Insuring the supply of new sheep

[Hank O]

Competition in the public leagues is tough. Familiar names are common. I wonder how many newbies stick around long enough to figure out how to build a winning team, let alone a champion. And without a steady infusion of new blood, eventually SN will send us all off to play something else.

Here's a what if for your comment:

1. A League--for newbies
2. AA ball--for non-newbies, who aren't:
3. AAA--managers who've won a ring
4. The Show--managers with multiple championships

Managers can play in a league beneath them, but it costs them $5M per level to play down.

Enforcement issues aside, what do you think?

Kind regards,

Hank

[gkhd11a]

I think TSN should make it possible to create leagues where your ATGII rating is no higher than X or non-champion leagues. Most newbies have no chance against the better players and really have to be willing to take their lumps to win.

[CHRISTIANSTOUGH]

I love the A,AA,AAA, Show idea. How cool is that?

How could it be made so.

[RONALDDOBBS]

Looks like a great plan, but, don`t you think we had better check with Petrosian? :wink:

Seriously, I agree with the concept and wish we could make it happen but , if it does`nt , I will continue to "take my lumps." :lol:

[nevdully's]

This speaks to something I've wanted to address for awhile now.

The Hardcore Vet and the newbie and the balance in trying to keep/get both....You gotta understand that even [b:d7a134adf0]"basic"[/b:d7a134adf0] [b:d7a134adf0]Strat is like Chess not Checkers. [/b:d7a134adf0]You gotta have a certain amount of [b:d7a134adf0]smarts, stick-to itivness and love of this "type" of game to stay and excell.[/b:d7a134adf0] I think you'll find people either play once or twice and quit (no way to change that, they wanna play Checkers) or they stay and play as much as they can afford, either time and/or moneywise, whether that 5 teams a week like me, or one team at a time. That recognition is subtle but important. The newbies that leave, usually will leave because "it's not Checkers", not because they're looking for a simpler version of Chess. It's not a game that can be mastered, and [b:d7a134adf0]success is not, and should not, be easily and casually attained.[/b:d7a134adf0] (what fun would that be)

The playng field is as level as any newbie can want it to be. :)

Most of us help privately and/or on the boards.


I've helped guys[b:d7a134adf0] in my division[/b:d7a134adf0], from their draft card through waivers or Frenzy.

[b:d7a134adf0]I traded Cobb for Combs [/b:d7a134adf0]. Yes I did. Why? A newbie had Cobb and Valentine in RF and no CF. during the Frenzy he released Cobb and picked up Combs (HOLY CRAP!). I quickly snatched Cobb up and messaged the guy to respond quickly (I didn't wanna to totally screw up my own Frenzy) I told him never to cut Cobb, especially not for Combs, that Cobb would get you a good CF in a straight up trade. I told him I'd give him Cobb back for Combs and to make a long story short he was able to trade Cobb to TyCobb for Speaker. :)


Keep in mind that by reading the boards and asking questions the [b:d7a134adf0]learning curve is easy accelerated.[/b:d7a134adf0]

We 've got a few guys here now (no names mentioned) that almost from day one, have been very competitive simply by posting their teams and then letting the boards do all the work.

We ask every question imaginable. From "Who's the top 3rdbaseman", who's the best value 3rdbaseman, who's the worst value 3rdbaseman, who's the best 3rdbaseman for Yankee 56', who's the best 3rdbaseman for under 1 million. who's the best 3rdbaseman for Yankee 56' under 1 million. etc. (LOL)


If you want raw numbers in addition to opinion, we can also use [b:d7a134adf0]Diamond Dope.[/b:d7a134adf0] That breaks everything down 9 ways to Sunday. Kinda like taking an open book test.


Although I'm sure most will disagree, I think newbies shouldn't be afraid to pay some dues. and really that adds more to the good of the game than most would realize. How? well it seems that it only a few select vets and some newbies that are willing to try a new combination of players. We have 400 3rdbaseman here and we use the [b:d7a134adf0]same 12 all the time.[/b:d7a134adf0] When the top ones are gone or $$$ need to be saved, who doesn't know about the Riggs/McMullin combo? Oh you're in a HR park, ok use Nettles/Wera. We have a monkey see, monkey do mindset here, and a 5-pack should be awarded to anyone with an original thought.[b:d7a134adf0] Some newbie, or Frank Bailey [/b:d7a134adf0](another reason why he's the best) step out of the box and try different players, and lo and behold we see Doran ain't too bad. and does anyone get any better use out of M. Scott or L. Doyle than prepetual 90 game winner Standpat. How bout Charlie loving every time he gets to use R. Murray. The game becomes new again.

