Fast paced real roster OOTP league

[CleBrownsfan]

I just signed up for a fast paced OOTPX league. I told the commish I would post something on our forum to get more owners.

League name and linky: iMLB

[Alan T]

I think they are confused to what fast paced means

14 day sims sounds like a traditional league to me!

[CleBrownsfan]

Definitely not FOOLX's fast paced

[Tasan]

Real roster leagues at our pace seem almost pointless. You'd be out of guys you recognized in about 10 weeks. Well I guess if you want to see your guys roll into the hall, or see how a deep minors team develops it might be fun.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Tasan

Real roster leagues at our pace seem almost pointless. You'd be out of guys you recognized in about 10 weeks. Well I guess if you want to see your guys roll into the hall, or see how a deep minors team develops it might be fun.

Something i have always wanted to do was a fast paced (real fast paced league like FOOL) using historical rosters starting at 1900. After 1 year, you would still be in the 1940s-1950s so plenty of room to go.

I just never figured there would be enough interest from people to want to do it. So I actually was thinking about trying that as a Single player for fun.

[spleen1015]

I'd do it with you if you did a league.

[CleBrownsfan]

Yeah Alan - if you commished a historical sim league I would for sure be interested in it. I wished I had the time/confidence to run a league like you 'cause I think it would be fun to commish.

[Alan T]

Yeah, with FOOL and FOOL-X I think I probably am at the limit for now on leagues to run. The Historical thought was something I previously was thinking about back last year. I might think about it for the future though (or once I get rich and don't need to work anymore)

[Dark Cloud]

5-6 seasons per year isn't fast paced at all. But it's good to know how the rest of the world thinks.

[Tasan]

DC, is that you volunteering for commish duty in a historical sim in OOTPX?

[Dark Cloud]

Originally Posted by Tasan

DC, is that you volunteering for commish duty in a historical sim in OOTPX?

FOOL-H?

[Montreal_GM]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

FOOL-H?

Dibs on the Cardinals.

[allpro10050]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

FOOL-H?

i got tigers

[hyde4us11]

i got cubs lol.

[Tasan]

hrm

if we start in 1900, thats what, 12 teams? 16? I suck at ancient MLB history. I want the Senators, who turn into the Rangers, whenever they come about. I could take another team til they form. Maybe the Brooklyn Dodgers?

[Alan T]

Well 1900 to 1901 is a huge difference. So 1901 is the ideal starting point.

That is when the National League and American League began. There were 16 teams (8 in each league).

There was a Washington Senators team in 1901, but that version eventually became what is today the Twins. The Rangers also started as the Washington Senators, but they did not come about until 1961.

The Brooklyn Dodgers were actually the Superbas in 1901.

[Alan T]

Another great thing about 1901, is there was no New York Yankees then

They were actually the Baltimore Orioles in 1901... The team that is now the Baltiore Orioles were the Milwaukee Brewers in 1901. The team that is now the Milwaukee Brewers did not exist back then and started in Seattle in 1969 as the Pilots...

so you thought keeping track of Compton was hard in FOOL... there you go

[Alan T]

Oh yeah, and if DC actually was serious about wanting to do this, I'd play as the Beaneaters.

[Dark Cloud]

Hmm...

Would we mirror the history for reals? Or would we just start with a charter amount of teams and then beyond that, just keep the real players over all of that time?

Because I doubt we'd be able to expand to keep up with real life, just due to the speed of fast-sim.

Just wondering how you all would envision it working. Would we do stick to the FOOL standard of a $65 million cap and keep financials static over the years (I think this would have to be a must, no matter what amount we chose...)

Lemme know what you all are thinking.

I'd be up for doing it.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Hmm...

Would we mirror the history for reals? Or would we just start with a charter amount of teams and then beyond that, just keep the real players over all of that time?

Because I doubt we'd be able to expand to keep up with real life, just due to the speed of fast-sim.

Just wondering how you all would envision it working. Would we do stick to the FOOL standard of a $65 million cap and keep financials static over the years (I think this would have to be a must, no matter what amount we chose...)

Lemme know what you all are thinking.

I'd be up for doing it.

The way I have done it in single player and what I had envisioned for this was:

Start with the teams as is in 1901, with teams moving or changing nicknames when their owners wanted but somewhat within reason of history.. (ie: New York Giants moving to San Fran if the owner wanted to.. or they could just stay in New York... The New York Giants wouldn't move to Las Vegas and become the LV mobsters.. we already have fictional leagues, so this would be a historical/what if history league).

As for players, they would enter in the draft pool in their historical years, but no recalc on, just their potentials would be set up to be their peak historical potential.. perhaps Babe Ruth never lives to his full potentia, or perhaps Gehrig plays longer, or Mantle doesn't drink and becomes a bigger hero.. Because of that we would play with a higher random talent rating than we do in the fictional leagues as well.

For Financials.. it is not really much fun playing with the historical financials. I can cheat that system so badly without trying. OOTP financials sucks anyways. So trying to standardize it like we do the other FOOL leagues just to even the playing field seems like the way to go.

