What do you mean it's not Saturday anymore?
Anyway, as per Mack's counting, the votes on Scheduling and Realignment were:
Balancing schedules: 8-0
Interleague Play: 6 (full interleague), 3 (limited interleague play)
Realignment: 7 in favor, 3 opposed.
My vote would have been against realignment but in favor of interleague play. However, that's not going to tip the balance in any way.
In any event, going to three leagues will require that we go to interleague play as well (unless you want to play the same three teams over and over again as we did the first two seasons of our league).
Since it seems that three leagues is the wave of the future, I'm open to suggestions on the name of the third league as well as how the existing 12 teams should be re-aligned. Feel free to chime in with suggestions.
Lastly, it seems that feeder leagues are a popular idea. I'm going to have to do some testing to determine how many teams there should be in the feeder league.
Zev
The third league should be the Steinhardt league. I hope all other owners agree with me on this one.
ReplyDeleteAs for how to align, I've thought about this a bit. Figure out standings over the past 3-5 seasons. We then rank the teams 1-12 based on wins over that time. Then, the top three teams get to choose their new league, and then the bottom three. Then, the 4-5-6 and 9-8-7 teams choose. So, the pick order would be 1, 2, 3, 12, 11, 10, 4, 5, 6, 9, 8, 7.
The third league should be the Steinhardt league
ReplyDeleteThanks, but I was thinking that perhaps something more in line with the SDMB theme might be more appropriate.
Zev
I actually came in here just to post that it should be the Steinhardt League. You deserve some acknowledgement, Zev.
ReplyDeleteOf course, for irony's sake your team should not be in that league.
I think Michael's version is OK. Or I'd favor a mechanistic solution where you break the teams up by records or something via a formula. Whatever.
Doing some quick research on the SDMB I see where you got the league names now. I would suggest then naming the third league after the illustrator Slug Signorino. You guys can come up with the actual name.
ReplyDeleteI'm on board with either the Steinhardt or Signorino league. I really don't care much what the third league is called.
ReplyDeleteI also think Michael's plan seems as good as any for realignment, and better than most in fact.
Alternatively, we could do this: http://deadspin.com/5490556/how-to-destroy-baseball-in-one-easy-step
ReplyDeleteWith Mack's help, I was able to compile the number of wins each franchise had in the last five seasons, as well as only the last three OOTP9-era seasons (2011 and 2012 were played in OOTP6.5). To no surprise, Seattle had the most wins over the past three and five seasons:
ReplyDelete2011-2015 wins:
1. Seattle (577 wins)
2. River Cities (547)
3. New York (443)
4. Brooklyn (425)
5. Saskatoon (408)
6. Los Angeles (403)
7. Hickory (388)
8. Ohio (381)
9. Cleveland (352)
10. Houston (332)
11. Danville (305)
12. Maui (300)
If we just count the past three, OOTP9-era, years:
1. Seattle (334 wins)
2. River Cities (318)
3. New York (258)
4. Brooklyn (247)
5. Cleveland (244)
6. Saskatoon (242)
7. Ohio (227)
8. Los Angeles (223)
9. Hickory (217)
10. Houston (212)
11. Maui (206)
12. Danville (189)
So, if my original idea to jumble the teams' selections by wins seemed self-serving, notice I'd be choosing either 9th or 11th, depending on how we decide to count.
Either the three-year or five-year rankings seem fine to me.
ReplyDeleteAlso, woo hoo Monarchs! I wouldn't have expected that big a gap back to River Cities.
Cleveland is on the way up, I will be interested to see these numbers in 3-5 years time.
ReplyDeleteHuh. I wouldn't have guessed that I was third.... feels like forever since I was good.
ReplyDeleteTo make sure I understand the proposal, say that Nate picks a different league than Mack. I would then have a choice between being in Nate's league, Mack's league, or being the first team in the third league?
And if I did pick the third league, then the 10, 11 and 12 ranked teams could, in theory, all pick my league?
Yeah, that was the plan I thought up to use. Whether or not that's the best idea remains to be seen. I suppose, too, that you, Nate, and Mack could all join the same league, leaving the other two leagues vacant until the 4th (or, 5th) team selects one of them.
ReplyDeleteYYeeaahhhh...I think that's unlikely.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what the "draft" order is to pick new leagues, there really are very few choices. The first and last picks are no choice whatsoever. So either pick something and go with it or form the leagues 1,6,7,12 ... 2,5,8,11 ... 3,4,9,10. Or 1,2,3,4 ... 5,6,7,8 ... 9,10,11,12 as I think that we can find justification for whatever is proposed. Please let's move forward.
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about this for a bit. And I think that anyway we put it people are going to not want to be in Mack or Nate's division. So the draft would probably go like this...First piack (Mack) one division, next pick (Nate) second division, next 4 picks would be in the third division, the next 3 would probably be in Nate's division and the last three in Mack's. So I agree with David's league breakups, or picking them out of a hat. I am a big fan of random, but I am a gamblor at heart.
ReplyDeleteI also wanted to add in I agree with David, that we need to pick something and move forwaed. It might be 2016 in reality before we move forward at this pace.
ReplyDeleteJeremy is (almost completely) right. If we follow Michael's plan, barring someone doing something wholly unexpected, we're going to end up with the following (here using the records from the last 3 years):
ReplyDeleteSeattle, River Cities, New York start in three different divisions:
Then Houston, Maui, and Danville join New York's division, filling it. Brooklyn and Cleveland will join River Cities. It's possible that at that point, Saskatoon will join Seattle. Hickory joins River Cities/Brooklyn/Cleveland, leaving Ohio and LA to finish. So the final divisions would be:
Seattle
Saskatoon
Ohio
LA
River Cities
Brooklyn
Cleveland
Hickory
New York
Houston
Maui
Danville
This is as good a realignment as any, I guess, but why bother with all the choosing and stuff? We could just randomize it. We could use the total number of points scored by New Orleans in tonight's Hornets-Clippers game as the seed for a random sequence 1-12 (generated by random.org). Then we assign the random sequence to the teams in alphabetical order (ie, Brooklyn, the first team alphabetically, gets the first number in the random sequence). Then, Division 1 is #s1-4, Division 2 is 5-8, and Division 3 is 9-12.
This is pretty simple, and would give us divisions by the time we all wake up in the morning. The seed allows each of us to reproduce the sequence any time we want.
I think we should force Nate and Mack to play in the same league.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I don't really care if we use Michael's system or a randomized version. I echo others' comments about wanting to move forward.
I've got to say I'll come out for the one that David proposed and set it like seedings.
ReplyDeleteUse the last five years rankings and go with the 1,6,7,12 format.
We need to move on, though. I think on that we all agree.
You have been heard!
ReplyDeleteSince it seems Michael's proposal seems to be the most popular one.
I'll need a day or so to make sure I have the realignment done right. After that, we'll proceed with the offseason.
Zev