How much more level can the field be made? Remember it's never easy or guaranteed, even the best of the best, and most experienced, can still have a team lose 90+ so much has to do with [b:d7a134adf0]match-ups and [/b:d7a134adf0][b:d7a134adf0]just plain luck. [/b:d7a134adf0]


If we went A, AA, AAA, the Show, you'd still have just as many Owner's teams lose 90+ in A, and become discouraged, perhaps even more so, knowing "If I lose 90 in A, think how much time and money will it take before I can get to the Show." :shock:

Besides it would take even longer to fill leagues. :(
[/b]





:)

[Palanion]

Great response Nev. I couldn't agree with you more.
What I also love is the debates that occur within the boards, such as Powell or Murray. They are so close, but the subtle differences allow for debate.
And then you'll see a comment somewhere along the way that makes you rethink other things. The other day I read "or save $$ and cut Dawson and pick up Wilson. Wilson is the same but with far less power."
I scoffed, then I thought about it. Wilson, in fact, has a lesser arm, but faster legs. They both have decent obp, but lean way left, making them susceptible to RHP. But, then I thought about how if I was in a division (or league) with a couple Dunn/Y56 teams, that either player would help my team against them. Not to the 1 range and low e that makes them important in a traditional defensive design. Yes, they are similar but different.
People have had success and failure using certain ideologies in certain parks...
And really experimenting - well not like some people we know - is also where some fun lies. I tried to recreate a ring-winning Forbes team recently, but in the Astrodome. Different park, but similar idea. And Wilson is in CF. We'll see how it works.

[TomP]

Nev makes many excellent points. In addition, there's nothing like learning from the vets in a live league. Success in this game is more about team construction. Yes, you can research using the boards to gather data about the best position player in a certain park. But there are always trade offs...if I pay more at a certain position, what do I lose elsewhere? In a rookie league, the newbies would not be exposed to how the good managers build a strong team.

[DizandMiles]

SOM - ATG can never be mastered, only played. One tries to put together the best tools they can and goes from there. If SOM could be mastered there would be someone with equal amounts of teams and championships. In the ATG top 10, the ration is about one champ for every seven teams and a scant few are averaging .500 on teams in the playoffs.

Golf has a handicap system, but it is based on the top 10 of 20 rounds - still struggling with that one - but if I only played with beginners, I would be a pretty crappy golfer right now.

I would love to play in a league that would have to be a $200MM league but everyone would be limited to a limited roster amount (say $80MM). After games 30, 60, 90, 120, and 141 teams that are under .500 can add cap room - ($1MM for each game under .500) kind of an adjustable handicap - those who exceed the cap would either have to dump a player have to let their opponent set the lineup.

[rosenthm]

Excellent post, Nevdully. I would substitute the analogy of Bridge and Go Fish, instead of Chess and Checkers. No luck in Chess (unless it's who you draw to play against) but still some luck in the very complex game of Bridge....

I'm one of those players that came to this on-line game by chance and had played the board game as a kid. I got hooked and my love for the game of baseball, the history of baseball and the wonderful community of guys (wish there were more gals) here at SOM TSN has kept me here even though I dont have a .500 percentage overall, I don't do big-time statistical analyses, I occasionally look at Diamond Dope and occasionially search the board if I'm looking for a certain position. I love the theme leagues and try to avoid the auto-drafts....and I'm still having fun a few years and $$$ later playing the game. As a vet I don't usually offer my advice on the boards, because I am more of an "intuitive" player and really don't consider myself worthy of giving advice. I feel the same way about my golf game. I've learned by experience that there are some guys I never want on my team again...and some guys I try to get...from my perspective we can be as welcoming as we can to newbies and they'll know if they want to stick around.....certainly the forums and the willingness of the upper echalon players to share helps too. Thanks for the post, Nevdully!

[Hakmusic]

I think this is an interesting thought, but I agree completely with what has been said. I think the players who will stick play a lot are the ones that want to be challenged and who will put the effort into going to the boards to learn. What makes this game addicting is that there is so much to learn. Personally, I think getting clobbered coming out of the gate only made me want to play more and get better because I could see clearly that there was a lot to learn and a challenge to be had.

I think there should be a strong suggestion at the sign up screen to go to the message boards to learn more about choosing players or ask questions. I think that would help new players who might not think on their own to try the message board link before the pick their team, thinking that it might not be something that would be for them.