|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on May 6, 2013 19:30:44 GMT -5
how is a completely unbiased lottery possible ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on May 6, 2013 20:02:43 GMT -5
I was actually thinking about this earlier. Not necessarily a random draft, but a weighted randomized draft. I.e., go by reverse last years standings and give entry weights into the pot based on that. For example,
1st place gets 1 entry
2nd gets 2 entries
...
...
29th gets 29 entries
30th gets 30 entries.
We go through pick by pick starting with 1st overall and draw a team. Whoever is pulled gets the pick. The only problem with this is someone has to do it and I don't want anyone to question the legitimacy of the results
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on May 6, 2013 20:10:24 GMT -5
I'd be more interested in only doing the first 10-15 picks as the lottery, that way, someone outside that top 10-15 can draw the lottery. There is no way they could benefit themselves and therefore should alleviate any question of cheating.
For example, keep pick 30 going to the team with the highest win%, etc down to 15th best winning % getting pick 16 (I think that's right), then have the teams with 16th through 30th best winning % in a lottery for picks 1 through 15.
If the top 15 picks were subject to lottery, either Royals or I (assuming we don't end up in that bottom 15) could do the draft.
We can't favour ourselves if our pick is not one of the ones being randomised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on May 6, 2013 20:14:02 GMT -5
I'm fine with that too
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2013 23:27:59 GMT -5
That would work. Would there be concern that team #16 would tank to get in the lottery? heh
|
|
|
|
Post by St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew) on May 7, 2013 1:48:19 GMT -5
That would work. Would there be concern that team #16 would tank to get in the lottery? heh LOL ... funny thing is I'm in another league, 10 team roto where 5th place gets 1st pick the next year ... people deliberately tank to get 5th. The order goes 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 4th, 3rd, etc. It penalises you for finishing last ... you end up with pick 6 although being a snake draft it doesn't really matter anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2013 4:22:17 GMT -5
It's potentially more problematic to tank for #16. If you miss out you go to the end of the line.
Whereas, tanking at the end of a 30-team draft pretty much nets you the Rd #1 first pick. If you miss out on last place, you at least get pick #2.
We like the idea of being penalized rather than rewarded for finishing last or near the bottom. Everyone should be trying to win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2013 9:40:47 GMT -5
I think it is a good idea but also am a little worried this is going to hurt the teams that are trying to win but just don't have a very good team right now, the teams that really need help. Would stink to have the third worst team in the league say, have been trying to win, then pull #15 pick in the draft. Then you see the #15 team who is pretty good suddenly get lucky and get the #1 overall pick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2013 10:26:34 GMT -5
Limit the lottery to the very bottom clubs -- last ten or even last five clubs -- would solve that. Say in a five team lottery, the bottom club is gauranteed #5 pick at the worst, which might still be tempting enough to cause tanking. We think a lottery among the bottom ten clubs would work best. There are all sorts of ways to run a lottery without someone saying the pick order was unfairly determined.
The main thing is to prevent tanking for the first pick. Tanking potentially ruins the weekly match-ups. Tanking is a bad thing for a league.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2013 12:58:48 GMT -5
I haven't looked closely at matchups on ESPN. Does each team play all the teams the same number of times? Or do other NL East teams face the Marlins a bit more often than the rest of the league. Because really everyone gets to play the "tanking" teams anyway so that should offset everything in the long run. Just cuz the first week someone goes 16-0 against the tank team 4 weeks later you will play them and get your shot at 16-0. It pads everyone's victories throughout the league. Even if the division teams play them more everyone should play them an equal amount within the division right? It is kind of like the Astros going to the AL West. Now all the AL gets to play them and pad their victories a bit, especially AL West teams. That might make it just enough to get that 2nd wild card slot in the playoffs, kind of stinks but that is how it goes.
I don't like the tanking either but I don't think it is massively screwing up the league or anything.
We might be on to something with the top ten going to lottery format though, we should discourage tanking as much as we can (within reason). Can put it to vote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2013 14:19:43 GMT -5
We know about the NL, but in the AL Yankees play fewer weeks than any other club. We have two bye weeks; everyone else has one. That, in itself, is crazy. Don't have any idea how that came about or is allowed.
Cards said that it shouldn't matter because the playoffs are determined by winning percentage, but many of the matches are won and lost by counting stats, not only by averages.
Just saying, let's put in a system that curbs potentially losing on purpose to get the top pick. We recall you (Royals) saying in a league-wide memo three or four years ago that you were going to moditor teams intentionally losing to get the top pick. Well, here we go. We are at that stage now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2013 15:35:01 GMT -5
Well the intention of that was to keep teams benching obvious players that should not be benched. I don't remember who it was but I noticed towards the end of the season some team many years back who was not going to make the playoffs then started benching his entire lineup to lose cats to improve his draft position. That is what I considered tanking, intentionally not owning MLB eligible players is quite another, that is an extreme commitment to rebuilding (which I don't think is worth it just to get a #1 overall).
Anyway I'm in favor of the lottery system for 1-5 or maybe 1-10. I think a poll is a good idea and let the league vote. Also though I don't think it would quite be fair to Marlins or Dbacks to institute this for the upcoming 2013 draft since they have been operating their clubs with draft position in mind.
Also I think it should be weighted as suggested earlier, worst team gets 5 entries in the lottery, 2nd worst gets 4, etc etc. I don't think the 5th worst team should have equal chance as the worst team at the #1 overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Sox on May 7, 2013 19:49:16 GMT -5
Do we really think getting a number 1 pick instead of a number 10 pick for a couple of seasons is really going to make a bad team that much better? I could see it in fantasy football or basketball where you get a guy who will be a star immediately, but not in fantasy baseball. Even guys like trout and harper and strasburg aren't going to make a team great when you have to fill 19 other roster spots. Most top picks take 2-3 years to get to the majors anyways and another couple of seasons at least before they turn into more productive players or stars. Trout was a back end of the first round pick as are so many other future stars. Plus a lot of very good players can be had early on the waiver wire for free anyways if you keep your eyes open. The teams who keep their eyes open and know how to find talent will find it anyways regardless of draft position. I just think this is a lot of discussion over something that really make a whole lot of difference in the end.
Having said that, a lottery is fine by me if that is what the league wants to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on May 7, 2013 23:21:11 GMT -5
Hear, hear Kirby! Well said. Good owners will make good teams. Enough to it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2013 0:30:36 GMT -5
I play the Marlins, Dbacks, and Brewers only once this season... While the Rockies and Dodgers play them each twice.... I smell conspiracy... I have to make a new thread about this. Hopefully it can make it past 4 pages.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrewCrewGM on May 8, 2013 0:47:51 GMT -5
LOL you're going to throw me into the same category as DBacks & Marlins?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arizona Diamondbacks on May 8, 2013 2:50:49 GMT -5
It is odd that I only play you once and we're in the same division. I'm pretty sure giants was just being facetious but it is strange
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2013 14:21:04 GMT -5
Hahaha no offense brewers, I just found some "weaker" teams that I only played once to make an unfunny comment that did nothing but waste time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2013 21:06:21 GMT -5
boo freaking hoo Adam!!!
HAHAHA
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 11, 2013 23:06:59 GMT -5
Shut up Brandon. Take your superior team and shove it. hahaha
|
|
