Draft Lottery

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

So this is what I don't like... Like there has to be exemptions to rules. We don't want full tanking especially in a competitive league but with 40 man rosters, injuries, and a cap vs in RL there's no cap it's going to be almost impossible for all teams to consistently meet minimums. I fielded a full batting lineup every week, but had no depth. Stayed compliant with that but injuries happen. So I missed a few weeks by literally 10ABs or less some weeks. IP is easier to meet with so many pitchers in the league.

How are we supposed to try and rebuild if we are penalized for trying? I hate losing. Even before min were consistently checked, I tried to put a full lineup every week I could. Just doesn't make sense when if your active that you get penalized.

[Cardinals GM (John C)]

I hear ya' ... I tried all season, and I still missed meeting minimums in 5 matchups (although that particular metric was not on my radar screen other than "gee, I hope I can meet the min because I would hate to lose this matchup because of that").

But do we want this league to have 7 teams that failed to meet the minimum AB and IP numbers in more than half of their matchups? Does that really mirror MLB in any meaningful way?

To be clear, I am not trying to be argumentative, and I am not attacking any other owner or the decisions they make -- people respond to incentives and disincentives. I'm just suggesting that perhaps we need to take a look at the incentives and disincentives to fielding a competitive team week to week.

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

I like the no more than 5 weeks not meeting minimums or drop ten places paired along with in-season max of 34 players who have not debuted. This would eliminate the 8x8 rule and make it black and white and easily enforceable.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

Not tanking is it's own reward. Besides #1 picks bust, fairly often. I think that any owner who does some research can find players no matter where they pick. The White Sox, (currently beating me in the playoffs) remake their team every year via free agency. PB trades his way into dynasties. I don't even understand what Das does, but it works. None of these teams are built by high picks in the draft. I'm not worried about tankers. Just my two cents.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

Good to see a fun conversation about the league. Thanks, John!

[Astros GM (Dave)]

Good points Robin, does it really matter if people tank (on purpose or not)?  Because so many high draft picks never make it big in MLB, probably doesn't really give any advantage in our league to pick high.

[Diamondbacks GM (Ethan)]

Exactly. Even if someone were to take someone like Marcelo Mayer with one of the lottery picks, they aren't seeing the fruits of that labor for 3-4 years anyway unless they trade him. In that case, they are trading Mayer to get better. If you want to address tanking, fine. Several suggestions have been mentioned here and on the Discord app (shameless plug to join if you haven't), but messing with the draft and lottery isn't one of them.

[Cardinals GM (John C)]

Nice to see folks engaging here. Even if we end up not changing anything, it is a good discussion to have.

There are numerous studies about draft pick slots and MLB success rates. Top 5 picks are not always stars, but they have the highest chance of making the majors and having successful careers. The numbers drop substantially the further down the draft board you go.

But if it really doesn’t matter where you draft, why don’t we just randomize the whole first round?

I’m just kidding, but obviously having a high draft pick matters.

Here is a decent article regarding draft slots and success rates.  Your best chance of finding a franchise player?  Draft in the top 5 … Click Here

[Astros GM (Dave)]

I am glad to see the discussions going on, we should always try to figure out ways to make the league even better than it is already.  John I appreciate you giving all of your points on this, and getting conversations going on it.  And extremely nice to see so many getting involved, tells me this league is a great one.

[White Sox GM (Aidan)]

Thanks for posting that all out, John. That's honestly shockingly high and kind of alarming to me. So if there are 630 total team weeks, we collectively didn't hit minimums in 24% of them? That definitely feels to me like we need to make some form of adjustment, whether that be less strict minimums for covid reasons or to just expand rosters.

[White Sox GM (Aidan)]

Like sure, I get it, MLB teams tank... but the incredibly horrible Orioles are a roughly 30% chance to win any game... if you don't hit minimums here you're not winning, period. I don't really see that as a paralel.

