You'd be most welcome in the FRL next time we have an expansion draft. We have one other person on the waiting list, but odds are there will be 2-3 expansion franchises available for the next term.lewie wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 10:38 amAfter reading most of the suggestions I believe this is the solution!WillyD wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 10:20 amThere's zero tanking in a Wheel Draft League.edmortimer wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 9:11 am My take is that min-max owners are always going to tank no matter what rules are in place.
An anti-tanking idea
Re: An anti-tanking idea
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:24 pm
Re: An anti-tanking idea
So I haven't posted here because I've been in so many tanking discussions before...
But then I recently had a C- pitcher start in one of the games I chaperoned. Commish decided to demote the player and put 4 CPs on him in a system 5 league (without consulting me of course), and I quit chaperoning as a result. Can't say I'm really happy about this and thought I'll chime in.
Now, here is why I did it, and you can judge for yourself if I was tanking or not. I inherited a team that was truly bombed out, I don't think the previous owner had one decent prospect in the minors. He did have a few good older players on the roster, and I traded away all of them for picks and young players. After a maybe 3 drafts I had a lot of young players, too many to develop in the minors. So I left the 7-8 best prospects in the minors for development (with 8 or more CPs) but promoted the rest and played them, figuring they would develop better in the majors.
Now, the pitcher in question had a strong control split, and these pitchers often develop better than pitchers with a velocity split, in my experience. (I will cut pitchers with B- or worse control while I'll be happy to play pitchers with C+ vel if they have A+ control.) I estimated that he would, with normal development, reach A or even A+ control and C+/B- velocity. Not a starter on a playoff team, but a decent player nevertheless. The alternative was to start a pitcher that I picked off the waiver wire that might have gone maybe 5-15, compared to 2-20 that the C- guy would have done.
Tanking? Really? I don't think so.
And then there are the VarDev leagues. If I'm rebuilding and I draft a player that doesn't convert well in the minors then I'll play him in the majors, at least for half a season.And yes, these players will often be very young and something like C overall. But I've got to find out if he's a gem or bust in the majors, and there is always the chance of a young major league curve. Can't afford to put CPs on a guy that will bomb in the majors because he's a bust, especially in system 2 or 6. And I typically have a LOT of guys that have moderate skill, guys that will become solid starters if they have a normal or better development curve but will end up being waiver wire fodder if they bust out in the majors. If I have 10 young guys like this then I'll have to play 3-4 of them in the majors at any given time, simply because there aren't enough CPs to go around. An OS20 gem in majors/bust in minors will develop better in the majors, despite his age.
An OS21 batter with B- contact and D+ power (C overall) will end up at A/A+ contact and B- power. A pitcher with B- control and D- velocity will end up at A/A+ control and C+/B- velocity. Of course it's always a lottery if they convert well, and especially at OS21 they will hurt from getting only major league ICs. But they can develop into quite decent players.
Let's look at what we can expect from a typical rebuild.
Both is unsportsmanlike, no question. But again, the damage is limited.
Of course there are situations where you're correct fentuzler47 . With system 3 minors there is no reason in the world to play C youngsters. Also if the player has no legitimate prospects, especially in system 5, and still puts garbage players in.
But even in system 5 there may be rare cases where one needs to develop a young player in the majors, due to lack of CPs. In system 2/6 and in VarDev leagues this will happen more often. Why block owners from doing what they consider best for their team?
But then I recently had a C- pitcher start in one of the games I chaperoned. Commish decided to demote the player and put 4 CPs on him in a system 5 league (without consulting me of course), and I quit chaperoning as a result. Can't say I'm really happy about this and thought I'll chime in.
Now, here is why I did it, and you can judge for yourself if I was tanking or not. I inherited a team that was truly bombed out, I don't think the previous owner had one decent prospect in the minors. He did have a few good older players on the roster, and I traded away all of them for picks and young players. After a maybe 3 drafts I had a lot of young players, too many to develop in the minors. So I left the 7-8 best prospects in the minors for development (with 8 or more CPs) but promoted the rest and played them, figuring they would develop better in the majors.
