A unique league - playing baseball history in reverse

[Matt from TN]

Originally Posted by IatricSB

It might be hard to get the needed 30 GMs, but it sure sounds like it could be fun. You've got my vote.

I'd go along with it... But what would happen to the players on contracted teams? Would dumping them in the "free agent" pool or having a contraction draft put too many major league players in the league? If so, that would thin out over time with fewer & fewer players entering the league.

[legendsport]

There are a few issues, as you pointed out, with contraction. If you waited an extra season or two before contracting (instead of contracting in 1998, wait til say 1996, that way there will have been two years of fewer "rookies" coming in). But if you use finances so that there's free agency to deal with, it probably would all work out just fine.

Of course, you'd have to figure out how to decide who gets contracted - is it worst team in the most recent season, worst team in last 3 years, last 5 years?

Definitely something worth looking into though - any opinions/ideas?

- Joe

[Matt from TN]

Originally Posted by legendsport

Of course, you'd have to figure out how to decide who gets contracted - is it worst team in the most recent season, worst team in last 3 years, last 5 years?

Just quick thinking, but I'd say worst records over the owner's entire career. Things then get a little sticky when you have owners who weren't here from day 1. Are they forced to take on a franchise's poor past performace, and if not, do they then get a benefit by not having X-number of seasons in the past to potentially count against them like the rest of us would?

The first contraction would happen about 10 years into the start of the league right? If so, that should be the teams with the worst overall winning % regardless.

After the 1st 2 contractions (i.e. Dbacks/DRays and Rockies/Marlins), you could use a combination of factors, like overall winning %, pennants and championships. I think we should reward longevity in winning, not just the best record over the past 5 years or so. If you want to include recent history, it should be at least 10-25 years back (we're talking about the contractions from the 70's, 60's here). Because if a team is a dynasty early on, but is struggling thru rebuilding at the time of those late contractions, should their recent records really count them out?

[okcyankee]

Only thing that I would be worried about is that we may lose an owner who has participated in the league and is a major contributer from day one. What happens if Joe's team gets contracted...lol? I think that the original idea is best way to go. Maybe we should poll the group in the league forum.

[metsgeek]

Though the contraction idea is interesting, I like the original idea better. Either way, I'll go with Joe's opinion.

[legendsport]

This wouldn't be an either-or proposition - MIB is what it is - we were speculating on a seperate, contraction league

[Jeremy Weimer]

I think it's a decent enough idea, but it would take some hard work to figure out a fair way to eliminate teams.

[Tauro]

Ah, a seperate league.. Good.. I like the present incarnation for MIB. I'd be interested in the other one as well.

[Tauro]

Is there a league forum setup? I just noticed someone mentioned one.

[legendsport]

Not yet - there will be soon.

[Tauro]

COol. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

[Matt from TN]

quick question: Are we using 1901-style league settings (i.e. better pitcher durations, few relief pitcher appearances, fewer homeruns, etc?) or modern settings?

[legendsport]

We are using 1901 style league settings.

[Groovercat]

Shreveport has come available a mere six rounds into the draft . . . Great chance to get on board as a classic league gets off the ground!!!

See: http://legendsport.com/baseball/mib/

[legendsport]

Open has been filled. Thanks for checking us out!