Draft Lottery

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Bottom 10 teams are put in a draft lottery to work against tanking every season.

or

If a team doesn't hit min ABs and min INN in more than 3 games a season, they are moved back 10 spots in the draft.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Bottom five already in a lotto. And if team doesn't make minimum for 5 weeks, they ineligible. Happened to Marlins this year, ineligible for lottery. So no Ohtani.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

sweet, carry on

[Marlins GM (Mike J)]

I don’t think my sorry ass team ever hit minimums. Lil Loria didn’t give me much to work with. Had to make the best of it to build that farm 🤷🏻‍♂️ Had 2nd pick last year and Corey ray isn’t living up to the hype 🙄

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

a team can always make the min. there were plenty of FA's all the way to the end.

[Marlins GM (Mike J)]

Also, didn't know bout the taking rule til will into the season, was too late by that point...

[Cardinals GM (John C)]

Another thread resurrection!

How about this:  A lottery for the top 5 picks in the draft goes to the top 5 teams who just missed the playoffs ... that way the teams who are trying to win are rewarded, and tanking will get you no higher than the 6th pick in the draft.

So the top 5 teams who just missed the playoffs pick in the 1-5 spots, then the rest of the teams who missed the playoffs in reverse order of their finish from the previous year, then the playoff teams.  

We could then compensate the bottom 5 teams by taking away their 2nd round pick in exchange for picks in the supplemental round.  So, the "bad" teams still will get good players in the draft, but they will not be rewarded with the top 5 players.

Thoughts?

[Diamondbacks GM (Ethan)]

No. Freaking. Way.

[Cardinals GM (John C)]

Just curious ... why not?

Of course, it would not go into effect until 2023 ... still, there would be absolutely no incentive to lose as many matchups as possible. Is it not the goal of the league for teams to be as competitive as possible?

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

Why would a near playoff team get a chance at the no.1 overall pick? How does that seem fair?

[Diamondbacks GM (Ethan)]

Yeah, I mean it should be self explanatory. Either you go for the playoffs, wherein your reward could turn out to be financial, or you rebuild, where your reward could be a draft pick. Not all draft picks work out, whereas money is money.

If you want to make more of an incentive to win, expand the playoffs.

[Nationals GM (Preston)]

I'm with Rangers and Diamondbacks, though always appreciate creative ideas. I think our eligible roster rule works well; dropping out of the top 5 is a pretty good punishment in my opinion, given how those tops guys tend to be the best lottery tickets.

[Cardinals GM (John C)]

Well, that’s all fine, I suppose. I try to go along with Colin Powell’s maxim: Never let your position get so close to your ego that, if your position goes down, your ego goes with it. So, I’m cool with it either way.

It just seems really easy to compete for a top 5 draft pick in this league … just get 8 players and 8 pitchers who have debuted in MLB but aren’t likely to play much, and you are set. Not sure how else you prevent that from happening.

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

I like the idea of providing incentives to those teams that are trying to compete.

I think removing any team from the lottery that hasn’t hit both the hitting and pitching minimums would be a good start. I would exclude any short weeks from this calculation. Hitting minimum AB & IP should be the minimum qualification for getting a top 5 draft pick.

[Nationals GM (Preston)]

Sept 15, 2021 19:35:06 GMT -8 Cardinals GM (John C) said:

Well, that’s all fine, I suppose. I try to go along with Colin Powell’s maxim: Never let your position get so close to your ego that, if your position goes down, your ego goes with it. So, I’m cool with it either way.

It just seems really easy to compete for a top 5 draft pick in this league … just get 8 players and 8 pitchers who have debuted in MLB but aren’t likely to play much, and you are set. Not sure how else you prevent that from happening.

I was referencing the minimum IP and AB totals.

One strike is way too punitive though because injuries do happen, even with teams doing everything possible to compete like myself. I think we had set it at a quarter of the year.

[Astros GM (Dave)]

So I am pretty sure we already have some rules in place to keep teams from tanking on purpose to get the first draft pick.  If you don't hit the minimums 5 weeks out of the season, you are automatically out of the top 5 lottery, if I'm reading this thread correctly.  I know the week I played the Rangers this year I didn't hit my pitching minimum, I had two starters down with COVID, no way I could do anything about not hitting the minimum.  So I think the 5 week minimum rule is a good way to stop teams from tanking on purpose because the team wouldn't have a top 5 pick.  If you want to make it a little tougher even so teams don't tank on purpose, if you don't hit the minimums 5 weeks or more out of the season, you drop out of the top ten picks and pick 11th.  So the team that would have been picking 6th, now enters into the lottery picks.  The teams that would have been 7th through 11th, are now 6th through 10th.  Just a thought, I love the discussions on possible improvements going on.

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

I think the team not hitting minimums dropping to pick 11 makes sense, with every other team moving up a place in the draft & and the bottom 5 who hit minimums go into the draft lottery.

