Help us - what would you like to see in Barnstormers 2017 ?

the official tournament of the All-Time Greats VI player set

Moderator: mighty moose

  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Outta Leftfield

  • Posts: 500
  • Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:00 pm

Re: Help us - what would you like to see in Barnstormers 201

PostFri Feb 24, 2017 6:46 pm

I just started a 200M league for those who enjoy this format and are looking for some exciting competition in the higher salary ranges.

It's called "That 200M League". This format may not be exactly realistic baseball, but a lot more is involved, IMHO, than the luck of the draft. Let's get it on with some shrewd team planing, pre-season trading, and day-to-day managing action.

All are welcome, including those who just want to try out or practice playing at this different and intriguing salary level.

http://365.strat-o-matic.com/league/list
Offline

mwelter

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 12:41 am

Re: Help us - what would you like to see in Barnstormers 201

PostSat Feb 25, 2017 10:10 pm

I would get rid of the $200M league - its mostly luck of the draft, and doesn't really involve as much skill as the lower leagues. The $140 is enough for those who want to have a good high priced team.

I would also have one with the random card sets - it makes you have to choose different players than you might otherwise.

The points system seems OK. There should be some reward for winning it all, although I guess just getting credit for playoff wins would accomplish that without any other bonuses.

I like the 6 rounds, as then, if I lose out like I usually do, it isn't so long until the next season...

I like the 24 team championship -great idea, BruceF!

Otherwise, I love the league and look forward to the next season!
Offline

mighty moose

  • Posts: 1592
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Help us - what would you like to see in Barnstormers 201

PostSat Feb 25, 2017 11:12 pm

JohnnyBlazers wrote:Id like the 200 million event eliminated and replaced with an 80m, AL/NL subset. 200 Imo is luck of the draw. Make it more challenging. For Finals, I would do the following:

1) TOP 9
2) 2 Semifinals leagues (top 10-33). two 12-team leagues - 2 champs move into finals
3) 1 Semifinal league (top 34-57). one-24 team league, 100m - champ moves into finals. This gives more players a chance to move into money round and keeps interest

I think the way points are currently assigned for wins, playoffs, semifinals, finals is good - should get a bonus for advancing.


I like this suggestion from J.B. and gives an extra 12 players the chance to experience the last shot at getting to the finals.

24 team finals is too extreme of a change for me. The 24-team event is logistically challenging for Barnstormers and I don't see having a 24-team event. You are potentially looking at trying to find up to 20-23 filler players if the numbers don't work out.
Offline

STEVE F

  • Posts: 3085
  • Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:08 pm

Re: Help us - what would you like to see in Barnstormers 201

PostSun Feb 26, 2017 3:26 pm

Personally , I like the $200 event. But it's all good either way
Offline

BDWard

  • Posts: 894
  • Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:04 am

Re: Help us - what would you like to see in Barnstormers 201

PostMon Feb 27, 2017 12:22 am

I know that I'm late to the party, but I'll throw in my two cents for what it's worth:

1. While I would prefer to drop the $200 million cap, I think it's a great idea to give managers a choice of whether to play at $200 mil or some other cap. Perhaps some variable caps should be used, such as $90 mil or $120 mil, to prevent managers who play the most from using proven cookie cutter teams at the default caps.

2. I like the idea of being able to drop one season of the 6. It keeps more players involved and interested for a longer period of time;

3. Go back to random league assignments. It seems that there are too many managers joining leagues that they perceive to have weak competition;

4. Most of us grew up watching primarily post WWII and expansion players. How about bringing back a round with the post WWII and expansion players, but this time without the NeL cards, as those cards rightfully belong with the pre-WWII set, since Jackie Robinson broke the "color barrier" in 1947? Using the post WWII/expansion set might generate more interest, since most of us actually saw many of those players play.

5. The Barnstormers Tourney is about winning. I've given it a lot of thought over the years about the appropriate points for playoff qualifiers, Finals qualifiers and Finals winners, including awarding a point or two for each playoff win. After careful consideration, I think the current system is fine, as teams should be rewarded for making the playoffs, advancing to the next round and getting a ring. If two points were given for each playoff win, the winner of a 7 game Finals would get just 2 more points than the loser. Winning the Finals should be worth more than just 2 points greater than the losing team.

6. How about bringing back awarding a free credit to the manager of the team with the best record in each stadium category for every round? This also keeps interest high and gives managers out of the running something to shoot for each round.