[Dark Cloud]

Originally Posted by Alan T

The way I have done it in single player and what I had envisioned for this was:

Start with the teams as is in 1901, with teams moving or changing nicknames when their owners wanted but somewhat within reason of history.. (ie: New York Giants moving to San Fran if the owner wanted to.. or they could just stay in New York... The New York Giants wouldn't move to Las Vegas and become the LV mobsters.. we already have fictional leagues, so this would be a historical/what if history league).

As for players, they would enter in the draft pool in their historical years, but no recalc on, just their potentials would be set up to be their peak historical potential.. perhaps Babe Ruth never lives to his full potentia, or perhaps Gehrig plays longer, or Mantle doesn't drink and becomes a bigger hero.. Because of that we would play with a higher random talent rating than we do in the fictional leagues as well.

For Financials.. it is not really much fun playing with the historical financials. I can cheat that system so badly without trying. OOTP financials sucks anyways. So trying to standardize it like we do the other FOOL leagues just to even the playing field seems like the way to go.

Rock on.

[spleen1015]

Dibs on the Orioles. I won't let them become the Yankees.

[ekcut]

Dibs on the NY Giants!!

I would recomend a 1919 start....after the Black Sox scandal. That's when the deadball era ended and Ruth emererged as a hitter. The one thing I don't like about history leagues is the way the deadball era buggers up the stats and history books. 3 man rotations, 40 win seasons for pitchers, and 1.something era's, .400 averages every year...it makes beating those records imposible.

But hey, that's my 2 cents...I would totally be down with this. I ran fast paced (2 weeks for 1 season) but ill-fated history league when OOTP 9 came out but just couldn't get the owners to buy into it.

[ekcut]

There is HUGE talent disrepancies in the early years as well...Ruth and Gerhig were miles ahead of everone one else. Perhaps a 12 team league will help with the shallow talent pool...Of course when the league expands IRL but we still have 12 teams, that will flood the talent pools...but we can cross that bridge at a later date.

OH!!

Negro league players!!!

Is Josh Gibson the black Babe Ruth, or is Babe Ruth the white Josh Gibson?
We can re-do it the way it should of been done the first time!

[ekcut]

Talent randomness...Me like!
In fact I would like to see it in other FOOL leagues as well...It would be nice to see a 5th rounder make an impact every now and then. Or the 2nd rounder get a bump and become a superstar...I shant dwell on it though...I know there are reasons for it being the way it is!

[Montreal_GM]

I'd prefer a fictorical setup. I like the idea of real players but I'd be happy with setup being as close to FOOL2/FOOLX (5 day sim schedule, salary cap, etc) as possible. Why change a great setup?

Start year doesn't matter to me. Talent discrepancies and shallow draft pools are going to be the norm in a lot of seasons, think about the WWII years, it's just going to be part of the fun. Personally I think the league taking many different shapes over the years will be fun to watch unfold.

[Tasan]

If we do this, I'll provide a weekly "This year in history" article about what went on in the real world the year we are playing.

[Tasan]

Oh and I'll take either Brooklyn or Washington. If I take the 1901 form of the Senators, it'll be with an eye towards moving them like the second version of the Senators did, however that's a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way down the road.

[muns]

DC let me just say your a bastard!!!

Glad your back though

[Montreal_GM]

Originally Posted by ekcut

Talent randomness...Me like!
In fact I would like to see it in other FOOL leagues as well...It would be nice to see a 5th rounder make an impact every now and then. Or the 2nd rounder get a bump and become a superstar...I shant dwell on it though...I know there are reasons for it being the way it is!

I do agree with this. Although I don't think it should be above 50, 20-30 doesn't sound bad.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Montreal_GM

I do agree with this. Although I don't think it should be above 50, 20-30 doesn't sound bad.

I think you would find a setting of 20-30 won't behave much different then a setting of 1. In fact, from testing I have done in the past, I didn't see that setting under 100 made a huge difference wherever it was. Perhaps the chance of randomness was so small, that I never really saw where it was happening.

I find going from 100-200 can get to a point of crazy (too much randomness) as you get higher which was weird in parallel. It seemed to have any consistent amount of busts or suprises, you needed it at least at 100.

I think part of this was due to how Marcus must have changed the way it worked a few versions before. I think people used to complain so much about busts from the first round that Marcus just watered it down alot. So a 100 setting now would have been like 50 from OOTP6.5.

At least that is my personal observation. I've been wrong before!

[hyde4us11]

I think talent randomness would help pitching even out. I too think a talent randomness of 50 or so would help alot.

[hyde4us11]

I have tested this area and i see enough talent randomness that it matters. I am not saying its alot but there is enough that it helps (or even hurts). I like seeing a 5th round pick become a star and a player become a bust. That is something i enjoy looking for.

[Dark Cloud]

Historical talent randomness would be pretty neat, since the names would be relevant to us or at least, interesting and make it more fun to see how it all panned out.

[Dark Cloud]

Originally Posted by muns

DC let me just say your a bastard!!!

Glad your back though

Thank you, sir.

