|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Nov 1, 2022 13:39:09 GMT -5
Gentlemen,
Thanks to all for another successful season. I think, despite- or perhaps because of- my relative lack of involvement, the league is in the proverbial 'best shape of it's life.' That being said, there's always room for improvement, and because I've identified a few specific areas that need to be addressed, I wanted to begin soliciting ideas for improvement. If you have any thoughts about how to improve the league, whether they apply to the topics I enumerate below or not, please feel emboldened to share them with the group. I hope to hold public debate for a month or so and then finalize any changes before the end of the year.
It's been awhile, so I feel compelled to remind everyone that this is not, in fact, a democracy. I'm a benevolent autocrat, but I'm an autocrat nonetheless. In the event that a clear consensus isn't reached, I'll fix the issues that I know need fixing to the best of my ability, but my hope is that there will be clear solutions that everyone can get behind.
We narrowly avoided controversy this year because I was able to eke out a Wild Card victory over a very capable Orioles squad (congrats on a great race, O's). We've discussed tiebreakers in the past, but haven't arrived at a firm conclusion. I'd like to do that this offseason. I'm open to any and all ideas, but my inclination based on the prior conversations is to settle ties to get into the playoffs by tallying the team's scores and scoring them as if they were in a year-long H2H matchup.
There is, of course, the possibility that this, too, results in a tie. At that point, the only ideas I have would either be to extend the season for those two teams until the tie is broken or to hold a 1 day play-in game for those teams, scored H2H. Ties in a play-in would result in extending it until we have a winner. Any days we expend on a play-in game would be stolen from the WS and the playoffs would be on hold for everyone until the entire field was set. This would mean that if we needed a 2 day play-in game, the LDS and LCS rounds would run Wednesday-Tuesday and the World Series would run Wednesday- the end of the regular season.
The other concern that I know needs to be addressed is refining our rule on tanking. To set the stage, I, personally, have no issue with teams selling off all players accumulating stats in an effort to secure a valuable draft pick. I don't ever see myself employing that strategy, but that's beside the point. I'm sure mine is not a universally held opinion, and that's fine. As a league, we need to firmly establish what we want to penalize, how and to what extent. The kind of tanking I'm most concerned about is not from teams bereft of major leaguers who aren't paying attention and miss a few days stats from an unexpected call-up, but rather from teams just outside the playoff hunt who are seeking to improve their draft position by starting mediocre players over good ones, or injured players over healthy ones.
I just can't see clear to penalizing a team that's clearly already awful in a 30 team league where someone who's willing to commit to a complete teardown like that is a valuable member. If I'm on an island on this position, as I routinely find is the case elsewhere in my life, I can be persuaded to enforce a rule that I don't agree with. Rather than draft pick punishment, I propose that for teams that are clearly tanking who miss statistics due to inattention to Fantrax, the LO retroactively makes active those players, ensuring that their statistics contribute to the team's overall total. This ensures fairness in 'competition' for the 1st pick, while not affecting the rest of the standings* and not crippling an already rebuilding team by taking away draft capital.
*to the extent that a tanking team's rate stats skew the standings for the rest of the league, I'm sympathetic to the idea of disqualifying- for the purposes of determining playoff seeding, not draft order- a team's points tied to rate stats.
I know in the past there has been discussion about expanding our playoffs, and I've been resistant, primarily due to concerns about shortening our regular season. I'm told that due the MLB's new playoff format, the actual regular season is scheduled to end in the middle of the week from now on. That being the case, the World Series would last for 2.5 weeks under normal circumstances (no tiebreaker that delays the playoffs). I'm fine with that, but if we'd rather explore other uses for that 'additional' half week of playoff time, I'm much more amenable to that now than I have been previously.
These are just the areas of concern that I have. If you have some that aren't addressed here, I encourage you to organize your thoughts and post them publicly here so we can hold rigorous debate about the merits of any potential changes. Regardless, please let us know whether or not you intend to remain in the league for season 16 ASAP so we can get a jump on recruiting ahead of the holidays. Best of luck to all this offseason!
ELO
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Nov 1, 2022 14:58:37 GMT -5
Re: Tanking.
Thats a lot of monitoring work for the ELO. Are we doing it on a "if you see something say something basis"? Also, I think people are free to play the matchups or whatever, but if teams are intentionally sitting players who are active in favor of those who aren't active then something should be done. Ideally this is just policed and fixed rather than docking picks or whatever but still.
Re playoffs.
I'd love to see a "one more team in" scenario. If you win your division, you're into the divisional round. But we could use that half week we have extra now to do a "WC1 vs WC2" mini round. Could be neat. Also I like the way it is now.
