|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Dec 1, 2018 19:24:21 GMT -5
I want to say out of the gate that I am not proposing this because I think it will solve all our problems; in truth, I don't think this league has many problems. This is as much a thought exercise as anything, an attempt to get some discussion going. With that in mind . . .
The Problem As I See It:
It has been observed that the league is in the fairly enviable position of having few, if any, teams tanking right now.*** Aside from that, all the sub-500 teams are actively working to improve, though not squandering future resources for present performance. Nevertheless, I dislike the fact that the incentive for tanking exists at all. There are incentives to making the playoffs; in addition to the obvious psychological benefits of winning, there's also generally a budget increase that makes future winning easier. There are incentives to losing; it lines you up for a shot at the best players in the draft. Where incentive is lacking is in the middle of the spectrum. Your draft picks aren't particularly good, and your budget doesn't really benefit; nothing about the middle of the pack is designed to help your team improve. For this reason you almost want to be careful about becoming average; it's often better to be bad until you think you can push into the playoffs. And this is the reason tanking exists, because all things being equal, long-term, it's often more advantageous to be the worst team in the league than it is to be average.
So my goal was simple: to add incentives to the middle of the pack without punishing the worst teams. With that in mind I have the following combination of proposals:
Proposal Part 1:
A flat draft lottery. This means that the top 12 teams make the playoffs (getting a shot at winning the World Series) and the bottom 20 teams all have an equal chance of landing the top pick. This way every team has a shot at something exciting every year. And it means that being 500 gives you the exact same shot at the #1 overall as a terrible team, meaning that the only remote upside to being bad is higher draft picks in rounds 2 and on (which does count, but not a ton). Every team at that point has an incentive to be as competitive as possible without sacrificing for the future.*
This has an obvious downside, in that the teams that need the most help are losing out on higher chances at top picks. And while Part 1 does help mid-range teams, it hurts bottom teams. Sooooo...
Proposal Part 2:
More stringent revenue sharing such that the lowest budget in the league isn't below $100 million and the top team budgets top out around $210-225. This basically moves all teams toward the average budget by somewhere between 0 and $25 million. So the worst teams (often the ones with the weakest budgets) lose out on high probabilities of top prospects, but they get an extra $20 million to spend every year.**
So that's basically it: give middling teams the same shot at the top pick as the bottom teams and induce more revenue/budget parity to give weak teams an easier go of it.
And again, I'm not carrying a torch/pitchfork here. I was trying to think of a way to disincentivize tanking and I do believe these proposals do that. Beyond that, I'm just trying to start a discussion. Thanks for reading.
* If there is concern about the randomness of the picks, that a team could get a bad draw on the lottery multiple times in a row, this could be controlled for, but that isn't an explicit part of the proposal.
** If implemented the revenue sharing would likely need to be phased in over several years; we obviously don't want the policy to gank anyone's budget too suddenly.
*** There was a comment here that was accusatory in retrospect. It has been amended, and I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Dec 1, 2018 21:00:48 GMT -5
As the GM of a team that has been stuck in the .500 rut for the past 6 seasons, I know the pain and frustration of not being good enough for the playoffs but not getting a sniff of the draft lottery
I like the idea of all non-playoff teams having a chance in the lottery, but I can't support all non playoff teams having an equal chance at the top pick. I strongly believe the lottery should still be weighted so like in every sport the worst teams still have the best shot at the top picks.
|
|
|
Post by JeremiahRoyals on Dec 1, 2018 21:22:39 GMT -5
I would be ok with a larger lottery system for draft picks. It does suck for the #2 worse team in the league that did put in the effort and picks 20th. If we put this in place to stop tanking from 1 or 2 teams it could be very unfair to the other 18 teams depending on the luck of the draw I do think it would have to be weighted.
I don't know about the budget proposal - I know I am sitting with a 258 mil budget so I am a little biased but even if you made the min budget of 100 mil per team it doesn't mean that team would spend up to that budget and if you are not a playoff team it would incentives you more to keep your spending as low as possible because you know you will not go below 100 mil no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Dec 2, 2018 8:36:05 GMT -5
Interesting ideas. Would you care to share who, in your opinion, is the " maybe only one team tanking right now"?
