Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 24, 2015 12:48:44 GMT -5
So, Scalp Round was kind of a disappointment, and probably not worth the effort. It was worth a try, but I don't think it did achieve or will ever achieve the goal of disincentivizing tanking. The potential of that number one draft pick remains too enticing.
Most GMs continue to express frustration with teams not making a fair effort, however, so I think it's time we take a radical approach.
Brian sent me this article a while ago, and pointed me toward suggestion number 10: the Gold plan
Option 10: The Gold plan
Ah, here we go. This is my personal favorite, and I’ve lobbied for the NHL to adopt it before. It’s based on an idea that Adam Gold presented at Sloan in 2012, and it’s freaking brilliant.
Here’s how it works: Each year’s draft order is determined by a ranking of most points earned by each team after being eliminated from the playoffs. As soon as you’re officially out of the running for a playoff spot, you start the clock on earning points toward your draft position. Bad teams still get a big advantage here, since they’d be getting a head start of several weeks. And teams that narrowly miss the playoffs on the final weekend are basically eliminated from the running for a high pick entirely.
But now, we’re rewarding teams for winning instead of losing. Imagine having a “points since elimination” column in the standings for fans of bad teams to obsessively reload. And then picture how this week’s Sabres/Coyotes games would have played out if both teams were trying to win their way to Connor McDavid.
Biggest advantage: Other than being awesome? Gold’s system is relatively simple once you can get your head around it, it still helps bad teams, and it makes late-season games for non-playoff teams more meaningful than ever before. And most important, it puts the emphasis on winning. No more cheering for your favorite team to lose.
Biggest objection: The most common problem fans come up with is the concern that Gold’s idea wouldn’t eliminate tanking, but rather shift it earlier in the season. Teams like the Sabres, the thinking goes, would just tank even harder to try to trigger their elimination faster. That’s possible, but remember, players don’t tank — organizations do. And a GM like Tim Murray would have a balancing act on his hands: You’d want a roster that was bad enough to be eliminated early, but good enough to be able to win a few late-season games once that happened. That’s a hard switch to flip, as teams like the Maple Leafs are demonstrating right now.
The other disadvantage is one that’s common to a lot of these ideas: By taking away the incentive for bad teams to lose, you might end up turning the trade deadline into collateral damage. The deadline is already hurting due to a lack of sellers, and that problem would get worse once bad teams had to balance any trades for future assets against the need to win their way to a higher pick. That’s a legitimate concern, but I’m not convinced that the excitement of the Gold plan wouldn’t make it worth it.
Okay, so, some of those advantages and objections aren't super relevant to our league, but I think it's similar. We'd have the excitement of teams fighting for the top pick. We'd be incentivizing winning and not losing. Shifting tanking to the beginning of the season is honestly ok with me - the teams you play against early are the same teams you play against late, so if a team wants to start off terribly and then try to get good in order to gain the first pick, then the teams that play that team at its worst will also be the teams who play that team at its best the second time through, so it balances out. Also, now you don't have teams tanking at the crucial moment leading up to the playoffs. As for the trade deadline, I don't think that's necessarily such a bad thing either - as it is, there's little to no advantage for keeping your expiring contracts if you're a non-contending team. If anything this would give those teams more leverage in trade talks, as now they have a reason to keep them.
The biggest disadvantages I see are complexity - somebody would have to stay on top of things to keep track of when teams get eliminated - and lack of games. Our season only lasts 21 weeks, so if teams start getting eliminated around week 11, there are only 10 weeks to rack up these "points since elimination." As such we're gonna end up with a whole bunch of teams tied with the same number of points - a bunch with 3, a bunch with 2, a bunch with 1, but not a whole lot of variation. So we'd basically have two options: 1. For the teams tied with the same number of points-since-elimination, we let the team with the worst final record pick first. So if two teams have 3 wins after being eliminated but one is 5-12-4 and the other is 9-9-3, the 5-12-4 team picks first. 2. We make it a lottery. Every time you win after being eliminated your team name goes into the pot twice. Every time you draw after being eliminated your team name goes into the pot once. We then draw the draft order from the pot of names, with the teams with more points after elimination having a better shot at getting the first pick.
Thoughts on this? Interest in this plan or any of the other plans from the article I posted? Let's get some discussion going!
Last Edit: Dec 24, 2015 12:49:50 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Dec 24, 2015 13:08:04 GMT -5
I like it for the most part. My issue is some if not most teams aren't going to beat the teams in the race. Plus what if a bad team gets the advantage of playing a easier second half schedule and another has to play more good ones.
Also, trading for top picks becomes tougher. You trade for a top 3 pick based on record and it turns into the 8th pick because that team lost out.
Just a few points. I'm a fan of a weighted lottery system. But penalize teams that don't have a full lineup.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Dec 24, 2015 13:22:43 GMT -5
Also, going into FA there is no excuse for a team to not be able to make sure they have starters at every position. Having done the list I can see a ton of potential staters out there. Saving cap space should t be allowed if a team doesn't have starters at positions.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 24, 2015 13:43:45 GMT -5
Now that it's out there, I'm gonna try to stay out of this discussion for a little while so we can get some more opinions. Thanks Jon for weighing in. What do others think?
