DM Classic IV Keeper League - General Discussion

[mwiggins]

I am still quite confused with respect to two different versions of DM. I have Version 8, as mentioned before. I assume the data base that Mark gets every year is version independent. Otherwise, DM would need to redo all of the yearly data everytime a new version came out. Maybe that's wrong.

OK, assume Mark sent me the 1973 data that many of you get and I loaded it into Version 8. What would happen? Would I have any of the features mentioned above? Could I set my lineups, save them in Word, and Copy and Paste them onto the Season Thread? Would I have full capability except for the ability to smoothly transfer data to Mark, who is using Version 9?

I'm just worried (necessarily?) that if DM goes to 10, and we stay with 9, all will not go smoothly when they send up annual yearly data.

Thanks for helping me understand.

Jack

From the DMB version 9 FAQ.

<<I'm playing in a league that uses Diamond Mind Baseball. If some managers in our league upgrade to version 9, and some stay with the older version, can we still exchange statistics?
No, it is not possible to transfer stats, rosters and manager profiles between different versions of the game. That means your league needs to decide whether to stay with the older version or have all league members upgrade to version 9 before your next season starts. Your league can convert in mid-season if every league member converts to version 9 at the same time. >>

There should be no problem staying with version 9, other than not being able to take advantage of whatever upgrades 10.0 has. Particularly if the new Computer Manager works much better.

[leecemark]

I am still quite confused with respect to two different versions of DM. I have Version 8, as mentioned before. I assume the data base that Mark gets every year is version independent. Otherwise, DM would need to redo all of the yearly data everytime a new version came out. Maybe that's wrong.

OK, assume Mark sent me the 1973 data that many of you get and I loaded it into Version 8. What would happen? Would I have any of the features mentioned above? Could I set my lineups, save them in Word, and Copy and Paste them onto the Season Thread? Would I have full capability except for the ability to smoothly transfer data to Mark, who is using Version 9?

I'm just worried (necessarily?) that if DM goes to 10, and we stay with 9, all will not go smoothly when they send up annual yearly data.

Thanks for helping me understand.

Jack

--I don't think that would be an issue until at least when we catch up to 2009. The past seasons are already done and, so far as I know, are not remodeled for a version change. I know season I purchased when I had version 8 work perfectly well with version 9. In any case, I already purchased through 1980. I'll probably buy another 10 years before they have any chance to upgrade past seasons .
--BTW if you give me your e-mail I'll send you the season file and you can see how it works with your current version. If it works I have a copy of version 8 I'd be willing to mail to whoever wants it.

[leecemark]

From the DMB version 9 FAQ.

<<I'm playing in a league that uses Diamond Mind Baseball. If some managers in our league upgrade to version 9, and some stay with the older version, can we still exchange statistics?
No, it is not possible to transfer stats, rosters and manager profiles between different versions of the game. That means your league needs to decide whether to stay with the older version or have all league members upgrade to version 9 before your next season starts. Your league can convert in mid-season if every league member converts to version 9 at the same time. >>

There should be no problem staying with version 9, other than not being able to take advantage of whatever upgrades 10.0 has. Particularly if the new Computer Manager works much better.

--That being the case I would not switch to version 10 unless all the other owners agreed to also make the investment. I won't be doing it as soon as it comes out regardless, since I'd need to hear from other that it was worth it andt htat th ebugs inherent in any new version have been worked out.

[catcher24]

There is a thread at the DM forums discussing what some of the additional features in Ver. 10 will be. HERE is a link to it. I have looked over this thread and participated a few times. In looking at the new features, I don't really find one that would entice me to lay out another $30 or so for the upgrade. The only one that is really appealing for what we're doing in the CKL is the playing time limitation system, but it ain't worth the upgrade price to me.

Also, they already have the 2009 season out for V. 9, so that wouldn't be a problem either. Not like it would be anyway. At three seasons per real year, we're looking at a dozen years real time before we reach 2009.

[buppers]

I have not been receiving notices of ANY posts to CKL. Sometimes will pass by going to web site since I see no postings. My settings are correct and they are not going to spam. Due to this, I am VERY behind where I want to be at this time of year. (73-74 offseason) Anyone wanting or needing something from me please PM me and I will try to catch up.

