|
Post by Keith(Brewers GM) on Sept 29, 2017 12:00:12 GMT -6
Based on feedback received from league owners, potential league changes to be discussed and eventually voted on are as follows:
1) Add walks as a category or eliminate hits.
2) Allow teams to trade comp picks.
3) Fix the issue of blatant tanking by requiring a roster minimum of 20 active players.
4) Change the yahoo roster limit setting from 25 to 30. Regular season roster max for MLB would still be 25 and playoffs would be 30 per round and rosters are locked with those 30 at the beginning of the week.
If I forgot anything please post it in this thread along with any other ideas you may have to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Sept 29, 2017 14:45:57 GMT -6
Not sure walks should be added since this is already an OBP league.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Sept 29, 2017 14:48:14 GMT -6
And I don't like to see an arguement to as why hits should be eliminated. Every baseball league I've played in has had hits, it's a major part of the game of baseball.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Sept 29, 2017 17:02:26 GMT -6
And I don't like to see an arguement to as why hits should be eliminated. Every baseball league I've played in has had hits, it's a major part of the game of baseball. As of now, hits get their own category even though they're factored into AVG/OBP/SLG. This means that a base hit factors into at least 4 categories. However, walks are still valuable but are limited just OBP. Based on the current configuration, we're treating hits as being four times as valuable as a walk. While I'll admit that a hit is more valuable than walk in most situations, we're still undervaluing walks. By adding walks, it would at least counterbalance how much we're valuing hits. If we removed the hits category, they would still factor into three categories -- AVG/OBP/SLG -- with walks still being limited OBP. Also, you play in my Dynasty league and we account for walks and not hits.
|
|
|
Post by Tom(Angels GM) on Sept 29, 2017 17:30:34 GMT -6
What about adding walks and eliminate OBP. That would narrow the value gap.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Sept 29, 2017 17:33:47 GMT -6
What about adding walks and eliminate OBP. That would narrow the value gap. I agree that closes the gap but the few teams I talked to have said they prefer to keep the traditional slash numbers in place.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Sept 29, 2017 17:54:02 GMT -6
Then eliminate batting average. If you want to mess with the offensive numbers. If you drop hits you then have no need for batting average. It's seems arbitrary to have walks factored in an obp league. Since that is the main category walks should have an effect on. I'm not understand why you want to add an arbitrary stat that really holds no bearing
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Sept 29, 2017 17:56:52 GMT -6
I mean if you wanna drop a stat drop a useless stat like outfield assists since we already have total assists your dropping a traditional stat that is pretty much in every fantasy league ever created.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Sept 29, 2017 18:27:09 GMT -6
I'm not trying to "mess" with offensive categories ... I was just trying to find a way to account for Walks when they actually hold value in the game and aren't 1/4 as valuable as a hit.
OBP is mainly comprised of battering average (hits) so it's not the best way of accounting for walks.
Walks aren't arbitrary either. MLB teams are well aware of the value of a walk. This league accounts for so many things, but not walks for some reason. I was just looking to find a way to balance things out.
Hits aren't a traditional category. The standard 5x5 league accounts for: Runs, HRs, RBIs, SBs, AVG. We have both Hits and AVG, which is redundant.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Sept 29, 2017 19:09:19 GMT -6
We also have our field assists and assists which are redundant, why not eliminate out field assists which hold 0 value. And obp is not made up mostly of hits it's made up of 1/3, hits, hbp, and walks make up obp. So why not include HBP if you want walks.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Sept 29, 2017 19:16:03 GMT -6
How does a walk carry less weight in an obp a hit and a walk are valued exactly equally. They aren't worth 1/4. It's a 1:1 valuation.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Sept 29, 2017 19:22:50 GMT -6
It's true that OBP is split up between those three categories, but the split isn't 1/3 because there are far more Hits than Walks. When you actually add up the totals for these categories, AVG accounts for over 70% OBP while Walks is limited to 27%.
Totals entering today: Hits: 41476 - 70% Walks: 15534 - 27 % HBP: 1739 - 3%
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Sept 29, 2017 19:28:37 GMT -6
As it should be, because there are far more hits than walks your trying to inflate the value of walk artificial. A hit should be more valuable than a walk because there are just simply more outcomes you can achieve from a hit rather than just one base, if your really concerned about adding walk don't want hits dropped ask for slugging to be changed to OPS. Keeps hits more valuable with an added emphasis on walks but doesn't over inflate them.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Sept 29, 2017 19:29:19 GMT -6
How does a walk carry less weight in an obp a hit and a walk are valued exactly equally. They aren't worth 1/4. It's a 1:1 valuation. The 1/4 value comment was based on the league category settings. Hits factor into: Hits, AVG, OBP, SLG. Walks factor into: OBP. That's 1/4.