Post by Chris (Former Cubs GM) on Dec 24, 2015 13:49:59 GMT -5
I am 100% behind anything that makes teams atleast try. Understandably there will be teams every year that have little to no chance at making playoffs but in a league like this you should be atleast filling a roster and setting it on yahoo.
Post by Kevin (Guardians GM) on Dec 24, 2015 14:26:13 GMT -5
Not sure about weighted idea, like to hear more.
Def think teams with incomplete lineups should be penalized. In real life, a team can't compete without players so why here. Perhaps if full lineups not being used, that team doesn't get a first round pick. That way order stays for record and teams that aren't good but trying aren't penalized. I'd just rather see the teams not trying be affected.
Question for all: Do you feel comfortable leaving the draft as worst record picks first or do you think it needs to be adjusted somehow?
Hey there everyone, David/Angels here. Wanted to first say Merry Xmas and Happy New Year and wishing everyone a safe and fun holiday season for you and yours. If everyone here has enough time and resources to play a fantasy game and love baseball, then life can't be all that bad right? Also wanted to say again, my thanks to all for the chance to compete in this league.
I have a suggestion for a weighted draft lottery, here it is in detail -
Is a free site, that allows using "weighted" number of balls to help determine draft position.
In my proposal, the top ten finishing teams, which includes the 6 playoff teams, plus four "cusp" teams who probably were very close to getting that 6th seed, are NOT allowed into the draft lottery. They select from order of finish in the league, champion picks 30th, runner up picks 29th, third place picks 28th, and on and on.
The 20 teams that finish last place to 11th place are in the weighted draft lottery. Tier 1 30th Team - 25 balls 29th Team - 24 balls 28th Team - 23 balls 27th Team - 22 balls 26th Team - 21 balls 25th Team - 20 balls 24th Team - 19 balls 23th Team - 18 balls 22th Team - 17 balls 21th Team - 16 balls 20th Team - 15 balls
Tier 2 19th Team - 10 balls 18th Team - 9 balls 17th Team - 8 balls 16th Team - 7 balls 15th Team - 6 balls 14th Team - 5 balls 13th Team - 4 balls 12th Team - 3 balls 11th Team - 2 balls
The last three weeks of the season are the playoffs right? ( First playoff week, top 2 seeds get the coveted BYEs, four teams go to war, 2nd week, top seeds face winners, then 3rd week, the championship game) Yahoo keeps counting stats until the end of the season, whether you face an opponent or not, even if you are out of the playoffs. So during those three weeks, the bottom 20 teams, their 6x6 stat categories go back to zero ( not to Yahoo, but to us, we'd have to track the zero point for the start of Week 1 when playoffs start) You can "earn more balls" by how well you score in those 12 categories for those three weeks.
The leader in HRs for three weeks in Tier 1 gets first position for HRs. But maybe he's 5th in stolen bases. And 8th in strikeouts.
His totals in placement, i.e. 1 (first place) plus 5 ( 5th place) plus 8 ( 8th place) in all 12 categories are added up for his tier. That total in placement produces a number.
In Tier 1, lowest overall sum for those three weeks equals 20 balls, the next lowest equals 19 balls, and on and on and on. The lowest overall sum you can get is 12 ( i.e. you finish 1st in all 12 categories) The highest is 144 ( Finish last in all 12 categories) Tiebreak between tied teams in a category is by number of other total categories won or lost just between those 2 or more teams.
In Tier 2, lowest overall sum for those three weeks equals 10 balls, the next lowest equals 9 balls, and on and on and on. Again, the lowest overall sum you can get is 12 ( i.e. you finish 1st in all 12 categories) The highest is 144 ( Finish last in all 12 categories) Tiebreak between tied teams in a category is by number of other total categories won or lost just between those 2 or more teams.
Why does this happen?
First, it still gives weight to the teams with the worst overall records. Some teams are bad no matter how hard they try, they have injuries, they don't have the talent, they do the "gentleman's tank", i.e. they trade at the deadline for future assets.
Second, it gives some weight to teams who are strong enough to kick some ass in the last three weeks. Meaning you need to try with whats left available to improve your draft situation, but teams who are better in the overall standings, who in theory are better teams with more talent, still are at a disadvantage in the lottery system.
Third, in the "Earn Bigger Balls" three week tournament, you aren't rewarded just for excellence in one dimension, you need to be excellent in "BALANCE" i.e. across 12 categories, which is the purpose of most leagues anyway, to reward the saavy owners who excel at producing a balanced attack without trying to punt anything.
For example, the 11th place team only gets 2 lottery balls placed on league standings, however he can "win" up to 10 more balls just by kicking some ass. However he has to kick ass in all 12 categories to make a difference. He can up his lottery position to 12 balls.
Or for example, the 30th place team gets 25 balls to start, but if he wins this Tier 1 tournament for three weeks, he can max out up to 45 balls.
The above is "Phase 1"
"Phase 2" involves actually entering all 20 teams, with added balls for the three week competition, into the Draft Lottery number randomizer in the link above.
The results will produce a top selection, a 2nd selection, a third selection, and on and on and on.
If you get the top selection, you get 1 point. If you get 2nd selection, you get 2 points. And on and on and on. Team with the last selection gets 20 points.
