State of CSL - Feedback Needed

Jamal, if we try, and fail, tom improve the CSL we will simply just press on and allow the history to happen the way it does. This was our first attempt and frankly it fell outside the bounds of what we felt was realistic. We tried to ignore it but it seems too daunting to ignore. A plan I raised for avoiding a restart and continuing on was for my draft classes to just have lower SCR numbers, but it would take 8-10 seasons before we saw real league wide impact.

You guys are continuing to bring some great points up. Want to try and respond to mostly everyone.

Jamal - I totally understand your view. And it's inevitable we will run into problems in the future. But the reason restarting was suggested is because we've made so many mistakes already, are trying to fix so many things and totally revamping the ratings to make the more realistic. We feel that will create a much better CSL, allowing us to create the long term league we always strived for. 

Our goal has always been to create the best sim league out there. That has not changed. In order to become the best, longevity is needed, for sure. But granted all the issues encountered, we feel it would be necessary for a restart. Contractions or not (though they seem very unlikely given the responses of many).

It's also worth noting we plan on extensively checking the new rosters, and carefully reviewing any new rules made, as well as the scouting system in hopes of avoiding failures.

Myles (SAS) wrote:Jamal, if we try, and fail, tom improve the CSL we will simply just press on and allow the history to happen the way it does. This was our first attempt and frankly it fell outside the bounds of what we felt was realistic. We tried to ignore it but it seems too daunting to ignore. A plan I raised for avoiding a restart and continuing on was for my draft classes to just have lower SCR numbers, but it would take 8-10 seasons before we saw real league wide impact.

But are you sure the SCR rating is the one allowing high scoring teams?
I mean, look at my teams scoring ratings, and I'm 3rd in the league.
I explained it here:
https://csleague.forumotion.com/t1107-warriors-score-150again

I'm not saying I'm right with it, most probably won't, just trying to understand it.

SCR was just a simplified way of putting it publicly. Tbh it's the shooting ratings that are screwed up. For example, Tyson Chandler was assigned a FGJ rating of 50. When the hell has Chandler ever hit 50% of his jump shots?

Yeah, I think its more of the efficiency scoring than the scr rating itself that's the problem.

In response to Dylan:

I understand changes could be made, but they could also be made to the actual rosters with the same effort, couldn't they?
You can sim 10 seasons in order to check the new ratings, but it's more about the strat and the built team that just about siming. See Rubio as the best example of what a player is able to do depending on the strat/team. If you consider that a player averaging 14apg is off the limits and ireal (just as an example, not saying it is or it isn't), you wouldn't have noticed it by just siming the initial rosters of season one with their strats.

Same with Harden, his TS% might look insane, but it wouldn't if you just simed 10 years from the initial rosters. In that case it's a product of working on him trough instructions, etc. Again not saying he (Harden) should be tweaked or not, just want to point out that it's impossible to find those kind of 'bugs' if I can call them that way, no matter how hard you try.

If we want absolutely real stats, the only way of doing it is tweaking on the go.
Anyway, and as I mentioned in the +150ppg post, stats in the NBA haven't looked the same every year. Jordan averaged 37ppg in 1987, Kobe 35.4 in 2006. Or looking at teams scoring, the Nuggets averaged 126.5ppg in 1982, or the Sixers in 1967. It's just a matter of trends. I mean, the Nuggets also averaged all time NBA second worst 84.1ppg in 2003.

Myles (SAS) wrote:SCR was just a simplified way of putting it publicly. Tbh it's the shooting ratings that are screwed up. For example, Tyson Chandler was assigned a FGJ rating of 50. When the hell has Chandler ever hit 50% of his jump shots?

Ok, just wanted to understand it. I agree with that, some FGJ, FGI and FGD may not be accurate looking to some shooting %s. I also agree the problem is there mainly.
Anyway, with player instructions, what looks right might not be after a pair of instructions made, so that's difficult to fully fix and mostly test.

