Jump to content

psl X donation thread


Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, gbwead said:

I know coaching is the main issue to discuss going into next psl, but other things need to be discussed as well imo:

  • How do we select managers?
  • Should managers be allowed to play?
  • How to deal with Sign up bias?
  • What are the exact rules for scheduling and extensions?
  • Should the entire PSL system stay the same (regular season and playoffs)? Is the point system clear and/or good?
  • Is the host and/or PSL council allowed to play?
  • Midseason? Yes or No? 
  • How should tiers be selected?
  • Do we want mini events/tournaments being run with the PSL donations?
  • How many tiers do we want?
  • Do we want to keep awards? If yes, which ones? If yes, how are the awarded players selected? Do the awarded players get money?
  • Is the PSL council needed? If yes, how are they selected?
  • What happens to the players that break the rules?
  • Should staff be forced to play on their alt instead of their main?
  • Should showdown players have their name registered prior to the start of the season?
  • ...

 

as my English is not super good, I will not detail all my ideas, but I think for most questions, I agree with @DoubleJ.
Regarding the Midseason,
Point of view of the manager, if we notice at the beginning of the season that the team is weak in a tier, the mid season is a way to improve his team. So I'm not really against that
basically, you have to find a host who will not allow to play,
And I agree that managers should play! this will make the competition more interesting

Link to comment

Letting managers play is a no-no for me. It brings up unnecessary complications, whether it be bias with lineups, the level of skill each manager will be, or how it just strips even more meaning to the "manager" title than it already is.

 

Managers should manage, players should play, it has been like that for 9 seasons, and don't feel like it'd be a good change at all.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Spaintakula said:

Letting managers play is a no-no for me. It brings up unnecessary complications, whether it be bias with lineups, the level of skill each manager will be, or how it just strips even more meaning to the "manager" title than it already is.

 

Managers should manage, players should play, it has been like that for 9 seasons, and don't feel like it'd be a good change at all.

I agree that it would make things more complicated, but at the same time I would argue that it also makes the event perhaps more interesting. Regarding the bias with lineups, there are different ways to deal with that. For instance, we could have something like this:

Spoiler

Lineup submitted by Manager A:

OU1: Player 1

OU2: Player 2
OU(tp): Player 3
UU1: Player 4

UU2: Player 5

Dubs: Player 6 vs Manager B
DPP: Player 7
LC: Player 8

 

Lineup submitted by Manager B:

OU1: Player 9

OU2: Player 10 vs Manager A

OU(tp): Player 11

UU1: Player 12

UU2: Player 13

Dubs: Player 14
DPP: Player 15
LC: Player 16

 

This would give us these duels:

OU1: Player 1 vs Player 9

OU2: Manager A vs Player 10
OU(tp): Player 3 vs Player 11
UU1: Player 4 vs Player 12

UU2: Player 5 vs Player 13

Dubs: Player 6 vs Manager B
DPP: Player 7 vs Player 15
LC: Player 8 vs Player 16

Basically, if the manager is the one that decides the tier in which the opposing manager can play, I feel a big part of the bias would be removed imo because that way the manager could not force himself/herself wherever he/she wants in the lineup. That's just a suggestion ofc. If we really want managers to play, other options are possible.

 

As for the competitive level of a manager, the main issue is giving a value to the managers so that during the auction the highly valued managers have less credits to work with. I personally thought of a betting system that would allow us to give a value for each chosen manager:

Spoiler

 

Let's say that once players sign ups are done, a formatted betting thread is opnened and the rules of the betting thread would be those:

  • You can only bet on the predicted win rate of the players.
  • You can't bet more than 1 mil per player.
  • All taken bets must be mailed to a designated middle man.
  • A bet made on a player that ends up playing less than two duels is voided. The potential win rates for players are: 100%, 86%, 83%, 80%, 75%, 71%, 67%, 60%, 57%, 50%, 43%, 40%, 33%, 29%, 25%, 20%, 17% and 14%.

An example of bet would be: "I bet 500k that player C will get a win rate equal or higher than 60%".

 

Since managers would have to sign up as palyers prior to the season, we would then be able to evaluate the competitive level of these managers based on the non taken bets. If a bet is taken, it doesn't count towards evaluating the competitive level of the manager involved in that bet since that means someone disagrees with the value given to that manager. When a bet is not taken, it would mean that no one disagrees with the subjective value given to that manager. For instance:
71bf0876b7b205c81f8ca4644648ccfa.png

The total score of Manager A is equal to: 70,000 x 10^(0.6) + 550,000 x 10^(0.5) = 2,017,928

So going into the auction, we would here be able to compare the value of all the managers. If we set the default value to 25k credits for the most valued managers, that would imply that Manager B starts off the auction with 75k. Manager C would get 100k - 25k x (2511886/7989773) which is equal to 92k. Manager A would get 100k - 25k x (2017928/7989773) which is equal to 94k.

 

Overall, this means that since people are too afraid to take bets agains the Manager B, it's fair to assume that the Manager B is a better player than the other managers and if we want to allow managers to play this mean that manager B should receive less credits for the auction.

 

Once again, this is only a suggestion and idk if what I said made any sense, but my point is there are ways to let managers play if we really want to. It might be complicated, but it's possible.

 

 

 

 

Edited by gbwead
Link to comment

I just wish there was more that managers could do. Other than drafting, putting out a team and helping your players throughtout the week, you basically don’t have a whole lot you can do that would gain a substantial advantage.

 

I want to be able to strategically wreck my opponents some way.

Link to comment

What if prior to the auction, the 8 selected managers were asked to send to the host in private the maximum bid they would put on themselves. Then, the auction starts and the managers start drafting players. Once a manager - let's call him/her "Manager A" - drafts a player for more than 10k, all other managers are allowed to nominate and bid on Manager A. Manager A must always outbid the other managers unless the amount of credits is higher than the maximum bid Manager A put on himself/herself prior to the season. If that happens, the player with the highest value on the team that Manager A left becomes the new manager until a player with a higher value gets drafted on that team and becomes the new manager.

Obviously, this would mean that a live auction is not possible, but would this be enough to allow managers to play?

Link to comment

Imo do not let managers play. This would be just bad for the competition, manager is a manager and not a player. I wouldn't mind something like salty suite somewhere in the season where managers could play but surely not in the season itself, it brings too many complications and it's like pouring gasoline into fire (you might get fucking burned). I don't wanna do it the "staff way" and fix something that isn't broken.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, gbwead said:

What if prior to the auction, the 8 selected managers were asked to send to the host in private the maximum bid they would put on themselves. Then, the auction starts and the managers start drafting players. Once a manager - let's call him/her "Manager A" - drafts a player for more than 10k, all other managers are allowed to nominate and bid on Manager A. Manager A must always outbid the other managers unless the amount of credits is higher than the maximum bid Manager A put on himself/herself prior to the season. If that happens, the player with the highest value on the team that Manager A left becomes the new manager until a player with a higher value gets drafted on that team and becomes the new manager.

Obviously, this would mean that a live auction is not possible, but would this be enough to allow managers to play?

14111554.jpg

Link to comment
22 hours ago, gbwead said:

What if prior to the auction, the 8 selected managers were asked to send to the host in private the maximum bid they would put on themselves. Then, the auction starts and the managers start drafting players. Once a manager - let's call him/her "Manager A" - drafts a player for more than 10k, all other managers are allowed to nominate and bid on Manager A. Manager A must always outbid the other managers unless the amount of credits is higher than the maximum bid Manager A put on himself/herself prior to the season. If that happens, the player with the highest value on the team that Manager A left becomes the new manager until a player with a higher value gets drafted on that team and becomes the new manager.

Obviously, this would mean that a live auction is not possible, but would this be enough to allow managers to play?

i dont like this for three reasons. one literally anyone can become a manager this way. two managers can play. three what makes a good player and what makes a good manager isnt the same thing. jj for instance was a pretty great player in his time and a shitty manager. imgurdiancity either won or got 2nd (i cant remember anymore) was a great manager who never really got into comp much and was great at it. great guy and manager thou with a great record. this system would makes it so only people who are both great managers and players actually have a shot as everyone else either way overpays for themselves or looses manager. you might be thinking "whats the problem with that fred?" well their arent actually a whole lot of great managers who are also great players and the way this system works most of them probably wont even get a shot unless they are selected or a manager buys them then gets bought(and honestly who is going to actually let themselves get bought?). so we will have a small number of teams maybe even one with a great manager/player who didnt have to overpay for himself and will be able to use the rest of the currency to make a better team then any other. while all the other teams will have either bad managers or bad teams or both. theirs a reason baseball is dying and its because all the rich teams have all the best players and win every year and thats just not fun. 

+ all the other shit agasint player managers i said earlier + i dont think the majority of players want it.

Link to comment

I don't think a bad player should ever be given a chance to manage since when that happens the players have to do all the work and that just sucks. You can't expect a bad player to recognize what others do good or bad if that bad player can't even do that during his own duels. A good manager should be more than a glorified cheerleader and be actively there to help his players. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, fredrichnietze said:

theirs a reason baseball is dying and its because all the rich teams have all the best players and win every year and thats just not fun. 

lol jesus Christ fred why would you ruin your entire post with this steaming garbage take. I don't even care how off topic this is, I'm about to school you real fast.

 

Baseball isn't dying, it's just not growing like some of the other sports for a variety of reasons. Mostly, because it's way more expensive than your average ball sports to play (hindering growth in inner cities). For soccer and basketball all you need is a ball really. For baseball, you need a glove, a bat, etc. But to say all the rich teams have all the best players and win every year is absolutely pooped - last 4 world series winners were the Houston Astros, Chicago Cubs, Kansas City Royals, and San Fransisco Giants - far from the "richest teams." In fact, baseball has arguably the most parity of any main 4 sports. So fuck outta here with your baseball comparisons

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

lol jesus Christ fred why would you ruin your entire post with this steaming garbage take. I don't even care how off topic this is, I'm about to school you real fast.

 

Baseball isn't dying, it's just not growing like some of the other sports for a variety of reasons. Mostly, because it's way more expensive than your average ball sports to play (hindering growth in inner cities). For soccer and basketball all you need is a ball really. For baseball, you need a glove, a bat, etc. But to say all the rich teams have all the best players and win every year is absolutely pooped - last 4 world series winners were the Houston Astros, Chicago Cubs, Kansas City Royals, and San Fransisco Giants - far from the "richest teams." In fact, baseball has arguably the most parity of any main 4 sports. So fuck outta here with your baseball comparisons

google it and you will mostly find articles about how baseball is dying.  i dont actually watch baseball, but i know enough people who do to know their is no team spending cap on players and several rich teams buy up everyone good and win a shit ton. 

 

also http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

giants #2

cubs #5

astros #11

royals #20

 

and yea the richest team doesnt win every time, but they win more often which is the point

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, fredrichnietze said:

google it and you will mostly find articles about how baseball is dying.  i dont actually watch baseball, but i know enough people who do to know their is no team spending cap on players and several rich teams buy up everyone good and win a shit ton. 

 

also http://www.spotrac.com/mlb/payroll/

giants #2

cubs #5

astros #11

royals #20

 

and yea the richest team doesnt win every time, but they win more often which is the point

Fred, my dude, you are way out of your element here. The fact that a bunch of crappy writers like to post headlines like "is baseball dying?!" has no actual bearing on the state of the sport. The dodgers just signed a 4 billion dollar TV contract, do you think maybe people are still watching games?

 

Just because there's no team spending cap doesn't mean the "rich teams" are buying up everyone good and winning a shit ton lol. There's a luxury tax, so high payroll teams get hit harder the more they spend and this money then trickles down to the low payroll teams, helping with parity. Also, your payroll statistics are misleading, since the giants are currently #2 but at the time they won the world series they weren't quite that high (in fact, the windfall from winning the series allowed them to lock several of their young stars into big contracts). Regardless, the fact that the 20th and 11th payroll teams are 2 of our last 3 world series winners, and that the Cubs won the other one (for the first time in >100 years, mind you) completely shatters whatever point you're trying to make.

 

On top of ALL OF THAT, you clearly haven't been following baseball this offseason, where we saw a MASSIVE shift away from spending in free agency in favor of home grown talent. In fact, it got so bad that the players union threatened legal action because teams weren't opening their wallets to spend big money on free agents this year. Know why? Because the formula for success isn't to empty the bank, 90's Yankees style. It's to draft smart, develop your talent, and make your runs with young players on cheap contracts under club control. Look at the bottom 10 payroll teams...all of them have made significant playoff runs in the last decade or so...proving that you can be a successful MLB franchise without being one of the rich teams.

 

I have no idea why you would double down on your originally poor stance given your own admission that you don't watch baseball, but you're just wrong. Very wrong. Keep on trying though, I've got an endless amount of time and energy to discuss this topic

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Gunthug said:

TV contract,

hehehehehehe

 

and the difference between #2 #11 is like 25%. i still consider #11 a high spender. and like half of the winners are top 5 spenders. point is the trend which you limited 4 samples i assume because it helps your argument? is spend more win more. 

 

as to whether baseball is dying, idk i hear its dying from people but i dont know enough to say definitely. your argument is ad hominem thou so like ehhh? also assuming motivation for a entire group of people you know little about? the 5th wave feminist are going to love this.

 

also also to say the cubs things disproves my argument is silly. i went back a couple years and looked at the four teams. always with 3 or more and 50% or more top ten avg. and just because they didnt win the world cup doesnt mean they were shit. show me those numbers and i'll give your argument some merit.  also payroll history only goes back to 2011 so if you bring me the record from 1920 or whenever imma have to smack you

 

 


in bed 

Image result for lenny face
 

 

 

 

edit also forgot your homegrown argument. baseball is a business. if you can spend less money and make the same or marginally less profit it makes sense. we cant pretend the motivation here is only winning the world cup or being the best you can be when the guys in armani make all the decisions.

Edited by fredrichnietze
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, gbwead said:

If we talk about how dead baseball is in a psl thread, that probably mean that psl is even more dead than baseball :(

i blaim gunthug. we were both in the tc and he knows i cant resist countering a flawed argument

Edited by fredrichnietze
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.