Phase 2 runs the 20 teams into the randomizer FIVE TIMES. Then your points are added. The lowest possible points total is 5 ( i.e. you place first selection in all five rounds, which is insane amount of luck) The highest possible points total is 100 ( i.e. you place last selection in all five rounds, which means all Gods and deities, including all the fantasy gods, must hate you)
The lowest number of points gets the first selection in the Amateur Draft. The 2nd lowest gets the 2nd selection. And on and on and on.
Why do this?
If you are run through FIVE TIMES, then you are subject to five RANDOM opportunities to either improve or worsen your draft situation. So no one can say they were run through the wringer once, on dumb blind luck just once, and then hosed. However the WEIGHT under which you are thrown into random chance, i.e. number of balls, is by product of your play all season ( final record in standings) and merit ( last three weeks in "Earn Big Balls" tournament) Teams with the worst record, esp those who are bad for legit reasons, still have an edge, but teams that are fighting can maximize their chances as well.
If for some reason, a 11th place team wins the weighted draft lottery, I don't see anyone complaining. This is a team with the worst possible odds, having to fight to incrementally improve those odds, then come out on top during five random drawings. As for those who might feel "cusp" teams get the worst situation ( i.e. no chance at the lottery and not making the playoffs), IMHO that's part of the strategic risk in place. You make a decision to either go for it or not during the season, and have to accept maybe you won't make the playoffs nor get a chance to improve your draft position.
I find in playing fantasy, the teams who actively try to "game" the system in place, the fantasy gods tend to frown on them and given a weighted lottery with five times through a wringer, I truly believe, anyone who doesn't try on purpose will be hammered by karma.
My thoughts on the matter, I respect everyone elses viewpoint here and recognize what I might suggest is not a good fit for this league at the moment.
Also, going into FA there is no excuse for a team to not be able to make sure they have starters at every position. Having done the list I can see a ton of potential staters out there. Saving cap space should t be allowed if a team doesn't have starters at positions.
I think we all know what tanking looks like within the confines of our league. We need an actionable definition of it however. In my case I only have one everyday player at shortstop today. I have another shortstop who has been up for a cup of coffee that plays on a different team than my regular. If my regular hits the DL and my Triple A backup is still in the minors am I tanking? No, I'm at a competitive disadvantage from the time he is out. Pickings today on the FA shortstop list are thin and I might not be able to find a trade partner to fill the void. I think a definition of tanking will require a number value of multiple positions left unfilled, an examination of how that happened, and options left to a GM in filling those vacancies before penalties are levied.
How do we handle a GM that has multiple positions open going into FA, has plenty of money and doesn't bid or has a minimal presence during FA? How do we handle a GM that signs a bunch of FAs but then trades them away by midseason or earlier leaving a shell of a team?
The first question deals with involvement ( is everyone waiting on the same GMs every draft?) and whether a GM should be replaced and the second deals with game play. These are issues I think need to be addressed as well.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Dec 25, 2015 12:41:26 GMT -5
To me tanking is not playing someone that's on your bench when they could start for you. In your hypothetical I don't see that as tanking. Your fielding a full lineup but an injury has prevented you from having one starter. If you became decimated by injury and had 3/4 starters out then we wouldn't hold it against you. The spirit of a tanking rule would be more about teams that do not fill a roster and/or play players that are able to fill spots.
In terms of free agency and cap space, I feel that a team needs to be competitive and try and field a lineup. Even in the MLB the Astros had to field a team even though they were in an obvious rebuild. Granted they can just call up someone to fill a spot and we cannot. I'm not saying you need to be forced to spend money on top free agents, but year after year there are many guys signed to 1 year deals for not much money that can fill roster spots. A team with a bunch of space should not be allowed to sit out FA cause they want a higher pick.
In regards to teams who sign then trade away guys at midseason I feel that if they cannot field a lineup after making a trade the trade should not be completed or needs to be penalized. For example, team A trades Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth to team B for prospects and draft picks. But now Team A only has 1 OF that can play for them then Team A needs to be penalized either financially or by a pick downgrade. There can be a period of time that allows them to make a corresponding move but not very long.
Teams are allowed to sell when they realize that they are out of it but should also have to field a lineup, competitive or not. It isn't fair to teams that play those teams and get easy wins at the end just because they had the good fortune to play them after they decided to lose out.
In terms of free agency and cap space, I feel that a team needs to be competitive and try and field a lineup. ....I'm not saying you need to be forced to spend money on top free agents, but year after year there are many guys signed to 1 year deals for not much money that can fill roster spots. ...I feel that if they cannot field a lineup after making a trade the trade should not be completed or needs to be penalized.
Just a thought, but wouldn't a salary floor as the NBA uses it in their current CBA work to solve some of these issues?
In the NBA, no one can force a franchise to spend money, however if a team doesn't meet the salary floor, the difference between their actual current cap, and their floor is taken, then distributed amongst the active players on their current roster.
Using an NFL example, the Seahawks had a string of really outstanding drafts, which pushed them into fast contention and enjoying the benefit of cost controlled young players reaching into their prime and exponentially out producing general market value for said production. But one of the byproducts was that as those rookie contracts expired, and many came in bunches, they had to plan years in advance to try to reup who they felt were core players. What I'm saying is any mechanism that might "force" a team to engage in free agency because they are mandated to fill a position would start to raise issues IMHO with functional grind it out team building.