|
|
|
Post by Nate(White Sox GM) on Sept 29, 2017 19:39:03 GMT -6
As it should be, because there are far more hits than walks your trying to inflate the value of walk artificial. A hit should be more valuable than a walk because there are just simply more outcomes you can achieve from a hit rather than just one base, if your really concerned about adding walk don't want hits dropped ask for slugging to be changed to OPS. Keeps hits more valuable with an added emphasis on walks but doesn't over inflate them. I agree with you that Hits far more valuable than Walks. My point is that Walks account for 27% of one category and that's far from their actual value. Meanwhile, hits factor into at least 4 full categories. My suggestion was open-ended. As I've said a few times now, I think they're barely being accounted for in a league with 19 total categories, which is just strange to me. I didn't anticipate spending this much time on the topic. Either way, I'm open to suggestions whatever they may be. As for the fielding categories, I've actually come around on OFAs because Asts make middle infielders more valuable. By having OFAs, at least OFs have a chance at counter-balancing things to some degree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 7:24:09 GMT -6
Would like a vote on whether or not suspended players are allowed to be placed on IR. In my opinion, IR is for injuries and paternety leave, not players who do baseball-illegal things.
Would like the "FA increase bid of at least .5M AAS" rule eliminated. I was one of the supporters for it last year, but considering how well our FA went last year, I do not believe it to be necessary.
Regarding the scoring discussion, if we remove hits, shouldn't we then also remove a pitching category making it 7x7? - I don't really like the hits category, but like all our pitching categories.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 25, 2017 10:08:04 GMT -6
Free agency goes smoothly because of that rule.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2017 10:45:38 GMT -6
I have not been in the league while it had no restrictions on FA-bids, but I doubt that. I prefer what we have now compared to the former two-bid system, but I do not see any issues with removing the bid rule completely, as we quickly get near the final salary level.
However, if there isn't support for removing the rule, I would secondly support that instead of having to increase the AAS by 0.5M, the single bid must be increased by 0.5M if the bid is at 5M or more. If below 5M, there is no restrictions on bidding. It does creates more rules and potentially confusion, but the 0.5 AAS rule is not good, IMO.
Hope it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 25, 2017 22:41:06 GMT -6
It makes no sense. The .5 mil rule is the minimum of hpower bid has to be raised so teams can’t out bid you by a dollar. The rule is a guide line so the bids aren’t nickel and dimed. You can raise a bid by however much you want. The .5 is just the miminum it has to be raised. I’m not sure you yourself are understanding it.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 25, 2017 22:45:04 GMT -6
By taking away the miminum you have to move the bid it would make free agency infinitely longer because then you can basically move the bid by 1 dollar each time if you wanted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 14:15:08 GMT -6
Come on, Derrick. We had/have a rule of increasing bids with 0.25M, which would obviously stay. With the latest version of FA, we have a rule of either increasing the bid with another year or increasing it with with 0.5M in AAS, not just in total contract-sum. I am, as I wrote, in favor of removing the AAS-rule as I find it hindering, especially when dealing with smaller contracts.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 26, 2017 14:30:40 GMT -6
So you basically don’t want salaries got it.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 26, 2017 14:33:07 GMT -6
Your again missing the point. The .5 million rule is the minimum the bid must increase, you honestly have no idea what your talking about. You can increase the bid as much as you want but MUST be increased by a minimum of .5 mil.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 20:50:38 GMT -6
Wondering what a persons definition of “tanking” is? Is there a specific record that indicates a team is tanking??
|
|
|
Post by Tom(Angels GM) on Dec 26, 2017 20:56:20 GMT -6
I would assume a team that doesn't field a starting line up. Having real Minor leaguers in their starting line up. Having all-star players on their bench while the minor leaguers are in the line up. Things like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 20:58:21 GMT -6
I think leaving your studs on the bench when there are spots in the lineup for them is tanking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 26, 2017 21:32:54 GMT -6
I honestly wasn’t aware that we had a tanking issue in this league. I do know that due to injuries and lack of either cap space or available talent, it’s sometimes difficult for people to field a complete team. I know I had issues with my SP all going down.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 26, 2017 22:08:38 GMT -6
My definition of tanking would be leaving an all star catcher on the bench for weeks. While playing a team full of players in the minor leagues
|
|
|
Post by Keith(Brewers GM) on Dec 26, 2017 22:29:00 GMT -6
As far as tanking some teams were obviously tanking last year. I think a 20 minimum active players on your MLB roster takes care of this. Anyone disagree or have another opinion/solution?
As far as bid intervals...I don't care if it's a minimum $0.25M AAS increase or a $0.50 AAS increase but I think whatever it is it should be the same for RFA, UFA, and in-season FA because last year was a nightmare from an administrative aspect. I had to send probably 100 extra messages telling people their bids were illegal which was a pain. Easy to forget so that will continue to happen if it's not uniform across the board.
I see the pros/cons of both $0.25M and $0.50 intervals and I understand why certain people like each of them based on personality traits/amount of time available to spend on FA so I get both arguments.
Possible solution to satisfy both ends is .25M AAS intervals but we only bid the AAS and not years. The winning bidder then assigns years afterwards within 24 hours from 1-6 years. Failure to do so results in a 1 year contract? This would eliminate people adding an extra year and force them to increase the bid thus moving it along. Personally I have no problem with however we want to do FA, it's all the same for all of us but I'll really be pushing for uniform increments.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick(Mets GM) on Dec 26, 2017 22:31:20 GMT -6
I think the years adds another aspect to the bidding.
|
|