Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 8:14:37 GMT -5
As for divisions being more even next year, I don't necessarily agree with that either. The AL West is BY FAR the best division in our fantasy league. 5 of the top 10 teams are from the AL West. We have 5 of the top 10 teams in the league (and 4 of the top 8 - that'd be 4 playoff teams from the same division if we did playoffs straight up by record). I think one of the teams in the AL West should move to one of the weaker divisions. Maybe Yanks and another team from the AL West swap with 2 teams from the NL? I don't think it'd be very difficult to do... Are we prepared to review this annually? If we're making changes, whats the point of having 4 divisions if you're taking wild cards from across both? It's not like we have an unbalanced schedule. The least deserving team was a division winner. We're still rewarding playoff seeds to the division winners... so they're still being rewarded. I just think it's dumb to take it even further and reward other sub par teams with playoff spots over teams that are substantially better, just because those sub par teams happen to be in a clearly worse league. As for reviewing this annually, no, I definitely don't want to do that. I was just suggesting we swap one additional team to help balance things for the future (because I think balancing things out some is extremely important for a long term dynasty league as competitive as this). However, if no one else wants to do that, I'm fine with just swapping Orioles and Yanks (who will become Brewers) in the off-season. As I mentioned before, I can see the logic behind not wanting to swap multiple teams. Having said that, I definitely think we have to change it to where the 4 wildcard teams are the best 4 teams REGARDLESS of league. It's silly to me to have teams be punished for being good teams just because they were unluckily placed in a much better league. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 8:59:17 GMT -5
Are we prepared to review this annually? If we're making changes, whats the point of having 4 divisions if you're taking wild cards from across both? It's not like we have an unbalanced schedule. The least deserving team was a division winner. We're still rewarding playoff seeds to the division winners... so they're still being rewarded. I just think it's dumb to take it even further and reward other sub par teams with playoff spots over teams that are substantially better, just because those sub par teams happen to be in a clearly worse league. As for reviewing this annually, no, I definitely don't want to do that. I was just suggesting we swap one additional team to help balance things for the future (because I think balancing things out some is extremely important for a long term dynasty league as competitive as this). However, if no one else wants to do that, I'm fine with just swapping Orioles and Yanks (who will become Brewers) in the off-season. As I mentioned before, I can see the logic behind not wanting to swap multiple teams. Having said that, I definitely think we have to change it to where the 4 wildcard teams are the best 4 teams REGARDLESS of league. It's silly to me to have teams be punished for being good teams just because they were unluckily placed in a much better league. I think you guys are isolating the discussion way too much. Just my personal take. You've pinpointed something you see wrong THIS YEAR. It may be totally different next year and each subsequent year after that. There will always be some argument based on the set up and fairness of the playoffs. 1 year is a small sample size and is causing a heck of a debate. In the end, i'll be fine with what the vote dictates. I compete in whatever environment i'm in. I still have an issue with the Mets being in. That's no different than what you guys are arguing for with the Wild Card piece. You say its division winners, I say its across leagues. Same argument, different discussion point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 9:05:21 GMT -5
We're still rewarding playoff seeds to the division winners... so they're still being rewarded. I just think it's dumb to take it even further and reward other sub par teams with playoff spots over teams that are substantially better, just because those sub par teams happen to be in a clearly worse league. As for reviewing this annually, no, I definitely don't want to do that. I was just suggesting we swap one additional team to help balance things for the future (because I think balancing things out some is extremely important for a long term dynasty league as competitive as this). However, if no one else wants to do that, I'm fine with just swapping Orioles and Yanks (who will become Brewers) in the off-season. As I mentioned before, I can see the logic behind not wanting to swap multiple teams. Having said that, I definitely think we have to change it to where the 4 wildcard teams are the best 4 teams REGARDLESS of league. It's silly to me to have teams be punished for being good teams just because they were unluckily placed in a much better league. I think you guys are isolating the discussion way too much. Just my personal take. You've pinpointed something you see wrong THIS YEAR. It may be totally different next year and each subsequent year after that. There will always be some argument based on the set up and fairness of the playoffs. 1 year is a small sample size and is causing a heck of a debate. In the end, i'll be fine with what the vote dictates. I compete in whatever environment i'm in. I still have an issue with the Mets being in. That's no different than what you guys are arguing for with the Wild Card piece. You say its division winners, I say its across leagues. Same argument, different discussion point. That's a good point, and we definitely may be isolating things too much based on the past 2 years (it's been an issue last 2 seasons and not just this one. Still a small sample size though). However, I only think that really applies to us wanting to realign the divisions... I think not letting in the 4 best teams (outside of division winners) is a problem that should be addressed for the future. Why wouldn't we want to reward the better teams, if possible? We're not suggesting scrap all divisions and just do top 8 teams get in - being the division winner still means something. |
