I had proposed that we use the rest of the league's money (after trophies, league champ payout) to award the winner of a particular stat category $10/week. I suggested that we follow a rotating schedule based on the 5 hitting and 5 pitching stats. If you won that week's stat (HR, for example) then you get $10.
Travis (Bx Bombers) suggested that we do it a different way. He suggested that, instead of paying out $10 a week we keep track of all weekly winners and award the $220 or so to one owner at the end of the year. Say HR was the stat of the week. If you won HR that week you got 1 point. Win RBI next week and earn another point. There would be a running tally throughout the season and the $220-ish would go to the owner who had won the most weeks. (click READ MORE below)
Pros:
- Travis' idea is obviously more lucrative.
- It makes for a side competition that would last the entire regular season, instead of just week-by-week.
Cons:
- Your odds of winning anything are clearly diminished.
- The original plan makes for a week-by-week competition. It keeps an owner interested and motivated even though he might be eliminated from playoff contention.
What do you think? Please respond by leaving a comment below.
Personally I'm for the week by week thing as I have very little faith in myself to win a majority of weeks.
ReplyDeleteLove,
Juggs
Thanks, Juggs, for contributing. Anyone else have an opinion?
ReplyDeleteJim, a.k.a. House of Pizza, a.k.a. my dad says:
ReplyDeleteOn paper Travis' idea sounds interesting but I think the reality will be that it will be too involved and long term too maintain the interest. The thing I like about the original method was you could keep a competitive interest each week with perhaps some "strategic" roster mooves towardes the end of the week if you think you have a chance in that week's category. If you did it based on keeping points for the entire season I don't think it would generate any interest, especially early in the season.
I like the idea of a big payout for someone, however after so many weeks it will be very clear that some will be out of contention. How about a combination of the ideas? Instead of a weekly payout, how about a monthly payout, or bi-weekly. Keep the point system as suggested by Travis, but instead of a season long competition, break it up into a few.
ReplyDeleteThoughts?
I'm in favor of the big payout idea. If guys aren't interested, then they shouldn't join the league and pay $40. If wider interest is so important, then give second and third prizes.
ReplyDelete$220 = $150 for first, $50 for second, $20 for third.
I don't think a $10 prize for the week is going to be the difference in someone caring or not. If the $10/week idea is accepted, then I think it should be paid out at the end of the season, rather than every week.
My biggest, and really only, concern is that, 12 weeks into the season, some guys quit on their team and really detract from the fun of the league. It's like sleeping with a guy who's really not into it. Or girl, if that's how you roll.
ReplyDeletePlus, as my brother and I discussed, you could argue that the guy who wins the title is also the guy with a damn good chance of winning the "stat-category" battle as well. It stands to reason that the team good enough to win the championship is good enough to be near the top of the league in most stat categories.
Also, the one-time, end-of-the-year payout kinda defeats the purpose of keeping people motivated all year long. We run the risk of finding ourselves in exactly the situation we want to avoid. Your team could be out of the playoff hunt AND you could find yourself only having won 2 "stat. cat's" while another guy has won 8. So there goes 2 sources of motivation. So I'm probably not going to go with a year-end payout, but, majority rules.
I do like Nicky's idea of making the payout less frequent, like $20 every two weeks or $40 a month. I like the $20 every two weeks thing, that will make for 11 chances to win (22-week regular season) and a larger payout for you money-hungry fucks. Plus it's a longer time span which allows for more strategizing and upsets. It also takes into account the few days off for the All-Star break.
ReplyDeleteWould we judge one stat-cat over those two weeks? Two? What about tie breakers? Any thoughts?
But, calculating two week's worth of BA, ERA and WHIP might be a pain.
ReplyDeleteI like the $20/2 wk. payout idea, but you're right, calculating the "quality" categories like BA, ERA, WHIP would be a real pain and frankly wouldn't generate the interest because it would be difficult to keep track of. Maybe just stick to the "quantity" categories like H, HR, RBI, SB, W, K, SV. It would be easy to calculate and monitor where you stand. A good balance between pitching and hitting should make it fair.
ReplyDeleteH, HR, RBI, W, K, SV would be a good hitting/pitching balance. One stat-cat monitored over a 2-week span, $20 for the winner.
ReplyDeleteAny thoughts?