However, I don't think any division winner should be able to be ousted in half a week. If you win your division, you should get a week long matchup IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Mets GM (barnstormers) on Nov 1, 2022 16:54:44 GMT -5
Hey gentlemen
This is like the 3rd time I've posted expanding the playoffs. With the change in actual Major League schedule, it should be easy. I cut and pasted my original proposal from 2017 & 2019.
Proposed below a couple years ago after proposing a couple years before that. There is interest in adding another play off team. Let's see if we can fine tune and come to some agreement.
Chiming in on this expanded play off. I am for adding another team.
My thought:
1) End the regular season on a Saturday, 1 day early.
2) Have a 3 day playoff between the 4th and 5th place teams. The Major Leagues do a 1 game playoff.
3) Next round, I guess Division Championship, make that a 6 day playoff. The Major Leagues do a 5 game playoff. You only lose 1 day of stats.
4) Next round, League Championship, that would be a 7 day playoff. The Major Leagues do best of 7. Our League stays the same.
5) That would leave 13 days for the World Series. You're only losing 1 day of stats, but not a bad compromise to add a playoff team.
|
|
|
Post by Cubs GM (Scott B) on Nov 1, 2022 17:40:03 GMT -5
Curb tanking by raising entry fee. Instead of 10, make it 20 or 25. Then, if you want to tank go for it. You paid your money. Then, expand playoffs that way more have incentive to reach it and get some $ back.
Draft lotto for non playoff teams makes a little sense but I dont like it as much sense so many draft picks are traded
|
|
|
Post by Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11) on Nov 1, 2022 22:44:19 GMT -5
I think I have thoughts on these 4 main topics 1) Expanded playoffs - I agree with above proposal for expanding playoffs. 2) Tiebreakers - At season end if there is a tiebreaker between two teams for a playoff spot the year long head to head matchup is the best option. 3) Tanking - I think we need to have a min At bat and IP threshold. The statistics I worry about are the 4 ratios that aren't a true reflection in the standings as well as making it difficult to move up or potentially move down chasing points in a playoff race. Look at ERA and WHIP for example on teams near the bottom of the standings. If there was a 1500 min AB and 500 min IP threshold it wouldn't take much to have every team there plus it would more accurately reflect the teams value. You don't really have to go for it but you still have to play the game. 4) Maybe not as urgent but we may want to look at the min salary and salary cap sometime soon or else real life contracts are going to be very difficult to be a realistic option. Player min salaries are now 700k while ours is 400k and RLC are going considerably higher. My thought is that everyone under the 700k min be converted to the new salary using the formula (current salary/current league min)* new league min. Then to compensate add 15-20M (TBD) to each teams cap and continue to move onward. From the few teams I looked at this move would add apx 15M to each roster. All drafted players will come in this year at .7.
Overall great job by all the league office guys on running a terrific league! Those are just some quick thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Nov 2, 2022 4:44:57 GMT -5
Curb tanking by raising entry fee. Instead of 10, make it 20 or 25. Then, if you want to tank go for it. You paid your money. Then, expand playoffs that way more have incentive to reach it and get some $ back. Draft lotto for non playoff teams makes a little sense but I dont like it as much sense so many draft picks are traded While I’d be fine with this, we have enough trouble holding on to members as it is. Idk if a price hike would make it easier. but like I said, I’d be good with it.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Nov 2, 2022 4:51:42 GMT -5
For PHI #3, there would be multiple teams that don’t hit those thresholds almost be definition in a 30 team league.
Presumably anything draft related that messes with slots won’t happen this year since many picks have changed hands at the value they had in our current slot.
I’d be fine with a lottery tbh, but we need to announce more than a year in advance.
PHI #4, I mentioned the min contract thing too, at least to 500k to make math easier. The min salary thing, eh. Are we punishing teams that drop an owner as FA start? Because that’s how we get to non spending. I spent most of my cap this year and it was on taking bad buyouts. Does that count? I just don’t think we want to get in to “you have to spend your money on x” conversations.
