Post by Commish_Ron on May 18, 2020 12:44:49 GMT -5
I have been overruled by the league to remove the draft lottery two times. I promise this is the last time I will bring it up. If the league decides it wants to keep it after this final effort by me then so be it. But let me present my case one last time.
The primary function of the draft lottery is to deter tanking. I would argue that 1) it does not accomplish that goal and 2) it actually does harm.
A GM in the mind set of tanking still has the mathematical incentive to do so. The difference is he will be tanking for more ping pong balls in the lottery pool. It is still in his interest to lose more games. All the lottery does is reduce the chances that he will get the top pick. So a tanking GM still has incentive to tank. The lottery does not deter it.
I have not seen evidence of true tanking since Ricky's Royals were removed from the league. But let's say for the sake of argument that in the last ten seasons there have been three teams that intentionally had the worse record with the strategy of getting the most ping pong balls. The lottery punishes all equally. We potentially took the first pick away from seven teams that should have had it. And who knows? It's all random. The tanking teams could have gotten the pick anyway. I contend the lottery harms more valid teams that punishes tanking ones.
The question "What is tanking?" has bearing on this conversation as well. The definition "Not winning as many games as possible" is way too vague and inaccurate. There are many valid reasons why a building team may not put it's absolute best team on the field. Maybe the limited FA budget was spent with a focus on team chemistry over adding WAR. Maybe it is a financial decision not to have that 23 year old crushing AAA on the active roster and pushing back his team control for another season. I think everyone would agree a rebuilding team may correctly elect to retain prospects even though a trade to make their active roster better is available. There are many reasons to not pursue maximum wins outside of chasing a draft pick.
Some examples of things that are tanking. Not filling the active roster with a valid mix of pitchers, catchers, infielders, outfielders. Demoting or releasing players that are obvious upgrades to players on the active roster. Staring players obviously outside of their positions. These were the things that Ricky's Royals were doing that got him removed from the league.
My final point is that tanking is just a bad strategy. In my experience and opinion, wins help more than draft picks. If a GM is intentionally tanking for draft picks his fan interest and finances are going to take a hit that to my mind reduces the value of a franchise on the whole more than a draft pick makes up for. To me the damage tanking does to a franchise is punishment enough and should act as enough of a deterrent to a savvy GM. No need for the lottery.
Feedback and opinions are encouraged and welcome.
The primary function of the draft lottery is to deter tanking. I would argue that 1) it does not accomplish that goal and 2) it actually does harm.
A GM in the mind set of tanking still has the mathematical incentive to do so. The difference is he will be tanking for more ping pong balls in the lottery pool. It is still in his interest to lose more games. All the lottery does is reduce the chances that he will get the top pick. So a tanking GM still has incentive to tank. The lottery does not deter it.
I have not seen evidence of true tanking since Ricky's Royals were removed from the league. But let's say for the sake of argument that in the last ten seasons there have been three teams that intentionally had the worse record with the strategy of getting the most ping pong balls. The lottery punishes all equally. We potentially took the first pick away from seven teams that should have had it. And who knows? It's all random. The tanking teams could have gotten the pick anyway. I contend the lottery harms more valid teams that punishes tanking ones.
The question "What is tanking?" has bearing on this conversation as well. The definition "Not winning as many games as possible" is way too vague and inaccurate. There are many valid reasons why a building team may not put it's absolute best team on the field. Maybe the limited FA budget was spent with a focus on team chemistry over adding WAR. Maybe it is a financial decision not to have that 23 year old crushing AAA on the active roster and pushing back his team control for another season. I think everyone would agree a rebuilding team may correctly elect to retain prospects even though a trade to make their active roster better is available. There are many reasons to not pursue maximum wins outside of chasing a draft pick.
Some examples of things that are tanking. Not filling the active roster with a valid mix of pitchers, catchers, infielders, outfielders. Demoting or releasing players that are obvious upgrades to players on the active roster. Staring players obviously outside of their positions. These were the things that Ricky's Royals were doing that got him removed from the league.
My final point is that tanking is just a bad strategy. In my experience and opinion, wins help more than draft picks. If a GM is intentionally tanking for draft picks his fan interest and finances are going to take a hit that to my mind reduces the value of a franchise on the whole more than a draft pick makes up for. To me the damage tanking does to a franchise is punishment enough and should act as enough of a deterrent to a savvy GM. No need for the lottery.
Feedback and opinions are encouraged and welcome.