|
|
|
Post by TigersGM (Stuart) on Sept 5, 2017 9:13:56 GMT -5
Here is my take:
The reason teams are alligned the way they are in the mlb is mostly because of geographical reasons making a 162 game schedule a logical routing map...It has most to do with travel as well as building rivalries. At the end of the day this is fantasy baseball..As much as I love the idea of owning a genuine mlb team, most dynasty leagues have reshuffling of divisions to make it fair and balanced. I do think we should try and keep it mostly in tact, but with owners changing their teams anyway, there will be reshuffling naturally if we want to keep it as an emulation of mlb...Wildcards based purely on divisional ranking is kinda stagnant and outdated...I personally voice my support for wildcards being the 4 best teams not making the playoffs....Also if you finish bottom four in league maybe these teams can be reshuffled so each division has its bottom feeder...Yes I am talking about myself lol...So it adds to finishing at bottom as a penalty...Just an idea...We could also do the same for 4 top records as well...I think reseeding playoffs and changing wildcard format is the way to go though
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 9:14:12 GMT -5
That's a good point, and we definitely may be isolating things too much based on the past 2 years (it's been an issue last 2 seasons and not just this one. Still a small sample size though). However, I only think that really applies to us wanting to realign the divisions... I think not letting in the 4 best teams (outside of division winners) is a problem that should be addressed for the future. Why wouldn't we want to reward the better teams, if possible? We're not suggesting scrap all divisions and just do top 8 teams get in - being the division winner still means something. I don't have an issue with that. I'll use your point on luck though. Why should a division winner be rewarded for being lucky as opposed to say the Rangers being unlucky this year for not being in NL East? I haven't counted but i'm pretty sure more than 8 other teams would have won that division. Are they just unlucky for not being in the NL East? My point is to put the best 8 teams in regardless and reseed. I think we're working toward the same goal. The divisions are just pretty on the standings sheet. Heck, if you're wanting divisions, just do AL and NL. Have one division winner from each side automatic and everyone else is wildcard. Back before they realigned in MLB there were more than 5 teams per division. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 10:14:55 GMT -5
That's a good point, and we definitely may be isolating things too much based on the past 2 years (it's been an issue last 2 seasons and not just this one. Still a small sample size though). However, I only think that really applies to us wanting to realign the divisions... I think not letting in the 4 best teams (outside of division winners) is a problem that should be addressed for the future. Why wouldn't we want to reward the better teams, if possible? We're not suggesting scrap all divisions and just do top 8 teams get in - being the division winner still means something. I don't have an issue with that. I'll use your point on luck though. Why should a division winner be rewarded for being lucky as opposed to say the Rangers being unlucky this year for not being in NL East? I haven't counted but i'm pretty sure more than 8 other teams would have won that division. Are they just unlucky for not being in the NL East? My point is to put the best 8 teams in regardless and reseed. I think we're working toward the same goal. The divisions are just pretty on the standings sheet. Heck, if you're wanting divisions, just do AL and NL. Have one division winner from each side automatic and everyone else is wildcard. Back before they realigned in MLB there were more than 5 teams per division. Personally, I LOVE the idea of doing just 2 divisions - the AL and the NL. I think that's a great solution. To your question about the luck, I was suggesting we keep divisions because they're fun - it gives you a goal other than just making playoffs. It's fun to win your league or division. I don't mind keeping divisions, but if we do, I'd like to minimize the 'luck' factor we've discussed and make sure we're rewarding the best teams. There is a difference between 1 sub par team under .500 getting into playoffs (by being lucky and being in a bad division) than multiple sub par teams getting in over deserving teams. |
|
|
|
Post by DodgersGM (Stephen) on Sept 5, 2017 12:02:01 GMT -5
If this is gonna happen, I find myself in complete opposition, then it needs to be done on a set schedule of time. Since this is year 2, I guess every other year is the winner. Otherwise it is subject to randomness, which is basically abuse.
We see this in sports all the time, a division or league holds a superior record for a period of time. It evens out as teams step up or fall back. Baseball is a marathon, so let's treat it like one...