Ed

[J W]

Sorry to hear that. Fortunately this offseason is taking us through Christmas, so take a look at the deadlines; you should be ok.

No worries!

[buppers]

Deadlines are important, true. But I am more worried about the trades being made that I missed out on.

[jaybird_1981]

Sometimes the notifications don't work on BBF for some reason. I have made it a habit just to check the site everyday now.

[buppers]

I'm in retail. Kinda hard to check all my normal daily sites this time of year. Usually count on BBF notifications to guide me to site. No notification means one less site I visit.
I miss the good all days when I was on nights!

[leecemark]

--I'm not getting notification very often either - mostly just for (very) old threads if they get a new post. Not a problem for me since BBF is my #1 site, but if its a secondary one for you it could be a problem.
--I'm also in retail so I feel your pain on the time crunch this time of year. I made sure the deadlines are all well before or well after the holidays, streching out the offseason to quite a bit longer than usual. The only major time comitment - the auctions - aren't til the week after New Years.

[catcher24]

I've discovered that I have to occasionally go in and uncheck the "email notifications for replies" in my user setup, save it as unchecked, then go right back and check it and save it again. This seems to get the notifications coming again. No idea why, but it does seem to work.

[catcher24]

OK, discussion of dual team owners and expansion.

I agree there is without doubt a need to expand. As Mark noted over in the season thread, we now construct 16 teams from 24, only using about 2/3rds of the players available. This is not quite an all star league, but the real dregs of the actual season will never see a plate appearance or batter faced. If we don't expand, we'll be using 26 teams to make 16, so at that point you are approaching an all star league. In the other league I participate in, we use 16 teams to construct 14 and only use 32 man rosters. Believe me, even with the 32 man roster limit it is very difficult to have a decent backup at every position. In my personal opinion, it makes it more fun because it increases the challenge to pick up that one guy who's fairly decent and plays three or four positions. So I'm definitely in favor of expansion.

I would hate to see total elimination of inter league play. I had figured out a schedule that would come out to 168 games still and maintain inter league play, but for the life of me I can't remember it now. I'll have to work on it again....

As for dual team owners, I would suggest that the only restrictions on trading be: 1) no trades directly between the two owned teams and (2) if both teams should end up trading with the same third team, no players can end up getting transferred from one owned team to the other. This would eliminate any attempt to "funnel" players from one team to the other. Of course the commissioner can still void any trade that he feels is not in the best interest of the league anyway.

Those are my thoughts. Open to suggestions.

[catcher24]

Worked on the schedules today and there were two options that I came up with for a 20 team organization and keeping the game total at 168. Both of these schedules presume we will have two leagues, two divisions in each league (four divisions total) with five teams in each division.

Option 1: Each team would play 12 games against all other teams in their own league (12 x 9 = 108) and 6 games against each team in the other league (6 x 10 = 60). Total 168 games.

Option 2: Each team plays 22 games against the other four teams in their own division (22 x 4 = 88); 8 games against the five teams in the other league division (8 x 5 = 40); and 4 games against each team in the other league (4 x 10 = 40). Total: 168 games.

At this point I don't have a preference for either one although I would probably lean slightly towards the first option.

[mwiggins]

I'd prefer option 1. The second option is just too unbalanced for my tastes.

And 12 and 6 gives you perfect 3 game series, which keeps alive our current 3 games a night process.

[catcher24]

I'd prefer option 1. The second option is just too unbalanced for my tastes.

And 12 and 6 gives you perfect 3 game series, which keeps alive our current 3 games a night process.

We're pretty unbalanced now. Under the current schedule, we play 43% (72 games) of our games against division opponents; 28.5% (48 games) against non-division but same league opponents; and 28.5% (48 games) against opposite league opponents. Under the above two options: Option 1 - 28.5% (48 games) against same division opponents; 36% (60 games) against same league, other division teams; and 36% (60 games) against opposite league teams. Option 2 - 52% (88 games) against same division teams; 24% (40 games) against other division, same league teams; and 24% against other league teams. So actually option 2 comes closest to the percentages we have now. However, your point about the three game series is well taken and could be a determining factor for sure.