There is "tanking" and then there's bad, haphazard, victim of circumstance, desperation, unfocused, shiny things, etc., in my opinion.
"Tanking", to me, assumes someone really has a grasp on what they are doing and will masterfully manipulate their tank into a champion within a few years. Undoubtedly those same GM's will be able to masterfully keep their now-strong teams at the top of the league for some time (or start another round of tanking).
There will always be those kinds of GM's in this, or any other, online league.
There will be many more situations where a GM just shoots themselves in the foot. Some who will repeatedly fire into the already wounded area. They may think they are tanking, they may look like they are tanking, but they will rarely have everything line up perfectly to actually accomplish the tanking cycle. The first usually feast on the second.
There will always be those kinds of GM's in this, or any other, online league.
And then there are GM's who play the game without an active thought of tanking. I'll resist the term "normal", but let's just say they play without deviating to the extreme. - They could have a powerhouse team that needs a few tweaks or maybe just one veteran for prospects/picks blockbuster to keep them in a strong position for several more seasons. - They could be a good team that, through any number of circumstances (injury, market, budget/owner, their own personality and time invested) will never really get to greatness at the right time. - They might just be content to maintain hope of the post-season without every maniacally targeting a ring!
There will always be those kinds of GM's in this, or any other, online league.
Every GM is different. Every team's set of circumstances is different. Every league's "house rules" are different.
Many of the GM's in the upper half (certainly top 10) of the league will probably be ambivalent to the plight of the GM's in the lower, especially if the GM's have risen from the depths, proving it can be done (and not all via the tank).
Some of the GM's in the lower portion of the league will grasp at anything to improve their situation (even tanking) as a quicker path from bottom to top.
The bell curve dictates that there must be great - average/good - and bad GM's and teams.
NOW, finally, to specifically contribute to your proposals.
Proposal #1:
If we acknowledge your suggestion that only one team is actively tanking, then - to perpetuate the analogy - using a tank to kill a mosquito is overkill. One could argue (in fact someone already has here) that widening the lottery net will hurt others not in full tank mode that may just be bad at the moment. And I agree that the wider net may allow a JUST out of the post-season team the chance at first overall is not good.
SHANE, after a billion seasons, failed to make the post-season last season. Then he returns with a vengeance and dominates this past regular season with his juggernaut (not going all the way of course). Can you imagine HIM having the #1 pick through a new lottery alignment? Can you imagine the uproar in the league? Can you imagine the plethora of "proposals" to not allow that to ever happen again? Though I must admit, that does negate the idea of tanking, so I guess the proposal is quite sound after all.
Having said all that, all it takes is two GM's to execute a trade that sends the 1st overall pick in the draft - pre or post lottery, NOW or under any NEW proposal - to a perennial WS contender - and ANY draft fairness proposal is rendered moot.
Proposal #2: Won't turn down a chance to try and level the playing field, provided it's a mechanism within the game itself. I have played in leagues where there is a bunch of external magic to try and make things "level" and there is ALWAYS someone who will figure way to beat the established system. Even within the game, someone will always find a way it seems (again, there MUST always be haves and have nots)...
- Presently we use the "luxury tax". Clearly that could be tweaked (if it's certain to do what is proposed). - We could entertain the alternative of revenue sharing as a percentage within the game (if that is certain to do what is proposed).
- We also have media money - national and local. Clearly that too could be tweaked (again if it's certain to do what is proposed). - We could clamp down on max ticket prices again (though that is OUTSIDE the game, so I am not a fan and some would again argue that penalizies people who know what they are doing and are paying attention).
And I'm sure we would have no problem getting all 32 GM's onboard with any proposal at all.
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Dec 2, 2018 12:20:06 GMT -5
I'd be all for adjusting the luxury tax to a much higher amount (say 50%) for all salary over 200M
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Dec 2, 2018 16:35:52 GMT -5
The more I think about it the less a fan I am of the flat lottery. All the things that made it work so well for my basketball game (where I tested it out) are less effective and relevant here.
As far as whether others are interested in 1) extending the lottery to all non-playoff teams or 2) increasing budget parity irrespective of any lottery changes, there's more discussion to be had.