i will abide by the result of a vote, but the best solution has always been to play better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 12:46:35 GMT -5
If this is gonna happen, I find myself in complete opposition, then it needs to be done on a set schedule of time. Since this is year 2, I guess every other year is the winner. Otherwise it is subject to randomness, which is basically abuse. We see this in sports all the time, a division or league holds a superior record for a period of time. It evens out as teams step up or fall back. Baseball is a marathon, so let's treat it like one... i will abide by the result of a vote, but the best solution has always been to play better. Are you referring to division realignment? If so, I'm fine with not doing that (outside of Yanks switching to Brewers as he requested months ago). However, if you're saying that switching how the wild cards work is 'random', then I don't really follow... as you just said, the 'solution is to play better'. That still applies if we change it to where the 4 wild card teams are the best 4 teams (after the division winners). In fact, your mantra of 'playing better' actually makes more sense in what we're proposing with the wild card changes (e.g. the teams who are actually playing better are getting into playoffs) |
|
|
|
Post by RockiesGM (Jarrod) on Sept 5, 2017 12:50:26 GMT -5
If this is gonna happen, I find myself in complete opposition, then it needs to be done on a set schedule of time. Since this is year 2, I guess every other year is the winner. Otherwise it is subject to randomness, which is basically abuse. We see this in sports all the time, a division or league holds a superior record for a period of time. It evens out as teams step up or fall back. Baseball is a marathon, so let's treat it like one... i will abide by the result of a vote, but the best solution has always been to play better. Dodgers does bring up a few valid points about the realignment. It seems the majority do not want to have to do it again in the future (which I agree with), I also agree with Dbacks post, that we are dealing with a small sample size as well. So the talent could very well flip next year and we could be in the same boat. Appreciate everyones opinion on the matter and like Dodgers said I'll be fine with whatever we decide be it stand pat, or whatever it is. Yankees moving from the AL to the NL would be a very good step in the right direction to leveling it out. We have made changes the past few years due to naming changes, so I don't think doing it now should ruffle anyone's feathers. That would be a small change, doesn't affect the league much, and seems like it'd be a compromise between both sides. Like I said earlier we could start small, make a slight change, see how it goes next year, and revisit in 2018 (if needed) this league is extremely strong so I definitely don't want anyone to get upset about it, I think it's good to have discussions on improvements and such to keep everyone involved and let their suggestions/opinions be heard. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2017 12:52:21 GMT -5
A lot has been said so far - great discussion guys. To keep things from getting to confusing, or having too many options out there, here are 2 things I see as options to vote on in the off-season (that shouldn't radically change things like total division realignment would):
1) We keep divisions the same (outside of Yanks becoming Brewers and switching divisions with Orioles) and keep it to where the 4 division winners get playoff spots, regardless of record. We then change it so that the next 4 best teams (by overall record), regardless of league or division, make playoffs. This would keep things almost the same (no radical changes), but reward the best teams by actually giving them playoff spots
2) We get rid of 'divisons', but keep the 2 leagues (AL and NL). Instead of having an AL/NL East and AL/NL West, there would just be AL and NL with 10 teams in each league (the same 10 teams that are currently in each league outside of O's swapping with Yanks). In this scenario, the 2 league winners (winner of AL and winner of NL) get 2 playoff spots, regardless of record, and then the next 6 best teams (Regardless of league) get the other 6 spots
Are those reasonable options? What is everyone's thoughts on those? I'd like to finalize what it is we want to vote on before we go to a vote. Also, just to be clear, I'm not saying it's going to be one of these 2 options - I'm just trying to figure out what we're going to vote on
|
|
|
|
Post by DodgersGM (Stephen) on Sept 6, 2017 22:40:23 GMT -5
Messing with it is bad policy.
The AL dominated the NL this season, these things run in cycles.
The draft exists based on reverse order of finish, as a correction mechanism. The weak get stronger, in time...
|
|
|
|
Post by CardsGM (Mat) on Sept 7, 2017 16:03:31 GMT -5
I really don't think there's a problem with the way it is. You want to make the playoffs, beat up the other teams and do the work to make it in - whether in "the tough division" or not.
If you don't make the playoffs, work harder and try again next year.
Every single franchise changes strength yearly based in its plan, health, strength of opposition on a weekly basis, and definitely because of luck. It happens, and trying to pander to it by using what it's the past makes no sense at all. Not to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM (Kenji) on Sept 7, 2017 17:19:31 GMT -5
Honestly I would take either of the two options Ryan mentioned over the way it is now. I like having the wild cards go to the best teams regardless of AL/NL.
The 2-10 team leagues, I think would be really fun. I like both of these options, as long as the wildcard system gets changed. I might be biased though because it seems like AL West is always so damn competitive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 7:52:32 GMT -5
I just don't understand why we wouldn't want to alter the rules to where the best 4 teams who don't win their division are the wild card teams... You guys keep saying that if you don't make the playoffs to try harder, but it makes more sense to say that to a team who finished under 500 and didn't win their division (again, winning the division still means you get in - were not changing that) than it does to say it to a team who was significantly better, but missed playoffs. This is a complex, competitive fantasy league - having a system where 2-3 of the best 8 teams can miss playoffs because they happened to be in the wrong league is silly
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 8:09:17 GMT -5
Why not just make it a category in the vote? Seems pretty straight forward to me. Its a democratic process, right? Because for those that don't want any change, your 2 options above are a lose/lose.
|
|