Jamal, we are not simming 10 years in advance. And we cannot tweak as we go because that is completely unfair all around. Either we change everyone's rating uniformly across the board, or we start over. Or we do neither and just press on.

Myles (SAS) wrote:Jamal, we are not simming 10 years in advance. And we cannot tweak as we go because that is completely unfair all around. Either we change everyone's rating uniformly across the board, or we start over. Or we do neither and just press on.

I thought I read that from Dylan, that 10 year test sims were run to make sure it works, but I might have understood wrong. That's why I was mentioning it.

And I'm not trying to oppose to anything, just wanting to understand it and give my two cents about it in order to make it work. Obviously the goal is to get a better league far from personal interests.

Jamal (NYK) wrote:

Myles (SAS) wrote:Jamal, we are not simming 10 years in advance. And we cannot tweak as we go because that is completely unfair all around. Either we change everyone's rating uniformly across the board, or we start over. Or we do neither and just press on.

I thought I read that from Dylan, that 10 year test sims were run to make sure it works, but I might have understood wrong. That's why I was mentioning it.

And I'm not trying to oppose to anything, just wanting to understand it and give my two cents about it in order to make it work. Obviously the goal is to get a better league far from personal interests.

They were never run. It was an example of something we could have done to make sure the ratings work and what not. We're not actually going to do that. We will still extensively check and test the ratings, though.

Dylan (SAC) wrote:

Jamal (NYK) wrote:

Myles (SAS) wrote:Jamal, we are not simming 10 years in advance. And we cannot tweak as we go because that is completely unfair all around. Either we change everyone's rating uniformly across the board, or we start over. Or we do neither and just press on.

I thought I read that from Dylan, that 10 year test sims were run to make sure it works, but I might have understood wrong. That's why I was mentioning it.

And I'm not trying to oppose to anything, just wanting to understand it and give my two cents about it in order to make it work. Obviously the goal is to get a better league far from personal interests.

They were never run. It was an example of something we could have done to make sure the ratings work and what not. We're not actually going to do that. We will still extensively check and test the ratings, though.

Sorry if I wasn't accurate. I just wanted to point that it's difficult to check those type of things, but you'll sure know better than me.

Myles (SAS) wrote:Responding to Biz about the CBA:

We use the game's CBA because it's convenient and easy to track. The trade restrictions are what the game dictates because that's very close to NBA rules and we have found it's too have to track otherwise. We can discuss using real life cap and tax but because our calendar doesn't mirror the NBA calendar we wouldn't be able to have a dynamic cap, meaning we'd only change the cap once per calendar year and not once per season. As for TPEs, those have been discussed before and were shot down at that time due to tracking and logistics issues, since the game doesn't include them we would have to make up a way to do it. Doesn't mean we can't discuss it again, just explaining the history there.

Well, I don't know how the commissioner accounts work- if you're the commissioner is there a way for you to override the system? If so, tracking TPEs should be quite simple and likely could be kept on the HTML page next to the salaries or the draft picks.

BizGilwalker (IND) wrote:

Myles (SAS) wrote:Responding to Biz about the CBA:

We use the game's CBA because it's convenient and easy to track. The trade restrictions are what the game dictates because that's very close to NBA rules and we have found it's too have to track otherwise. We can discuss using real life cap and tax but because our calendar doesn't mirror the NBA calendar we wouldn't be able to have a dynamic cap, meaning we'd only change the cap once per calendar year and not once per season. As for TPEs, those have been discussed before and were shot down at that time due to tracking and logistics issues, since the game doesn't include them we would have to make up a way to do it. Doesn't mean we can't discuss it again, just explaining the history there.

Well, I don't know how the commissioner accounts work- if you're the commissioner is there a way for you to override the system? If so, tracking TPEs should be quite simple and likely could be kept on the HTML page next to the salaries or the draft picks.

We can't override the system like that.

So if there's a restart, would everyone get new teams? Or would the past owners get to choose if they kept their team or not?

