Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2015 1:19:51 GMT -5
Either way, point total does not correlate to tanking. We already have a rule that under 50 puts a team under review. I don't think attaching more penalties to under 50 is entirely fair. I had 80 points last year, did what I could to improve my team(maybe I'm not the best decision maker in the world, but I tried). I'm at 38.5 now. I would be very discouraged to continue to try and improve my team if I was penalized. If you were penalized, wouldn't you want to try to get above 50.0 points? This is when the sellers are selling. You could definitely trade some of your farm away to get over 50 points.
|
|
saltman
Administrator
Posts: 1,161
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by saltman on Jul 21, 2015 5:19:12 GMT -5
here's my opinion -
the PA, IP and points minimums are designed to deter teams from proper tanking ie not setting lineup properly (eg. consistently leaving starting pitchers on the bench), or not being able to field a complete ESPN lineup
I don't think they are designed to penalise teams who are doing their best but may be both rebuilding and having bad injury luck.
I think i remember saying at the time when the rule was put in place that I felt 50 points was quite tough - if you are already in a rebuild phase, and lose 2 or 3 key contributors to injury, then averaging over 4 points per category is going to be pretty tough even if you're trying your best.
I don't think it's right that someone should be forced to trade away prospects (and probably not get proper market value for them) just to meet some relatively arbitrary minimums, when they are clearly not trying to tank. yes, they might avoid short term penalties but it's going to stop them from being able to move up the standings in future years because they've had to give up their future pipeline talent!
|
|
bigfly73
Administrator
Posts: 1,366
Favorite Baseball Team: San Francisco Giants
|
Post by bigfly73 on Jul 21, 2015 12:00:17 GMT -5
saltman thank you my sentiments exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2015 12:15:11 GMT -5
Minimums are necessary, and if you can't reach minimums considering all the $0.3 FA bids out there I think that is silly. If you have to trade away your prospects to meet your minimums then I think you should of either:
A) Bid on more FA's in the offseason B) Not traded away so many players in the offseason to make sure you had enough cushion to meet your minimums.
I obviously don't know each teams situation...
Frankly I think there needs to be more safeguards in place... But I know I am in the singular minority in that regards.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2015 17:35:27 GMT -5
I agree there should be a minimum standard, but like Saltman said it seems arbitrarily set at 50. I can't seem to find any discussion on it and how that was the number set for the minimum.
|
|
bigfly73
Administrator
Posts: 1,366
Favorite Baseball Team: San Francisco Giants
|
Post by bigfly73 on Jul 21, 2015 18:06:14 GMT -5
If you are signing SP for $0.3 to meet minimums who are in turn hurting your fantasy team that is not what the rule was intended to do. I signed guys who I thought may be decent cheap options(Billingsly, Cahill, Floyd, Bedard, Holland.) Obviously that did not work out along with other SP I had get hurt and underperform. I had 10 SP at the start of the year, plus a full bullpen. If I could get just 120 IP out of those starters I would meet the minimum. Now I'm having to start guys no matter what and I can't even worry about the 50 point minimum because I have to start guys to hit the IP. Suddenly I'm having to play a fantasy game that is not what I set this league up to be. So yeah @jp I don't think you know each teams situation. And I don't think my initial roster was in any way not set up to hit the minimums and be where I've been in the past two seasons which is around the 80 point mark. Now I'm having a down year, and in a situation that is making it harder for me to improve my team. I'm not sure where you are getting all these ideas about owners taking advantage of the rules. We as admins have not come to that conclusion, so until something solid comes our way I don't see the need to increase the safeguards. And frankly the ones we have may be too stringent as far as I'm concerned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2015 18:15:40 GMT -5
This league is still relatively young and we are continually looking at ways to improve it. This thread was initiated to discuss a method of encouraging interest/competitiveness in the second half amongst teams who are 'out of contention' and who may not have anything else to play for.
If anybody has any concerns about existing rules (including the minimums) then, as ever, please bring these to the attention of the admins and your concerns will be considered, reviewed and reesponded to.
|
|
Turbanator
High A
Posts: 641
Favorite Baseball Team: San Diego Padres
|
Post by Turbanator on Jul 21, 2015 22:35:18 GMT -5
It's definitely a catch 22 of sorts when you get forced to play bad players to meet an innings/at bats requirement while losing at the ratios as a result.
But considering we never intended for this to be a deep rebuilding league, it might be incentive to trade for established talent. This season has definitely been a buyers market the last month or so, and there's been plenty of talented players who make sense for any club to acquire.
I think an addendum might involve projected innings/ABs lost to DL time for the minimums. Any thoughts on that?
|
|
bigfly73
Administrator
Posts: 1,366
Favorite Baseball Team: San Francisco Giants
|
Post by bigfly73 on Jul 21, 2015 23:50:57 GMT -5
I'm all for acquiring talent. That could be a possible addendum to the rule I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 3:31:34 GMT -5
The PA/IP minimums were never intended to be difficult to achieve - they were intended to make sure that every team fielded a relatively full roster a decent amount of the time.
Again, the 50 point limit was not intended to be difficult - but to promote the expectation that a tank and deep rebuild strategy wasn't really what we expect in the league, and that there was a minimum standard that every team should aspire to.
If anything isn't working then we should look to change it.
Personally, after seeing them in action for half a season I think they're OK. Blue Jays has been BRUTALISED by pitching injuries yet he should still make the IP limit, and everyone is on track for the PA limit. From what I've seen most teams are filling most of their lineup spots most of the days - this wasn't necessarily happening before the limits were imposed. If anything, perhaps the wording of the 50 point limit should be slightly relaxed so that whenever a team scores below 50 points then ownership is reviewed (rather than the automatic punishment for repeat low-scorers). It is at that point that the admins can take extenuating circumstances into consideration.
|
|
saltman
Administrator
Posts: 1,161
Favorite Baseball Team: Atlanta Braves
|
Post by saltman on Jul 22, 2015 3:48:34 GMT -5
yeah i think the automatic expulsion rule is a bit harsh, each case needs to be looked at individually i'd say. if a team scores 49 two years in a row due to bad luck and/or poor decisions, but is still really active and clearly not tanking then I don't think they should automatically be kicked out (especially since it's not easy to find reliable new owners for this kind of league!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 3:50:33 GMT -5
yeah i think the automatic expulsion rule is a bit harsh, each case needs to be looked at individually i'd say. if a team scores 49 two years in a row due to bad luck and/or poor decisions, but is still really active and clearly not tanking then I don't think they should automatically be kicked out (especially since it's not easy to find reliable new owners for this kind of league!) I agree that was probably overzealous. However, if we retain the admin review of ownership (or however it is worded) for teams that finish below 50 points that means that we do have constitutional backing if we ever do have an owner who is unanimously considered to be unsuitable for the league.
|
|