[White Sox GM (Aidan)]

Weird idea, but what if we altered tiebreaker rules on FA bids? I've always thought it's weird we just rely on whomever gets a bid in first for ties. People are busy and shit happens, there can be pretty high stakes decided by a few hours. What if, let's say, you didn't hit weekly minimums 10 times the previous year. You bid on a minor leaguer for $1M AAS, but so does another team who hit minimums every week, they win the tiebreaker. You can clearly still get around this as a rebuilding team, but it would cost you going over the $1M mark and paying for said prospect. Feel like that's a more fair incentive than taking away a lottery pick, both in that the quality of the prospects will be lower, and also that you can still workaround it by bidding a higher amount.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Sept 18, 2021 16:29:50 GMT -8 White Sox GM (Aidan) said:

Weird idea, but what if we altered tiebreaker rules on FA bids? I've always thought it's weird we just rely on whomever gets a bid in first for ties. People are busy and shit happens, there can be pretty high stakes decided by a few hours. What if, let's say, you didn't hit weekly minimums 10 times the previous year. You bid on a minor leaguer for $1M AAS, but so does another team who hit minimums every week, they win the tiebreaker. You can clearly still get around this as a rebuilding team, but it would cost you going over the $1M mark and paying for said prospect. Feel like that's a more fair incentive than taking away a lottery pick, both in that the quality of the prospects will be lower, and also that you can still workaround it by bidding a higher amount.

Hmmmmmmm. Well, that's interesting. We'd need to remove the penalty for teams that changed hands, and figure out more to go on for tiebreakers, but that seems like a solid incentive.

[White Sox GM (Aidan)]

I found a few potential issues with my next beer, but seems worthy of at least a chat in the offseason. Seems like any real planning will have to wait out the CBA negotiations, anyways.

[Cardinals GM (John C)]

There is clearly a strong incentive for an owner who needs to rebuild to strip down their team and take 1-2 years off from competing in order to stock up on several top picks. This is not a criticism of the owners who do that in any way … it is an acknowledgment that people respond to incentives and disincentives.

So, to me the question is: How do we incentivize owners into trying to compete while rebuilding and disincentivized owners from taking a year or two off from competing? I’m not sure taking away their tiebreaker on an FA bid is enough to do that.

We also have to acknowledge that there is a difference between an owner who is using the rules as written in an attempt to improve his/her team and an owner who just gives up and waits until next year.

Also, I have heard the argument “who does it hurt if an owner loses their matchups to get a better draft pick? They are only hurting themselves because they are paying the entry fee to others.” Well, you can probably ask an owner who is trying to make the playoffs and has to play tough teams down the stretch while their competition plays a couple “wait until next year” teams. It seems to me that we ought to endeavor to incentivize owners to try to knock off playoff teams even after they themselves are out of the running, but there is really a strong disincentive to do that (could have lost those matchups and gotten a higher draft pick in every round).

[Astros GM (Dave)]

I don't know what the answer is, I certainly didn't miss the innings minimum on purpose.  When I traded for Glasnow at the end of June, part of the trade was two of my pitchers (Wood and Akin).  But I did pick up two free agents to replace them (Suarez and Megill), however DeGrom got hurt and was shut down, Urquidy got hurt and was shut down.  I couldn't drop either one because they are part of my future (hopefully), and after I got Glasnow he had Tommy John and wasn't going to pitch and I certainly couldn't drop him.  So I didn't really have the salary cap space to get another starting pitcher.  I still came close to hitting the minimum innings most weeks, but my hands were kind of tied.  So I don't know, maybe if a pitcher has Tommy John and is lost for the season, the owner gets half of his salary to use to pick up a pitcher for the rest of that year?  Or gets a "set" dollar amount to pick up a replacement (like say 2 million, or whatever number we come up with)?  The owner would probably be over the salary cap, so a note would need to be made about it.  Injuries are going to happen, and if you are trying to be competitive, your salary cap is probably going to be pretty tight.  Kind of hard to pick up a replacement when you have money tied up with a guy that isn't going to play the rest of the year.  Again, I don't know what the answer is to make sure people hit the minimums, just letting everyone know I wasn't missing the minimum innings on purpose.  I believe the only time I missed the minimum innings before the trade at the end of June was when I had two starters out in the same week with COVID, and I believe I missed it by less than an inning.

