Unforseen Ramifications

[NoOne]

So, i made a new league. a bit different in that i added teams in instead of reducing. i've used 30, 28, 20 team leagues. i typically try to make a balanced schedule fit 162 games, although in the past i deviated from that (156). more recently i care more about hitting 162 and being mlb-like for stats and such.

that really limits your choices. 1v27, 1v18, 1v9, smaller and even i wouldn't want to play the same team 50times, lol. 19 teams doesn't work due to the odd number, so that leaves 28t and 10t to make a balanced 162g. i've done 28 but you only play each team 6 times. that's not going to cut into volatility of resulting records like 18 games will.

So, i did 4 divisions of 10 teams. 18*9=162. balanced schedule.. all that i wanted... anyway it's had some cool side effects. 2 subleagues for an ASG. adding 10 teams was new for me to. i didn't like gathering all the logos and stuff, but i think ~30+ teams just works better with how the game creates players -- i think the top-end guys get a slightly bigger proportion relative to the same ratings in a smaller league. (ie it's a different distribution curve)

6/20 go to the playoffs from each subleage... i currently have division winners and 4 wildcards... thinking of doing it by top 3 in each division, though, due to how it's setup... and due to a side effect of compartmentalized divisions that can be weak/strong relative to each other and no way to know without playing the games (or studing the ratings of all the players, but that's no fun).

The extra rounds of playoffs (bye for div winners) makes a dynasty a bit more based on luck, but i did see repeat winners at a decent clip in 100y sims.

cool side effects:

the segregation causes teams to reach 100+wins quite consistently each year, in each division. so at least 4 teams have 100+ most years, maybe not all. maybe thats 1.33X normal rate? either way i like it. i'm pretty sure it's a bit higher, due to 105-110wins not being too uncommon to see. it looks as if the tide has risen. However, like i said, they are not dominant in the playoffs just because they win 100+. it's a bit more unpredictable without comparing the actual rosters side-by-side to make a judgement call on their win totals.

that 110team might be a 95win team in another division. it can help and hurt individual players' results, too, for the same reasons. better players vs worse competition will benefit. those lucky enough to have that be a trend in a career will be more likely to put up bigger career numbers. and the opposite is true too - it adds a bit more volatility - chaos can be good! i just want it minimized for certain things like making the playoffs. context matters

Since really good players might be in weak division, 60hr becomes a slightly more common event. they way i have my league calibrated with static LTM, i've been seeing 1-3 60+hr seasons per 100 years. in the past it was extremely rare for me to see in my leagues - for a baseline of the change it caused - anyone can manipulate ltm to get that result, but my LTM always provide a very similar environment. so 60hr and 30wins becomes more* viable with the segregation - maybe not the 30wins as often, lol, but if lucky, i'm sure it cna happen -- never saw it to my knowledge in my leagues so far with this type of environment... at the least, individual SP can hit a higher mark for wins if they benefit from poor competition compared to average. i didn't pay much attention but i think 28 was definitely reached in a 100y sim. the last 100y ltm test is the only one with accurate history info.

it doesn't require such fanaticism as i have for balanced schedules - a little intermixing should have similar results. but, the greater compartmentalization, the more pronounced this overall effect is. since it depends alot on how the cookie crumbles it will be masked and exagerrated at times.

Another funky side effect of Static LTM - i worked them out after the seed players left the league... so, i tried using them from day one... it had some things i liked and disliked, but it's going to give my league a cool sense of natural transition from a beginning era to one that reaches a happy equilibrium that my LTMs will eventually result in.

It's really augmenting the 'better' rated players. the distribution must be skewed left or too fat in the middle with too few good players...

i am seeing 2 guys already break the .400 mark. 3 .400 season in 3 years, so not a ton, either. (league mayabe hitting .260BA / 410 slug in first 3 years).. i didn't look at this liek for power, but my scout says tehy are over the scale a bit on contact - so if someone's going to do it, they match the description too... a good omen. as i said above, i am comparing this to other leagues with similar statistical environments provided by LTM/LT. it's not the fact that i see .400, its that it's happening more frequently (in this case 3 in 3years compared to maybe 1 season in 1000's). so, the segregation, maybe the extra teams and applying static LTM to the seed players of a new league are adding up to a cool initial era where i'll see things like a .400 hitter and then likely never again - just liek in real life.

the only drawback is that there's a guy thats >200 power (had to look, deciding if i keep or clear history/stats later) and he belted 76HR -- not something i want in my league but i can always delete him as another option, too - he was 28/29 in the first year, so his career is cut in half.

so, i have .400 hitter cropping up, i have 60+ hr season possible -- maybe a bit too much the first 5-15 years i'm guessing -- and it will all settle down into a mostly modern league as per defaults of LT/LTM, with a couple ticks higher BA (.256-257ish), and maybe a few less HR (4900 is default for MLB 2016 league, but i think my hr/ab in the LT is a bit less frequent, but close enough.)

i think i might just delete the seed players once it gets rolling.. and that should take care of any extreme cases of HR in my leaderboards and such. Sometimes it pays to do somethign outside of our norm.