I am absolutely ok with keeping with the Original Rules as stated. I do think it'll be a bit hard to manage the minimum game rule, but I'd say let's give it a go and see how things shake out.

Lots of topics to address from the last several posts, in no particular order:

The minimum game rule can be self-policed by owners.  In the Soto example, if no one notices that he played less than 5 games, then the original owner gets to keep him.  If you're worried about the "proof" disappearing with team stats going away between seasons, do a screen grab of the team's stats.

The draft should go quickly between seasons, since there are not many new rookies to choose from.  If an owner misses a deadline for posting keepers, his keepers will default to being his new rookies plus his players who had the most PA+IP in the season that has just ended, up to 25 players total.  If an owner misses his time in the draft, we'll move on without waiting... the draft pool will usually be weak enough that missing a round is not a make-or-break thing for a franchise.

A player's WIS rookie season defines his first team.  That makes it easier to identify the rookies, and also more likely to put a player on the team he was associated with for more of his career.

For players who missed 1977 in WIS, but were not rookies when they returned later, they can go into the rookie draft pool when they return. Hopefully no one already selected a franchise counting on a player who missed 1977.

Once a player belongs to a franchise, he stays with that franchise until being traded (in the sim) or cut... it is up to the owners here to be better general managers than their real-life counterparts.

We'll aim for 24 teams, there should be enough PA and IP to go around.  You can fill AAA (from the draft pool or your original players) and shuffle players back and forth. Part of the fun of a progressive is that for every team with an Ozzie Smith or Dave Concepcion, another team has to piece together a Buddy Biancalana and Onyx Concepcion.

        So for purposes of our beginning season roster we would have the players that began 1977 with said team along with players drafted in the dispersal draft? Checking again for the sake of stupidity. :-)

How many AAA will teams get per season again?

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/22/2015 5:42:00 PM (view original):
If you keep at 24 teams I don't think teams will have enough ABs or IP unless you load them with AAA help.

I did some future analysis for StL.....there will definitely be years where using only players that started with StL we'd have only 1 or 2 guys with over 100 ip on roster.  So that would take A LOT of trading or getting lucky with draft.   But we'll see how it goes I guess

In league rules it says "
Concept:  Start with 24 of the real franchises and their 1977 rosters.  In subsequent seasons, each franchise gets the rookies who really came up with that team. "

In recent post it says "also more likely to put a player on the team he was associated with for more of his career."

To me you are contradicting yourself.  I truly thought the point of the league was for teams to keep guys that started with that team....not the "more associated with" thing

Posted by blues322 on 8/24/2015 7:47:00 AM (view original):

        So for purposes of our beginning season roster we would have the players that began 1977 with said team along with players drafted in the dispersal draft? Checking again for the sake of stupidity. :-)

Right

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/24/2015 8:28:00 AM (view original):
How many AAA will teams get per season again?

As many as you can fill in the draft, until all the players for that season are gone.

Oh using real AAA players? DJ, I think that teams will have seasons where they are dying because of lack of at bats and IP. Just dying. I would seriously consider adding PC generated AAA players in each season.

six pitchers and six hitters with unlimited movement (up and down). Otherwise you will have some teams winning six games a season. It at least to me does not seem practical. Looking forward for Pitt I had the same issues as dn3524.  You need at least 1.150 per year to be even somewhat relevant IMO.

Posted by dn3524 on 8/24/2015 12:48:00 PM (view original):
In league rules it says "
Concept:  Start with 24 of the real franchises and their 1977 rosters.  In subsequent seasons, each franchise gets the rookies who really came up with that team. "

In recent post it says "also more likely to put a player on the team he was associated with for more of his career."

To me you are contradicting yourself.  I truly thought the point of the league was for teams to keep guys that started with that team....not the "more associated with" thing

You caught me! I did say that poorly. What I meant is that if a player gets 20 AB in his first season (not appearing in WIS) and then goes to a different team, we probably remember him more as a rookie for that second team. Doing it either way makes sense. But this is mostly for convenience anyway, to make the off seasons run a little easier.

Regarding those pitching staffs, let me try to look up some details tonight, or sitemail me what you are looking at.

Posted by dannyjoe on 8/24/2015 1:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dn3524 on 8/24/2015 12:48:00 PM (view original):
In league rules it says "
Concept:  Start with 24 of the real franchises and their 1977 rosters.  In subsequent seasons, each franchise gets the rookies who really came up with that team. "

In recent post it says "also more likely to put a player on the team he was associated with for more of his career."

To me you are contradicting yourself.  I truly thought the point of the league was for teams to keep guys that started with that team....not the "more associated with" thing

You caught me! I did say that poorly. What I meant is that if a player gets 20 AB in his first season (not appearing in WIS) and then goes to a different team, we probably remember him more as a rookie for that second team. Doing it either way makes sense. But this is mostly for convenience anyway, to make the off seasons run a little easier.

I got ya.  I know it's tough to run leagues, I run quite a few.   Oh well.

Look at Pitt. In 1977 they have 1,400 IP but it drops to 1,056 in 1978 (including rookies). Reason being that Bert Blyleven and Jim Bibby  were acquired in real life but here they would not be available. A cure would be to draft from six teams that are not taken AND AAA players assigned to fill in the blanks. If you think about it logically teams lose players annually and replace them via farm system, trades and FA. You are essentially severely limiting the FA piece due to lack of available players to draft and viable AAAs and trades are not as easy given that you cannot trade true prospects, etc.

You have the same issue with the Red Sox (1,400 IP in 1977), who signed Dennis Eck (267 IP in 1978); Mike Torrez (249 IP in 1978); Tom Burgmeier (61 IP); Dick Drago (77).

Losing all those innings the team only has 799 going into 1978. Impossible to even remotely compete. 

Lastly, look at Montreal. In 1977 they have ~1,400 IP. In 1978 they add via FA Ross Grimsley (263 IP); Rudy May (154); Darold Knowles (72); Mike Garman (78); Stan Bahnsen (75); Woodie Fryman (151). Without these innings they are done!  681 IP.


You may actually want to consider 16 teams!!! It makes it real life because the GMs need to replace the players lost with FAs and trades while waiting for rookies to establish themselves. If you choose the current path this will likely be a 1-year league for many.

Red Sox would be fine in 78. They don't get eck or Torrez, but they keep Jenkins and other guys. Again, this doesn't work with 24 teams. I stand by my original statement - I'm in if its a 20-team (or less) league.

Would they? I think nit