The issue I have is with only needing to hit minimums in 5 weeks of the season. In a season that lasts 21 regular weeks, you could compete for the first 5 weeks (be 0-5), then embark on a total rebuild (without remaining somewhat competitive). I think the rule needs to be your allowed to not hit the minimums 5 times, this would still cater for those unforeseen cases where multiple players are not available in a given week.

[Nationals GM (Preston)]

Sept 16, 2021 15:56:01 GMT -8 Rays GM (Donavan) said:

I think the team not hitting minimums dropping to pick 11 makes sense, with every other team moving up a place in the draft & and the bottom 5 who hit minimums go into the draft lottery.

The issue I have is with only needing to hit minimums in 5 weeks of the season. In a season that lasts 21 regular weeks, you could compete for the first 5 weeks (be 0-5), then embark on a total rebuild (without remaining somewhat competitive). I think the rule needs to be your allowed to not hit the minimums 5 times, this would still cater for those unforeseen cases where multiple players are not available in a given week.

I think you have it opposite, Donavan, it's that you can't NOT hit the minimums more than 5 times a year (i.e., you need to hit them the other 16).

I like what the Astros said. Bump teams down to 11 if they tank.

[Cardinals GM (John C)]

Jan 6, 2018 17:04:59 GMT -8 Cubs GM (Beau) said:

Bottom five already in a lotto. And if team doesn't make minimum for 5 weeks, they ineligible. Happened to Marlins this year, ineligible for lottery. So no Ohtani.

Ok, based upon this post (I could not find the "no more than 5 games not meeting minimums" thing in the rules ... where is it?  Is the max 4 weeks missing mins or 5 games missing mins?), I just took 20 minutes or so to go through every week of the season and see how many teams missed the minimums each week.  Here is what I came up with (if we are going to make decisions based upon these numbers, then I really would want someone to verify my numbers):

The following teams had weeks when they did not meet the AB or the IP minimums and would, therefore, be ineligible for the draft lottery:

Cubs:  Missed all 21 weeks

Royals: Missed all 21 weeks

D'Backs: Missed 16 weeks

Phillies: Missed 13 weeks

Blue Jays: Missed 13 weeks

Rangers: Missed 11 weeks

Marlins: Missed 11 weeks

Dodgers: Missed 7 weeks

Mariners: Missed 6 weeks

Red Sox: Missed 6 weeks

Astros: Missed 6 weeks

============== <-- Assuming it is "miss no more than 5 weeks", the line goes here.  If it is "missed 5 weeks or more", the line goes 2 teams down

Rockies: Missed 5 weeks

Cards: Missed 5 weeks

A's: Missed 4 weeks

Pirates: Missed 2 weeks

Nats, Tigers, and Indians: Missed 1 week each

---

---

What does all of this mean?  It means that, assuming the "no more than 5 weeks missing minimums" rule is still active and correct, then the bottom 9 teams this year are ineligible for the draft lottery.  If the rule is "no more than 4 weeks missing minimums", then the bottom 10 teams are ineligible for the draft lottery.  So here are the two possibilities (assuming this rule is still in effect):

Possibility 1 (the rule is "no more than 5 games missing minimum IP and ABs):  The 5 draft lottery teams are the Cardinals, Pirates, Rays, Rockies, and Indians 

Possibility 2 (the rule is "no more than 4 games missing minimum IP and ABs):  The 5 draft lottery teams are the Pirates, Rays, Indians, Mets, and Yankees

So, the operative question is a two-parter: (1) Is the rule still in effect (and where is the rule posted), and (2) Is the rule "no more than 4 weeks missing mins" or "no more than 5 weeks"?

---

---

---

Edit:  I found it.  No longer in the rules, so the above numbers should only inform whether any adjustments need to be made in the rules.

Jan 18, 2014 at 4:52pm

When we changed the rules for eligibility for the draft lottery, I made it look like we were removing the AB & IP minimums from the scoring on fantrax. This is not the case. During a match-up you must have at least 100 AB or you will automatically forfeit AVG & OPS, and you must have at least 30 IP or you will automatically forfeit WHIP & ERA.

The change is that we removed the minimums from being tied to the draft lottery.

The new rule requiring all teams to carry 8 pitchers and 8 hitters who are not minor leaguers is an attempt to make every team be able to at least field a team for each match-up.

[Cardinals GM (John C)]

So, now the question returns to my original question: Does it make sense that, in the worst-case scenario, a creative owner can roster 8 batters and 8 pitchers who have debuted in MLB (thus not minor leaguers) but are unlikely to accrue meaningful MLB stats (they could even be playing overseas, as long as they have previously debuted in MLB) and still qualify for a lottery pick?

Obviously, this discussion will have no effect on this year's lottery -- it would be in effect for next season and the future.

Clearly, the penalty of "no ratio scoring for you if you don't meet the AB and IP minimum!" is insufficient to prevent teams from not trying to win matchups.