(not exactly relevant, just wondering)

Biz, we can't edit the HTML pages. Those are generated by the game. We technically can override the system, but the more often we do it the more prone we are to making mistakes. Like I said its worth discussing, I'm just providing my point of view.

Jake, we'll have to figure that out. My initial thought is to let people keep their team if they want, and then open the rest up for people to swap teams.

What we did after we restarted, was at the end of each season, we did a ratings increase to about 15-20 players. Like, if a player has a breakout year in the NBA but in the league, he's just a bench player or role player (Lance Stephenson would be a good example here). Before doing the ratings increases, we would allow each team to nominate a player from his team if he felt the need for it and give reasons, examples, stats, etc for his nominations. Because none of us can predict if a Lance Stephenson or Kawai Leonard, etc will all of a sudden have a fantastic year in the NBA.

That's just a suggestion from me. It worked for us and it might work here.

bestnamezRtaken (DAL) wrote:What we did after we restarted, was at the end of each season, we did a ratings increase to about 15-20 players. Like, if a player has a breakout year in the NBA but in the league, he's just a bench player or role player (Lance Stephenson would be a good example here). Before doing the ratings increases, we would allow each team to nominate a player from his team if he felt the need for it and give reasons, examples, stats, etc for his nominations. Because none of us can predict if a Lance Stephenson or Kawai Leonard, etc will all of a sudden have a fantastic year in the NBA.

That's just a suggestion from me. It worked for us and it might work here.

I absolutely dont like that idea. Imagine someone trades Lance here (like happened) and all of the sudden he improves from being a solid Rotation player to a "Star" because of his NBA results.. Wow I would hate that. Really dont like that idea.

We are editing the ratings for every single player based on their play this year. Prospects who sucked, like Anthony Bennett, will still have potential so that they don't get screwed by having a slow start to their career.

Myles (SAS) wrote:We are editing the ratings for every single player based on their play this year. Prospects who sucked, like Anthony Bennett, will still have potential so that they don't get screwed by having a slow start to their career.

Sounds Logic. Just hating the idea to change players in actual rosters. The players I traded for I tried to get because of their actual ratings, not because their ratings could be changed. If all players get edited and we Start from
Zero, then Im fine. Though like jamal said, I would never again rebuild lol. All options have their pros and cons. Its hard to decide. But we shouldnt change players on actual rosters GMs traded for. And we shouldnt edit players after they have been implemented because they played great in the NBA (what tanner suggested).. Would have a Major impact on trades already done too.

Dennis (BOS) wrote:

bestnamezRtaken (DAL) wrote:What we did after we restarted, was at the end of each season, we did a ratings increase to about 15-20 players. Like, if a player has a breakout year in the NBA but in the league, he's just a bench player or role player (Lance Stephenson would be a good example here). Before doing the ratings increases, we would allow each team to nominate a player from his team if he felt the need for it and give reasons, examples, stats, etc for his nominations. Because none of us can predict if a Lance Stephenson or Kawai Leonard, etc will all of a sudden have a fantastic year in the NBA.

That's just a suggestion from me. It worked for us and it might work here.

I absolutely dont like that idea. Imagine someone trades Lance here (like happened) and all of the sudden he improves from being a solid Rotation player to a "Star" because of his NBA results.. Wow I would hate that. Really dont like that idea.

Well, if we're restarting the league and it goes back to default rosters and everyone is aware that, that is a possibility that a player could get increased, it would even out the playing field. I imagine that most, if not, all of us watch or pay attention to the NBA, so if you see a player you that's on your team having a stellar year in the NBA, you probably wouldn't trade him, or you'd have a bit of a higher trade value for him.

Was just a suggestion, just some thoughts.

bestnamezRtaken (DAL) wrote:

Dennis (BOS) wrote:

bestnamezRtaken (DAL) wrote:What we did after we restarted, was at the end of each season, we did a ratings increase to about 15-20 players. Like, if a player has a breakout year in the NBA but in the league, he's just a bench player or role player (Lance Stephenson would be a good example here). Before doing the ratings increases, we would allow each team to nominate a player from his team if he felt the need for it and give reasons, examples, stats, etc for his nominations. Because none of us can predict if a Lance Stephenson or Kawai Leonard, etc will all of a sudden have a fantastic year in the NBA.

