|
|
Post by Dodgers GM (Rob) on Mar 20, 2015 10:06:54 GMT -5
I have read some of the concerns in the Rules update that I made, so I spent some time over night and decided I will let you the members decide. Whichever one gets the majority of votes will be the rule. Please pick the one that you truly feel applies to you. If the last choice has the majority then the rule will be altered as I see fit. Please take the time to make your decision.
In the poll if you like the 15-22 have a playoff for the number 1 pick and worst team to 5th worst team get lottery picks 2-6 and the rest of the picks are done by worst to first then please press some other suggestion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 10:17:47 GMT -5
Bottom 6 teams go into lottery and 16 teams that did not make the playoffs go to Consolation Playoffs.  |
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 20, 2015 10:23:25 GMT -5
Skip the lottery entirely, and let all teams that miss the playoffs go into a consolation derby, just for the heck of it.
Who cares, anyway? The object is to win the league. The rest is just soggy french fries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Scott) on Mar 20, 2015 10:55:58 GMT -5
Bottom 6 teams go into lottery and 16 teams that did not make the playoffs go to Consolation Playoffs. I think Tim has mentioned something like this. Teams 15-22 go into a consolation for the number one pick and teams 1-5 go into a lottery for the 2-6 picks. Everyone else reverse order. I kind of like that. Bad teams are still assured a top 6 pick and teams that are good but not quite good enough to make the playoffs have a reason to not tank and try and get into the consolation for the 1st pick. |
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 20, 2015 11:23:34 GMT -5
That, Sir, is a bad idea. Preposterously bad idea.
Why would teams 15-22 be given a ticket for the Rd #1.1 pick? While the worst teams -- the most in need of the pick!!! -- end up with their wands in their hands?
The way you propose it, Team #30 in the standings could end up with pick #6 and Team #15 gets the prize pick in the draft. There are usually (on average) two or three can't-miss players in any draft; the rest are lottery chances. The bottom teams don't need lottery selections -- they need real Can't Miss frickin' prospects.
Isn't there any simple logic left here? It is not that complicated. Team #30 through Team #1 should get picks #1.1 through #1.30.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodgers GM (Rob) on Mar 20, 2015 11:27:11 GMT -5
He means 15-22 battle it out for the #1 Seed and Worst to 5th worst have a lottery for picks 2-6. The rest of the picks will be worst record. If you want this idea you can vote for it under some other suggestion or item number 4 in the poll.
I know a lot of you have been out spoken about the rule change that I made and if you want to voice your displeasure about it please do. I am the league manager, but I also want to hear feedback from everybody. We want to make this the best league out there and that doesn't happen unless everyone voices there concerns. So if you don't like something tell me. Voice your concerns. I am pretty reasonable person and I just want to make sure that all concerns are heard and that we can come to an understanding that appeases everyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 12:56:54 GMT -5
For the record if I could vote twice I'd do A & C. I went A cause I like it best. Would be fine with C tho also.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 13:19:27 GMT -5
How about an evenly weighted lottery for the worst 10 teams? It denies a team the ability to tank and still rewards teams that need the help.
|
|
|
|
Post by z - Tim on Mar 20, 2015 17:23:55 GMT -5
I think the problem is that bottom teams in the standings are not the worst teams or the teams most needing a pick. The worst teams are often in in the 5-15 zone. The teams at the bottom are frequently decent teams that just gamed the system by selling off to get a good pick. Reverse standings rewards teams for tanking but doesn't give the top picks to worst teams (the teams with the least talent). We don't need to reward teams just because they sold off all their major leaguers and at the same time put them ahead of teams with a lot less talent. It's a strange system to have the puck be a reward for who can move as much talent from their majors to their minors.
Some teams have suggested requir by some minimum MLB requirements, perhaps something like minimum innings or ABs. That would work (you couldn't sell off all you MLBers and still get a pick), not sure we want to take away the ability to sell off tho, we just don't want to reward it with pick priority.
There are some other ideas out there too. I think Serge suggested we not all a top5 pick in back to back years. That cut down on the ability to game the system serially and give the true worst teams a better shot at getting a top pick. A top 6 or top 10 lottery only helps some of the true worst teams get a better chance at a top pick instead of just the ones gaming the system. Both of those options would be more modest than a full lotto.
Also fwiw, I don't mind managers gaming the system. I just think if we know that managers will and it will keep the worst teams from getting the top picks then we should remove or reduce that system gameability.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 18:24:34 GMT -5
If that is true, let's vote on the worst teams at the end of the season and give them picks in that order.
|
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 20, 2015 18:34:22 GMT -5
Seems a huge and probably erroneous ascertion to say which teams are strong and which are weak, except as the standings define them as such. If teams "tank" by pi=urging their team of players, how can you say they are strong teams -- when they have no frickin players?
And how about those teams that finish 5 to 15 in the standing? Why aren't they simply good teams that tanked to get into 5 to 15? We'd like to see some evidence to support the teams you say are the weak ones are hanging out in the 5 to 15 slots waiting to be saved by this "system"; and please show us how the bottom teams are really good teams in disguise, trying to play the system.
Why aren't teams trying to get into slots 5 to 15 by "tanking" to get the picks in that range?
Otherwise, the only credible way to measure a team's talent is wins. It's the same way measure teams at the top of the standings.
If there is a crazier idea than giving the teams in slots 5 to 15 the premium picks, it's the idea of everyone voting who to give the picks to. This would all be hugely funny, if it were not so weird and over-thought.
It's simple to give the worst teams the picks they deserve by final standings.
|
|
|
|
Post by z - Tim on Mar 20, 2015 19:00:54 GMT -5
The bottom teams are often not the worst teams. They are just the ones that tanked. Selling off doesn't mean anyone "deserves" a pick, it just means they've gamed the system. There are plenty of times in league like this where the teams at the bottom of the standings are much more valuable in terms of talent than the teams that finished ahead of them in the standings. Reverse order doesn't send the picks to the teams that need them most, but rather the teams that are willing to sell off all their major leaguers to get them.
|
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 20, 2015 19:19:21 GMT -5
" There are plenty of times in league like this where the teams at the bottom of the standings are much more valuable in terms of talent than the teams that finished ahead of them in the standings."
By tanking you mean they surrendered their players or a big portion of them to drop low enough in the standings to garner a top pick? If they gave up their players, what's left of the club would seem a pretty crumby bunch at best -- maybe no players at all.
How is that team (or those teams) stronger than the ones in slots 5 to 15?
We are not saying it's a totally defensible strategy, only that by retaining no MLB players (or few enough of them to finish last), they are a pretty vulnerable club long term, dependent only on their farm system. It will take lots of luck and good management to make the team strong again. Why isn't that a viable alternative strategy? Your idea to withhold picks from teams with that approach seems more punitive. Plus, other clubs at the bottom may not have employed that system of dumping players -- maybe there are some bad teams mixed in at the bottom of the standing?
|
|
|
|
Post by z - Tim on Mar 20, 2015 19:33:53 GMT -5
There's no need to defend it if the rules allow it.
I'm just saying a lot of the teams at the bottom are much better placed and more valuable than the teams above them, so they don't "deserve" the picks anymore than other teams. We create a system that incentives teams to sell off major leaguers to get picks if we do pure bottom of standings. And then the picks don't really get allocated to the teams most in need. But rather just the teams that sell off major leaguers, even those same teams can often be stocked with much more talent than the teams above them in the standings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 23:10:38 GMT -5
Guapo.
I don't want anything but a no lottery or bottom 5 lottery but you have to at least respect the opinion of the guys running the league. I don't think the thoughts are ignorant.
I'm pretty sure he is saying you could deal away MLB talent that is producing current stats for much more valuable prospects and future talent, be the "better" team but finish "worse" by the standings and "earn" but not deserve the one pick.
I don't think he likes that approach. Personally if your making the effort to contend long term and your strategy provides you the top pick I'm ok with it as long as your involved and making effort.
If teams are just benching there players or leaving players accumulating stats on the bench just 2 get a higher pick then that's when they should just be called out for lack of activity and eventually removed.
I voted for no lottery but only because I'm not very trusting to the random part of it(my own issues not a shot at the admin) but honestly think that the 5 lottery system best fits a compromise for everyone
|
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Ben) on Mar 21, 2015 4:39:40 GMT -5
I could live with either system, but have voted in favour of a straight draft order. I agree with the idea of trying to stop people straight tanking by not filling out a line-up card and benching good players in the final weeks if a season just to win the No 1 pick. But I think it should be okay to do an Astros and to trade MLB for MiLB on a strategic basis. I actually think that rewarding that strategy is no bad thing, as it incentivises people having a strategy for rebuilding rather than slumming around near the bottom with no plan and creating a league with a few very good teams and a lot of mediocre ones. A look at the real big leagues kind of supports that in my view- I find MLB more interesting when teams like the Cubs and Astros adopt a strategy that gives them a chance to be great, rather than a league full of teams just forever treading water (think pre-AA Jays). So I am happy to go with straight draft order, and perhaps just to amend the rules on manager conduct to make it clear that straight benching good players is not cool. If, the problem develops we can always vote for anew system to address it in the future (with a proper intro time before any new rule takes effect).
