| 0 |
Subject: G20 2014 Rules discussion/voting
Posted by: beastiemiked
- [5911312710] Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 13:36
Proposal 1
"Lottery Luck" rule:
This rule would prevent a team from winning the lottery(picks 1-3) in back to back years. It would apply to both drafts(prospect and supplemental) but both would be independent of each other. For example, if you won the lottery in the 2015 supplemental draft you would be ineligible to win a top 3 pick in the 2016 supplemental draft. However, you would still be eligible to win the lottery in the 2015 prospect draft assuming you hadn't also won the lottery in the 2014 prospect draft.
This rule would go in affect for at the start of 2016. Meaning teams that won the lottery this year would still be able to win the lottery next year.
Proposal 2
"Loser Fee"
If you are eligible for the prizepool and finish in last place, then you will be accessed a $5 fee. If rule is passed we can vote where the extra $5 will be distributed.
Proposal 3
"The Oscar Taveras Rule"
To help ensure the quality of p-drafts, the Oscar Taveras rule is enacted, starting for the 2015 season, impacting the 2016 p-draft. When a player meets these rules:
-Player is kept in year 1 (supplemental)
-Player plays in zero games in year 1
-Player is kept again in year 2 (supplemental)
Then the manager who kept the player in year 2 forfeits a prospect pick in year 2. It doesnt matter who kept the player in year 1 or if the player was unrostered at any point during year 1.
Under these rules, for example, BMD would forfeit a prospect pick if he kept Oscar Taveras in 2014 (although this wont start until next year).
Proposal 4
"Last week of season prospect rule"
If you had a prosepct-eligible player within the last week of the season, you are ineligible to draft that player in the upcoming Prospect Draft. |
| 1 | Ref
ID: 55156513
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 13:40
|
Proposal 1 and 2 have been expanded:
1. If you finish in the bottom three, in consecutive seasons, you will be ineligible to pick in the top three slots so the best you may select is 4th overall.
2. If you finish in the bottom three, you will be assessed a dues "fine" the following year as follows, 18th $5, 19th, $10, 20th $15.
|
| 2 | Ref
ID: 55156513
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 13:56
|
As for Proposal 3, I see where slizz is going with this. There are people being kept who have no business being kept and it subverts the P-draft.
I think all four of these proposals--esp the two expanded proposals--deal with teams tanking and trying to win the lottery on prospects. If it doesn't affect behavior than at least there is very minor penalties in place.
--Even if you finish last two years in a row, you are guaranteed to draft no later than 4th regardless. Even without the rule you may not draft in the top 3. This rule would simply ensure that.
--The "fines" would give disincentive to finish in the final three slots and you could have teams actually trying instead of giving up in the end. This has an effect on the league as that same team could have a direct impact on the standings at the top as well.
--Proposal 4 just helps the bottom teams from throwing a bunch of prospects on their teams then make sure they get one of them in the pdraft. I'd be happy to make it first round only to another way to help close this ploy.
|
| 3 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 14:00
|
Ref, I don't want either of those proposals expanded.
|
| 4 | Ref
ID: 55156513
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 14:18
|
bmd, I do, as do others. Maybe we will have to see if we want it, then vote on which one. I was reading others opinions and they made more sense to me. Your initial ideas deal more with luck rather than have any kind of penalty at all. $5 for last place to win over $100 the next year? I know the expanded proposals don't have a lot of teeth but yours really has no teeth at all.
|
| 5 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 14:33
|
There was little to no consensus when we discussed it earlier. Most were on the fence. If it's expanded to 3 slots it almost surely will get shot down. This one has a much better shot of passing.
Same with the lottery rule. It's of course about luck. Hence the name Lottery luck. Your rule is completely different.
|
| 6 | beastiemiked
ID: 5911312710
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 14:42
|
I was all about it in January but now don't really care either way. IMO, it's clear something needs to be done about tanking and/or teams not taking care of their teams(ie making regular lineup changes). However, most of the league doesn't seem to mind it as much as me. Maybe because most of the vocal one's finish near the top most years and always are fighting for the extra points regardless.
In hoops it's pretty bad. There's one team that has made 1 lineup change since november. A couple others are way below GP's limit yet still refuse to rotate guys in and out. I've started inactively tanking my team. I start my best starting lineup but am not going out of my way to make daily lineup changes. Why should I? So I can finish 14th instead of 17th?
|
| 7 | Ref
ID: 55156513
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 14:42
|
My proposal is purely about the last three slots and to help prevent tanking and having the bottom teams play until the end. If they continue to be at the bottom, then that's fine but they can't get the top 3 picks. Your proposal is saying 'hey, I know you finished 10th overall and you hit the lottery but you finished 17th the year before and you hit the lottery--so let's give someone else a chance to win it.'
|
| 8 | Ref
ID: 55156513
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 14:51
|
re: 6 I am 100% in agreement with you.
My thought is this, there are two types of teams who would be at the bottom two years in a row, the team who has no chance and is so far back that it is going to take a couple drafts to give them a chance, or the team who just went nuts to win it and their cupboard is bare so they are going to tank a couple years and try to win it for two or three years in a row after that.
The problem is that some teams have no motivation. Hell, we have teams giving up after the first month in baseball. Some don't even pay attn to their teams as they don't have the horses. This really affects the top teams battling it out in certain categories. It's not really about the money, heck it's only $15/ now. But any kind of incentive or disincnetive could help the league as a whole. Again, the team who is building up to win it all, probably wouldn't even care as it's not going to change how they do things, but if they have a chance to finish 18th instead of 20th and save $10 or even 18 to get to 17th, it could be interesting. The higher you go, the less chance you have to hit the lottery. I am open to whatever helps make this league more interesting.
|
| 9 | Toral
Leader
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 15:14
|
No
No
No
No
The solution to general tanking or amotivation is to have managers who take pride in doing well even when they know they aren't going to win.
How do we implement that? Hey we already have! We have a great team of managers who already do that!
Problem solved.
Toral
|
| 10 | GO
ID: 01020815
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 15:22
|
No
No
No
No
|
| 11 | Ref
ID: 55156513
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 15:31
|
9: While we have a lot of great managers. You watch what happens as the year progresses and some teams stop trying so much.
10: GO you contributed to this tanking rule and I think you are the one who sold me on it.
|
| 12 | GO
ID: 01020815
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 15:36
|
Yeah, I like it in some leagues, just don't think we necessarily need it in this one.
|
| 13 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 16:15
|
I don't think either of the first two proposals significantly address tanking - whether it's intentional (in hopes of better draft picks) or unintentional (my team isn't going to get into the top half of the league this year, so why bother.) The penalties just aren't very meaningful, and aren't likely to influence behavior.
I'd rather see some sort of penalties assessed for teams that fall well short of fielding an active everyday lineup. For example, establish a minimum IP requirement, and a minimum AB requirement. I'm not sure where those thresholds should be set, but any team that fails to meet both minimums incurs a significant penalty in the following year's draft seeding. At the extreme, teams failing to achieve the minimums would be out of the lotteries and would be seeded behind all lottery teams which met the minimum qualifications.
So if you finished last and failed to achieve the minimum usage levels, you could be "seeded" as high as 7th in the following year (if all 13 of the other lottery teams met the minimums.)
|
| 14 | darkside
ID: 81492120
Thu, Mar 06, 2014, 21:58
|
I really like the Guru suggestion. I also appreciate the effort to try to provide incentive to be as competitive as possible throughout the year. That said, I don't think I can get behind the first two proposals. I'll not vote against, but I don't think I'll vote for.
Abstain
Abstain
No
NO
I definitely think I'd vote for something along the lines of the minimums Guru suggested...
|
| 15 | youngroman
ID: 57047243
Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 04:54
|
1. NO
2. NO
3. NO
4. NO
about #1:
would also punish someone who finishes 12th in year 1 and wins the lottery by luck and finishes last in year 2 and would win the lottery by odds.
about #2:
I think the highest price you pay in this league is if you lose membership. It doesn't matter if the last place team has to pay $5 or $50. would this also be true for managers that don't participate in the prize pool?
what about:
If a manager finishes last in 2 consecutive years he will be replaced by a new manager. this means at least the manager that finished last needs to play for something. This could very well be extended to if a manager finishes in the bottom 3 in 3 consecutive years he gets the same treatment.
