF -> #3 (miss)
5. 2b -> #3
6. SP ->#4
7. RP ->#5 (miss)
8. 3b -> #5
9. CF -> #6
10. C -> #7
8. replacement #1 SS
9. replacement #3 LF
10. Replacement #5 RP

Well hard to spell out without something like Excel, but I think you get the idea.

I'ts basically would you rather have you draft list a higher order, or the reaplcements. I'm sure 90%+ would want their draft list a higher priority.

[quote:3e1a9a3fc2]The more I think about what I just said the more I think that would work. We only get guys that are not on anyone else's AD card anyway so why not get them at the end and bump up your next highest choice? I like it![/quote:3e1a9a3fc2]

Exactly, your replacments are not from anyone else's draft list anyways, why should a replacement be above your list?

Also, most newbies confuse the draft thinking it is like fantasy (where if you miss your #1 you move down to the next) It would also help new guys already understand the draft better.

[ArrylT]

I think the autodraft format [b:5075904689]should stay as is[/b:5075904689] - I also think this is the wrong area for that discussion since it is supposed to be a discussion on league size rather than draft format. ;)

Here is how it currently works
Team A
1. Johan Santana $7.29M
2. Aramis Ramirez $5.36M
3. Mark Teahen $5.31M

Team B
1. Vladimir Guerrero $6.38M
2. Aramis Ramirez $5.38M
3. Tom Glavine $2.88M

Team C
1. Edgar Renteria $3.95M
2. Vladimir Guerrero $6.38M
3. Aramis Ramimrez $5.38M

We start with all the players that were selected by only one team. Team A gets Johan Santana and Mark Teahen, Team B gets Tom Glavine, and Team C gets Edgar Renteria, because each of these teams were the only ones that chose these respective players.

Vladimir Guerrero was chosen by both Teams B and C (in red). Team B would win out on Guerrero because they had him ranked #1, and Team C would get the next highest-priced player who plays rightfield as his primary position, that wasn't taken by any other team -- in this case, it's Ichiro Suzuki ($6.08M).

Aramis Ramirez was chosen by all 3 teams (in green). Teams A and B both had him ranked #2, so he would go to one of those teams randomly. Let's say he goes to Team A. Team B would get the next highest-priced player who plays third base as his primary position, that wasn't taken by another team -- in this case, it's Mike Lowell ($5.28M) (Note that Mark Teahen ($5.31M) was already taken). Team C would get the next third baseman after that - Bill Hall ($5.18M).