If real life sports shows anything, it's that cap flexibility is actually more useful than raw massive cap space.
A "use it or lose it" policy with a salary floor that is incremental each year and not too aggressive might curb some of these issues. I think the NBA's repeat offender policy is a good situation to implement a "penalty" I.E. if there was a salary floor, that any team with X number of consecutive years of being under the floor would incur some type of penalty. This would still allow a team to strategically place a cap cash rich year for an actual strategic team building purpose while getting more activity on the back end of free agency.
Something else that might help is if free agents are broken down into Tiers by benchmarks, age and production. Where an aging Tier, like a Tier 3 or 4 would comprise of older veterans who are limited by rule to only a 1 or 2 year contract maximum and a salary ceiling. With distribution based on the franchises last three seasons of records in any tie break. Examples of guys who might fit into this are like a Eric Young or a Marlon Byrd. The NBA CBA has an "Over 36" rule, which is really used to prevent stretching a players salary past his likely useful playing age. What I'm trying to say is if the only way to win a useful short term filler player is to outbid another team past that players likely useful and practical playing age cycle, teams will be less inclined to go after said players. Ichiro on his very last legs but back when he was still starting might be a good example of a player in this situation. When he was still starting, he had some value, but he's not a guy you'd want more than for a very short time and had no chance to recoup a compensation pick later. A salary ceiling and length of contract limits would make a guy like this more desirable.
How to incentivize spending might be a more practical path. Just some thoughts, all respect here of course to everyone elses viewpoints.
Thanks and Happy Holidays, David/Angels
Last Edit: Dec 25, 2015 22:13:04 GMT -5 by Deleted
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 25, 2015 22:35:34 GMT -5
I like the salary floor idea in theory, but an easy way to get around it and still tank would be by signing players and then trading them as soon as May 15 passes, covering their salary. Of course we could make it so you have to keep players on your roster in order to meet the salary floor (covered salary doesn't count), but I think that could do more harm than good, as covering salary is a real lifesaver to teams who are stuck with real albatross contracts - I wouldn't want the salary floor to become prohibitive toward covering salary when it's such a useful tool for teams in trouble.
Similarly, a salary floor wouldn't really work as a deterrent against teams who are tanking because they have no cap space. If a team has three terrible players all earning 25 million and can't afford to compete, that team has very little motivation to try. But the salary floor isn't going to deter them from tanking as chances are the three contracts alone bring them above the threshold.
It's a good idea in theory but I think it works better when we're talking about real dollars and cents and forcing real life millionaire owners to spend them, which is a similar but not identical problem to the one we have.
Last Edit: Dec 25, 2015 22:36:50 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 25, 2015 22:50:23 GMT -5
As far as the idea of keeping the draft as is (worst record picks first) but cracking down harder on tanking - I just don't know. It becomes a very negative dynamic when you're penalizing teams all the time, and it's just so subjective. Of course, it's also a very negative dynamic when teams are tanking. I think the problem is that we're sending mixed messages when we give the team with the worst record such a huge "reward" for it, but then instruct teams not to try to get that reward. Can you blame teams for trying to be as bad as they can get away with? It's a strategic move, and there's not really that much to lose unless we make the penalties enormous, and what kind of environment would that create?
I really think the solution is to take away the motivation. We need a system where teams are rewarded for trying, not for sucking. But we still want the early picks to go to teams near the bottom I think the Gold plan is that system. Yeah it's a pretty drastic change, but I think it's a positive one - there would no longer be any incentive to tank whatsoever, but draft picks would continue to go to the teams that are getting eliminated early as long as they try to win. We'd no longer have to force teams to try to win, because the system would already do it.
1. I really like the "Gold Plan:" but another potential issue with it is non-differentiation amongst teams that are at the bottom of the pack. Hypothetically, a team that actively fields a team every week but legitimately gets blown out on a weekly basis may not earn as many points as a team that *doesn't* field a full squad, yet still manages to consistently win a handful of categories every week. One way to correct for this would be to implement some kind of a "weighted gold plan:" where teams are assigned scores based on how many points they earn post elimination, multiplied by the number of weeks in which they fielded a full roster (post elimination). This might help differentiate "true tankers" from "truly poorly performing teams."
2. Stat floors also sound appealing, but they don't necessarily have to be fixed numbers! Rather than setting minimums, simple formulae are out there to calculate whether or not teams tank in one specific category (or categories) - relative to the performance of all other teams. I'd be happy to explain that in more detail if need be.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 26, 2015 20:43:32 GMT -5
So, Tucker and I were talking last night and he suggested the idea of tweaking the Gold plan. Instead of giving teams points for every win and draw after they get eliminated, we give points based on how many categories they win after getting eliminated. You get eliminated in the final week of the season, no points. You didn't win any categories after getting eliminated. You get eliminated in the second to last week, and win 7 categories in the final week, you get 7 points. You get eliminated with two weeks remaining, and then in those two weeks your scores are goes 3-9 and 7-5, you get 10 points (3 + 7). More points pick first.
I calculated what our draft order would have been for the 2016 draft using the 2015 final standings. For this exercise I assumed 6 playoff teams per league, since that's what we'll be doing next year. In the case of ties on points, the team that finished with the worst record picked first. If still tied, I used previous year’s record. Playoff teams draft last no matter what.