Now, the pitcher in question had a strong control split, and these pitchers often develop better than pitchers with a velocity split, in my experience. (I will cut pitchers with B- or worse control while I'll be happy to play pitchers with C+ vel if they have A+ control.) I estimated that he would, with normal development, reach A or even A+ control and C+/B- velocity. Not a starter on a playoff team, but a decent player nevertheless. The alternative was to start a pitcher that I picked off the waiver wire that might have gone maybe 5-15, compared to 2-20 that the C- guy would have done.
Tanking? Really? I don't think so.
Exactly. Even legit rebuilding will often result in a few 100 loss seasons, without additional effort to lose games. So a tanker can lose an extra 5 games a season, maybe 10. I've been in situations myself where I was pissed off about tanking because it cost me a few draft positions, but then, in the grand scheme of things it's just not much of a difference.Damien435 wrote: ↑Tue May 11, 2021 5:04 pm Where is the line between tanking and rebuilding? I'm not sure what the difference is and I'm a little uncomfortable weighing in without defining the terms being discussed and I don't see a definition of tanking or a distinction between tanking and rebuilding yet in this discussion.
And then there are the VarDev leagues. If I'm rebuilding and I draft a player that doesn't convert well in the minors then I'll play him in the majors, at least for half a season.And yes, these players will often be very young and something like C overall. But I've got to find out if he's a gem or bust in the majors, and there is always the chance of a young major league curve. Can't afford to put CPs on a guy that will bomb in the majors because he's a bust, especially in system 2 or 6. And I typically have a LOT of guys that have moderate skill, guys that will become solid starters if they have a normal or better development curve but will end up being waiver wire fodder if they bust out in the majors. If I have 10 young guys like this then I'll have to play 3-4 of them in the majors at any given time, simply because there aren't enough CPs to go around. An OS20 gem in majors/bust in minors will develop better in the majors, despite his age.
Because there are C players at OS21/OS22 that will become decent players if they play a lot in the majors, and there is the strong necessity to develop players in the majors. Especially in system 2/system 6 leagues where you can develop only 4-5 players in the minors at a time, and in VarDev leagues.Kingturtle wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 6:11 pm I've heard no argument against my idea. Who does it harm to prevent C or worse players from being in the majors, excluding catchers?
An OS21 batter with B- contact and D+ power (C overall) will end up at A/A+ contact and B- power. A pitcher with B- control and D- velocity will end up at A/A+ control and C+/B- velocity. Of course it's always a lottery if they convert well, and especially at OS21 they will hurt from getting only major league ICs. But they can develop into quite decent players.
And what's the benefit of doing this? You may be hampering legit rebuilds for the difference of maybe 5 wins a season. In the grand scheme of things, a tanker can be very, very bad without using C overall players. Using them won't make a huge difference.fentuzler47 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 2:55 am Pitchers~
1.) No pitchers with C- control or below in the majors
2.) Pitchers with C control in the majors must be OS 22-23
Hitters~
1.) No C overall hitters in the majors
2.) C+ overall hitters must be OS 22-23 and no C- hitting stats
Let's look at what we can expect from a typical rebuild.
- Normal rebuild. In the teams that I manage for a long time, if my team gets old then I'll sell the remaining players and go with youngsters. A typical rebuild for me is 5-6 losing seasons, with 2 100loss seasons in between. Let's say I'll average 55-60 wins in those 5-6 seasons. (Even my owner card shows 3+ playoff appearances for each 100l season, and I pride myself of always leaving my teams in a good state. Many of my teams have gone on to long playoff streaks just after I quit them.)
- Radical rebuild. In the teams that I chaperone I'll often inherit teams that are burned out. I'll try to sell every older player that still has value, I'll start older players from the waiver wire that have A+ mentoring and play a lot of young guys. (If I have 2 guys with equal mentoring then I'll use the better player, mind you. But sometimes I'll have to use C+ pitchers because there are many leagues where it's hard to find a red letter mentor on the waiver wire.) Then a rebuild will take 8-10 seasons and I'll average maybe 45 wins a season in that timespan. No tanking (in my opinion), I just try to complete the rebuild quickly and field the best team possible at the end of the rebuild.
