|
|
Tanking
Nov 18, 2019 16:20:22 GMT -6
Post by Rangers GM (Pete) on Nov 18, 2019 16:20:22 GMT -6
At this point I don't care what you guys decide to put in place. I just think, as other have said, it has to be clear and objective. I did support a lottery for the bottom group of teams or heaven forbid an upside down draft order plus supplemental competitive rounds for the bottom teams.
No need to argue or knock these suggestions, I was trying to dis-incentive someone to finish in last place, and think both has its merits.
I think relying on the TAB or others surfing Fantrax to find teams that are tanking and then trying to hold them accountable or decide why is an administrative nightmare and will create hard feelings because it is never going to be enforced or policed consistently, even with the best intentions.
It is kind of funny because for resigns the league moved to a very objective fair way of determining resign values that eliminates salesmanship or subjectivity. I think part of the problem is the statement I have seen a couple of times in the thread that says
"the issue isn't about whether you should be able to tank or not its about how you should have to tank." Maybe I am an idiot, but I have no idea what the means. So you can tank, you just have to tank in a certain way?? Maybe instead of trying to stop tanking, we need guidelines on how and when tanking is allowed??
Like I said, in the end of the day this is fantasy baseball, I will support some type of objective incentive/penalty or lottery or minimums or special anti tanking police force.
Let the hot stove begin!
|
|
|
|
Tanking
Nov 18, 2019 16:28:23 GMT -6
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Nov 18, 2019 16:28:23 GMT -6
"the issue isn't about whether you should be able to tank or not its about how you should have to tank." Maybe I am an idiot, but I have no idea what the means. So you can tank, you just have to tank in a certain way?? Maybe we need rules on how and when tanking is allowed?? Teams in RL tank that is reality. But they are not allowed to send out a line-up missing positions. They still have to field a 25-Man roster and take the field each day and "try" to win no matter how bad they might be. RL teams could not do what teams like Phillies and DBacks did last year where they basically played NO ONE AT ALL almost every single week. Now with fantasy comes strategic reasons to bench certain guys later in the week to perceive certain categories. Which is also a factor that needs to be taken into consideration. There is a lot of things mentioned here that we will have to go thru and decide what to present to the league it will likely be done in 2 parts where part 1 you could vote on all suggestions that you could live with. We would then take x # of those and narrow it down then the 2nd vote you would have to make a final pick on what you would like to see used. |
|
|
|
Tanking
Nov 20, 2019 20:59:56 GMT -6
Post by Rangers GM (Pete) on Nov 20, 2019 20:59:56 GMT -6
Funny side note, the other day I was listening to MLB Radio on my way to work on satellite. I forget who the hosts were, but there were talking about real life teams and tanking. Obvious issue is putting fans in the seats, but they talked about ideas to give other teams incentives to win or finish above .500, such as adding additional picks or international pool money. They also talked about penalizing teams that lose year over year with no obvious attempt to spend money and improve.
|
|
|
|
Tanking
Nov 25, 2019 12:45:56 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Phillies GM (Keith) on Nov 25, 2019 12:45:56 GMT -6
Funny side note, the other day I was listening to MLB Radio on my way to work on satellite. I forget who the hosts were, but there were talking about real life teams and tanking. Obvious issue is putting fans in the seats, but they talked about ideas to give other teams incentives to win or finish above .500, such as adding additional picks or international pool money. They also talked about penalizing teams that lose year over year with no obvious attempt to spend money and improve. The funniest thing about that is that people are interested in stopping mlb tanking, yet there is no real tanking. The most heavily "playing for the future" team construction in MLB would be 0.500 type team in this kind of league. Full pitching staff and lineup, promising young players being played. Tanking very very rarely happens in pro sports. It's the exception, not the rule. We see it mainly in the NBA, but it is even rare there because the only way to bench a star is to have him buy into the idea of miking an injury. We saw it with the Spurs 20 years ago and the Sixers recently and there are probably a few in between you could squint at and see tanking. "Not giving it 100%" is something that happens a lot, but no one here is suggesting that every team has to max out their budget and trade away prospects to improve there current winning percentage when the team is far from contending. |
|
|
|
Post by Rangers GM (Pete) on Nov 25, 2019 14:41:48 GMT -6
Funny side note, the other day I was listening to MLB Radio on my way to work on satellite. I forget who the hosts were, but there were talking about real life teams and tanking. Obvious issue is putting fans in the seats, but they talked about ideas to give other teams incentives to win or finish above .500, such as adding additional picks or international pool money. They also talked about penalizing teams that lose year over year with no obvious attempt to spend money and improve. The funniest thing about that is that people are interested in stopping mlb tanking, yet there is no real tanking. The most heavily "playing for the future" team construction in MLB would be 0.500 type team in this kind of league. Full pitching staff and lineup, promising young players being played. Tanking very very rarely happens in pro sports. It's the exception, not the rule. We see it mainly in the NBA, but it is even rare there because the only way to bench a star is to have him buy into the idea of miking an injury. We saw it with the Spurs 20 years ago and the Sixers recently and there are probably a few in between you could squint at and see tanking. "Not giving it 100%" is something that happens a lot, but no one here is suggesting that every team has to max out their budget and trade away prospects to improve there current winning percentage when the team is far from contending. Time to go back and watch the movie Major League, they were tanking and look what happened! haha |
|
|
|
Post by PadresGM (BK) on Dec 1, 2019 22:07:22 GMT -6
My thoughts:
I am OK with a lottery - and think it should be an option up for vote. There are strong opinions on each side - but that should not preclude it from being an option up for voting.