Hypothetical Draft order using Gold plan. Points = stat categories won after elimination from playoff contention. WAE = weeks after elimination, the number of weeks remaining in the season when they were eliminated (how long they had to accumulate points):
I have a lot of thoughts, observations, and conclusions to add, and in fact I already typed them up and posted them, but I'm going to remove them for now. To put it simply, I think it's fantastic. I think it preserves the purpose of the draft - to allow teams who are down on their luck a chance to get back in it - while removing the incentive to tank. But that's all I'm going to say for now because I want you to form your own thoughts. Look over the draft order and think about it. Think about where teams ended up and why, and make your own conclusions about whether you think this is an improvement, and then let's talk about whether this is a change we should make. I think it's worth a try.
Last Edit: Dec 26, 2015 21:10:10 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Max (Tigers GM) on Dec 26, 2015 22:29:19 GMT -5
Comparing the hypothetical draft order above to our actual order for the upcoming Rule V and 2016 amateur drafts, I like this a lot...a whole lot. Curious to know what the rest of group thinks. This is something I'd like put to a vote and made actionable for 2017. Not a lot of 2017 draft picks traded so far so the impact is likely minimal.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Dec 26, 2015 22:35:05 GMT -5
I'm ok with this system. My only concern is trading for picks. When you make a deal your relying on a team to continue competing. If they don't you have a legitimate gripe with the commissioners. I'm also a fan of only dealing picks one year ahead of time instead of two. It's hard to keep track on our end. Let alone the commissioners.
I'm ok with this system. My only concern is trading for picks. When you make a deal your relying on a team to continue competing. If they don't you have a legitimate gripe with the commissioners. I'm also a fan of only dealing picks one year ahead of time instead of two. It's hard to keep track on our end. Let alone the commissioners.
Good point, and one I hadn't really considered. But at least there's no incentive for those teams not to try.
If we're only allowing picks to be traded one year in advance, then there's really only a one month window where it's even a concern. 2018 picks won't be allowed to be traded until after the 2017 trade deadline passes (beginning of August). By the end of August the 2017 regular season ends and the 2018 draft order is set. So there's really only one month where it becomes a concern. During that one month, buyer beware I guess.
Post by Billy (Cardinals GM) on Dec 27, 2015 5:31:52 GMT -5
One concern I have is that in the above example, there are a number of teams that have close to a .500 record and one team with a winning record in the top end of the draft. Also, 5 of the top 10 teams were eliminated with four or less weeks to go. Those teams, to me, are boarderline playoff teams or teams that don't need much more to put themselves into playoff contention. I don't see why a team like that should be able to get a top 5 pick over a team who was truly out of the race.
The problem I have with systems like this is that there is no way to really prove if someone is tanking. Sometimes (and I honestly think most of the time) teams are just bad or have a stretch of bad luck that lead them to having a poor season. I would hate to see teams who were legitimately bad miss out on a possible impact player that could help turn their team around.
We should be dissuading teams from tanking. Not penalizing bad teams for actually being bad which I fear this would do. I don't have that solution but I would rather try to find a way to target tanking instead of just assuming the teams are tanking.
The problem I have with systems like this is that there is no way to really prove if someone is tanking. Sometimes (and I honestly think most of the time) teams are just bad or have a stretch of bad luck that lead them to having a poor season. I would hate to see teams who were legitimately bad miss out on a possible impact player that could help turn their team around.
We should be dissuading teams from tanking. Not penalizing bad teams for actually being bad which I fear this would do. I don't have that solution but I would rather try to find a way to target tanking instead of just assuming the teams are tanking.
See, I think that's exactly why this system works - it dissuades without penalizing. It's not about penalizing teams for being bad, it's about taking away the incentive. I'm not looking to change the 2016 draft order here, but to change the system for next year so that finishing with the worst record is no longer the goal.
One concern I have is that in the above example, there are a number of teams that have close to a .500 record and one team with a winning record in the top end of the draft. Also, 5 of the top 10 teams were eliminated with four or less weeks to go. Those teams, to me, are boarderline playoff teams or teams that don't need much more to put themselves into playoff contention. I don't see why a team like that should be able to get a top 5 pick over a team who was truly out of the race.
In a league with 22 weeks, getting eliminated with 4 weeks to go is getting eliminated with 18.2% of the season remaining. In a 162 game season that's like getting eliminated with 29 games remaining. You know how many teams were eliminated with 29 games remaining IRL this year? One: the Reds.
I don't think that teams eliminated with 4 weeks to go are borderline playoff teams. The Marlins in our league were eliminated with 3 weeks to go. I don't think the Marlins were a borderline playoff team. In week 14 the Marlins were 5-8 while the Mets, who finished with the worst playoff record in the NL, were leading the division at 9-3-1. There were 8 weeks remaining in the season. The Marlins may not have been mathematically eliminated until 3 weeks were remaining, but there was no way they were making up 4.5 games in 8 weeks. They finished 9-13, for a .409 wpct. In a 162 game season that translates to 66-96. That's not a borderline playoff team.
Last Edit: Dec 27, 2015 8:16:38 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
The problem I have with systems like this is that there is no way to really prove if someone is tanking.
