MESSAGE BOARDS TOOLS:  Search | Members | User Control Panel |   | Login 


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Owners (might) explore rules to disincentivize tanking.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:12 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:11 am
Posts: 21069
Location: NYC
LTKfRGM wrote:
I don't know what this means. Teams always rebuild at their own risk. All I'm saying is that the team that's the best at being the worst shouldn't AUTOMATICALLY get the #1 pick and the most draft money to spend. We should stop rewarding teams for being the best at being the worst, but instead, mix it up a little, so the incentive to be the best at being the worst is decreased. I don't think it can ever be eliminated, but I'd like to see it reduced.

Yes, somebody will always get "rewarded", but if you make that reward less specific, the goal of losing is decreased. I feel like I've explained this 5 times. It's not complicated.



But what behaviors are you trying to incentivize/decentivize? How do you define "mix it up a little?" How do you distinguish between teams who are "legitimately bad" and those who are "tanking?" And why should rules be in place that objectively attempt to do that?

On top of that being difficult to do, you know what incentive gets created by having a lottery? The incentive to tank to get into the lottery? If it's a ten team lottery, then you will have the teams at 11 and 12 trying to get into the 10th position (something I discussed above wrt the protection for signing FAs who turned down QOs). If it's an 8 team lottery then you will have tanking to get to the 8th spot, etc.

So for me, first of all this lacks a strong enough reason to pursue a "solution," but also I don't feel like some engineered solution would have the ability to separate the "offenders" from the merely "legitimately bad." And as I also indicated, a lottery also has its own pratfalls. So added all up, there isn't enough foreseeable benefit to make some attempt at dealing with a problem that fails to rise to an offensive level. So to me, the only people overcomplicating things are those who want to add another layer of procedures that would inevitable leave someone else with some sort of grievance. It's not only not worth the effort, but it would invariably create another set of issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Owners (might) explore rules to disincentivize tanking.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:18 pm 
Online
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:09 am
Posts: 11630
Location: Somebody's stolen my avatar
HeyNowHK wrote:

But what behaviors are you trying to incentivize/decentivize? How do you define "mix it up a little?" How do you distinguish between teams who are "legitimately bad" and those who are "tanking?" And why should rules be in place that objectively attempt to do that?



Again, you're way overthinking this. You don't have to define anything, you simply remove the guarantee of reward for losing the most games. You guarantee the team with the worst record a 20% chance at the #1 pick not a 100% chance. They still get the first pick in round 2, but the reward for being the worst is measurably reduced by adding a lottery.



HeyNowHK wrote:

On top of that being difficult to do,



It's extremely easy to do.

HeyNowHK wrote:


you know what incentive gets created by having a lottery? The incentive to tank to get into the lottery? If it's a ten team lottery, then you will have the teams at 11 and 12 trying to get into the 10th position (something I discussed above wrt the protection for signing FAs who turned down QOs). If it's an 8 team lottery then you will have tanking to get to the 8th spot, etc.



Past a certain point, you can't dis-incentivize tanking, but it would be nice if the #1 pick wasn't guaranteed to the team that's the best at being the worst.

If a team wants to lose 63 games instead of 71, to increase their chances of getting the top pick to 15% from 5% . . . at some point you have to throw up your hands and let them tank, but the incentive is measurably reduced with a lottery, where as, now, it's pretty strong.

HeyNowHK wrote:

So for me, first of all this lacks a strong enough reason to pursue a "solution," but also I don't feel like some engineered solution would have the ability to separate the "offenders" from the merely "legitimately bad." And as I also indicated, a lottery also has its own pratfalls. So added all up, there isn't enough foreseeable benefit to make some attempt at dealing with a problem that fails to rise to an offensive level. So to me, the only people overcomplicating things are those who want to add another layer of procedures that would inevitable leave someone else with some sort of grievance. It's not only not worth the effort, but it would invariably create another set of issues.


On this we can agree to disagree. Some of the things you're saying I fully disagree with, like the obvious benefit of getting the #1 pick - that's clear as day. As to whether it's a strong enough problem to fix - that's up to the owners, but I hope they fix this. I'd like to see it fixed. And a lottery is hardly "another layer of procedures", it's a simple solution to a perceived problem. it's hardly an "over-complication". It's a direct response to the obvious benefit of going 55-107.

_________________
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com

and, I've always loved a good underdog story. Go Mets (2018).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Owners (might) explore rules to disincentivize tanking.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:13 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:11 am
Posts: 21069
Location: NYC
The draft concept has always been set up to achieve competitive balance by making it in reverse order of the previous season's record. It's that way for good reason. It's not a reward for being bad as you keep suggesting. It's the way you give the worst teams a shot at better talent. They still have to choose wisely and develop those players selected.

