How to level the playing field? Saturday morning thoughts?

It has been my experience if a manager gets an edge with a strategy that gives them a leg up, others are sure to copy it...



My greatest team won 111 games and lost in 6 in the semis to an 85 win team in season 1
won 117 in season 2 and lost in the finals to a 91 win team

It has been my experience if a manager gets an edge with a strategy that gives them a leg up, others are sure to copy it...



My greatest team won 111 games and lost in 6 in the semis to an 85 win team in season 1
won 117 in season 2 and lost in the finals to a 91 win team

See, I really think HAL loves the underdog.

I have thoughts, and you won't like the first of them, because it runs counter to your premise. In a keeper league why does the playing field need to be level for all the teams? To me, that just punishes the good managers. Now that said, I set up my keepers to ensure that there are two different playoff teams for every season played. You do that by lumping the playoff teams from the previous season into one division after every season played. Most, if not all keepers, play two seasons per set, (I'm not aware of any that only play one, but they may be out there.) By stacking the divisions having all the playoff teams from a previous season in one division you ensure two new playoff teams for every season run. We all know anything can happen in a short season and have seen 84-win WC teams run the table and knock off 100+ win teams. It happens so often I wonder if HAL does something behind the scenes to get the underdogs championships frankly. If you aren't using this little trick to change your divisions up every season, that's one way to give a chance to the lower rung teams to win.

I've been running keepers for a long time, and the format I decided was best was one that forced team to cut to 15 players and then add promotions for prospects. I also prefer only allowing a two round prospect draft. That seems to keep a steady flow of talent available in the free agent drafts to make those high draft picks worthwhile. Don't allow prospects to be held indefinitely. 2 years max, then it's promote them or cut them. That forces managers to put uncarded men on their 40-man rosters which also helps push more carded players into the pool.
I'd also argue that having a really good team is cyclical. Teams on top can fall off a cliff in one card set if/when most of their good players have an off year. God knows I've had it happen to me.

Just my 2 cents. YMMV

I have to agree with Bill on most of this. Why punish good teams that are able to build “dynasties”. As mentioned though this rarely happens as teams can be derailed quickly.
For example recently I lost Bieber and likely Strider on the same day to TJS.
As I’ve mentioned before I actually like taking over terrible teams and turning them around even if it takes a couple years.

All that said, I guess it’s good to have variety and people can join the type of keeper League they prefer.

I don't see what Terry is trying to do as punishing the good managers. No matter what the rules are in a given league they are the same for everybody. The best managers will rise to the top no matter what. I think what Terry is attempting to do is make it a little harder for teams to completely dominate year after year and to make it a little easier for teams that have fallen behind to catch up. Dynasties may have some appeal in real life but in keeper league strat they don't make for a healthy league where existing managers are having fun and new managers are eager to join. I'm in 7 keepers and 6 of them don't seem to have this problem. Two of them are 24 teams and 2 of them have a salary cap and one of them is the moneyball league which has a unique way of team building and the other is Keep a Dozen where there is a ton of player movement. The outlier is the Summer-Winter league where 2 managers have absolutely dominated over the years. To their credit those managers have not shot down this effort by Terry right away. I have a feeling that they feel the same way as I do, that they will do just fine no matter what the rules are.

Just my 2 cents YMMV

I don't see what Terry is trying to do as punishing the good managers. No matter what the rules are in a given league they are the same for everybody. The best managers will rise to the top no matter what. I think what Terry is attempting to do is make it a little harder for teams to completely dominate year after year and to make it a little easier for teams that have fallen behind to catch up. Dynasties may have some appeal in real life but in keeper league strat they don't make for a healthy league where existing managers are having fun and new managers are eager to join. I'm in 7 keepers and 6 of them don't seem to have this problem. Two of them are 24 teams and 2 of them have a salary cap and one of them is the moneyball league which has a unique way of team building and the other is Keep a Dozen where there is a ton of player movement. The outlier is the Summer-Winter league where 2 managers have absolutely dominated over the years. To their credit those managers have not shot down this effort by Terry right away. I have a feeling that they feel the same way as I do, that they will do just fine no matter what the rules are.

Terry asked for people’s thoughts I expressed mine, as my quote says YMMV. he’s free to run his leagues as he sees fit. I don’t mind having a team/manager be dominant for a couple of years for the two reasons I stated:
1. If you ensure two new playoff teams every season, you ensure the non-dominant teams can still secure a playoff spot simply by winning their division. Once in the playoffs anything can happen in a short series.
2. Dynasties can crumble in a hurry. All it takes are a few injuries to key players as Ryan stated. Every team doesn’t need to have a chance every year, to me that’s ludicrous. But again, YMMV. There are enough leagues running where everyone can find something that suits them.

I love the discussion. Thanks to all who are participating. I have no wish to punish anybody; I just hope to make the league more enjoyable for more of the managers, each and every season.