I'm going to take this opportunity to address the elephant in the room: the team that has been quite obvious about the fact that they're "legally tanking" for the last 2 years. There's a team in this league that 2 years in a row has sold so many major league pieces in-season for future talent (prospects, picks, and injured major leaguers who couldn't help them in that season) that they couldn't make the innings minimum the vast majority of the season, had a redshirt lifted because they had no coverage, and once had to be warned in-season about benching players who were actually playing. Benching players is the only thing on that list that is explicitly against any written rule in the league, and that's a big problem. Having a bare-bones roster with more holes in it than swiss cheese is completely unrealistic (something we strive for in this league), it's unfair to any team that didn't get the "automatic win" of playing them or only got it once while other teams got it twice, and it's quite frankly insulting to all of the other hard-working GMs in this league, especially the ones who still fielded full roster when they weren't truly trying to compete. This team deliberately went this route because they knew it wasn't explicitly forbidden, which was a sound strategy (not necessarily one the rest of the league likes or respects but a sound strategy nonetheless). The big problem is that this team got rewarded for tanking both years with the #1 and #2 seeds in the draft order respectively, and quite frankly it's not right. With no written rule in place that discourages or forbids what this team did, there was nothing the commissioners could do about these actions, even if we did feel they violated the spirit of the rules. This change would not only discourage such action, but penalize it in the draft order. I'm all for any solution that discourages future instances of "legal tanking" as I think it's in the best interest of the league that it never happen again.
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Dec 27, 2015 9:24:24 GMT -5
Brian, I agree with you completely. If we go ahead with this system for he future it would ensure that a team couldn't "tank" and be rewarded.
But I think it needs to go further then that. When teams don't want to field a full roster it allows other teams to hoard major league talent. Year after year we have say 8-10 teams or so with enough players to field almost 2 full lineups. That's in part from having 3-5 teams at the bottom not bothering to sign anyone in free agency and roll into the season with a ton of cap space.
The team your mentioning also went from appearing in the World Series and getting a discount to signing a good majority of players then trading them all to ensure he got talent back and a high pick. I think this is also a problem. We need some sort of rule that ensures a team cannot trade away players if they do not have someone either coming back in the trade or someone able to replace the moving parts.
Your exactly right that it isn't fair to certain teams that only get to play these teams once or get the advantage of playing them after they have sold. There has to be a way that doesn't let a GM trade away players if it cannot field a full lineup. It would allow them to be more active in free agency as well. I'm not talking long term cap hell. Guys are signed to one year deals all the time as a bridge to younger talent coming up.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 27, 2015 10:32:26 GMT -5
I think it's a helpful exercise to split the league up and look at who is potentially helped and hurt by this system. And I think you can basically split the league into four tiers.
Tier one is the playoff teams. These teams get the latest picks in the draft, as it should be.
Tier two consists of the teams that didn't make the playoffs, but finished at or above .500. In other words, the other contenders. This past season, it's the Astros, Indians, Dodgers, Yankees, White Sox, Padres, and Orioles. In the new 3 wild card system, the first four would have made the playoffs, leaving the White Sox, Padres, and Orioles as the teams that just missed. The current draft order has these teams picking 16-18. The new system would have them picking 13-18 - a small potential to move up, but more or less the same range. These teams aren't really affected by the change - they just don't have the time to pick up enough points to close the gap to the teams that got eliminated before them.
Tier three consists of the teams that finished with between 5 and 9 wins. These teams had losing records and really weren't all that close to making the playoffs. But they still put respectable lineups out there and managed to win some games. These are the teams that have the potential to benefit most from the new system, which is exactly what we want - they're still struggling, they need a nice infusion of good talent (which is the purpose of the draft), but they're trying, and they should be rewarded for it. In the current system these teams pick 6-15. In the new system they could pick anywhere from 1st to 17th. It all depends how much they stay on top of their minor leagues and their bench and lineups, how much they use free agency to their advantage, and whether or not they make sure that if they're trading away talent they have a suitable replacement in place. These teams may not have anything meaningful to play for, but for the league to work, they need to keep playing anyway. The Gold plan gives them something to play for - these teams would be playing meaningful games up to the last day of the season, trying to win as many categories as they can so that they can try to earn those top draft picks. Instead of 15 apathetic teams, we have 15 teams battling it out every single week.