Messing with the draft order is a complete contrivance geared toward "correcting" some behavior that isn't likely to change. Teams that go into the depths of rebuilding suffer plenty for it. They certainly don't need to have draft slots pulled from them on top of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Owners (might) explore rules to disincentivize tanking.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:20 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:11 am
Posts: 21069
Location: NYC
I should add, I don't think teams anticipate the "reward" of losing. I just don't think that's a thing in this sport. I think you're deeply overstating that and that could be why we're so far apart on this. Getting the first or second pick in the MLB draft is no panacea by any means. It means far more in the nba and even there the bust rate has been pretty high for draft picks. In baseball it takes a roster full of players to be successful whereas it takes just a few in basketball. it's a long complicated path to turn a baseball franchise around and I don't think teams look forward to the indignity of drafting high a few consecutive years TBH.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Owners (might) explore rules to disincentivize tanking.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 8:07 pm 
Online
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:09 am
Posts: 11630
Location: Somebody's stolen my avatar
HeyNowHK wrote:
The draft concept has always been set up to achieve competitive balance by making it in reverse order of the previous season's record.


This is obvious, and everyone knows this. But for the 11th time, it defeats the purpose when owners don't even try to put a good team on the field because they get rewarded in the draft for being bad. A lot of owners in the NL this year didn't even try to put a competitive team on the field. Look for 3 or 4 50 win teams and 2 or 3 hundred win teams to correspond to that. Teams are trying to be bad. That's not competitive balance, that's "the best at being the worst wins". That's the Astro's approach over the last few years. It's a successful model, that's why more teams are doing it.

Competitive balance died years ago when it comes to bad teams.


HeyNowHK wrote:

Messing with the draft order is a completely in contrivance geared toward "correcting" some behavior that isn't likely to change. Teams that go into the depths of rebuilding suffer plenty for it. They certainly don't need to have draft slots pulled from them on top of that.



The problem is, The variation in value, #1 pick to #3, #4, #5, etc, especially when you factor in slot values, is pretty significant. Far outweighing any competitive balance between wining 58 games and 64 games. The difference between 58 and 64 can be luck, or, one injury, or an owner tanking. The reward for losing 6 more games is too big. A lottery adds chance, and reduces the guaranteed reward. I'm really surprised I need to keep explaining this to you.

The competitive balanced between the 63 win Phillies, and the 68 win Rockies or Brewers, isn't nearly as important as the draft pick reward they get for finishing last in the standings. The reward for finishing last is too big. A lottery is one way to not guarantee that reward.

_________________
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com

and, I've always loved a good underdog story. Go Mets (2018).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Owners (might) explore rules to disincentivize tanking.
PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 8:11 pm 
Online
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:09 am
Posts: 11630
Location: Somebody's stolen my avatar
HeyNowHK wrote:
I should add, I don't think teams anticipate the "reward" of losing. I just don't think that's a thing in this sport. I think you're deeply overstating that and that could be why we're so far apart on this. Getting the first or second pick in the MLB draft is no panacea by any means. It means far more in the nba and even there the bust rate has been pretty high for draft picks. In baseball it takes a roster full of players to be successful whereas it takes just a few in basketball. it's a long complicated path to turn a baseball franchise around and I don't think teams look forward to the indignity of drafting high a few consecutive years TBH.


Players don't. Some owners/GMs do. (and owners/GMs arguably would be foolish not to) I never said players lose on purpose. When I said "teams" lose on purpose, I was talking owners/GMs.

Granted, saying "teams lose/tank on purpose" isn't clear, but saying teams rebuild, that implies ownership/management. I was talking only ownership/management.

_________________
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com

and, I've always loved a good underdog story. Go Mets (2018).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Owners (might) explore rules to disincentivize tanking.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:43 am 
User avatar
Offline
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:11 am
Posts: 21069
Location: NYC
LTKfRGM wrote:
HeyNowHK wrote:
I should add, I don't think teams anticipate the "reward" of losing. I just don't think that's a thing in this sport. I think you're deeply overstating that and that could be why we're so far apart on this. Getting the first or second pick in the MLB draft is no panacea by any means. It means far more in the nba and even there the bust rate has been pretty high for draft picks. In baseball it takes a roster full of players to be successful whereas it takes just a few in basketball. it's a long complicated path to turn a baseball franchise around and I don't think teams look forward to the indignity of drafting high a few consecutive years TBH.