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

Sept 19, 2021 16:51:27 GMT -8 Astros GM (Dave) said:

I don't know what the answer is, I certainly didn't miss the innings minimum on purpose.  When I traded for Glasnow at the end of June, part of the trade was two of my pitchers (Wood and Akin).  But I did pick up two free agents to replace them (Suarez and Megill), however DeGrom got hurt and was shut down, Urquidy got hurt and was shut down.  I couldn't drop either one because they are part of my future (hopefully), and after I got Glasnow he had Tommy John and wasn't going to pitch and I certainly couldn't drop him.  So I didn't really have the salary cap space to get another starting pitcher.  I still came close to hitting the minimum innings most weeks, but my hands were kind of tied.  So I don't know, maybe if a pitcher has Tommy John and is lost for the season, the owner gets half of his salary to use to pick up a pitcher for the rest of that year?  Or gets a "set" dollar amount to pick up a replacement (like say 2 million, or whatever number we come up with)?  The owner would probably be over the salary cap, so a note would need to be made about it.  Injuries are going to happen, and if you are trying to be competitive, your salary cap is probably going to be pretty tight.  Kind of hard to pick up a replacement when you have money tied up with a guy that isn't going to play the rest of the year.  Again, I don't know what the answer is to make sure people hit the minimums, just letting everyone know I wasn't missing the minimum innings on purpose.  I believe the only time I missed the minimum innings before the trade at the end of June was when I had two starters out in the same week with COVID, and I believe I missed it by less than an inning.

This is why I would like to see a DL/IR in this league. Injuries suck. I think for when covid started, didnt we do covid exemptions? Like be able to sign as injury replacements for 1yr? Of course, you would still have to outbid others, but if you didnt have to drop a player to sign them because you sent the injured player to DL, then even guys who are rebuilding dont have to drop valuable prospects that need time to show promise to improve their trade stock or help your team later. I mean, when injuries hit my team, i wanted to sign some replacements but i didnt make a ton of sense to me as these stop gaps to try and make innings or ABs for a season didnt help me long term than keeping my prospect on my roster for trade capital.

And yes, JOIN THE DISCORD! Dont fight it. ALL the cool kids are doing it and it fights COVID. The second part might or might not be fake news but seemed funny when it popped in my head.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Sept 17, 2021 9:05:09 GMT -8 Cardinals GM (John C) said:

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.

This has actually been my argument the entire year. The ratio minimums (as a tank disincentive) where replaced by the 8+8 roster minimums. The penalty is quite clearly not being eligible for the lotto, until changed midseason this year (which is a big no-no). As pointed out, the 8+8 rule is not effective. Why would anyone want to force a rebuilding team to roster 8 shitty pitchers and hitters is beyond me and will add a couple years to a rebuild. The competitive makeup of any given division is dynamic over time. Beyond that, the obsession with not tanking escapes me as well. Every owner should be able to build and rebuild as they like and the draft should be a strict 1.01-1.30.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Increased injury rates , changing utilization of pitchers, teams use of 40-man depth over the season all lend to a likely increased in missed ratio minimums. As I understand the purpose of this particular use of minimums is to dissuade an all bullpen staff, which would increase the likelihood of winning the ratio stats with a bare bones staff. Keeping that intact would limit the effect to losing ratio stats on any given week that a conventional bstaff is experiencing injuries. On the other hand , tying it to draft position is a cluster waiting to happen. The answer is to not tie minimums to draft position.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Sept 18, 2021 16:23:50 GMT -8 White Sox GM (Aidan) said:

Thanks for posting that all out, John. That's honestly shockingly high and kind of alarming to me. So if there are 630 total team weeks, we collectively didn't hit minimums in 24% of them? That definitely feels to me like we need to make some form of adjustment, whether that be less strict minimums for covid reasons or to just expand rosters.

Also agree that expanding rosters will relieve some of the tension around tanking.