- Now, if I was to "tank" by simply tweaking my manager settings I might drop this to 35-40 wins a season without being spotted.
- Using intentionally bad mentors. This concerns 2 out of 8 batters and 4 out of 10 pitchers, the rest will be youngsters. A tanker could replace the usuall B or B+ overall mentors with C or C+ mentors.
- Using young players that will be waived later instead of legitimate prospects. Now any decent manager that knows how to draft will have 6 legit pitching prospects and 6 legit batting prospects in the majors after 3-4 seasons of rebuilding, assuming that he is able to trade for a few additional picks. At this time it would hurt the team to play subpar players instead of legit prospects. So this is possible, but only makes sense for a few seasons.
Both is unsportsmanlike, no question. But again, the damage is limited.
Of course there are situations where you're correct fentuzler47 . With system 3 minors there is no reason in the world to play C youngsters. Also if the player has no legitimate prospects, especially in system 5, and still puts garbage players in.
But even in system 5 there may be rare cases where one needs to develop a young player in the majors, due to lack of CPs. In system 2/6 and in VarDev leagues this will happen more often. Why block owners from doing what they consider best for their team?
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:24 pm
Re: An anti-tanking idea
Now in order to be constructive.
- I'd love to see a draft lottery as default option. There are 100 ways to tank but only one incentive: Higher draft picks, find that elusive A overall OS18 pitcher. Take the incentive away and the problem is solved. Much easier than policing the 100 ways to tank...
Might be as simple as to randomize all draft positions among teams with a losing season. Yes, this might lead to some teams trying to get below .500 at the end of the season, so maybe randomize all 100 loss teams and mix in the teams with 63-80 wins weighted, so the 100l teams have a much better chance to draft high. - Another option is to refine the player generation for drafts a bit. Again, remove the incentive for tanking. If there are only 1 or 2 outstanding players in a draft then having the #1 or #2 pick is huge. So why not try to generate players such that the top 5-6 players have roughly the same value? Then tanking will give only a minimal reward. All randomized of course, so that we still can have a draft with 1-2 players that are way above the rest, but tweak the probabilities such that this becomes the rare exception.
- OTOH I truly hate the winning percentage conversion modifier, which in theory works similar: A tanker will get higher draft picks but they won't develop as well. In theory, this might be a good incentive for long-time manager not to do crash rebuilds.
But in practice there will always be managers who trade away every last pick and prospect and then quit the team when it's truly burned out, which kills the league in the long run. I once bought such a team in a winning percentage modifier league, and let's just say I won't ever play this mode again. I did turn around the team in the end, but it took me ages and wasn't fun. I think the league was killed shortly after I left because they couldn't find enough managers. No surprise.
Reason being, from the middle of round 1 to the end of round 2 you'll usually get "solid" players that will become weaker starters or good backups. The winning percentage modifier is harsh enough that these players won't develop properly for losing teams. Successful managers with decent drafting skills will get at the very least one good player out of every draft, while bad teams can't develop their high 2nd rounders properly. So your only option to get out of this is to sell high draft picks for players that will lift your team to .400 or .450 for a few seasons -- something that leaves a foul aftertaste for sure, especially if the players that you could have picked convert gem-like and become perennial all-stars.
Re: An anti-tanking idea
So there's so much bad info in this post, I don't where to start, but I'll touch on a few of the worst:Frunobulax wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:15 am So I haven't posted here because I've been in so many tanking discussions before...
But then I recently had a C- pitcher start in one of the games I chaperoned. Commish decided to demote the player and put 4 CPs on him in a system 5 league (without consulting me of course), and I quit chaperoning as a result. Can't say I'm really happy about this and thought I'll chime in.
Now, here is why I did it, and you can judge for yourself if I was tanking or not. I inherited a team that was truly bombed out, I don't think the previous owner had one decent prospect in the minors. He did have a few good older players on the roster, and I traded away all of them for picks and young players. After a maybe 3 drafts I had a lot of young players, too many to develop in the minors. So I left the 7-8 best prospects in the minors for development (with 8 or more CPs) but promoted the rest and played them, figuring they would develop better in the majors.