Building a dynasty can be fun, as long as you're the one doing it. This league has had 2 managers battling it out for the last 9 years, jflatour99 and lakeviewdave. Between them, they've won 15 of the last 18 titles. They've both been supportive in the chats about rule changes, so far.

And I don't expect JF to feel threatened by any rule changes. His teams have averaged 98.6 wins per season over his 27 seasons in the league. He will likely adapt and continue to do well. I'm just hopeful that others can grab a share of success from time to time, too!

I love the discussion. Thanks to all who are participating. I have no wish to punish anybody; I just hope to make the league more enjoyable for more of the managers, each and every season.

Building a dynasty can be fun, as long as you're the one doing it. This league has had 2 managers battling it out for the last 9 years, jflatour99 and lakeviewdave. Between them, they've won 15 of the last 18 titles. They've both been supportive in the chats about rule changes, so far.

And I don't expect JF to feel threatened by any rule changes. His teams have averaged 98.6 wins per season over his 27 seasons in the league. He will likely adapt and continue to do well. I'm just hopeful that others can grab a share of success from time to time, too!

IMHO the real danger lay in leagues where there are dynasties and teams that really suck...hard to turn them around unless there are roster and limits.... lower the better for rosters...
I have had to cut multiple players who start for other teams or attempt to package quanity of talet for an elite usually with a bottom dwelling team......
that closes the gap for the lower teams...

Just my 2 cents YMMV

I don't see what Terry is trying to do as punishing the good managers. No matter what the rules are in a given league they are the same for everybody. The best managers will rise to the top no matter what. I think what Terry is attempting to do is make it a little harder for teams to completely dominate year after year and to make it a little easier for teams that have fallen behind to catch up. Dynasties may have some appeal in real life but in keeper league strat they don't make for a healthy league where existing managers are having fun and new managers are eager to join. I'm in 7 keepers and 6 of them don't seem to have this problem. Two of them are 24 teams and 2 of them have a salary cap and one of them is the moneyball league which has a unique way of team building and the other is Keep a Dozen where there is a ton of player movement. The outlier is the Summer-Winter league where 2 managers have absolutely dominated over the years. To their credit those managers have not shot down this effort by Terry right away. I have a feeling that they feel the same way as I do, that they will do just fine no matter what the rules are.

Terry asked for people’s thoughts I expressed mine, as my quote says YMMV. he’s free to run his leagues as he sees fit. I don’t mind having a team/manager be dominant for a couple of years for the two reasons I stated:
1. If you ensure two new playoff teams every season, you ensure the non-dominant teams can still secure a playoff spot simply by winning their division. Once in the playoffs anything can happen in a short series.
2. Dynasties can crumble in a hurry. All it takes are a few injuries to key players as Ryan stated. Every team doesn’t need to have a chance every year, to me that’s ludicrous. But again, YMMV. There are enough leagues running where everyone can find something that suits them.

I agree, expecting to come up with rules that gave every team a chance every year would be ludicrous.

The Pesos league was referenced earilie in this thread...
after season 1 all the playoff teams are in the EAST
the 4 worst teams of season 1 are in the West
and the other 4 are in the Central

Thus at least 6 of the 12 teams will be in the playoffs every year.....
some years there are 7 teans that make the playoffs as the wild card comes out of the Central or West.,.

I think this makes the league more fun for all and I think it is the most stable of all the leagues I have been in...

Interestingly, the league in question (SWKL) has been pretty stable, too. We've only welcomed 3 new managers in the past 16 seasons.

I picked up a team that another manager dropped in the pesos League. When I took it over it had many great players like Acuna, Bellinger who I traded for Olson and Ohtani. Every player was very young, but I knew this would pan out if I was just patient and made good draft picks. It took 3 years to build this team. I did it by tanking. Once I got better and could make the playoffs in the first season I went for it. When I made the playoffs, I ended up in the Division with the 3 really good teams. You guessed it I tanked that season and got a better draft pick. Now I am stacked, and I have the 11th pick this year. I traded it and my 1st RD prospect pick for Steven Kwan. Got him in another League for a 3rd RD FA pick. I don't have a problem with tanking as they do it in the Pro's. Had a long discussion with Edub about that because he had a league that had a rule about doing the best you can. I think I changed his mind about tanking, but not sure you would have to ask him.

What I really don't like is a manager that sells the future of the team so he can win now and then bows out of the League at years end. I have taken over teams and looked over the trades from the previous year and it was clear to me that they did that.

Lastly, if you are easy to trade with and you give me a golden nugget I will work with you. One guy I have been in many Keepers with wanted a hitter I had. He played for Colorado last name started with a P Panchanko or something like that. I said he could have him. Asked me what I wanted in return, and I said don't care (I was tanking). He gave me this young guy named Paul Goldschmidt. Needless to say, every time after that when he posted he needed something I offered up what he wanted. One time he was asking for a catcher, and I offered him one and told him whatever you want to give me is fine. He said really. Not sure if he ever caught on to what I was doing though. After giving me Goldschmidt he could have anything he asked for.