Posted by teamhydro on 3/14/2024 2:36:00 AM (view original):
I sat out last year. Primarily because it seemed the themes were too "Franchise" based. It seems as though many of the ideas put forth by Jtpsops are likewise "Franchise" related. I respectfully request that we keep the themes themselves mostly simple, regardless of the cap.

Kind of a random callout here. I've put forth 3 suggestions in this thread and none are specific to franchise.

Posted by Jtpsops on 3/14/2024 11:26:00 AM (view original):

Posted by teamhydro on 3/14/2024 2:36:00 AM (view original):
I sat out last year. Primarily because it seemed the themes were too "Franchise" based. It seems as though many of the ideas put forth by Jtpsops are likewise "Franchise" related. I respectfully request that we keep the themes themselves mostly simple, regardless of the cap.

Kind of a random callout here. I've put forth 3 suggestions in this thread and none are specific to franchise.

Yeah, I think it was contrarian who put forth a few franchise ideas actually.

Nothing personal, Jtpsops. But, in both of these examples you are starting your build with a team (Real Life Team or World Series Team).

Owners select 5 real-life teams. They must roster the most expensive hitter and pitcher from each of those teams. The final 15 spots can be filled with any player not on one of those 5 teams.

The REAL Champions League: Every player on your team must come from a season in which their team won the World Series.

These are “Franchise/Team” builds, in my opinion.

My preference would be statistic and/or player related criteria. That is all.

Not really. The 5 teams you choose can all be from different franchises, and even then, it accounts for 10 players. The other 15 come from anywhere.

And picking 25 different players from years they won a ring has nothing at all to do with franchise or team, as all 25 could be from different franchises.

But I digress.

Both examples I cited include the word "team" in the theme description. 5 teams is still teams. World Series players still have a team association. Thus, both are team/franchise builds.

There is so much non-team criteria to choose from statistically. Years/eras can also be used without team association.

Posted by teamhydro on 3/15/2024 2:30:00 PM (view original):
Both examples I cited include the word "team" in the theme description. 5 teams is still teams. World Series players still have a team association. Thus, both are team/franchise builds.

There is so much non-team criteria to choose from statistically. Years/eras can also be used without team association.

I'm still awaiting feedback as we work through the themes, but as of now I'd guess only one is likely to fit your definition of "team/franchise." So hopefully you'll be enticed to play.

Of course, if there is only one theme that is team/franchise oriented, I will mostly likely be in. Thanks, redcped.

Start at $100m. Choose 2 players. Clone those 2 players as many times as you want. You also get unlimited $200k scrubs.

You can add more players to clone, but have to pay a salary cap penalty. That penalty increases the more players you add, but at a reduced rate.

$100m 2 players
$96m 3 players
$94m 4 players
$93m 5 players

The maximum number of players to clone is 5. In all cases, you have unlimited $200k players.

The WISC should also test our abilities as a game manager.

I suggest a theme where we all use 20 of the same players. We then get to select 5 more players (2 hitters, 2 pitchers, one discretionary) using whatever funds remain (perhaps $5-$10 Mil, depending on cap). Choice of ballpark will matter. Settings will matter (rest, pitch count, base running, etc.). Lineup decisions will matter. Beauty of this is it would work at any salary cap level.

Thoughts?

If everyone has a nearly identical roster then I think there's too much of a luck element involved. Ability as a game manager is already tested in any league, so you'd be testing what's already tested anyway while possibly (depending on the roster) making it impossible for owners who don't have time to actively tweak after every cycle.

Posted by 06gsp on 3/22/2024 12:40:00 PM (view original):
If everyone has a nearly identical roster then I think there's too much of a luck element involved. Ability as a game manager is already tested in any league, so you'd be testing what's already tested anyway while possibly (depending on the roster) making it impossible for owners who don't have time to actively tweak after every cycle.

I'm inclined to agree with this assessment. I am a pretty active manager, and I think it can make the difference of a few wins a season if done well.

Count me as someone who really dislikes themes where rosters are identical or close-to-identical, whether defined explicitly by theme rules, or implicitly (for example, an unconstrained high cap league will almost result in owners using very similar rosters). The ratio of luck-to-skill skews dramatically in my opinion.

Maybe a similar evaluation of managerial skill could be measured with a platoon league. You could even involve an expanded roster including drafted AAA. That would require many more in-season decisions as lineups would have to be managed more attentively and the AAA shuttle would be active.

Posted by mattedesa on 3/22/2024 6:37:00 PM (view original):
Maybe a similar evaluation of managerial skill could be measured with a platoon league. You could even involve an expanded roster including drafted AAA. That would require many more in-season decisions as lineups would have to be managed more attentively and the AAA shuttle would be active.

As long as I'm running it, we won't have any leagues with AAA or WW or trades. I understand those have their places in certain types of leagues, but I feel they create a lot of potential for imbalance. I'd say drafted AAA are the least worrisome, but it would really punish owners who aren't able to be as active for various reasons, and I don't particularly think that's fair to do to them.

Posted by contrarian23 on 3/22/2024 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Count me as someone who really dislikes themes where rosters are identical or close-to-identical, whether defined explicitly by theme rules, or implicitly (for example, an unconstrained high cap league will almost result in owners using very similar rosters). The ratio of luck-to-skill skews dramatically in my opinion.

Contrarian - Would you feel differently if the shared players were 8 hitters and 7 pitchers with freedom on the other 9 players? Or, a 13 shared, 12 not-shared split? I just feel strongly that a theme that heavily weights managerial skill is warranted. Just one such theme is not too great of an ask.