I'm a bit conflicted about budget parity, as I don't believe that a change is necessary for smaller market teams to compete (as I hope to prove in Milwaukee). But I'm definitely open to the argument that it should be easier for the small-budget teams to climb up than it is.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Dec 2, 2018 17:31:36 GMT -5
I'll comment further, but begin with: Status Quo is always an option. I purposely did not suggest any specific ideas when I replied to "Proposal #2" above, just generalities. But if you would like some specifics to discuss, I will offer two that require nothing outside of the game itself and both currently found in the league rules, the "Finance & General Settings" section: 1) The "Luxury Tax" soft cap is stated as applied at 120% (of league average payroll). What is not stated is the tax rate. - Any chance we could confirm the 120% number in-game?
- If nothing else, could that be listed in the rules?
- Could we also confirm the tax rate on the amount above 120%? I think the default is 20%?
Default Setup:
I looks like 10 teams were docked revenue sharing dollars this past season (visible in S+) and 16 teams mainly benefited from that with an equal share. While both numbers could be altered, I would suggest the tax rate be the only one. If it is indeed 20%, then maybe we take it up to 25% (even 30% - whatever) and spread more wealth among the bottom half teams IF the wealthy choose to spend.
Yes, it is more of a penalty, but only to those that seem able to afford it (and they are already spending 20% more than the average by in-game rule before being taxed at all). You can always attempt to avoid the tax by not going past an already generous 120% soft cap, which is of no help to the bottom teams.
But the point is that should you, then there are consequences and distribution of tex to those that simply cannot spend to that level.
2) The rules also state that the "average media contract is $30,000,000." This is kind of unclear as there are actually two media revenue lines in the game - National and Local. I assume the rules apply to the "Local" media contract?
- Could we confirm the three settings in the graphic below in PBL? National amount - Market Size or Same for All - Local amount?
- Again, could all three variables be listed in the rules (simply for reference)?
- There are several options available here:
- If currently based on "Market Size", changing the second variable to "Same for all teams" would, depending on the number, make a difference. Honestly not sure WHAT number it would change to? All would get the highest number? All would get the lowest number? All would get an average number? Worse case, we decide a number, make it apply to all and then change each team's name to match on the team financial page.
- The "Local" media contract will fluctuate from the "average" so there are likely a whole bunch of numbers for individual teams in play. That would also be the case moving forward, but there is a way to counter that too.
- Some leagues will decide on a "media number" (sort of a combined, possibly average, number of BOTH the national and local amount). That new number can be entered as the NATIONAL media contract, the second line changed to SAME, and then the local ZEROED to prevent fluctuation. That way, everyone should receive EQUAL media dollars. I might suggest the "average" approach as you do not want to artificially introduce a whole bunch of cash into the game finances. Again, some will lose and some will win under this scenario.
Default Setup:
I, personally, would resist doing anything outside the game, any sort of "cash influx" (which is also essentially outside the game, even if a one-time thing), basically anything that will mess with the game mechanics and potentially make things worse, not better.
In the case of the second idea above, while it manipulates the game, you then leave the game alone. And the second idea could also be phased in if needed, to minimize the impact. We would have to decide how that would look, but I'm sure it could be done. Then once phased it, leave it alone going forward (everyone having the SAME media revenue number).
And I will leave it there...other than to repeat: Status Quo is always an option. Especially if it causes any friction or division. We have played for some time in PBL under the current system. Some teams have risen through the ranks quite nicely over time and have become top budget teams. Others have fallen, when compared to their current MLB counterparts. Heck, even MLB has some teams that miraculously beat the odds, time things perfectly and win (or at least go far in the post-season) not named Dodgers or Yankees IRL.
Status Quo is always an option. Like I said above, a bell curve dictates there will always be some haves, have nots, and a bunch of teams in the middle.
Just some thoughts for the exercise.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Dec 2, 2018 20:55:02 GMT -5
Good discussion. My thoughts.
I do not think intentional tanking is a problem in PBL. But I have learned in previous discussions that tanking can have a different definition and connotation depending on who you are talking to. I personally define tanking as intentionally failing to field the best team available with the purpose of losing games. Trading a star player for specs, while decreasing the number of wins as a result, is not tanking. That move is designed to win more games later. Leaving a fully developed player in AAA or playing players out of position are examples of tanking in my opinion. In this context tanking is not tolerated and repeated behavior will result in removal from the league.
