saltman
Administrator
Posts: 1,161
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by saltman on Dec 14, 2015 5:44:40 GMT -5
the PA minimums should be easy to achieve - 6000 PAs divided by 14 starting spots = 428 PAs per spot, which is nothing really (an everyday player gets 650+ PAs). so you can easily hit the minimum even without having every spot filled every day
The IP minimum is more tricky because pitchers are obviously much more prone to injury and if 5 of your SPs get injured there's not much you can do about it
there is a slight difference between the PA/IP minimums and the 50 point minimum - one is purely about volume, one is about quality. you could hit the PA/IP minimums and still come last in every category! and likewise, you could miss the PA/IP minimums and still get 50+ points (as happened this year to a couple of people)
i'd say the PA/IP minimums are actually more within people's control, so if either measure should be binned i'd argue it should be the 50 point minimum. but I do agree that having both measures in place is a bit pointless
If we need to keep the IPs minimum, maybe it just needs to be reduced to a level where it would only be missed through proper "tanking" rather than just a bit of bad luck
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 5:46:31 GMT -5
Selling off assets isn't "tanking". Not starting player who could have been started is "tanking". This is a dynasty league and rebuilding is part of the process and teams should be allowed to do it how they want. Its not a case of getting frustrated its a case of being realistic and knowing that 1/2 years of a player (e.g. Brad Miller or Cole Hamels) isnt going to achieve me anything when I could flip those assets for something that could help me in a couple of years time and then be useful for multiple years after that.
Would you prefer to see Cole Hamels put up 200 innings for me this year (help me hit an arbitrary value) and then hit free agency where I get nothing for him or flip him for some other talent who might help me in two years time and beyond? (I am just using an example from my team here) If its the first one then I am afraid we have very different ideas of what a dynasty league is. I didnt take on this team to just try and win at all costs in two or three years I want to build a team that could be dominant for a number of years and right now I think I am doing that. However, docking me salary is going to in the long run delay that process because it will stop me going after those big free agents who can contribute.
If the minimums are staying then I am all for the tiered hit because bigfly73 makes the point of exactly what happened to me last year where I was derailed by pitching injuries and things that just didnt play out the way I expected (Latos/Bradley/Despaigne etc). I will admit I made a mistake by not using a prospect who I didnt spot had been called up and would have actually got me over the minimum by 30 or 40 innings in September but I did start the year expecting I would make the limits and I was on track nearly all year.
"It seems unjust if teams were allowed to carry no MLB players, never worry about setting lineups, stock pile cap and specs. All while everyone else remains active."
Just because you aren't changing a line-up doesnt mean your not active. I check ESPN every day (when reasonable) to see if I have injuries or a player is sitting. As for the stockpiling cap and prospects thats part of the dynasty format in my opinion.
|
|
saltman
Administrator
Posts: 1,161
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by saltman on Dec 14, 2015 6:00:21 GMT -5
haha Ben and I must have been typing at the same time. I agree with pretty much all of what Ben says. no-one should be discouraged from trading players for specs - that is a fundamental part of any dynasty league. but as someone else mentioned previously, there should still be a requirement to at least field a full(ish) starting lineup on ESPN and update it for injuries etc. this is/was the aim of the PA and IP minimums - to stop ridiculous tear downs and/or people abandoning their teams, not to punish people who are legit rebuilding and have some bad luck
so I'd be in favour of keeping the minimums, but maybe just revising the IP one down slightly
if the minimum had been 1100 instead of 1200 this year, we probably wouldn't be having any of these conversations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 7:29:06 GMT -5
I accept this conversation is driven as frustration of my hit this year because I made genuine moves last offseason in order to meet the minimums and still got punished. What were the minimums before we changed them up?
Is 1000 IP's an acceptable minimum (166.66 starts - based on an average start of 6 innings)
So based on that calculation (6 innings per start) here are the numbers
1100 - 183.3333 1200 - 200 starts (I use this as a maximum in a keeper league!!)
200 starts of 6 innings is a lot for 15 teams (3000 starts)
There are only 4860 starts in a major league season (162 games * 30 teams)
I know there are relief pitchers involved which I dont take into account here but its impossible to eek every innings out of all of your relievers so lets not go crazy looking at the total amount of innings pitched in the majors and expect that we should be able to get to that number. (43,650 for the record!)