7. There was one year that there was a 24 team league round. I never heard why that was eliminated. Perhaps that should be reinstated.

Overall, I like the Barnstormers Tourney and think that Mighty Moose and those on the board do a great job with little or no recognition or fanfare. Most of the tweaks suggested in this thread are minor and are worthy of consideration, and I'm sure that those that get implemented will add to the quality of the tournament.
Offline

Outta Leftfield

  • Posts: 500
  • Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:00 pm

Re: Help us - what would you like to see in Barnstormers 201

PostMon Feb 27, 2017 9:37 am

I like the idea of one round with an optional salary level.

I'd like to register a concern, though, about changing the playoff point scoring, which is that we may see a lot of players dropping out of the last round if the reward for winning a ring is reduced. Right now, a manager can be well behind the leaders, but still have the chance to get into the top 45 (and maybe win it all) if they create a good sixth team and win a championship. Winning 95 games, say, and a ring, would give a trailing manager 115 points and give him/her a good shot at making the top 45.

But if the reward for winning a ring are sharply reduced. I think there's a good chance that a bunch of managers will quit in the 5th or 6th rounds. In general, the chance of hitting the jackpot in round six makes the race for the top 9 exciting, as well as the race for the top 45.

One of the remarkable things about this tournament is its retention rate--a very high percentage of managers actually finish. That might be at risk if the playoff rewards are reduced. Anyway, it's worth thinking about. This is one of the unintended consequences that has concerned me.
Offline

mighty moose

  • Posts: 1592
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Help us - what would you like to see in Barnstormers 201

PostMon Feb 27, 2017 7:43 pm

Current considerations that are in the final stages are reducing (not eliminating) the # of bonus points earned in the playoffs and adding points for playoff WINS.

Addressing BDward on some of his items.

1. Variable caps are difficult because we get a lot of new players each year and they often cannot FIND THEIR WAY into oddball caps such as SHUFFLE, AL/NL, PRE POST WAR - etc. I think we need to make the default leagues that we all play - 60-80-100-140 and reluctantly through the use of the CHOICE event, the 200. This actually is a WIN-WIN - the people that absolutely HATE 200 and wont play that event, have a chance to play their FAVORITE EVENT. And for those that WANT the 200 Mil event - here's where you get it. Live Draft and all if that's what you want. (Provided enough that want to LD)

2. Drop low and using the groupings are Barnstormers staples and will never go away until I do.

3. Having me assign leagues puts all the burden back on me and makes the people that I have to chase time and time again, delay 11 other people who all start yelling at me. (When are you gonna get so and so into the league, we've been waiting?) - I'd prefer to give everyone a deadline to enter multiple available leagues and if they miss it, then tough potatoes. Yes, we do have league shoppers - but they will always try to find ways to game the system. I suggested the idea to SOM to AT LEAST shuffle the players into divisions and that's a big help. I'm not going back to assigning people to leagues - I don't like to herd cats. :shock:

4. Nobody liked the AL/NL splits when we ran them and as stated in #1, newbies cant find them. Hand holding is necessary to get them into the leagues, much less trying to explain how they create their teams. And then if you pick AL, then the NL whiners will complain. Again, stick to standard caps. Everyone plays them and knows how to get into those leagues.

5. Points for playoffs are being reduced, see opening statement.

6. We sacrificed that for getting a free credit for everyone who qualified for the semis and finals. It's a lot of paperwork for me to maintain and track, and the same people were earning the credit time and time again. This way, you are rewarded for moving on in the tournament and don't have to pay for that team. And it spreads out the credit to 45 different players (57 if we go to a 24-team semifinal). Sorry but that's gone.

7. Logistics. You have 26 people left to load, - you get 24 in and now you have 2 left to load. Finding 22 fillers is a pain. You think the tournament can get lucky and always have a multiple of 24 players who are playing in a given event?

A lot of the things done above were to reduce the load on the Commish - Wish I could satisfy everyone but I like to keep the core of the tourney the way it is and make minor but important tweaks that most people think is an improvement. And a lot of changes come from listening to some of the board members suggestions and trying to compromise. They are like Republicans and Democrats - 1 or 2 are liberals and 1 or 2 are conservatives. Some of the suggestions made here may also be used. I like JohnnyBlazers idea of extending the # of playoff participants by having that last league 24 players. This will be a likely change.