I also like the idea of some baseline that needs to be reached. Again I don't know if an additional fee alone is enough to prevent a manager from ignoring this baseline.
about #3:
I think the price is already a high one by being reduced to 8 keeper worthy players 2 years in a row. and such a prospect needs to justify that he is really that good. will be interesting to see how good Taveras really is and if it was worth it in the long term. we may say that only a maximum of 1 player without any experience can be kept that way as 1 of our 9 keepers. this prevents hoarding.
about #4:
there are a lot of players that auditioned for a role in September. Some of them end up on our teams because of the future potential and because they provide some meaningful stats down the road (like Khris Davis). In the offseason you discover that you have too many keeper candidates and can't keep all of the youngsters you have on your team and that you still like. You are then forced to not get one of them back in the 1st round of our prospect draft. sounds not right. We could word the rule like
"If you had a prospect-eligible player within the last week of the season and which did not appear in a game in that week, you are ineligible to draft that player in the upcoming prospect draft.".
|
| 16 | Nerfherders
ID: 161121811
Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 12:08
|
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
I do like Guru's minimum IP rule. We implemented that in my 10 team contract keeper league where if you don't get to 1200 IP (max is 1550), you get $2 taken off your salary cap.
I'm not sure what the minimums would be: 1000 IP and 1100 games?
|
| 17 | blue hen
ID: 4739168
Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 12:23
|
Love Guru's thinking in Post 13. However, if you don't work very hard (which is a likely cause of not hitting the minimums), your team is probably lousy. And if your team is lousy, and you're further penalized by picking 14th, you are likely to give up your team.
Which is great - we prefer people who actually try in this league.
However, you've kind of screwed the guy who takes over your team. Unless he's Wazaap Guy, he's probably finishing near the bottom. Which decreases his interest and starts a vicious cycle.
Just thinking out loud.
|
| 18 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 13:23
|
I guess we could say that the penalty only applies to returning managers. If an inactive manager drops out, the new managers goes into the lottery without penalties.
I really haven't thought about the proper minimums. I suggested ABs instead of GPs for hitters, because you could circumvent the intent by keeping pinch hitters or defensive replacements in the active lineup. But maybe that's overthinking.
The point is that while you can stash some "future talent" in bench slots, there needs to be a limit to that, and you have to try to field an active roster.
|
| 19 | Nerfherders
ID: 161121811
Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 17:36
|
One of the other reasons we implemented minimum IP was to eliminate the 'closer strategy' by tanking W and K for SV, ERA and WHIP. Its a legitimate strategy in some leagues but in a 10 teamer it was skewing the values of ERA and WHIP. We had a manager who was leading the league in both categories by a good margin while finishing with 900 IP.
|
| 20 | GoatLocker
Leader
ID: 060151121
Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 17:48
|
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
I also think there might be something there with what Guru is proposing, but have a real big concern about the proper minimums.
Remember, some of us have to set our rosters and 6 AM based on current info and have no chance to change things until we get home which is generally after the majority of the games have started for those of us on the West Coast.
|
| 21 | PeteN.
ID: 530592918
Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 22:58
|
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
|
| 22 | mjd
Dude
ID: 501381415
Fri, Mar 07, 2014, 23:12
|
No
No
No
No
Nothing to add, but I could support one or more of the above in another form.
|
| 23 | slizz
ID: 3013119
Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 12:32
|
Sorry, I haven't checked the "Baseball Leagues & Standings" Thread...
BMD - thanks for setting this up so it doesn't confuse the draft discussion.
1) No
2) No
3) Abstain (my proposal)
4) No
Implementing a minimums threshold would be something worth exploring.
|
| 24 | Judy
ID: 54203110
Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 19:59
|
1) no
2) no
3) no
4) no
Great discussions though...
|
| 25 | R9
ID: 41219518
Sat, Mar 08, 2014, 20:15
|
YR is right; $ fees just aren't going to be a big incentive, at least not the amounts proposed.
I like the idea of replacing managers who finish in the bottom 3 for 3 straight years, maybe even 2 straight years.
1) no
2) no
3) no
4) no
|
| 26 | Judy
ID: 54203110
Sun, Mar 09, 2014, 18:20
|
Noticing that some of the newly drafted prospects are not crossed out in the draftime database...
Could be very confusing...
|
| 27 | Species
ID: 6235110
Mon, Mar 17, 2014, 10:09
|
Checking in finally.
I think I count 9 sets of "no" with some abstentions in there (which might as well be a no).
Doesn't look like we'll see any of these pass.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: G20 2014 Rules discussion/voting
|