[leecemark]

--Any schedule we make needs to have match up diviable by 6 to work with any semblance of order. The scheduling program will make every effort to balance home and away for each team and so odd numbers of games results in lots of one or two game series and makes it really hard to maintain a regular playing schedule. Well divisable by 4 and 2 game series would also work, but I am strongly in favor of maintaining the 3 game sets.
--Lew's option one would be okay with me. Option two would not meet the basic requirements for an orderly set of series though.
--The schedule I like best from my trials is 18 vs division foes, 12 vs league foes and 6 vs one division of the opposite league each year. There are two issues that may be a problem for some owners with this schedule though. One, it would mean a reduction to a 162 game schedule. That would make it more difficult for post-77 players to challenge league single season records. OTOH, we would be voting for two sets of All Star teams and two sets of post season awards so those honors would come easier.
--The other thing that may not appeal to some is that you would only be facing opposite league teams every other year. That is not an issue for me. I'd actually be fine with eliminating interleague play if a workable scheule could be arrived at, but I understand that some might feel differently. What might actually work best is if we arranged the dual ownership teams so teams in that arrangment were all set up in dual rivalries as well. Then they would play the same division - the one without their second team in it - in interleague play each year. The down side to that would be that at least some minor reshufflign would be needed - either the Wranglers or Diablos would need to switch out with a Johnson division team. Also it would mean that some teams - at least one non-dual owned one - woudl never meet in the regualr season. I think it would go a long way to avoiding conflict of interest situation though. Perhaps enough that other restrictions on dealing with dual owners could be dropped.
--Expansion is inevitable. Dual ownership is almost certainly going to be a necessary evil to accomplish that. How we control dual ownership and how we set up the schedule are very much open to discussion though and I hope everyone will share their ideas on the best way to do this.

[mwiggins]

----The schedule I like best from my trials is 18 vs division foes, 12 vs league foes and 6 vs one division of the opposite league each year. There are two issues that may be a problem for some owners with this schedule though. One, it would mean a reduction to a 162 game schedule. That would make it more difficult for post-77 players to challenge league single season records. OTOH, we would be voting for two sets of All Star teams and two sets of post season awards so those honors would come easier.

I like that schedule. Somewhat unbalanced, so the division rivals get played more often every year, but not absurdly so.

And if you switch off the interleague divisions every year, you still get to play every team at least every other year. I would not want a schedule where there were certain teams that you never played unless you faced them in the Diamond Classic.

Switching to a 162 game season would be a good thing IMO. At least for hitters, it's already difficult to compete against the players from the very early seasons for single-season records. The dilution of the talent pool with 4 new teams in 1977 will probably more than make up for the loss of 6 games in terms of setting single season records, so I don't see it being really any harder to set a single season mark in 1977 than it is in 1974. George Foster won't have quite as many games in 1977 to make his run at the single season HR record as Stargell did in 1971, but he'll be facing a lesser caliber of pitcher on average.

[jaybird_1981]

I am good with whatever is decided.

[catcher24]

My criteria in working out the schedule were to maintain a 168 game season and also to maintain full inter league play. Of course if it is decided that one or both of those criteria are not essential then several more options open up. I would personally be opposed to playing just one division in the other league. For me, it's either play them all or play none and eliminate inter league play entirely - which I would rather not see but might work out for the best in the long run. If we did eliminate inter league play, though, that would pretty effectively eliminate any conflicts of interest between dual owned teams, so any restrictions attached to them could likely be dropped with two exceptions: no direct trades, and no using a third team to funnel a player from one to the other. Let's see what others have to say.

[dust bunnies]

I wish to propose an alternate method of selecting free agents, following the current process of selecting ten or so preferred free agents. Why a suggestion for change. Well, for one I have trouble keeping track of whom I have potentially signed in the 10-15 minutes before the “E-Bay madness” occurs near the end. Last year, I simply gave up with about 5 minutes to go and therefore fared very poorly. Secondly, I would think that those of your owning two teams, whose number will apparently increase in 1977, have a distinct disadvantage of trying to manage two teams in such madness.

Simply put I recommend that the free agent contract continues to be awarded to the highest bidder, but not with a firm deadline. The details are of course open to adjustment. I will suggest one way the process would work. We currently have the process open from Friday evening to the following Tuesday evening. During that time frame, I recommend that any bid that has not been increased during any 12 hour period becomes the final bid, with the new owner thereby defined. At 8:00 or so on Tuesday evening, the process would be as described above, except that the time frame for bidding would be reduced to 10 minutes. No increase in 10 minutes, and the bidding on that player is concluded. When no bids are entered in a 10 minute period, the entire bidding process is over.