Now, the pitcher in question had a strong control split, and these pitchers often develop better than pitchers with a velocity split, in my experience. (I will cut pitchers with B- or worse control while I'll be happy to play pitchers with C+ vel if they have A+ control.) I estimated that he would, with normal development, reach A or even A+ control and C+/B- velocity. Not a starter on a playoff team, but a decent player nevertheless. The alternative was to start a pitcher that I picked off the waiver wire that might have gone maybe 5-15, compared to 2-20 that the C- guy would have done.
Tanking? Really? I don't think so
Because there are C players at OS21/OS22 that will become decent players if they play a lot in the majors, and there is the strong necessity to develop players in the majors. Especially in system 2/system 6 leagues where you can develop only 4-5 players in the minors at a time, and in VarDev leagues.Kingturtle wrote: ↑Fri May 14, 2021 6:11 pm I've heard no argument against my idea. Who does it harm to prevent C or worse players from being in the majors, excluding catchers?
An OS21 batter with B- contact and D+ power (C overall) will end up at A/A+ contact and B- power. A pitcher with B- control and D- velocity will end up at A/A+ control and C+/B- velocity. Of course it's always a lottery if they convert well, and especially at OS21 they will hurt from getting only major league ICs. But they can develop into quite decent players.
If you played a C- overall pitcher in one of the leagues I was commish, I would have demoted him too. There's no way a C- overall pitcher should be in the big leagues. You could find dozens of waiter wire players that are better, and that would develop better. Any C- overall pitcher at an age to be promoted is waiver wire trash.
Control pitchers improve worse than velocity heavy pitchers.
So, yes it's tanking, over the top tanking at that.
Your projections on C overall 21 year old prospects are way off. Do you really think that D- velocity will reach B-? That would be lucky for a teenage prospect, let alone a 21 year old. It would take a massive amount of ICs being distributed to velocity instead of control for that to happen, and then your pitcher's control wouldn't even make A control.
Re: An anti-tanking idea
Willy, I've had guys improve that much in leagues that have minor league systems where the players improve to the max. But these guys spend a long time in the minors, I'd never bring them up that early.
-bygmester
-bygmester
“Every strike brings me closer to the next home run.”
-George Herman "Babe" Ruth
-George Herman "Babe" Ruth
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:24 pm
Re: An anti-tanking idea
Well, I just spend a lot of time to explain why I did what I did. So, essentially you say that my projections are wrong and that you, as commish, would interfere -- why? We have a clear definition of tanking in the site rules, even though limited to system 3 and 4: "Owners [...] must either 1) Put their team in a position to win the most games or 2) Put their team in a position to best develop major league players.". Can't penalize a player for doing (2) just because he values players differently.WillyD wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:34 am If you played a C- overall pitcher in one of the leagues I was commish, I would have demoted him too. There's no way a C- overall pitcher should be in the big leagues. You could find dozens of waiter wire players that are better, and that would develop better. Any C- overall pitcher at an age to be promoted is waiver wire trash.
Well... Having done the math, it's a bit of an optimistic projection. OS21 D-/B- projects more to low C+/low A+, which is more a bullpen pitcher or an emergency starter. But then, I was talking about a team that had no legitimate prospects. Why not take a chance on a lesser prospect, hope that he'll get lucky? These players are ultra rare because most managers, like you, will just cut them. But if you actually develop them, say because you have no better players, then you'll be surprised how well they develop. Take this player: http://www.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id ... rimps=past D+/B- at OS21 and C+/A now, despite very lackluster development between OS22 to OS26 where he averaged less than 25 ICs a season (!).WillyD wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:34 am Your projections on C overall 21 year old prospects are way off. Do you really think that D- velocity will reach B-? That would be lucky for a teenage prospect, let alone a 21 year old. It would take a massive amount of ICs being distributed to velocity instead of control for that to happen, and then your pitcher's control wouldn't even make A control.
As for teenage prospects, an OS18 D-/B- will reach B/A+ if he converts a few more vel than con ICs early on. Which is basically a 50/50 chance. Of course, he might end up A+/C+ or A+/C if he converts more con. Players with such a heavy split are always risky.