Thanks for your feedback. - Moose






Offline

mighty moose

  • Posts: 1592
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:22 pm

Re: Help us - what would you like to see in Barnstormers 201

PostWed Mar 01, 2017 5:32 pm

After careful consideration with the board, I have decided to keep the 200 Mil event. I fully expect my board members to make an appearance here and relay the merits of the event and what strategies can come into play that we can pass on to the membership to convince them to welcome their chance to play it with open arms. Personally I also have always liked 200 Mil, but we did have players that would prefer to sit out the event. My concern was for them. Some will argue that there are many unique strategies and considerations for approaching the 200 Mil event. I'd like to get a thread going and well populated just before that event gets ready to kickoff.

However, a well-rounded Champion needs to play well in ALL of the standard CAPS. So that's my final answer.

Live Draft will be available but not required for all those that prefer it for every event, but I have found that only at 140 and 200 mil do people want to live draft.

I will be bringing to the table a couple of other mods. In the semi-final round - the first two leagues will be 12-team and the FINAL Semi-Final will be 24 teams (thanks to JohnnyBlazers for that great suggestion !) we will still be getting free credits for everyone that makes the semi-finals and finals bye - and I still need to go to SOM to get the extra 12 credits approved. If I don't you can bomb them with complaints.

Also, the biggest change is the points awarded for playoffs.

You will get a point for every regular season WIN.
You will get a point for every PLAYOFF win. (NEW)
You will get 2 bonus points for being a Division winner (down from 5) (NEW)
You will get 1 bonus point for being a Wild Card winner (down from 5) (NEW)
You will not get any bonus points for advancing to the Finals (down from 5) (NEW)
You will get 5 bonus points for winning the WS (down from 10) (NEW)

This means the WS winner will get 8 points for winning the 8 games + 2 for being division winner plus 5 for winning it all.

15 points (down from 20) - this is to place a higher importance on winning and less for "just" getting there.

I hope this change is welcomed by all.

Thanks - Moose


Offline

Mr Baseball World

  • Posts: 1996
  • Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 4:17 pm

Re: Help us - what would you like to see in Barnstormers 201

PostWed Mar 01, 2017 11:03 pm

I am sure other wiser board members will articulate much better the case for keeping 200m but will put my random thoughts out there as a starting point.

First of all I think that as one of the standard caps, it is important to include it. The Barnstormers champ should be proficient across the spectrum of caps and stadiums. High CAP leagues are a big part of the game and I hope that the high cap fans will have an incentive to be a part of Barnstormers. Everyone probably has a cap or caps they don't like...Whether 60 or 200 or one of the others. Hopefully by keeping the full spectrum we can appeal to as many of you as possible.

I know the big gripe with 200m is the notion that a bad draft screws you. I really think that at one time that was a big problem. I think that the larger pool has made a lot less of an issue. It used to be that even with 28 man rosters some Team's would be short of 200m. Now teams manage getting to 200m with 25 man rosters.

200m allows managers to manage in season. You can have high $$ backups that can be used in certain parks. High priced backups make high injury guys more attractive to use as you can survive the 15 game injury using a 7million backup as opposed to the cheap guy even in a 140 mill league. R1 relievers have more value with deeper bullpens. Imbalanced cards on the bench can be used in situations as well. It takes more work but you can make more out of less with good day to day management. It's also important to put together a realistic draft card...You won't get Ruth, Bonds, Hornsby, Mantle and Josh. I am no expert do limiting my "advice" to the more obvious basics.

Live draft will be an option also. I will also suggest to the board an option for partial diamonddope drafts in the range of 6-16 rounds and autodraft the rest if there is interest. That way you can get some picks assured without having to do the fast live draft.
Offline

sociophil

  • Posts: 468
  • Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:00 pm

Re: Help us - what would you like to see in Barnstormers 201

PostThu Mar 02, 2017 9:31 am

I want to second what Mr Baseball World said here about putting together a realistic draft card. At $200 mil you have to approach autodraft as if it were a live draft. I spend a lot of time ranking players by likely round chosen and assemble the draft around that. I'm conservative in the draft and pick players earlier than I might at a different cap. For example, if I decide I want a stud pitcher with your first pick, I'd probably go with the 5th or 6th best SP on my list versus swinging for one of the top 3. You're likely to build a better staff picking down rather than aiming high and missing.
PreviousNext

Return to --- ATG Barnstormers Tour

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest