Division Model

[Ben (Rays GM)]

We'd like to give an opportunity for people to discuss the current three-division model of our leagues. It looks like a team with a .500 record or worse will make the playoffs again this year by virtue of playing in a weaker division, while teams with better records miss out. Last year, a team with a sub-.500 record made the playoffs in the AL while four teams with better records did not. In the NL last year, a .500 team made the playoffs, while five teams with better records did not.

There are pros and cons to having a division-based model, and I currently don't have a strong opinion. I know some people do have stronger opinions on it than I do, however, so this is an opportunity to voice those opinions.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Arguments for the division model:
More realistic/true to MLB
More teams have a chance to make playoffs (match-ups are more meaningful later in the season, encourages GMs to keep trying to win)
Division Rivalries

Arguments for having the top four teams make playoffs regardless of division:
Best teams make playoffs
Teams aren't penalized for playing in larger divisions or divisions with better teams

[Alex (Nationals GM)]

I'd like to keep the divisions just because I like it to be more realistic with division rivalries and what not

[Jon (Astros GM)]

I'm indifferent. I'm going to be in the nl central regardless since we can't have an unbalanced league. Either way favors teams that stay active. I don't kind either way but if I had to pick I would stay traditional.

[Brian (Blue Jays GM)]

Personally, I'm in favor of scrapping divisions altogether and just having the top 4 teams by record in each league make the playoffs.

For me, the part that's most difficult about the current system with divisions is the free agency discounts to playoff teams. Why should a sub-.500 team get a discount when 4 to 5 teams in their league that were better aren't getting them? It just doesn't feel to me like that discount is deserved.

** Disclaimer: Last year I was the last team out in the AL but would have been in the playoffs if the AL West champion was not guaranteed a spot. This year I am currently on the outside of the playoffs looking in (by half a game) but would be the #3 seed in the AL if we didn't have divisions. My opinion is obviously biased by this.

[Rob (Rockies GM)]

I tend to sway towards the top 4 teams. Points previously made about discounting playoff teams are convincing.

I like the true to MLB model, but if we are giving benefits of making playoffs, lets give it to the 'best' teams.

[Zack (Mariners GM)]

As a member of the brutal gauntlet that is the AL West, I believe I speak on behalf of my entire division when I say I'd be disappointed to see the current format changed.

Seriously though, I feel like these things will even out in the end. The Angels roster is going to be very scary possibly as early as next year and I'd like to think that myself and the other GM's will be able to improve our teams as well in the near future. I don't really think we should scrap the current divisional format (which is obviously the same setup as real life MLB) just because of a couple fluke seasons to start the league.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Aug 6, 2012 17:46:52 GMT -5 Zack (Mariners GM) said:

Seriously though, I feel like these things will even out in the end.

Completely agree with this. The league is already beginning to even out, and this year is less lopsided than last year. Some teams went with an all-out "build for the future" mindset to start the game, but those teams will soon be graduating prospects and becoming forces in their respective divisions. Meanwhile, other teams may try to replicate the success of those teams, but I don't think they'll be able to do it to the same extreme - people aren't building from scratch anymore.

[Tucker (Padres GM)]

I would like to keep the division model personally. I think it would have a negative impact near the trading deadline if we scrapped the divisions. Just personal opinion though

[Ben (Rays GM)]

We could change the discount system: make it so that the eight playoff teams get 5% discounts, as do the two teams with the best records to miss the playoffs in each league. The problem with this is it makes it less important who makes the playoffs. In order to make the playoffs more lucrative, then, I'd suggest also giving an additional 5% discount to teams who make the Championship Series in each league. Therefore:

8 teams get playoff discount, an additional 4 get best-record discount
4 teams get championship series discount
1 team gets World Series winner discount

[Deleted]

I agree with keeping it as it is. And agree with your discount proposition ben. Teams with better records should be awarded

[Max (Tigers GM)]

I'll second Jose's comments re: Ben's discount proposal. It seems like a good solution without things getting too "gimmicky." It keeps the division setup/match ups intact, provides an additional incentive for teams to improve through the draft and trades and hopefully keeps more GMs in the game thus reducing GM turnover.

[Tucker (Padres GM)]

I worry that adding the extra discounts could further increase the gap between the contending and currently noncontending teams. We saw how big of an impact discounts could have last FA period. Just a small concern though

[Ben (Rays GM)]

I can see the case against extra discounts. It would seriously affect the bidding, particularly with four teams receiving 10% discounts (and one of those 15%). I think that's too extreme. But here are two proposals that are a bit more moderate:

Proposal one:
MLB has switched to the two wild card format. We can not do this on Yahoo, because there's no playoff format on Yahoo that allows for five teams to make it. However, we can do it in terms of discounts: the fifth place team in each league is considered the second wild card team, and receives the 5% discount, but they don't make the playoffs. This way, 10 teams get a 5% discount each year (with one getting the additional 5% for winning the WS). If multiple teams tie for 5th place, we can either use Yahoo's tiebreaker rules or just give them all discounts.

Proposal two:
Speaking of Yahoo's tiebreaker rules... Proposal two is that we keep everything the way it is, just the 8 playoff teams get the 5% discount, except if two teams end up tied for the Wild Card spot. If two teams end up tied for the Wild Card, they both receive 5% discounts, even though only one can make the playoffs (using Yahoo's tiebreaker). This would be relevant in a year like this one (even though it wouldn't be implemented until next year), where it looks like the Red Sox and Blue Jays might end up tied for the second best record in the AL, but only one would make the playoffs because the Rays are ahead in their division. One of those two teams will miss out on a discount despite potentially having a better record than the AL Central winner and a significantly better record than the AL West winner.

[Brian (Blue Jays GM)]

I like the way you're thinking Ben, and I'm going to propose an option similar to yours. I think the reason we're looking to add additional discounts is to compensate teams that had elite records but did not qualify for the playoffs due to our divisional formatting. Instead of automatically awarding a 5th discount or only awarding a 5th discount if teams tied for the wild card, I think we should give discounts to the 4 playoff teams and any non-playoff who finished in the top 4 of their league by record. This means that there will either be 4,5,or 6 discounts given in each league each year, 6 being very unlikely because the top 4 teams would all have to be in the same division for that to happen, and 5 only happening in years when the 5th place team had a better record than a playoff team.

[Deleted]

I'd prefer keeping the current format to make it more realistic.
if you happen to be on a very competitive division, then you should find a way to build your team better than the other teams in the division.it also gives other GMs the opportunity to compete for the play-off race even though they don't have star players on their team

[Ben (Rays GM)]

The playoff format won't change. It sounds like the overwhelming majority prefer that we stick with the divisions.

However, I do think that adjusting the discounts slightly is a good thing to do. Right now I'm strongly leaning towards Brian's suggestion:

Aug 21, 2012 12:24:34 GMT -5 Brian (Blue Jays GM) said:

I think we should give discounts to the 4 playoff teams and any non-playoff who finished in the top 4 of their league by record. This means that there will either be 4,5,or 6 discounts given in each league each year, 6 being very unlikely because the top 4 teams would all have to be in the same division for that to happen, and 5 only happening in years when the 5th place team had a better record than a playoff team.

Any other thoughts?

[Max (Tigers GM)]

I'm good with the above....

[Tucker (Padres GM)]

Would there be a bump in discounts for teams that do make the playoffs then?
I feel like you would have to otherwise it would cheapen getting a discount for making the playoffs. Also, if it does happen, I think we may be getting into too many discounts territory.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Aug 24, 2012 17:09:06 GMT -5 Tucker (Padres GM) said:

Would there be a bump in discounts for teams that do make the playoffs then?
I feel like you would have to otherwise it would cheapen getting a discount for making the playoffs. Also, if it does happen, I think we may be getting into too many discounts territory.

I don't want to bump the other discounts. Yes it cheapens the playoffs, but so does not having the discounts (the playoffs are cheapened by having teams that aren't the best making it). With Brian's plan, most year's there would be no more than 10 discounts (instead of the current 8). I don't think it cheapens it that much by giving out two extra discounts to teams that are actually that good.

[Smitty (Mets GM)]

Aug 21, 2012 12:24:34 GMT -5 Brian (Blue Jays GM) said:

I think we should give discounts to the 4 playoff teams and any non-playoff who finished in the top 4 of their league by record. This means that there will either be 4,5,or 6 discounts given in each league each year, 6 being very unlikely because the top 4 teams would all have to be in the same division for that to happen, and 5 only happening in years when the 5th place team had a better record than a playoff team.

I like the divisions.
I like this idea, too.
Offering a discount to a non-playoff team is, in effect, our 2nd Wild Card.

[Kevin (Guardians GM)]

I like the divisions as well, makes it more real as which is the goal (or one of them) - With a 2nd wildcard added, a discount would be an ideal solution.

[Smitty (Mets GM)]

Looking at Yahoo's playoff model, would it make sense to offer 1 additional 5% discount per league to the winner of the Consolation Round bracket?

[Chris (Former Cubs GM)]

Obviously I love the idea since I'm in consolation. Ther was a team added to MLB format and since we are not able to do that in our format I think it's a solid idea.

[Ben (Rays GM)]

Sept 11, 2012 19:59:29 GMT -5 Chris (Former Cubs GM) said:

Obviously I love the idea since I'm in consolation. Ther was a team added to MLB format and since we are not able to do that in our format I think it's a solid idea.

Well it wouldn't happen for this year, but it could work. I prefer Brian's suggestion, however. This is about rewarding the top teams. Giving a discount to a team that could conceivably be as low as 8th best in their league doesn't exactly help us achieve the goal of giving out discounts as a reward for success.