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox GM (Ty) on Nov 2, 2022 8:46:53 GMT -5
Curb tanking by raising entry fee. Instead of 10, make it 20 or 25. Then, if you want to tank go for it. You paid your money. Then, expand playoffs that way more have incentive to reach it and get some $ back. Draft lotto for non playoff teams makes a little sense but I dont like it as much sense so many draft picks are traded While I’d be fine with this, we have enough trouble holding on to members as it is. Idk if a price hike would make it easier. but like I said, I’d be good with it. I share Tyler's sentiments. If GMs overwhelmingly support a price hike- and we could discuss amending the payouts to include more teams as a result- I'd be all for it. I don't, however, want to lose anybody because of it.
|
|
|
Post by Guardians GM (Ron) on Nov 2, 2022 8:53:41 GMT -5
I agree that with a 30 team league not all teams can be competitive and may try to build a team primarily through the draft and young controlled players so they may not "spend" all of their cap and may not meet minimums. I don't consider that tanking. Outside of not setting your lineup with whatever MLB players you have I don't think anything else qualifies as tanking. At least it is very difficult to prove. If I overpay for a few low-end SP I can accrue the minimums and still finish near the bottom. I can also target hitters who will have 400-500 plate appearances but no one else may want and accrue those stats. But my team will suffer for a longer period of time than if I rebuild. Additionally, I don't like the draft lottery. Somehow, it seems to workout for the teams that don't need it.
|
|
|
Post by Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11) on Nov 2, 2022 10:18:39 GMT -5
Over the last 2 years the average number of AB's for the entire league was almost 4,000 per year. The average number of innings pitched was just over 1,000. Instituting a min AB and IP at 1500 ABs and 375 IP over the last 2 years would have affected 4 teams from an AB standpoint and 5 teams from an IP point. This isn't a big adjustment in team construction but gets ratios into a more fair comparable category. With 1/3 of our 12 stats being ratio stats then not only can teams have potentially inflated ratios which affect teams fighting for points in the playoffs but also affect teams that are trying to play for a better draft pick and impossible to move below potentially tanked ratios that wont move.
For salary adjustments I wouldn't change anything over 700K, leave that alone. Only bring everyone who is currently below the min up to that level. The formula is there to adjust salaries that are above current min but below the 700. Adjusts it so it stays the same % above min salary.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Nov 2, 2022 12:13:16 GMT -5
While I understand the sentiment and to a degree even agree with it, I do have two issues with it.
"Tanking" now becomes "who can sign the worst players, play them until they hit the thresholds, then cut them right away" (which seems... weird and not ideal).
The other thing would be that if I have a .800 batting average because a guy went 4/5 then died or whatever. It impacts everyone the same. I also think "going for the averages" is a relatively viable strategy. If I don't want to play a .190 hitter because he is hurting my average, I shouldn't have to just to hit a minimum.
------
Min salary: We don't reflect the dollars and cents of players actual min salary contracts. It is just our "base number". If we adjusted to 700k or 500k or whatever then everyone would be the same at that number. That specific thing is more "league mechanics" and less "real life reflection" in its current state (and how we have historically done it)
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Nov 2, 2022 19:20:48 GMT -5
Tanking - Lotto could be cool if it's weighted like the NBA one and had minimums in place (like last place can't get worse than 3rd pick or something) I think it could work. One of the great things about baseball drafts is that the number one pick usually isn't going to be a game changer right away and there are multiple game changers per draft. Having the #1 pick vs. #3-5 doesn't seem to be as big a deal as basketball. You also have to think that if teams are "tanking" by building prospects to compete, if you penalize them for this, you're increasing the amount of time it's going to take for them to be competitive. Of course all of this is hypothetical due to the nature of prospects.
Not a fan of retroactively setting lineups. If we notice a team has all their good players benched for 4-7 days, could set their lineup with them in it and it's set going forward. They likely don't have enough pitchers to need to worry about moving them in and out. Or a friendly reminder for them to set their lineups and potential loss of draft picks but I don't think anything better than a 3rd rounder should ever be taken away.
My vote would be for no changes. I don't think we have a tanking issue really. In a 30 team fantasy league, just like in a real league, you're going to have teams that aren't really going for it. Easy for me to say, I know, having been one of those teams on purpose.
Playoffs - I like how it is but wouldn't be against increasing it as long as it didn't effect division winners. I think any matchup less than a week has too much potential to screw someone based on their lineups, specifically pitchers.
Tiebreakers - The H2H tiebreaker is good. The 2nd tiebreaker could be whichever team has the highest point total between the hitting and pitching stats. For instance, looking at end of season which doesn't show what it was right at our cutoff but as an example, Boston had 146 pitching points and 102 hitting points. Baltimore had 126 pitching points and 101.5 hitting points. The highest amount moves on, in this case it's the 146 for Boston.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Nov 2, 2022 19:36:37 GMT -5
Meant to discuss salaries too.
I think we've addressed salaries pretty well in here. Now that all the tags are flex tags, we'll see more and more Restricted tags vs Franchise tags so the real life dollars won't matter much. Looking at last year's tags, most of the Franchise tags were used on guys still in Arbitration. Most of the long-term guys were Restricted tags. The minimum $700k thing in real life doesn't effect us either because we pay our prospects the minimum where MLB does not. So we keep it arbitrary where it's set would be my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Tigers (Dingo) on Nov 2, 2022 20:18:05 GMT -5
couldnt we just keep everybody thats currently on a pp or 400k contract on it through life and raise the minimum for any new contract?
|
|
|
Post by Tigers (Dingo) on Nov 2, 2022 20:18:54 GMT -5
no comment on the rest, i'm in regardless just let me know
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Nov 3, 2022 13:43:30 GMT -5
couldnt we just keep everybody thats currently on a pp or 400k contract on it through life and raise the minimum for any new contract? I believe that would be the way to do it yeah.
If we ever were to do this, it'd be "X is the new 400k and everyone who made under X is now making X".
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Nov 3, 2022 13:47:39 GMT -5
Or a friendly reminder for them to set their lineups and potential loss of draft picks but I don't think anything better than a 3rd rounder should ever be taken away.
This would never deter me, or anyone interested in trying to get the #1 pick. We take away a 3rd for people who submit tags late, this (IMO) is far worse than that. If anything the penalty should fit the crime. If you are caught intentionally not collecting stats then you should just be moved back X number of positions depending on how egregious Ty thinks it is.
I am in favor of the retro-active fixing it though. If we do that it basically means that there is no reason to ever do it because it wont work anyway. That way it just isn't happening vs people weighing if the punishment is worth the crime.
Also, for the record, I'm talking about having a player who is playing and getting ABs and sitting him in favor of some MiLB player. Not a player X vs play Y both getting MLB ABs but you just happen to pick the shit player of the two.
|
|
|
Post by Twins GM (Mike) on Nov 3, 2022 18:37:55 GMT -5
I’d think the draft lottery would be fun, similar to what happened or was attempted during the 2020’ season. I don’t think the worst team should even been guaranteed top 3. It should be weighted but NHL style where the non playoff teams are all in the mix.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Nov 3, 2022 20:51:04 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind some kind of lottery. If we expand playoffs to 10 with the mini wild card series that'd leave 20 teams. I'd propose the bottom 10 teams go lottery and 11-20 go in their order so its a little normal but there is no more trying to be the absolute worst.
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Patrick) on Nov 4, 2022 12:08:59 GMT -5
tanking: For the reasons mentioned by Cork, I don't think tanking is a major problem (Jo Adell, anyone?).
tie-breaker: I agree with Ty's suggestion that the first tie-breaker be a year-long HtH comparison. I'd suggest the second tie-breaker being a year-long HtH comparison to the AL or NL's first place team (who has the best theoretical chance of beating Kevin or Scott). Third tie-breaker would be year long HtH comparison of hitting stats between the tied teams. I'm all about promoting the team with the best chance to take down the league leader. Near the end of the regular season, I remember taking a look at the standings and thinking I'd be cool with Ty winning any tie-breaker because I thought his team was better positioned to beat Kevin.
expanded playoffs: I would keep the playoffs as is to determine league champion. I would be in favor of creating a "minor league champion," say the next four best teams from the American and National league. The "minor league champion" would receive pick 31 in the upcoming draft. I would be in favor of any idea that keeps more teams active and competing through the entire season. I also hate reading during the off-season about that player who just tore things up during September when all I got during our regular season was a .215 batting average.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Nov 4, 2022 20:25:22 GMT -5
" I also hate reading during the off-season about that player who just tore things up during September when all I got during our regular season was a .215 batting average."
Literally nothing worse
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Nov 7, 2022 9:11:45 GMT -5
couldnt we just keep everybody thats currently on a pp or 400k contract on it through life and raise the minimum for any new contract? I believe that would be the way to do it yeah.
If we ever were to do this, it'd be "X is the new 400k and everyone who made under X is now making X".
I don’t get the reasoning for needing to raise our minimum salary guys. I get that MLB minimum salaries are increasing but that has nothing to do with us and our caps. 1. MLB doesn’t have a cap. 2. MLB doesn’t pay their minor leaguers. 3. Raising the minimum salaries and then raising the cap is just a lateral move and seems unnecessary. 4. If we’re worried about real contract increasing for stars, why would we arbitrarily inflate prospect salaries?
|
|
|
Post by Tigers (Dingo) on Nov 7, 2022 11:11:57 GMT -5
If that's the case then we shouldn't be able to franchise and have it tied to a real-life contract...don't get me wrong that's one of the rules I like about this league but it doesn't make any sense to do that if you're not going to try to tie into the real league minimum.