Man I love numbers wayyyyyyyy too much!
|
|
phronesis
TTC Member
Posts: 752
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by phronesis on Dec 14, 2015 9:22:22 GMT -5
Since we have Admins and TTC and all that, can't the penalties be more subjective? Obviously if you had a group of MLB SP who, through no fault of your own, didn't live up to expectations (either through injury of underperformance) to the point where you missed the minimums, you shouldn't be punished. If you didn't field a team in order to stockpile cap and specs, you should be punished.
I know this falls into the territory of policing rather than having a law to which we abide, but it seems like allowing subjectivity would solve a lot of the qualms everyone has here. Is 1200 too much? 1100 too little? 50 point min? All would be resolved by just allowing TTC to look at the whole and deciding whether to punish or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 13:17:40 GMT -5
I accept this conversation is driven as frustration of my hit this year because I made genuine moves last offseason in order to meet the minimums and still got punished. What were the minimums before we changed them up? Is 1000 IP's an acceptable minimum (166.66 starts - based on an average start of 6 innings) So based on that calculation (6 innings per start) here are the numbers 1100 - 183.3333 1200 - 200 starts (I use this as a maximum in a keeper league!!) 200 starts of 6 innings is a lot for 15 teams (3000 starts) There are only 4860 starts in a major league season (162 games * 30 teams) I know there are relief pitchers involved which I dont take into account here but its impossible to eek every innings out of all of your relievers so lets not go crazy looking at the total amount of innings pitched in the majors and expect that we should be able to get to that number. (43,650 for the record!) Man I love numbers wayyyyyyyy too much! You aren't taking into account Middle Relievers, Setup Men, and Closers. Kelvin Herrera, for example, pitched 70 innings last season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 13:46:58 GMT -5
So if you take a average of 50 IP for the 3 RP spots (being very conservative here since you could have 4 or 5 RP in your line up). That is 150 IP you can put towards your limit. That threshold is getting smaller and smaller isn't it?
|
|
miggitymatt
League GM
Posts: 971
Favorite Baseball Team: Tampa Bay Rays
|
Post by miggitymatt on Dec 14, 2015 14:43:34 GMT -5
Selling off assets isn't "tanking". Not starting player who could have been started is "tanking". This is a dynasty league and rebuilding is part of the process and teams should be allowed to do it how they want. Its not a case of getting frustrated its a case of being realistic and knowing that 1/2 years of a player (e.g. Brad Miller or Cole Hamels) isnt going to achieve me anything when I could flip those assets for something that could help me in a couple of years time and then be useful for multiple years after that. If you aren't fielding a MLB lineup, selling all your MLB assets, you're tanking. Would you prefer to see Cole Hamels put up 200 innings for me this year (help me hit an arbitrary value) and then hit free agency where I get nothing for him or flip him for some other talent who might help me in two years time and beyond? (I am just using an example from my team here) If its the first one then I am afraid we have very different ideas of what a dynasty league is. I didnt take on this team to just try and win at all costs in two or three years I want to build a team that could be dominant for a number of years and right now I think I am doing that. However, docking me salary is going to in the long run delay that process because it will stop me going after those big free agents who can contribute. If you're not in contention, absolutely, you should flip guys for future assets. I think we'd all agree with that. You still have to replace them with someone, though. If the minimums are staying then I am all for the tiered hit because bigfly73 makes the point of exactly what happened to me last year where I was derailed by pitching injuries and things that just didnt play out the way I expected (Latos/Bradley/Despaigne etc). I will admit I made a mistake by not using a prospect who I didnt spot had been called up and would have actually got me over the minimum by 30 or 40 innings in September but I did start the year expecting I would make the limits and I was on track nearly all year. "It seems unjust if teams were allowed to carry no MLB players, never worry about setting lineups, stock pile cap and specs. All while everyone else remains active." Just because you aren't changing a line-up doesnt mean your not active. I check ESPN every day (when reasonable) to see if I have injuries or a player is sitting. As for the stockpiling cap and prospects thats part of the dynasty format in my opinion. If you have no MLB players, then you don't have to check your lineup at all, is what I was getting at.
Also, yes, stockpiling caps and specs is part of a dynasty format. So long as, you're fielding a FULL MLB lineup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 16:03:17 GMT -5
Ok well I don't think we are going to achieve anything more with this discussion so I will leave it but I think the tiered punishment/common sense (if injuries and bad luck have caused someone to miss the minimums) should be used.