Tier four consists of the teams that finished with between 0 and 2 wins: Athletics, Diamondbacks, Red Sox, Twins, and Nationals. This is the problem we're trying to address - teams shouldn't be winning less than 10% of their games. But the thing about these teams is they're not really any worse off than the teams in the tier above them. In fact, for the most part, their future outlook is better. Look at the Athletics and Diamondbacks - between them they've managed to win one game in the last two years combined. 88 chances, 1 win. But is anyone worried about these teams' futures? I'm not. Both teams have plenty of strong future assets in both the majors and minors. Both have smart, strategic owners at the helm who have made the smart, strategic decision to focus on building for the future. Why waste resources and energy on fielding a respectable team when the only reward for that is a pat on the back and a lower draft pick? We don't need to help these teams build for the future by giving them the number one picks. They're already helping themselves: Jose Abreu, Sonny Gray, Orlando Arcia, Tyler Glasnow, Devin Mesoraco, Mookie Betts, AJ Reed, Franklin Barreto, Julio Urias, the Diamondbacks' entire rotation... and the top two picks in next year's draft. These teams are wisely spending their cap on long-term assets like international free agents (Athletics) or on potential trade pieces that they trade away as soon as possible for prospects (Diamondbacks). Or they were active sellers at the deadline (Red Sox) or last offseason (Twins). Or maybe they just didn't have an active owner for the majority of the season, and once one showed up they were in much better shape (Red Sox, Nationals). And how can we blame any of them when the system rewards them for it? How can we criticize them for it one day and then give them the top draft picks the next? These teams aren't the problem, the system is. The Athletics, Red Sox, and Diamondbacks end up with the 9th, 10th, and 11th pick in the Gold plan. That sounds about right to me. But they can still earn the top picks if they decide to make a greater effort. The Nationals prove that: they had a 0.088 winning percentage when Jamie took over. Jamie's first moves were calling up major league starters like Billy Burns and Miguel Sano who were rotting in the minors and putting them into the lineup. Over the final five weeks of the season they had a much more respectable 0.400 winning percentage. As a result, they dropped two spots in the draft order. In the gold plan, those moves earn the Nationals 32 points and the third overall pick. If Jamie joined two weeks earlier and made those moves then, the Nats could very well have picked up an additional 8 points and finished first overall. That's the kind of play that the Gold plan rewards.
The system is broken. The way to fix it is by taking away the incentive to lose. The Gold plan does that. Teams who are down on their luck still end up with the earlier picks, but it's the teams who are down on their luck but keep trying who end up with the best picks, while the teams who throw in the towel completely end up behind them. I don't blame teams who in the past have recognized they have no chance and have decided to direct their resources elsewhere - the system not only allowed them to do it, but actively encouraged it. But it was an unfair system, and it's time to make a change.
Last Edit: Dec 27, 2015 10:45:49 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
Post by Jon (Astros GM) on Dec 27, 2015 10:45:55 GMT -5
If the gold plan fixes the issue of teams not signing guys to fill out a roster then I'm all for it. But we also need to find a way to ensure that guys can't just trade away players and still not be able to field a lineup. One or even two spots is acceptable but my worry is teams that do that will effect a playoff race even though they are being penalized with a worse draft position.
The problem I have with systems like this is that there is no way to really prove if someone is tanking. Sometimes (and I honestly think most of the time) teams are just bad or have a stretch of bad luck that lead them to having a poor season. I would hate to see teams who were legitimately bad miss out on a possible impact player that could help turn their team around.
We should be dissuading teams from tanking. Not penalizing bad teams for actually being bad which I fear this would do. I don't have that solution but I would rather try to find a way to target tanking instead of just assuming the teams are tanking.
See, I think that's exactly why this system works - it dissuades without penalizing. It's not about penalizing teams for being bad, it's about taking away the incentive. I'm not looking to change the 2016 draft order here, but to change the system for next year so that finishing with the worst record is no longer the goal.
It may not intentionally penalize teams for being bad but it could very well do so. For example, with the new system, outside the top 10 picks there are two teams at 6-16, one team that had two wins and one team that had one win. Then there is one team with no wins drafting 9th. Now, these teams may be set up well in the future as is or may have tried to tank. But every season is different and every teams situation is different. I don't think it's wise to just rely on records when this situation deals with subjectiveness and can really only be looked at on a team by team basis since every team is different.
I'll use my team as an example since I think I can judge it fairly. I tried to field a team all season. I even made trades that involved me getting roster players back so I could have as few holes as possible. I don't think my team should have a top 5 pick because I think there are teams that are in a worse situation than me. But I also don't think I should pick right before a team that was eliminated with two weeks to go and another that barely missed the playoffs and right after a team with a .500 record and three picks after a team that was two games over .500. I dropped down from 7th to 16th while teams that lasted longer and were closer to the playoffs got into the top 10. I think anywhere from 7th to 12th would be fair for me but 16th is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.
I don't want to make it sound like I'm complaining just because I would drop in this situation (this would be set up for the 2017 draft anyway). I'm really more concerned with the teams that had really bad records that are now outside the top 5 and in some cases the top 10. Unless there is definitive proof that all these teams were trying to tank, this system is unintentionally penalizing them for legitimately being a poor team that needed help.
One concern I have is that in the above example, there are a number of teams that have close to a .500 record and one team with a winning record in the top end of the draft. Also, 5 of the top 10 teams were eliminated with four or less weeks to go. Those teams, to me, are boarderline playoff teams or teams that don't need much more to put themselves into playoff contention. I don't see why a team like that should be able to get a top 5 pick over a team who was truly out of the race.
In a league with 22 weeks, getting eliminated with 4 weeks to go is getting eliminated with 18.2% of the season remaining. In a 162 game season that's like getting eliminated with 29 games remaining. You know how many teams were eliminated with 29 games remaining IRL this year? One: the Reds.
I don't think that teams eliminated with 4 weeks to go are borderline playoff teams. The Marlins in our league were eliminated with 3 weeks to go. I don't think the Marlins were a borderline playoff team. In week 14 the Marlins were 5-8 while the Mets, who finished with the worst playoff record in the NL, were leading the division at 9-3-1. There were 8 weeks remaining in the season. The Marlins may not have been mathematically eliminated until 3 weeks were remaining, but there was no way they were making up 4.5 games in 8 weeks. They finished 9-13, for a .409 wpct. In a 162 game season that translates to 66-96. That's not a borderline playoff team.