The advantages of this approach would allow owners to more accurately acquire whom they are interested in. Also, two owners would have a much more even playing field to manage their rosters. And thirdly, some assignments, if no competing bids were made, would be finalized in the first 12 hours, first day, etc. Owners could begin to see their new teams forming as the process proceeded.

Disadvantages. I see two. First, some of us may like the frantic activity at the end. I am not one of those. Secondly, managing who ends up with whom might be more difficult for the “league organizers” than the current process. This would be especially true if issues of time became involved. For example, was the last bid within 10 minutes of the previous one? I recommend resolving this by a two-step process. We currently have bids tabulated throughout the process and at the end. This would be continued done as before; no times would be registers in that compilation; and the player assignments would be considered as preliminary assignments. For the next 24 hours, individual owners, if they wished, could filter through the bids to decide if a player they “lost” was to a legitimate later bid (one within 10 minutes of the previous). If so, he could bring that to the attention of the group and the assignment of the player would be changed. Then final assignments would be made.

I suspect this whole process wouldn’t take more than a day or two longer than the current process.

Jack

[mwiggins]

I like the idea in principal. The end of the secondary auction is easily the least fun/interesting part of being an owner for me personally. And it is certainly a difficult proposition with 2 teams.

The 12 hour time limit during the main part of the secondary action is probably too short, though. I'd go with 24 hours, to allow for the fact that we all have different work schedules and some of us live in different parts of the world.

I would certainly be willing to step up and help with the process, if we do decide to change things, so that Mark L and Lew don't get additional work on their plate during that time period.

[jaybird_1981]

I do kind of like the idea of it a player doesn't receive a bid in 24 hours or so he should be off the board but not sure I like the suggestion for the end of the auction.

[mac195]

Agreed. It is time to change the FA bidding process. I kind of liked it in the early days of the league. But with 16 teams now it's just too chaotic at the end. Closing bids on players after 12 hous without an offer is an excellent idea.

[Erik Bedard]

12 hours is much too short though. If I go to bed at 11, and have class the first four periods the next day, I will be without computer access for over 12 hours. Another league I'm in does two days between bids, and that works well except the bidding lasts about a month, which is too long for this league.

I actually kind of like the current system, in a masochistic sort of way, personally.

[catcher24]

Jack ran this by me originally and I suggested that he propose it to the entire ownership. I do like the basic premise. I have to agree that with sixteen teams (and pretty soon twenty) the final session is starting to become too much, especially when running two teams. As an example (and I honestly don't mean to pick on Mark W, but it's the prime example that comes to mind), the Wranglers lost Don Wilson to the Diablos at the end this year. I had bid 4.75M, Mark went to 5M for what is undoubtedly a one year player. Had I been given the opportunity, the Wranglers would certainly have bid more for Wilson and then bought out the contract next year. And it would have been very interesting, since I likely would have bid 7.75M on Wilson, to see if the Diablos would go eight years and buy out two years of the contract in order to get Wilson. Wilson was extremely important, and I think Mark will agree he might be the difference between the two teams this year. Also, this gives teams who do lose one player they are after an additional chance to bid on someone with a similar profile. The strategy implications are, I think, tremendous.

I also agree with Dan (and he beat me to posting it) that the time frame should be 24 hours for the first few days. No higher bid in 24 hours and the guy is yours. At the conclusion, I think we could simply use the BBF posting time stamp, like we do now for the final bids. If your bid is at 7:30 BBF time amd there is no other bid on the same player by 7:40, the ten minutes is up and the guy is yours. It's easy enough to go back and check the posting times if there is any question. If we do something along these lines I would also suggest that the final night be moved to Friday, since the bidding could go considerably beyond 9PM with this structure. That would extend the secondary FA auction to one week - from the end of the Premium FA auction on Friday to the end of the secondary auction the following Friday. Perhaps if it came down to five or six guys who were still receiving bids, there could be a second live auction to finish it off. I think we would still need to set a final time of some sort, then after that the remaining players could still be first come, first serve at 250K like they are now.