Posted by sakensei on 4/15/2019 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by captmurphy on 4/15/2019 11:49:00 AM (view original):
There are only so many ways you can spice up Rule 5. I would be in favor of randomized divisions as an alternative?

Randomized divisions sounds like a great way to change things up.

I don't know about that. I often choose my team so that I am not in rbow's division. I do like the idea of dropping years. Tired of seeing people drafting 69 Gibson and watching him suck

Posted by tridentric on 4/15/2019 2:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by sakensei on 4/15/2019 1:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by captmurphy on 4/15/2019 11:49:00 AM (view original):
There are only so many ways you can spice up Rule 5. I would be in favor of randomized divisions as an alternative?

Randomized divisions sounds like a great way to change things up.

I don't know about that. I often choose my team so that I am not in rbow's division. I do like the idea of dropping years. Tired of seeing people drafting 69 Gibson and watching him suck

I'd be more in favor of alligning by all-time best record. I mentioned this, gosh, maybe a decade ago, but tradition won out. Im ok with that too.

Rather than randomized divisions, something like tiered divisions might work. The team with the best historical record is in the AL West, the second best is in the NL West, third best is in the AL Central, and so on. Then the seventh best team is in the AL West, eighth best is in the NL West, and so on from there. Divisions are still fairly fluid, so you can't predict exactly where you'll go, but it might give teams that usually get sorted to currently difficult divisions like the NL West or AL East more of a chance to succeed.

The idea of tiered divisions is really interesting and something I've thought about. I just figured there wouldn't be much support for the idea. I realize picking a team to avoid an owner is part of the metagame but it feels like more of a necessary tactic rather than a positive addition. I think there are some teams that would benefit from being able to escape really tough divisions. The Diamondbacks come to mind - they could get more use if they weren't guaranteed to wind up alongside the Dodgers, Giants, and possibly relocated Astros/Red. Besides, we wind up with bastardized divisions every season.

I feel like it strikes a balance between something like dropping a year, which is gonna have a varied impact on franchises and sticking to the status quo.

could even rotate between "natural" divisions, tiered divisions, random divisions. or maybe also divisions by draft order? might be an interesting twist.

Have to say the more I think about trenchfoot's idea, the more intriguing I find it. Divisions via win percentage would breakdown like this:

NLW: 1 / 7 / 13 / 19
NLE: 2 / 8 / 14 / 20
NLC: 3 / 9 / 15 / 21
ALW: 4 / 10 / 16 / 22
ALE: 5 / 11 / 17 / 23
ALC: 6 / 12 / 18 / 24

If, for curiosities sake, everyone drafted the 24 best teams, the divisions would be:

NLW: Astros / Braves / Indians / Orioles
NLE: A's / Mets / Padres / Marlins
NLC: Dodgers / Cubs / Mariners / Brewers
ALW: Yankees / Royals / Red Sox / Rangers
ALE: Cardinals / Reds / Blue Jays / Angels
ALC: Giants / Phillies / Expos / Twins

I feel like in general those are all pretty competitive AND different. (lol Sox/Yankees still in the same divisions.)

edit: Whoops missed that trenchfoot pointed out that alternating AL/NL makes it even fairer.

did anyone sitemail good beef?

I did this morning, as yet unread.

Sorry, I didn't realize we're still doing this rule V thing, I thought it got cancelled?

Oh shoot, I guess I'll take the Twins - with no preparation whatsoever - cuz you don't NEED to prepare anything? You just got to look at the list, DUH!!

Posted by good_beef on 4/15/2019 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, I didn't realize we're still doing this rule V thing, I thought it got cancelled?

Oh shoot, I guess I'll take the Twins - with no preparation whatsoever - cuz you don't NEED to prepare anything? You just got to look at the list, DUH!!

Yes, I would cancel a league that’s been going on for 63 seasons even though it was full. Good call, beef.

I will take the Astros ...

Posted by sinfonian11 on 4/15/2019 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by good_beef on 4/15/2019 5:19:00 PM (view original):
Sorry, I didn't realize we're still doing this rule V thing, I thought it got cancelled?

Oh shoot, I guess I'll take the Twins - with no preparation whatsoever - cuz you don't NEED to prepare anything? You just got to look at the list, DUH!!

Yes, I would cancel a league that’s been going on for 63 seasons even though it was full. Good call, beef.

lmao

Posted by newarkwilder on 4/15/2019 3:27:00 PM (view original):
could even rotate between "natural" divisions, tiered divisions, random divisions. or maybe also divisions by draft order? might be an interesting twist.

How about a hybrid of these ideas? Tiered divisions tweaked a little to make geographic sense and when you can't make up your mind flip a coin.

I hate the Dodgers. Always have. I'm a big Reds fan from the 70's. So, I'll take the DODGERS, because my work schedule makes me needing to be at either the beginning or end of the daily schedule. Go Blue.

Rays