[muns]

I wanted to jump in here about the talent randomness. I think i have the biggest bust in fool history, so it does happen.

Head on over to the charm in FOOL and check out SP Dave Tomlin on my AAA team. I dont think there has ever been a guy in FOOL that got crapped on like that at that draft pick number.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by muns

I wanted to jump in here about the talent randomness. I think i have the biggest bust in fool history, so it does happen.

Head on over to the charm in FOOL and check out SP Dave Tomlin on my AAA team. I dont think there has ever been a guy in FOOL that got crapped on like that at that draft pick number.

His talent curve looks like he didn't develop well in the minors. It doesn't really curve like many busts that I have seen. It might be with the low talent randomness setting though, this is what our "busts" look like.

I am curious, which season did you bring him up to AAA? It almost looks like he got moved up too soon.

[spleen1015]

What is that picture from?

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

What is that picture from?

A third party tool called a Development tracker. It basically takes all of the development reports and graphs the stuff out which is sometimes easier to read then just the numbers themselves.

Unfortunately there is no web front end for them that does anything like that or otherwise I would put those type of things up as well for everyone. I think they are neat and fun to look at!

[Dark Cloud]

Well, I think we can flesh this out.

[ekcut]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Well, I think we can flesh this out.

Let me know if you need a hand with anything. I'd love to see this come to life!

We just need 4 more leagues and stagger them so we can be simming a different season each night!

[Dark Cloud]

Originally Posted by ekcut

Let me know if you need a hand with anything. I'd love to see this come to life!

We just need 4 more leagues and stagger them so we can be simming a different season each night!

+1 I've spent ages trying to conceive of a way to create a league that runs more than once a week. lol...

But as for FOOL-H:

I'm running some tests now and hope we can get it at least setup in the next week or so, to start running seasons the following week, ideally. But lemme test and then we can finalize plans.

[Alan T]

This is probably an example of why you don't play with historical finances if looking to play competitively.

Manager	Years	From-To	G	W	L	WPct	Best Finish	Worst Finish	Playoff App	Championships
Alan T	6	1919-1924	910	589	321	.647	1st	1st	6	6

AL	.294	4.23	Detroit Tigers	1919	Boston Braves	4.25	.295	NL
AL	.276	3.62	St. Louis Browns	1920	Boston Braves	3.82	.283	NL
AL	.289	3.92	St. Louis Browns	1921	Boston Braves	3.95	.286	NL
AL	.291	4.06	Philadelphia Athletics	1922	Boston Braves	4.34	.295	NL
AL	.283	4.00	Washington Senators	1923	Boston Braves	3.94	.282	NL
AL	.283	4.06	St. Louis Browns	1924	Boston Braves	4.13	.288	NL

[stevew]

I'd probably take the Pirates browns or phillies.

[Dark Cloud]

My initial thinking is two leagues of 8 teams to start.

There would be an inaugural draft that will disperse the talent across the league and new players will enter via a draft too.

The only quirk to the historical teams, I'm thinking is that we'll want to keep franchises (as Alan said earlier) in some sort of historical locations. There will be some elasticity to this, but it'll be incumbent upon the person wanting to move the team to make the rationale. (The Dodgers almost moved a lot of random places. As did the A's...and White Sox and when the Dodgers left Brooklyn, why didn't one of the leagues let a team fill that market?)

So I think the alternate history angle, coupled with names we actually recognize, would be an interesting historical twist.

The initial setup of teams will just be whatever you all choose your teams to be, but the only caveat I believe that it'll have had to have been a major league club in either name or nickname at some point. That's a pretty wide net, I'd say.

Those leagues are:
NA
UA | PL | NL | AL | FL

I'm running another 100-year sim right now (the modifiers and such are on default) I've just altered the financials to match FOOL standard ($65m cap, etc.) and I'm just checking it out, then I'll post something about it, I guess.

[Dark Cloud]

Do people still want to do this? Or have I perverted the original idea too much? I can't start it this week -- presentations the rest of this week and teaching this weekend -- but I'd try to start it first thing next week if people still want to give it a go.

I'll try not to DC-ify it too much.

[ekcut]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Do people still want to do this? Or have I perverted the original idea too much? I can't start it this week -- presentations the rest of this week and teaching this weekend -- but I'd try to start it first thing next week if people still want to give it a go.

I'll try not to DC-ify it too much.

Hell ya! I'm in.

[gstelmack]

I'll think about it. I'd have to drop FOOL to do it (I can really only handle the two leagues), but everytime I open OOTP9 I miss things from OOTPX...

[Montreal_GM]

I think it's a great idea, but I'll still probably go with the St. Louis Cardinals no matter what the naming parameters are. I think FOOL-like settings are also easy to implement and a great place to start.

I too am at my max of leagues I want to participate in but I have a couple slow paced leagues that I'll wiggle out of if need be.

My only question would be how interested you are in running it. I don't want you to feel like this has been thrust your way when you weren't really looking to get back into the commish realm. So, if it's not something you're sure you want to do I'd say we hold off for a bit.

[spleen1015]

I'm still in.