Many managers underestimate older players because conversions depend heavily on the grades. They think that if a young player is 2 grades below another player at the same age, the difference will be the same when they are older. Which is completely wrong. Let's do an example. Batter A is C/C (middle of the grades, 40/40) at OS18. He'll be B-/B- (approx 55/55) at OS 20. Batter B is C/C (40/40) at OS20. Even though B is 2 full grades worse at OS20, he will catch up if both players receive the same amount of CPs because player A will convert less ICs than player B. At OS30 I project A to 83/83 (high A-/A-) while I project player B to 78/78 (low A-).
And for the real-life example: I did check on that C- player I started. He was D+/C+ at OS21 which I projected to 61 (low B)/85 (mid A), or 73 overall (mid B+) with a 3-grade control split. Worth taking a chance on.
You're right of course, pitchers with a control split convert less than pitchers with the same average grade and a velocity split. I should have chosen a different wording. What I meant to say with "had a strong control split, and these pitchers often develop better than pitchers with a velocity split, in my experience" is this: A C- player (or generally a low grade player) with a strong control split is much more likely to develop into a decent player than a C- player with a velocity split, because a pitcher with a control split needs a lower overall grade to be usable. For example, numerically, a 100/60 player will have roughly the same ERA as a 46/100 player, despit a 7-point average in their overall score.
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:24 pm
Re: An anti-tanking idea
You can develop them almost as well if you give them half a season in the majors and half in the minors. At OS21 the conversion rate in the majors is almost the same as in the minors, from OS23 the conversion rate in the majors are better (conversion per IC, not conversions per season). The reason why players still develop better in the minors is that they will get more endurance ICs and less con/vel ICs in the majors, while they'll get hardly any end ICs in the minors. However, the first 25 ICs in the majors go to vel/con almost exclusively...
Neat little trick to basically double the amount of young pitchers you can develop, with minimal loss to the overall development. Which gets us back on topic. For example, in system 2 league you can develop 2 young pitchers (still in option years) using only 5 CPs, with each getting half a season in the minors (5 CPs) and half a season in the majors. Both will get ~28 ICs in the majors (with good mentoring) and ~32 ICs in the minors, so each will get 60 ICs, compared to 64 ICs had they been full time in the minors.
Conversion rate drops significantly if they're OS20 or younger, but I do this all the time for OS21-OS23 pitchers if I'm rebuilding. Sometimes even for OS20 guys if I'm in a CP crunch, which may lead to C or C+ players starting for my team. (Starting pitchers have a much lower injury risk than relievers, especially if you try to get many ICs.) Which is once again no tanking, in my book.
Re: An anti-tanking idea
Please join my leagues, and draft those players ahead of me. They are all yours. In what world does D-/B- projects to B/A+? LOL
That pitcher you show is C+/A at OS34, and was C/A- most of his career!!!
D+/B- (at 18)is a split that projects to B/A+.
D-/B- (at 18)projects to C+/A+ with a chance at B-/A+, but the risk of C/A+ is there.
Please don't chaperone any teams in my leagues.
That pitcher you show is C+/A at OS34, and was C/A- most of his career!!!
D+/B- (at 18)is a split that projects to B/A+.
D-/B- (at 18)projects to C+/A+ with a chance at B-/A+, but the risk of C/A+ is there.
Please don't chaperone any teams in my leagues.
Re: An anti-tanking idea
As a general rule I never bring pitchers up before the age of 23 no matter what the minor league development system is. In Max development leagues I like to leave the guys down in the minors because they don't get endurance chances and they get more chances overall. I don't like to bring them up until I have to because I'm always competing and all 15 guys in my minors will eventually contribute in the major leagues. That's why and normal leagues my runs may go from 12 up to 20 seasons but My max development leagues runs usually go from 30 to 40 seasons.
“Every strike brings me closer to the next home run.”
-George Herman "Babe" Ruth
-George Herman "Babe" Ruth
-
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 8:15 am
- Location: Philadelphia
Re: An anti-tanking idea
Wheel draft is the only way to eliminate tanking without implementing a myriad of rules that someone will need to enforce.