Players don't. Some owners/GMs do. (and owners/GMs arguably would be foolish not to) I never said players lose on purpose. When I said "teams" lose on purpose, I was talking owners/GMs.

Granted, saying "teams lose/tank on purpose" isn't clear, but saying teams rebuild, that implies ownership/management. I was talking only ownership/management.

I know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Owners (might) explore rules to disincentivize tanking.
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 11:46 am 
User avatar
Offline
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:11 am
Posts: 21069
Location: NYC
LTKfRGM wrote:
HeyNowHK wrote:
The draft concept has always been set up to achieve competitive balance by making it in reverse order of the previous season's record.


This is obvious, and everyone knows this. But for the 11th time, it defeats the purpose when owners don't even try to put a good team on the field because they get rewarded in the draft for being bad. A lot of owners in the NL this year didn't even try to put a competitive team on the field. Look for 3 or 4 50 win teams and 2 or 3 hundred win teams to correspond to that. Teams are trying to be bad. That's not competitive balance, that's "the best at being the worst wins". That's the Astro's approach over the last few years. It's a successful model, that's why more teams are doing it.

Competitive balance died years ago when it comes to bad teams.


HeyNowHK wrote:

Messing with the draft order is a completely in contrivance geared toward "correcting" some behavior that isn't likely to change. Teams that go into the depths of rebuilding suffer plenty for it. They certainly don't need to have draft slots pulled from them on top of that.



The problem is, The variation in value, #1 pick to #3, #4, #5, etc, especially when you factor in slot values, is pretty significant. Far outweighing any competitive balance between wining 58 games and 64 games. The difference between 58 and 64 can be luck, or, one injury, or an owner tanking. The reward for losing 6 more games is too big. A lottery adds chance, and reduces the guaranteed reward. I'm really surprised I need to keep explaining this to you.

The competitive balanced between the 63 win Phillies, and the 68 win Rockies or Brewers, isn't nearly as important as the draft pick reward they get for finishing last in the standings. The reward for finishing last is too big. A lottery is one way to not guarantee that reward.

There's nothing about this you need to explain. I don't think that getting a top (or top 3 or 5) pick is any way a "reward." We'll have to agree to disagree.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Owners (might) explore rules to disincentivize tanking.
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:47 pm 
User avatar
Offline
NYFS Staff

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Posts: 22630
Location: Jersey City
The whole concept of tanking makes my skin crawl.

It's more effective in some sports than in others because of reasons that have already been covered.

But anything that messes with the ethic of trying to do the best that you can as often as you can really bothers me.

_________________
Hats off to Sandy. Hats off to the Wilpons. And don't forget Yoenis Cespedes, a star who wanted to stay a Met.

--------------------------------------------------------
You can PayPal donations to donations@nyfuturestars.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Owners (might) explore rules to disincentivize tanking.
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:38 am 
Online
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:09 am
Posts: 11630
Location: Somebody's stolen my avatar
Chico wrote:
The whole concept of tanking makes my skin crawl.

It's more effective in some sports than in others because of reasons that have already been covered.

But anything that messes with the ethic of trying to do the best that you can as often as you can really bothers me.


From an ownership perspective or from a player perspective? (or both?). Player's should (and mostly do) try to win so I don't think that's an issue, though a player might get shut down for the season on a bad year but not with the same injury if the team is in the hunt for playoffs, but that's also, understandable if it's a legit nagging injury.

Owners, well, we KNOW they are OK with the occasional tank and there are varieties on the theme. Save money cause we're bad anyway, or, trade the few good players you have so you get draft picks, or just plain, don't sign anybody and win 50 games cause you guarantee the first round pick. Certainly the first 2 are understandable. The 3rd, . . . I'd like to see dis-incentivized.

_________________
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com

and, I've always loved a good underdog story. Go Mets (2018).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Owners (might) explore rules to disincentivize tanking.
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:57 am 
User avatar
Offline
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 10:11 am
Posts: 21069
Location: NYC
LTKfRGM wrote:
Chico wrote:
The whole concept of tanking makes my skin crawl.

It's more effective in some sports than in others because of reasons that have already been covered.

But anything that messes with the ethic of trying to do the best that you can as often as you can really bothers me.


From an ownership perspective or from a player perspective? (or both?). Player's should (and mostly do) try to win so I don't think that's an issue, though a player might get shut down for the season on a bad year but not with the same injury if the team is in the hunt for playoffs, but that's also, understandable if it's a legit nagging injury.