All that being said, I repeat, I do not believe we have a tanking problem in PBL. So is there something that needs to be corrected? If there IS something to be addressed it could me more around the issues of competition and parity. We do have some have and some have nots in the league. No doubt about it. Turning a organization around can easily take 8-10 seasons in some cases. I am of two minds on this. On one hand, parity is always a good thing. It keeps things interesting and engaging. On the other hand, teams that are very strong financially and have a great base have built themselves up and should be rewarded.
Ok, now that I have some background laid down here are my opinions on the specific items in this proposal.
I do not like the draft lottery. I proposed that we remove it entirely a couple of seasons ago but the league voted to keep it. That's cool, the league likes it so all good. But if it were up to me I would have the worse teams getting the highest picks. Strait forward, simple. The worse teams need the most help. The current lottery does not make sense to me. If you were so inclined to tank, you could still tank for more ping pong balls. Mathematically you are still getting something for your efforts. All the ping pong balls do is not guaranty you will profit. So I do not see it as a very effective deterrent. If you did want a deterrent a flat lottery is a much better option. But that I believe that would do way more harm to the bottom teams than any benefit it would provide.
In summary my draft lottery preference is to leave it as it is.
As far as revenue sharing. I think this is where we would have a better opportunity to make some small steps towards a more socialistic model that would theoretically increase league parity. Like I said above, I do think it is important to reward GMs that have worked long and hard to build strong organizations. I have always preferred dynasty fantasy football leagues over redraft. I like thinking seasons ahead. I don't think an even revenue sharing, even budget model would be fun at all. I want my decisions to have consequences that have to be weighed. But there may be some opportunity to spread the wealth some. Slight increases to the revenue sharing, luxury tax, and/or visiting team gate share can be on the table.
Revenue sharing has gotten some support in this thread. If it gets some more I'll put up some proposal polls.
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Dec 2, 2018 23:03:03 GMT -5
Seeing as how this is a discussion and not a vote, just in case anyone is counting, I vote that things are fine as is. We have seen a number of small market teams emerge as one of the main players in the game.
Shouldn't be looking for a free hand out, up your game
|
|
|
Post by Tim_KCRoyalsGM on Dec 5, 2018 10:33:35 GMT -5
I'm fine keeping it as is. I'm fine expanding the lottery as long as it is weighted (as Carolina suggested).
But definitely no fan of a lottery giving all non playoff teams equal shot at the 1st overall pick. Not a fan of that under any circumstances.
Tim / KC
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Dec 5, 2018 11:10:06 GMT -5
Just revisiting this (as it may have been lost in my lengthy post above): Presently we list these items in the rules: e. Average media contract is $30,000,000
f. Media contract based on market size h. Luxury Tax - Soft cap 120%If we do nothing else (remain as is) could we at least confirm and list the following items (just so we see the information): - National Media Contract Amount - (I assume this is the $30M number above, please just confirm) $$
- Based on market size already listed above
- Local Media Contract Amount - $$
- Luxury Tax - Soft Cap of 120% already listed above
- Tax Rate above 120% - ??
Again, this does not change a thing, just adds informtion about the game/league settings to the existing rules. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Dec 5, 2018 11:24:35 GMT -5
Just revisiting this (as it may have been lost in my lengthy post above): Presently we list these items in the rules: e. Average media contract is $30,000,000
f. Media contract based on market size h. Luxury Tax - Soft cap 120%If we do nothing else (remain as is) could we at least confirm and list the following items (just so we see the information): - National Media Contract Amount - (I assume this is the $30M number above, please just confirm) $$
- Based on market size already listed above
- Local Media Contract Amount - $$
- Luxury Tax - Soft Cap of 120% already listed above
- Tax Rate above 120% - ??
Again, this does not change a thing, just adds informtion about the game/league settings to the existing rules. Thanks! Thanks for the reminder. Will do. I'll check it out and post tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Dec 5, 2018 20:14:35 GMT -5
Luxury tax is right. The other two settings do not match up (see attached). I do not know when they got out of sync but I would wager they have been for quite awhile. My recommendation is to change the documentation to match what is in the game. Not the other way around.
|
|