Short answer: No.

Posted by contrarian23 on 3/23/2024 10:41:00 PM (view original):
Short answer: No.

What would you then suggest as a league format that would weight most heavily managerial prowess?

Posted by teamhydro on 3/23/2024 10:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by contrarian23 on 3/22/2024 2:49:00 PM (view original):
Count me as someone who really dislikes themes where rosters are identical or close-to-identical, whether defined explicitly by theme rules, or implicitly (for example, an unconstrained high cap league will almost result in owners using very similar rosters). The ratio of luck-to-skill skews dramatically in my opinion.

Contrarian - Would you feel differently if the shared players were 8 hitters and 7 pitchers with freedom on the other 9 players? Or, a 13 shared, 12 not-shared split? I just feel strongly that a theme that heavily weights managerial skill is warranted. Just one such theme is not too great of an ask.

If the players used were all 300+ IP Pitchers and 700 PA batters I would agree with you. However, if the shared pitchers all had 110-190 IP and the shared batters all had 300-500 PA, I think your luck-to-skill objection is put on life support.

When you then factor in; Park Selection, Lineups, Pitching Settings, Managerial Settings, Advanced Settings, Rest Settings, in addition to the handful of non-shared players we would all have, I think the variance would then be such that luck will have surrendered to skill.

the problem, as pointed out before, is that much of the "skill" element in such a theme is having time to tweak settings after every cycle, which many owners won't have time to do. also, all those things are tested in every theme anyway. i'm certainly in favor of themes that discourage cookie-cutter rosters and make owners use players they've never used before, but you don't need to force everyone to draft the same guys to do that.

another problem is all the strong owners are going to end up with pretty much identical settings if you give them the same roster. anyone who might qualify for Round 2 knows you set stolen bases at zero for deadball guys who went 62 for 112 in real life. they know you have to limit the pitch count for guys like 1992 Curt Schilling,1917 Fred Anderson, etc. they know how to pick a park to fit their roster. you'd just be weeding out the weaker owners and then making it almost a total crapshoot between the stronger owners.

"You'd just be weeding out the weaker owners...."

Isn't that what this tournament is all about?

".... which many owners won't have time to do."

So, the time IS there to analyze and select players for 6 themes (or more if you make it past the 1st round), but lack the time to make regular team management decisions? Ok, got it.

It sounds like a couple of owners here are in favor of set-it-and-forget-it teams. Those who take the time to actually manage their teams should be rewarded, rather than rewarding those that "don't have the time."

Yes, for many people the time is there to build six rosters over a two month period, and tweak them a few times a week, but not there to adjust lineups multiple times a day every day for two months. I should be able to go off-line for a few days on vacation without penalty.

I would say that, more than weeding out weaker owners, the tournament is about identifying the very best owners. Separating the great from the good. And any theme with identical rosters simply cannot do that. Depending on the identical players, it will either be total luck or entirely about how much time people have to actively manage. I agree with you that actively managing teams should be rewarded. Here's the good news: it already is! Making minor tweaks every day to adjust for matchups etc. is something that you can do, to your own advantage, in every WIS league ever created. All you're doing here is removing or severely limiting the roster construction element, which to me is the majority of the skill that goes into winning this tournament.

Sorry, but this is not a good idea.

Posted by teamhydro on 3/26/2024 12:34:00 PM (view original):
"You'd just be weeding out the weaker owners...."

Isn't that what this tournament is all about?

".... which many owners won't have time to do."

So, the time IS there to analyze and select players for 6 themes (or more if you make it past the 1st round), but lack the time to make regular team management decisions? Ok, got it.

It sounds like a couple of owners here are in favor of set-it-and-forget-it teams. Those who take the time to actually manage their teams should be rewarded, rather than rewarding those that "don't have the time."

No offense, but judging by all your criticizing of ideas in this thread, it really doesn't seem like the tourney is for you.

The point isn't to cater it to what each owner likes. It's to create a cross section of themes that give owners a chance to implement a variety of team building strategies and employ their skills in managing those teams. Creating themes that offer a clear advantage to those with more time on their hands is not necessarily going to help you find the best owners.

Thank you for the response, Jtpsops. I have participated 2-3 times in the past, just skipped last year for reasons previously stated. I thought the point of this thread was to solicit various ideas. Ironic that my suggestions would be framed as criticism.

Redcped has already stated that one theme will likely have a Franchise component. Great. I am merely asking for one theme that more heavily weighs the Managerial component. Shout-out to Mattedesa for actually proposing an alternative way to do that.

With the amount of time it takes to research each of these themes and then construct the corresponding builds it is comical that some have levied "lack of time" as a reason to poo-poo my suggestions.

Just a little process and timing update ...

Ron, schwarze and I have made good progress narrowing down the themes. We should be done within a few days, though schwarze is still on vacation so we're not pushing him. I'm hoping to open up registration soon (possibly even before we post the themes, just to get visibility going, as some folks will join regardless).

We are looking at a May 26 final roster deadline, which would be about 7 weeks after posting the tournament. That would get games going in early June.

So signups are moving rather slowly, and I'm searching for ideas. We've got 52 in so far, and there are multiple people who posted in this thread who have yet to join. I have sent SM to everyone who played last year or the year before. I have gotten Admin to post in every forum.

If we can't get to 96, we should at least push for 72 to have 3 sets of leagues in R1.

What can we do? Where are the people who commented in here?

We've done a few Championships with 72 a few times.

I'm adjusting to 72. Better chances of advancing!

This will be my first WIS Tourney so I do not have high expectations. I have read through all the threads and like everything else, there are many opinions about leagues. In reviewing themes, none really struck me so I truly do not know what to expect..haha. That is the point, give a cross section of all kinds of situations. The MOST important thing I have read here and the only reason I joined is because there is no reward/advantage in the following round based on how you did in the last. I know the argument of rewarding success but for something as random as this, that is not the way to determine the best owner.

Now for a good story as you build your teams. I have never built a team <80m so I certainly had anxiety while building the 300 SB team for $70m. I did it but felt it was the worst team I ever built in WIS and felt it would lose 100+ games. Then I reread to see that the cap was $80m for that team. It was better than Christmas...do you know how much that extra $10m gets? ALOT. The team will still suck but it was fun at least adding some legit guys back.

Looking forward to seeing how I fare. Good Luck to all those who enter.