Just my thoughts though and, as I say, could live with either of the lead options. Also sympathise with the league orgs for trying to get things right.
|
|
|
|
Post by z - El Guapo - retired on Mar 21, 2015 5:02:40 GMT -5
Guapo. I don't want anything but a no lottery or bottom 5 lottery but you have to at least respect the opinion of the guys running the league. I don't think the thoughts are ignorant. I'm pretty sure he is saying you could deal away MLB talent that is producing current stats for much more valuable prospects and future talent, be the "better" team but finish "worse" by the standings and "earn" but not deserve the one pick. I don't think he likes that approach. Personally if your making the effort to contend long term and your strategy provides you the top pick I'm ok with it as long as your involved and making effort. If teams are just benching there players or leaving players accumulating stats on the bench just 2 get a higher pick then that's when they should just be called out for lack of activity and eventually removed. I voted for no lottery but only because I'm not very trusting to the random part of it(my own issues not a shot at the admin) but honestly think that the 5 lottery system best fits a compromise for everyone Your point about benching active players and otherwise demonstrating an underhanded approach to acquiring the top pick (or one of the top picks) is a very different matter. If that is what we are trying to solve, then let's solve that and not break out a pneumatic hammer to squash a fly. Lots of legit teams may be in the road when the draft lottery bus roars through town. Some consideration should be given to legit teams that happen to have bad years, had a lot of injuries or are just poorly put together. Reverse Order is the only safe way to ensure everyone's record speaks for itself. If the LMs want to come up with some way to monitor for "tanking", single out violators and punish them, that's another matter. Some wording in the league constitution or charter should cover those cases, not the draft. Tanking is odious. We currently run a league and have run several over the years. Identifying tankers and punitive action against them is always a concern. Write up a simple rule. Pretty sure everyone is watching the standings. Easy to have someone blow whistle when he sees something ain't right with Team A's line-up; he hasn't made any SP available this week, or he has three DL players in his line-up and fine players on the bench, etc. Set a penalty for clear violations, monitor it properly and be done with it. Even a phrase like "We are watching, and violators will forfeit their Round #1 FYP Draft pick" should suffice. Doing all this gymnastics and contortions with the draft is not really necessary. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 9:49:44 GMT -5
Guapo. I don't want anything but a no lottery or bottom 5 lottery but you have to at least respect the opinion of the guys running the league. I don't think the thoughts are ignorant. I'm pretty sure he is saying you could deal away MLB talent that is producing current stats for much more valuable prospects and future talent, be the "better" team but finish "worse" by the standings and "earn" but not deserve the one pick. I don't think he likes that approach. Personally if your making the effort to contend long term and your strategy provides you the top pick I'm ok with it as long as your involved and making effort. If teams are just benching there players or leaving players accumulating stats on the bench just 2 get a higher pick then that's when they should just be called out for lack of activity and eventually removed. I voted for no lottery but only because I'm not very trusting to the random part of it(my own issues not a shot at the admin) but honestly think that the 5 lottery system best fits a compromise for everyone Your point about benching active players and otherwise demonstrating an underhanded approach to acquiring the top pick (or one of the top picks) is a very different matter. If that is what we are trying to solve, then let's solve that and not break out a pneumatic hammer to squash a fly. Lots of legit teams may be in the road when the draft lottery bus roars through town. Some consideration should be given to legit teams that happen to have bad years, had a lot of injuries or are just poorly put together. Reverse Order is the only safe way to ensure everyone's record speaks for itself. If the LMs want to come up with some way to monitor for "tanking", single out violators and punish them, that's another matter. Some wording in the league constitution or charter should cover those cases, not the draft. Tanking is odious. We currently run a league and have run several over the years. Identifying tankers and punitive action against them is always a concern. Write up a simple rule. Pretty sure everyone is watching the standings. Easy to have someone blow whistle when he sees something ain't right with Team A's line-up; he hasn't made any SP available this week, or he has three DL players in his line-up and fine players on the bench, etc. Set a penalty for clear violations, monitor it properly and be done with it. Even a phrase like "We are watching, and violators will forfeit their Round #1 FYP Draft pick" should suffice. Doing all this gymnastics and contortions with the draft is not really necessary. Concur with Guapo. Strategy (such as trading near term for long term assets) versus not setting lineups, moving players off of the DL etc. (inactivity) are what my feelings are against. Punishments can be set for inactivity whether indifferent or purposeful, of an owner. Let's not punish the owner that decides to trade off current assets for future assets if that's his/her strategy to build his/her team. |
|
|
|
Post by Angels GM (Scott) on Mar 21, 2015 9:58:29 GMT -5
Hey guys. Just want to take a second to thank Rob for leaving this up to the entire league for a vote. This won't be the case everytime there is a rules change or an update/edit/clarification, but clearly this was a highly contentious issue for many people in this league. Leaving this up to league vote, in this circumstance, is probably the correct decision. I just hope everyone accepts the final outcome and moves on to enjoying what should be a highly competetive first year in this league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 11:36:42 GMT -5
I will second that. Thanks Rob. I get the rationale behind the proposed rule change, regardless of whether I agree with it. I actually happen to have a much more moderate opinion than many other owners and wouldn't be offended either way. It was clearly aimed at making the league competitive. Still, a rule change this controversial this early in the league is a good thing to open up to feedback. That's some quality commishing there.
|
|
