-
Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.
WBL Rule Change Thread
- Thread starter OU11
- Start date
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
I liked the old UBL set up of 2v3 and winner faces 1 but I don't think people will agree to less playoff teams.
There really isn't much you can do at this point. I think 4v5 game makes the regular season more interesting (top 3 means more). But the current set up is boring to me because there's no difference between 1-4.
NML
Well-Known Member
wat? Ur budget is almost completely based on regular season revenue. A team that sneaks into the playoffs in the 4 seed will not get a big budget increase the following season (if they get one at all).
Those consistent 1/2 seeds have budgets double the size of some teams
Those consistent 1/2 seeds have budgets double the size of some teams
But do you remember why we went with this setup at all? There were major issues that were bigger than what you're complaining about with that set up. It was fine for the ones who win all the time but it was much harder to move up in the world. There were GMs that got frustrated that there wasn't a real possibility to advance, when it's you, Quale and I all competing at the same time it's a lot harder to crack the playoffs.
I agree that whatever happened with the sim engine made the seeding pretty pointless, but adding more teams sounds stupid since we already allow half and taking teams away will introduce the problems we had that compromised the league in some ways.
NML
Well-Known Member
I'm not talking about playoff revenue, I'm tom bout how winning 100 games and being a 1 seed gives you a much bigger budget the following year vs winning 82 games and being the 4 (even if you win the WS).
Yeah I figured that out while posting, that still doesn't matter though because the engine doesn't take into account talent. Talent used to matter more, good teams still lost but there was a better chance of talent winning out. I completely agree playoff seeds don't matter at all, and the budget size doesn't either.
Maybe it's confirmation bias, you guys on the other side are welcome to argue that and I'll listen but I saw a fundamental shift late in my commish run that made me feel the way @doh does right now. Also the budget change blew. I get why that's more realistic but it was more fun to see a tangible benefit to sticking around in the playoffs as long as possible without waiting for next season's ticket sales to come in.
As it stands your 1 seed doesn't pay off for 2 seasons. If you make it multiple times you get that roll and it's there every year.
As it stands your 1 seed doesn't pay off for 2 seasons. If you make it multiple times you get that roll and it's there every year.
Mr. Radpants
Trog Five Standing By
NML
Well-Known Member
Doesn't mean anything? That's hyperbolic.
But yeah, there's no rule changes that will fix the idea that it's a crap shoot. It's the sim engine that does that, so either 18 is different, you deal with it, or you go.
The morale of the story is making your team the best it can be doesn't mean acquiring as much talent as you can. It means getting to the playoffs even if that's the 4th seed and not neglecting the farm like we used to be able to. It used to be possible to play a semi-steinbrenner style where you just had the best talent and could see a payoff from that. Now it's enough to just be there, even if your team is not near as talented you have just as good of a chance.
The morale of the story is making your team the best it can be doesn't mean acquiring as much talent as you can. It means getting to the playoffs even if that's the 4th seed and not neglecting the farm like we used to be able to. It used to be possible to play a semi-steinbrenner style where you just had the best talent and could see a payoff from that. Now it's enough to just be there, even if your team is not near as talented you have just as good of a chance.
Mr. Radpants
Trog Five Standing By
This engine is more realistic than when you rattled off 10 in a row or whatever, do you even watch MLB paloffs bro?
Mr. Radpants
Trog Five Standing By
Right, so... basically just like real MLB at this point.
Did I say it wasnt? I just said before the engine switch talent mattered more and it wasn't as much of a crap shoot. I won those 4-5 because half the league wasn't playing or tanking and it was orlando and I above the rest as far as talent went, so I beat him and won. Then the new engine came and the playoffs just flipped the whole game on its head. I didn't like that at the time because I didn't want switch up my whole style of play as I wasn't too interested. I'm fine with it but trying to build the most talented WBL team doesn't seem like the best or most efficient strategy at all anymore.
Cool. I don't think you read my posts at all since I never compared it to the MLB
You and I have had a lot of discussions about how it changed but nothing happened? HMMMMMMMM
NML
Well-Known Member
It does matter - but being better doesn't guarantee you win, and winning more regular season games doesn't mean ur "better," either.
What kind of depth will a team with $100m have vs a team with $190m?
Just as an example, I think it was Wooly who had Montes for like $10m to be a backup catcher. I have him for $8m as my starter putting up over 3 WARS WON and I'm not sure I can afford him.
TonyGin&Juice
Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Maybe you should join another league. No byes, this isn't foozbawl.
Are we just tom bout the live sim engine? Then I misunderstood. But we haven't used that for a few seasons now. Your teams were just insane even compared to mine back then. We haven't had talent gap like that in a very long time. The talent in general went down at that time as well.
The point I'm trying to make is realistic or not, MLB modeling or not, the playoffs feel like a crap shoot. Maybe they don't to some of you but they do to me. So I acknowledge doh and wooly on that point and I agree.
But on the prospect of rule changes to fix or help that idea nothing will help. 3 playoff teams was already tight before we expanded and I feel like it's better for the health of the league to keep it at 4. It allows more parity (@Wooly) and it allows teams to slide up and down the ladder.