I hope you understand why I feel strongly about this. I haven't half arsed either of my seasons and because someone else didn't bother to try a number of rules were changed on a knee jerk reaction to affect re-building teams with little consideration by teams who were lucky enough to be here at start-up or inherited a good team
I didn't want this to come across as a big whinge and a whine because I have been fined. I am sorry if that is how any of you have taken it but I am trying my best to build this team from the nuclear site it was when I inherited it and that should earn me some patience from you guys for my efforts.
|
|
saltman
Administrator
Posts: 1,161
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by saltman on Dec 14, 2015 18:25:01 GMT -5
I'm inclined to agree that these things should be left up to the admins, as they do a great job, but I think the idea of having limits/minimums is to try to remove the subjectivity from any potentially contentious decisions.
|
|
saltman
Administrator
Posts: 1,161
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by saltman on Dec 14, 2015 18:32:18 GMT -5
I'm sure the last thing that any of us wants is to potentially lose an owner over an issue like this.
I suppose ultimately we'd have to maybe just do another vote and see what the majority want, on the understanding that we'll stick with whatever gets agreed for a while, because we don't want to be having the same discussions every off season!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2015 18:52:05 GMT -5
So kind of like what we did last season when we voted on this issue?
|
|
saltman
Administrator
Posts: 1,161
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by saltman on Dec 14, 2015 18:57:18 GMT -5
Haha yeah...
|
|
bigfly73
Administrator
Posts: 1,366
Favorite Baseball Team: San Francisco Giants
|
Post by bigfly73 on Dec 15, 2015 17:59:21 GMT -5
Yeah this issue isn't gonna be voted on again anytime soon, but we will revise as we feel necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2015 9:11:36 GMT -5
Late to this party, but to add my view:
As I see it, now that there is no incentive to 'tank' the minimums are intended to ensure that teams field a nearly full lineup most days, regardless of their state of competitiveness or rebuilding. The minimums should not be difficult - they should be fair. We're not looking to punish people - we just want to see full active rosters throughout the year. As somebody alluded to - real life teams need to field a lineup. And they are asked to spend a minimum amount of money to at least pretend to be competitive (I think the Astros or the Marlins who got slapped on the wrist a few years back?). Here we're only asking that you field a MLB lineup (I'll comment on the 50 point minimum in the other thread).
This philosophy/ruling has a number of added side-effects which I see as beneficial to the league as a whole: 1) it adds value to PA and IP for players who would otherwise be undesirable. I think it is a good thing that all players getting more than a handful of PA/IP are of value and are owned, as this will slightly bump the value of more desirable players beyond the $1.0 mark (which it should be as the 4th-6th minimum is set there) 2) sometimes those undesirables become desirable (hello Chris Coghlin), and instead of being auctioned to a competitor after a hot streak he is already owned and then a tradeable asset, strengthening the rebuilding team's roster 3) more players of value means more trade activity. This enhances the league as a whole, builds relationships between owners (perhaps of use for when the rebuilder becomes the competitor?), and is generally more fun 4) it adds a further level of strategy to our game. Even rebuilding teams need to enter free agency with a plan, and potentially make compensatory moves to remedy unexpected changes in player production or health (not necessarily costing them in the long run) 5) it helps league admin as less players drop off the radar ;-)
Coming back to the fairness issue - when we got to the end of the season I looked over the numbers, looked at the unowned FAs and looked at the arb eligible players not used, and came to the conclusion that the minimums should be achievable regardless of whether a team is rebuilding or not and regardless of luck - at either no or negligible long term cost. If this is something that people want to be revisited I'm happy to do so. The penalty for failing to achieve a minimum should be real, otherwise there is no incentive to achieve it. As I mentioned before we're not looking to catch people out or punish teams who are rebuilding - as Ben rightly points out this is completely counterproductive and must be avoided. A sliding scale to replace the hard penalty has been briefly discussed somewhere, and personally I'm open to this but am keen to ensure that any penalty is not a token gesture.
Finally, I'm completely against making the penalty system subjective in any way. In my opinion applying penalties is hands-down the hardest part of being an admin in this league - I don't like doing it to people who I consider to be friends and as a compassionate person I always want to give the benefit of the doubt. Having strongly defined rules is very helpful in this regard - no offense to the teams who failed to achieve minimums last season but the rules was clearly stated all year long and there should have been no surprise at any penalty levied. Making penalties subjective opens up the possibility of inconsistency, and could lead to people feeling that they've been treated unfairly. These are both things I strongly wish to avoid, and which are avoided by having water-tight rules. If the rules are not correct in any regard then they will be reviewed and changed to help us in the management of this aspect of the league.
|
|