That's just a suggestion from me. It worked for us and it might work here.

I absolutely dont like that idea. Imagine someone trades Lance here (like happened) and all of the sudden he improves from being a solid Rotation player to a "Star" because of his NBA results.. Wow I would hate that. Really dont like that idea.

Well, if we're restarting the league and it goes back to default rosters and everyone is aware that, that is a possibility that a player could get increased, it would even out the playing field. I imagine that most, if not, all of us watch or pay attention to the NBA, so if you see a player you that's on your team having a stellar year in the NBA, you probably wouldn't trade him, or you'd have a bit of a higher trade value for him.

Was just a suggestion, just some thoughts.

Not watching the NBA as its hard to follow if you are living in Europe.

I don't have a problem with increasing the ratings on some players before the restart (Lance Stephenson, Jeff Teague, Miles Plumlee, Gerald Green, etc.) but so long as everyone is aware of them before the season starts.

But after that, increasing and decreasing ratings every season is a bad idea, because it makes the development of players a moot point, you can only hope that they do well in the NBA to get a stat boost.

I am categorically against re-rating players based on the NBA and any league that does that, I will have no interest in joining, and will drop out of immediately. I don't play in MP leagues to have that kind of thing happen - that benefits the people who have the time and the money to follow the NBA religiously. I play in MP leagues to have their own organic universe.

As far as the restart/contraction options go... A restart's not a bad idea. In fact, I'd probably be in favor of it, given how screwed up a lot of things got over the first few years for a variety of reasons. Don't like the idea of nerfing scoring though, and if there were contraction, I'd be one of the GMs who would drop out. Lower teams is fine for a historical league, but contemporary league? 30 or bust IMO.

There's also the problem with 25 teams of the talent level ratcheting up really high because that's at least 60 fewer roster spots league-wide, which has a seismic effect on what a winning, good team is.

A restart with no contraction is my vote. as jestor said 30 teams or bust

Here are my ramblings (some may call them thoughts).

1. Restart with no contraction - My only thought here is that we need to make it where people get weeded out if they are not contributing. You trade away all your picks? You still need to do an article once and awhile. It's frustrating to have people running teams who don't even contribute to the community here.

2. Please find a forum where we can do .tem files. The less steps to upload the better. Not being picky but I also loved having the chat box at the bottom from the old boards. Was nice to be able to chat when there was multiple GMs on.

3. This is my big push here… Fix Free Agency. I know Tim and Manu over in the GAH have an amazing way to do free agency. It's hard to know what a player is thinking here. In the GAH, you know what they rate out at in Greed, Loyalty, Play for Winner, etc. I really think, this is just my opinion, that the admins should select 3-5 GMs who they feel will be honest and allow them to set up Agencies that handle the free agents. A group of players is assigned to each one, they make a screen name here (for example - Top Talent Agency) and the PMs for free agents go to them. Other than Dylan and possibly admins, the GMs running agencies remain unknown. I recommend it not being admins as they have their plates full as is.

4. Scouting - Yes, scouting is broke (it seems). There needs to be a transition to number ratings over letter ratings in my mind. It gives us more of a determining factor in what we are looking for.

5. CSL not NBA - I agree with Tim. I play this game for the fun of the game. I don't want a mirror image of the NBA. I don't think a player should ever be tweaked in the off-season based on what they do in the NBA. I don't want to play in a league that changes because a player gets better in the NBA. They should change based off potentials and ratings.

Now for my dee-dee questions…

1. With the restart, we are going with rosters from day 1 of this season correct? Wiggins Orlando, Len Boston, etc?

2. Picks that are owned from the beginning of the season will not change correct?

That is all I can think of for now.

You guys know I've been around from way back in the day so I support your choice. Thanks for taking the time to communicate your thoughts here.