Another way to do it is -- continue 400k for prospects but once they get their AB/IP they have to get the real life league minimum (currently 700k) for their team control years. -- make 700k the new minimum -- grandfather in anybody that is currently on a contract between 400k-700k.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Nov 7, 2022 12:07:14 GMT -5
I'm with the Nats in the "why?" camp. Like I said, changing it to .5 for math being easier reasons would make my life easier but still lol. No need.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Nov 8, 2022 2:03:24 GMT -5
If that's the case then we shouldn't be able to franchise and have it tied to a real-life contract...don't get me wrong that's one of the rules I like about this league but it doesn't make any sense to do that if you're not going to try to tie into the real league minimum. Another way to do it is -- continue 400k for prospects but once they get their AB/IP they have to get the real life league minimum (currently 700k) for their team control years. -- make 700k the new minimum -- grandfather in anybody that is currently on a contract between 400k-700k. That just seems like a lot of extra, unnecessary work and for what though? Probably 10% of the contracts in here are franchised. Either way, it makes it a moot change if you increase salaries and then increase the salary cap.
|
|
|
Post by Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11) on Nov 17, 2022 10:50:28 GMT -5
Forgive me if this has been discussed before. One topic I'm wondering about is free agency and bidding where players who go unclaimed for a certain amount of time they typically get reposted a week later in that situation. I feel that if there are multiple bids on a player and the winning bid doesn't claim that player on Fantrax within a specific window then the opportunity for the team that was 2nd in the bidding to claim that player at the contract they offered should be allowed. Continue going down that path in multiple bid situations until time if the player isn't claimed then they can be reposted.
|
|
|
Post by Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11) on Nov 25, 2022 10:42:08 GMT -5
Also not sure if this is just a Fantrax issue but at least wanted to bring it up.
Position Eligibility
Games needed from previous season for a player to qualify at a specific hitting position : 20 Games needed from current season for a player to qualify at a specific hitting position: 5
I think in these game counts it should count MiLB games as well. If it’s a Fantrax issue this needs to be monitored by the individual team owner to alert the commish.
I have a CI that played over 100 games at 1B in 2022, because he was up in MLB for a shorter time, he primarily DHd and played some games at 1B. But because of his short time in mlb he is only eligible right now at UTL. A primary C on my roster came up for only 5 games very late Sept and is now only eligible now UTL because he didn’t meet the 20 game min at the mlb level. I can’t see why someone who had a primary position in 2022 isn’t eligible for that position to start 2023. With these guys as well it could take some time (esp C) to even get 5 games as they rotate around in a UTL type role.. In a roto league when being able to fill roster spots having that pos eligibility is important from the start.
Hope it’s a just Fantrax issue that we just need to alert the commish for an override but if not it’s something I really think needs addressing.
|
|
|
Post by D Backs GM (Tyler) on Nov 25, 2022 16:22:38 GMT -5
I'm for this as well. If they play the position in minors, they should be eligible in MLB instead of whatever fantrax guesses. At least until they get eligible somewhere in MLB.
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (corkzilla) on Nov 28, 2022 3:38:24 GMT -5
I'm for this as well. If they play the position in minors, they should be eligible in MLB instead of whatever fantrax guesses. At least until they get eligible somewhere in MLB. It’s not really a guess. Darrick Hall is the player. He played 31 games at DH and 7 at 1B in MLB, that’s why he lost his CI eligibility. I think there should be a games threshold if we’re going to do this. It should only even be considered if they haven’t started their PP clock yet.
|
|
|
Post by Phillies GM (ryanfitzgerald11) on Nov 28, 2022 10:11:43 GMT -5
With the full franchise nature of the league I dont think time or level should make any difference when it comes to position eligibility. All MiLB games should count. We have players go back and forth all the time and players should get credit for those games as they may work in AAA on a position switch to return back to MLB.
Yainer Diaz is another example. Last year in total had 99 game appearances. 94 in AAA and ONLY 5 in MLB. 50 at C, 38 at CI, 8 in OF in AAA but in MLB played in 2 games at C and 2 at DH so now is only eligible at UTL because he didn't meet a 20 game MLB threshold for eligibility? THIS MAKES NO SENSE. With this logic all players coming up from AAA should only be eligible at UTL because they are now at the MLB level and haven't played 5 games at any position. Diaz should be a C - CI eligible players because he played 20 games at those positions during the 2022 baseball season.
In regards to Hall who appeared in 140 total games in 2022, I really don't understand how a player who played 1B in 76% of those games would NOT be eligible for that position in 2023.
|
|