Fair enough. But those teams that were eliminated with 3 or 4 weeks left were closer than teams that were eliminated with 5, 6 or 7 weeks left. The teams in the first category are leaping over teams in the second and are now picking in the top 10 and top 5 in the new order.
Post by Greg (Reds GM) on Dec 27, 2015 13:47:07 GMT -5
Could we do a modified "tiered" version of Ben's plan, when the teams with the 10 worst records are guaranteed a Top 10 pick, but their order is determined by the points system Ben set up? (The tier 2 teams - those ranked with the 11th - 18th worst records, would similiarly be ranked against each other to determine picks # 11 - 18);
The problem I have with systems like this is that there is no way to really prove if someone is tanking.
I'm going to take this opportunity to address the elephant in the room: the team that has been quite obvious about the fact that they're "legally tanking" for the last 2 years. There's a team in this league that 2 years in a row has sold so many major league pieces in-season for future talent (prospects, picks, and injured major leaguers who couldn't help them in that season) that they couldn't make the innings minimum the vast majority of the season, had a redshirt lifted because they had no coverage, and once had to be warned in-season about benching players who were actually playing. Benching players is the only thing on that list that is explicitly against any written rule in the league, and that's a big problem. Having a bare-bones roster with more holes in it than swiss cheese is completely unrealistic (something we strive for in this league), it's unfair to any team that didn't get the "automatic win" of playing them or only got it once while other teams got it twice, and it's quite frankly insulting to all of the other hard-working GMs in this league, especially the ones who still fielded full roster when they weren't truly trying to compete. This team deliberately went this route because they knew it wasn't explicitly forbidden, which was a sound strategy (not necessarily one the rest of the league likes or respects but a sound strategy nonetheless). The big problem is that this team got rewarded for tanking both years with the #1 and #2 seeds in the draft order respectively, and quite frankly it's not right. With no written rule in place that discourages or forbids what this team did, there was nothing the commissioners could do about these actions, even if we did feel they violated the spirit of the rules. This change would not only discourage such action, but penalize it in the draft order. I'm all for any solution that discourages future instances of "legal tanking" as I think it's in the best interest of the league that it never happen again.
I agree 100% that this a problem that needs to be dealt with and the team shoud be penalized. But unless there are other teams that have done the same thing, it is an isolated incident. Maybe I'm just ignorant to it so someone who knows better can correct me, but I haven't noticed many teams doing this.
This is why I think doing something like changing how to draft is handled is excessive. We'd be chancing an entire system for isolated incidents that should be dealt with individually since every team is different.
I think we need to have a set example of what tanking looks like in our league. If we are able to outline that, then we can take steps to dealing with it on an individual basis. I think our definition should include:
1. Leaving available players in the bench 2. Trading away players to create empty spots on the team 3. Not attempting to fill out your roster in the offseason.
If it was this obvious that a team in our league has been tanking, then I don't see why we need to change the system. It seems to me that we need a penalty system for these teams rather than a complete change to out draft system that has the potential to affect innocent teams. We should be taking measures like pushing these teams picks back to the end of the round or have the teams lose the pick completely. We have a few great people in charge of the operation of the league. I trust their judgement 100% and think they are perfectly capable of analyzing the situations individually and making a decision. If we can come up with an outline of what tanking is, it would be very easy for the commissioners to identify teams who are doing it and penalize them individually.
Post by Ben (Rays GM) on Dec 27, 2015 14:52:56 GMT -5
Billy, I think you're looking at this the wrong way. The teams that finished with 0 to 2 wins all could have done better. The teams that finished with 5 to 9 wins also could have done better. Most teams could have done better if they'd been motivated to do so. There were players out there that were unsigned who could have helped these teams, or even just sitting in the minors doing nothing, as the Nationals showed. It's not about penalizing teams for what happened, it's about giving teams an incentive to take a different approach.
Take your team for example: the final five weeks of the season you didn't meet the IP requirement, and you really only had two regular starters in your lineup in Frazier and Peralta. Not that I blame you for it though - the old system not only allowed it, it actively encouraged it! This system isn't designed to penalize you for that, it's designed so that next year when you're trading away players like Mauer, Lagares, and Morse at the deadline you need to consider what happens to your team for the rest of the season.
*****
Greg, I like the tiered approach except for one small problem: suddenly, it becomes a lot better to finish with the 10th worst record than the 11th worst record. Instead of teams tanking in order to be last, you have teams tanking in order to be 10th from last.
So I have a solution that would achieve a similar goal and hopefully address both of your concerns: Teams get 1 point for every stat category they win after elimination, and one automatic point for every week of the season in which they're mathematically eliminated. For example, the Cardinals were eliminated with 5 weeks to go in the season, so that's 5 points right there plus the 6 points they earned in those five weeks. So now the draft order becomes:
A side by side comparison with the old order shows that the worst teams get a little bit of a boost this way: the Athletics, Diamondbacks, Red Sox, Twins, and Cardinals all moved up a bit. It just weights things slightly more in favor of the lowest teams.
Last Edit: Dec 27, 2015 14:59:30 GMT -5 by Ben (Rays GM)