Owners, well, we KNOW they are OK with the occasional tank and there are varieties on the theme. Save money cause we're bad anyway, or, trade the few good players you have so you get draft picks, or just plain, don't sign anybody and win 50 games cause you guarantee the first round pick. Certainly the first 2 are understandable. The 3rd, . . . I'd like to see dis-incentivized.

I don't think owners give a dang about draft picks. Typically, teams purge veterans to save money. Taking it a step further, every market is different wrt the elasticity of demand for tickets depending on how good or bad the team performance is. So revenue factors play a role but it depends on how gate is affected by team record and also the amount of g'teed revenue that comes in via local cable. That varies greatly depending on the market.

Thing is that once teams make the decision to rebuild, most accept that it makes no difference whether they lose 88 or 98 games. And most rebuilds purge veterans to add prospects (via trade), not to shoot up the draft board. That's a secondary or tertiary result.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Owners (might) explore rules to disincentivize tanking.
PostPosted: Sat Apr 16, 2016 3:53 pm 
Online
Legend of NYFS

Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:09 am
Posts: 11630
Location: Somebody's stolen my avatar
HeyNowHK wrote:
I don't think owners give a dang about draft picks. Typically, teams purge veterans to save money. Taking it a step further, every market is different wrt the elasticity of demand for tickets depending on how good or bad the team performance is. So revenue factors play a role but it depends on how gate is affected by team record and also the amount of g'teed revenue that comes in via local cable. That varies greatly depending on the market.

Thing is that once teams make the decision to rebuild, most accept that it makes no difference whether they lose 88 or 98 games. And most rebuilds purge veterans to add prospects (via trade), not to shoot up the draft board. That's a secondary or tertiary result.


If fans get excited about an extra 1.9 million for Daniel Murphy compensation, don't you think owners would get excited of the extra 4-5 million 98 losses gets them compared to 88 losses?

and I agree with some of what you say. Yes, teams rebuild and yes, teams shed salary. But it's not quite true that most accept that it makes no difference between 88 and 98 losses. 98 losses is better. Almost everyone I know would prefer to lose 98 than 88. The benefits associated with being worse are pretty significant.

_________________
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com

and, I've always loved a good underdog story. Go Mets (2018).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


SUPPORT NYFS VIA OUR NETWORK OF SITES: FIND AN AA MEETING | FIND A JOB NEAR YOU | SUICIDE DEPRESSION ADDICTION HELP | BOOK REVIEWS EDITORIAL | LOCAL DOCTORS HOSPITAL EMERGENCY CARE | HOME REPAIR CONTRACTOR BUILDER AC HEAT | LOCAL LIVE MUSIC OPEN MIC JAM | FIND YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND WHERE TO VOTE | WOMEN VETERANS HELP SUPPORT AND RESOURCES | THE SOULCIALISTS LIVE LOCAL PIANO MUSIC TREASURE COAST | PET FRIENDLY PARKS HOTELS | SOLAR WIND RENEWABLE POWER | FILE TAX RETURN ATTORNEY | 4G SEO SMART PHONES TABLET WEB | BIRTHDAY PARTY RENTAL CHARACTERS | HOMES APARTMENTS FOR SALE OR RENT NEAR YOU | SPORT COURT GYM FITNESS CLUB TRACK FIELD | GOLF BEACH RESORT HOTELS RESTAURANTS BED BREAKFAST | HEALTH LIFE AUTO HOME INSURANCE QUOTE | METRO BUS TRAIN SUBWAY AIRPORT HELIPORT | VETERAN TIPS CRAFT DIY RECIPES | ATM BRANCH CONSOLIDATION STUDENT CREDIT LOAN RATES | LOCAL NEWS AND RSS FEEDS | CHRISTMAS BLACK FRIDAY BACK TO SCHOOL SALE | LATEST E NEWS ON MOVIES TV GAMES GIFTS BOOKS | LAST MINUTE ANNIVERSARY BIRTHDAY HOUSE WARMING GIFTS NEAR YOU | LOCAL ARTS CRAFTS SUPPLY STORE | LOCAL HEALTHY HEART DIABETIC RESTAURANTS AND STORES | CHURCH TEMPLE MOSQUE OR PLACE OF WORSHIP NEAR YOU | LOCAL LINKS TO RESTAURANTS AIRPORTS DRUG STORES | DRUG OXY OPIATE ALCOHOL PHYSICAL REHAB | SUICIDE HOTLINE DANIELLE COLBERT PHOTO MUG SHOT | © Untraditional Media

The%20Soulcialists