What makes it feel like a crap shoot is just the sim engine playing out, the only thing you can really do is stop trying to win 120 games
But on the prospect of rule changes to fix or help that idea nothing will help. 3 playoff teams was already tight before we expanded and I feel like it's better for the health of the league to keep it at 4. It allows more parity (@Wooly) and it allows teams to slide up and down the ladder.
What makes it feel like a crap shoot is just the sim engine playing out, the only thing you can really do is stop trying to win 120 games
I'm talking about the 3/4 seeds winning, especially the 4s. Did they stop? It seems like it's the same whether you live sim or sim regularly to me.
Why shouldn't they be winning? The talent gap is small. 4's were shit this year and lost. Vegas won 4-1 haha.
I won 2 out of 3 as a 2-seed and the year I was a 4-seed and won I won 102 games which was more than both 2 seeds I had
TonyGin&Juice
Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
I like how nobody is talking about the important thing here - there's a team with talent that's on Otto with no owner and no prospect of an owner. All of these rule changes to placate an Aspie and a Win Hound isn't going to improve things. Limiting teams in the playoffs? Horrible idea. Bye weeks? Go play simulation foozbawl. What next, relegation to AAA for teams that tank for more than a season?
TonyGin&Juice
Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Here you go. You want teams not to tank? Install a lottery system like the NBA and ban trading picks.
Doesn't matter, having more talent doesn't give you an edge over the competition in a 7 game series so just have competent guys and you're set. And for some reason the competent guys make it more often. How many times has a 1 seed won the last decade? I see quale is a possibility in 2060 but I'm assuming those low 90s win teams weren't #1s.
It just seems really dumb to try and spend on talent now, and by that I mean the way I used to and doh and wooly are now.
Mr. Radpants
Trog Five Standing By
IMO, they are just like MLB and other levels of baseball. It's not a complete crapshoot. For example, there are reasons the Giants often do well in the playoffs despite often being a wildcard team, and there are reasons the Nats have crapped the bed repeatedly despite being a 90+ win team.
That said, baseball playoffs are much more unpredictable and volatile than any other pro sport.
You would think @doh would get this as an SF fan, but he's too busy trying to stack the deck in his favor apparently.
TonyGin&Juice
Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
You can throw the Cardinals in there as well. Really, the only MLB team that was tough all season and in the playoffs in recent years were the 2009 Yankees.
TonyGin&Juice
Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Guys will still not sign with a bad team for more money if a top team makes an offer. That's never changed and shouldn't since it legit happens in MLB all the time.
Why shouldn't they be winning? The talent gap is small. 4's were shit this year and lost. Vegas won 4-1 haha.
I won 2 out of 3 as a 2-seed and the year I was a 4-seed and won I won 102 games which was more than both 2 seeds I had
So let me try to clarify here since I'm confused. You thought they won more than they used to but only in live sims and simultaneously also think they don't win more often overall?
I'll just let it be, but whatever version (16 or 17) that we both agreed something changed way back, talent seemed to matter less while just making it to the playoffs mattered more.
There is no reason to try for the 1 seed, it's as good as the 4 in terms of winning the playoffs. And I do feel there is a talent discrepancy most years from the 1 and the 4 or even the 1 and the 3.
doh
THANK YOU Dermott McHeshi
I would argue lots of the Giants success has to do with Bochy.
No I just think the current set up is boring and doesn't give teams a reason to care the last few sims.
Mr. Radpants
Trog Five Standing By
Yep, went back through the years just now. It's been a while.
I'd rather spend the money now on IFA/dev/scout budgets. Much more than I thought used to be worth it. I think that's a better use than trying to be a playoff lock.
TonyGin&Juice
Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Do you watch baseball? Have seen some of the BUMS teams that are out of it trot out in September? By the same token, have you seen some of the guys that get major playing time in September on teams that are a playoff lock? They Yankees had guys that are hanging sheet rock now playing in the OF and C in September 2009.
Again that may be true I never said it wasn't. I just said talent used to matter more in my opinion. If I had extra money i'd build depth back then whereas now I don't think that's the best use. I think spending on the budgets and focusing on keeping payroll low to hit IFA is a much better use than trying to put together great teams. That's a huge shift from when I was actively building even after my run when more GMs started being active.
Mr. Radpants
Trog Five Standing By
A big reason I think it doesn't matter is because of the revenue not being used from the playoffs. Even if it just added 50% to the following year's budget or something it'd make it worth while to get the 1 seed. You'd see tangible benefits from those home games even if you lost. I think, I'm not sure how the money is split now.
TonyGin&Juice
Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
How many #1 seeds over the years haven't had a budget over $160M?
How much does this have to do with my point?
I think we'll come to the same answer.
TonyGin&Juice
Sucking off Lawn Guy Land hobos.
Do teams that are #1 seeds not have the highest ticket prices and attendance?
Mr. Radpants
Trog Five Standing By
OU is such a defensive riddle poster tonight