My personal opinion is that merely posting "tanking guidelines" is too vague and will lead to future confusion and disputes. Rules should be easy to understand, easy to follow, and easy to measure or enforce.
My idea. MLB recently went to "Competitive Balance" picks, awarding picks to teams in smaller markets and with lower revenues. We could do something similar by awarding competitive balance picks (after rounds 1 & 2) to the teams with the worst rosters - as measured by TOTAL team stats (not just who they started). We would have to firm up how to measure "worst", but Fantrax should have all the #'s (assuming ppl add there players - which could be done by admins?).
|
|
|
|
Tanking
Dec 1, 2019 22:23:11 GMT -6
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Dec 1, 2019 22:23:11 GMT -6
My personal opinion is that merely posting "tanking guidelines" is too vague and will lead to future confusion and disputes. Rules should be easy to understand, easy to follow, and easy to measure or enforce. Guidelines or Rules or whatever you want to call it bottom line is there would be a certain criteria that would have to be meet to be in compliance. |
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Dec 2, 2019 7:14:27 GMT -6
Also as I have stated the plan is to go through 4 pages of conversations and put together a list of ideas/suggestions. We would then as a league vote on multiple ideas we would be okay with narrowing the list down then having a 2nd vote where you would have to select one item and that would become what we used for 2020 (and hopefully beyond).
|
|
|
|
Tanking
Dec 17, 2019 7:46:24 GMT -6
Post by Phillies GM (Keith) on Dec 17, 2019 7:46:24 GMT -6
I think we should maybe pick this conversation up now that more people are around (or at least checked in). In my opinion if we are going to narrow down the choices and then figure out the details and votes (as I think Joey is suggesting), maybe we ought to consider narrowing down what group of rules we want first (what are goals are). Either way, the following 5 ideas seem like the ones we have discussed so far in some way, whether they are grouped together like I've done or not.
Group A (Rules that REWARD tankers that intentionally try to lose but make them go through more hoops in order to lock down the top picks)
1. Some type of minimum roster requirement (it would take a lot of time to figure out the details if we go in this direction but a few ideas have already been presented)
2. Some type of AB/IP requirement (it wouldn't necessarily take a lot of time to pick some numbers, but might be a contentious debate)
Group B (Subjective rules that do not allow teams to intentionally lose with good players on roster)
1. Some type of requirement that forces teams or a certain group of teams to not bench their BEST players somewhat like the rule Joey's NBA league passed - basically just a subjective standard to make sure people are maxing out what they have (this will take a lot of time to figure out I think since we are going to want to nail down the subjective enforcement ahead of time because we need to KNOW what the standards are exactly)
Group C (Rules that do not reward tankers and award picks separately from how much a team decides to intentionally lose)
1. Some type of lottery system (this will probably take a decent about of time to figure out too as there are a lot of options if we care about getting to fair results)
2. Some type of system that awards picks without considering W% though it could consider whether a team made or missed the playoffs. Rangers GM had one idea that probably won't work, but I think there are probably lots of other ideas out there to try to create some other type of points system to determine which team actually deserves the top 10 picks or maybe more (this is going to take the most time to figure out I think as it is a whole separate category of idea and no one has brought up a serious proposal yet even though there are a bunch that could work)
*Group C rules might need to have some type of roster or AB/IP mins attached to them as well just to stop lazy owners or owners that want to screw over the league in protest or something, but those roster or AB/IP mins wouldn't be central to the rule, just an important tack on.
|
|
|
|
Tanking
Dec 17, 2019 7:49:56 GMT -6
Post by Phillies GM (Keith) on Dec 17, 2019 7:49:56 GMT -6
I personally would be happy with something from Group B or C (though it will take a lot of time/effort to come up with a final version) as I don't think Group A plans address the real issue. But I can live with anything, including something from Group A. As long as whatever we pass is clearly defined ahead of time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Dec 17, 2019 7:50:46 GMT -6
No need for more conversation from same people over and over. We have all the info we need. We will review it and come up with options.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phillies GM (Keith) on Dec 17, 2019 7:52:12 GMT -6
No need for more conversation from same people over and over. We have all the info we need. We will review it and come up with options. This is what I'm doing. |
|
|
|
Tanking
Dec 17, 2019 7:53:59 GMT -6
Post by Phillies GM (Keith) on Dec 17, 2019 7:53:59 GMT -6
I just reviewed it and there are 5 options (from 3 groups). Each option will take a good amount of discussion and work to figure out what the final form will look like, but at some point we need to pick from the options (or groups). I think this is a good time for that.
|
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 3, 2020 12:11:20 GMT -6
Post by Rockies GM (Joey) on Jan 3, 2020 12:11:20 GMT -6
I think we should maybe pick this conversation up now that more people are around (or at least checked in). In my opinion if we are going to narrow down the choices and then figure out the details and votes (as I think Joey is suggesting), maybe we ought to consider narrowing down what group of rules we want first (what are goals are). Either way, the following 5 ideas seem like the ones we have discussed so far in some way, whether they are grouped together like I've done or not. Group A (Rules that REWARD tankers that intentionally try to lose but make them go through more hoops in order to lock down the top picks) 1. Some type of minimum roster requirement (it would take a lot of time to figure out the details if we go in this direction but a few ideas have already been presented) 2. Some type of AB/IP requirement (it wouldn't necessarily take a lot of time to pick some numbers, but might be a contentious debate) Group B (Subjective rules that do not allow teams to intentionally lose with good players on roster) 1. Some type of requirement that forces teams or a certain group of teams to not bench their BEST players somewhat like the rule Joey's NBA league passed - basically just a subjective standard to make sure people are maxing out what they have (this will take a lot of time to figure out I think since we are going to want to nail down the subjective enforcement ahead of time because we need to KNOW what the standards are exactly) Group C (Rules that do not reward tankers and award picks separately from how much a team decides to intentionally lose) 1. Some type of lottery system (this will probably take a decent about of time to figure out too as there are a lot of options if we care about getting to fair results) 2. Some type of system that awards picks without considering W% though it could consider whether a team made or missed the playoffs. Rangers GM had one idea that probably won't work, but I think there are probably lots of other ideas out there to try to create some other type of points system to determine which team actually deserves the top 10 picks or maybe more (this is going to take the most time to figure out I think as it is a whole separate category of idea and no one has brought up a serious proposal yet even though there are a bunch that could work) *Group C rules might need to have some type of roster or AB/IP mins attached to them as well just to stop lazy owners or owners that want to screw over the league in protest or something, but those roster or AB/IP mins wouldn't be central to the rule, just an important tack on. TAB is reviewing this and will hopefully have something posted by Monday in terms of what we should vote on. It will likely be at least a 2 part voting process. Clearly if we opt to use IP/AB as any part we will have to work out the #s between 1st vote and 2nd vote. Same if we opt to use some kind of roster min requirement. That will all be worked out before the final vote takes place. We will have this figured out before free agency or we will push FA back. |
|
|
|
Tanking
Jan 22, 2020 9:48:15 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by TJ (former White Sox) on Jan 22, 2020 9:48:15 GMT -6
For me, option A is the only real choice for this season.
I won’t stay in a league that uses option B. Too much opportunity for favoritism or inconsistent enforcement, and too much of a burden on volunteer admins. If the rest of the league votes for it, so be it. Needs of the many and all that. But if B passes, I’d almost certainly leave after this season and devote my time to a different league.
Option C is a bazooka used when a flyswatter might have been enough. Most of the folks who complained about tanking last year in this league weren’t complaining because the wrong team was gonna get a good pick. They were complaining because facing an empty lineup was boring. Option C should be held back and used only if option A fails to achieve the desired results.
Option D is dangerous. It’s not fun playing an empty opponent. And if schedule variance results in a team playing 6 or 8 empty lineups during a season, that’s a lot of no fun happening. Easy to see a good GM bailing because the league no longer adds value to their life.
——
So for me it’s “A” for this season, and probably next. And if there’s still a huge issue and lots of drama then maybe options like C are on the table.
And don’t get me wrong, if the majority here wants B then you should have B. You should have the kind of league that is going to make you happy. It just wouldn’t be a league for me.
|
|
