-
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bJ6GGjkw-1jNnzTNCeECL99NtbAKOIerIY0vRZ-FpNk/edit#gid=0
Pavin Meadows on
October 24, 2019 9:01 AM
-
Ok, the last two people didn't vote, but we have sufficient participation to move forward. the $4 coupon level for games played is raised to 1,750, and the other coupon benchmarks stay the same. I'll update the google sheet and recirculate.
Pavin Meadows on
October 24, 2019 9:00 AM
-
10/12 people have voted. let's get 100% participation. if you haven't voted, please do so by Tuesday.
Pavin Meadows on
October 21, 2019 8:47 AM
-
here's the new survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MKL7CXP
Pavin Meadows on
October 17, 2019 12:53 PM
-
sorry guys, but i think it makes sense for me to re-do the survey monkey and just let people vote for various options. we'll go with whatever gets the highest vote total, even if it's not an absolute majority of the league.
Pavin Meadows on
October 17, 2019 11:48 AM
-
i agree, that seems too low for the first $4 coupon. 1750 games makes sense to me. i'd like to keep the first IP benchmark at 1,400.
Pavin Meadows on
October 17, 2019 11:47 AM
-
Wait, the $4 games threshold is 1475? I didn't check closely but I believe every team got within at least 200 games of the max (1944). If anything I think we should raise the $4 thresholds to, say, 1750 games and 1450 IP. I dunno. I guess I could live with something like 1420 and 1460 for the pitching thresholds, but there's no point to having the first hitting threshold be that low.
-
please vote on the survey monkey, even if you've already expressed an opinion on the message board.
Pavin Meadows on
October 17, 2019 10:28 AM
-
I set up a survey monkey on lowering the arb coupon benchmarks. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WLXMV7R We will need at least 7 owners voting to change, to alter the rules .
Pavin Meadows on
October 17, 2019 9:12 AM
-
I like where the thresholds are currently set.
-
i know there was some talk about a lower IP requirement are we going to change or leave as is. Thanks Chuck
4 Baggers on
October 15, 2019 5:55 PM
-
I think the thresholds are fine. It makes for some tough choices, but there's nothing wrong with that.
-
Should we take a vote on changing the arb coupon thresholds?
Pavin Meadows on
October 15, 2019 4:58 PM
-
Hey guys quit blowing smoke this comes from Astudillo who wins the league by 1400 points and a Bitchin what a 10 time champion or something like that.
4 Baggers on
October 15, 2019 4:10 PM
-
Chuck's been building a monster roster.
Pavin Meadows on
October 15, 2019 2:58 PM
-
I regret I have but $3 to allocate to 4 Baggers' roster. Alvarez, Torres, Soto and Buehler? Good lord.
-
Ok, I don’t think we need to vote on it then. Sounds like we should keep the ban on re-auctions to clear cap space. Thanks for helping to monitor!
Pavin Meadows on
October 11, 2019 6:59 PM
-
The reasons we banned reauctioning of players 2 years ago continue to apply today. Specifically, some owners (like me) are more active in the FA pool than others and thereby gain an advantage by recouping cap penalties via reauctioning. This ban further promotes parity in the league which seems to be a consensus objective. I think only 2 players all season were reacquired by their original owner and had to have their salaries reset by commissioner. Like WAR, I'm happy to monitor reacquisitions.
-
I think you can consider mine withdrawn unless anyone else is interested in it. I vote against both lowering the IP thresholds and abandoning the prohibition on reauctioning. I don't think you should be able to clear cap room as the season goes on. I'm also happy to volunteer to check for compliance if it's a pain to do that on top of other commissioner duties.
-
I agree--I prefer to keep the IP coupon targets where we have them.
Pavin Meadows on
October 10, 2019 11:35 AM
-
As far as reauctioning dropped players, I suppose Ottoneu's 30-day prohibition is a sufficient deterrent. Need some specifics as far as lowering the IP thresholds. Getting to 1450 IP doesn't seem that onerous, but I'll keep an open mind.
-
we should probably try to finalize any rules changes before Arb starts.
Pavin Meadows on
October 10, 2019 10:56 AM
-
Also, I think we have two rules proposals so far: 1) keeping the current system, but lowering the IP thresholds; and 2) WAR of 1812's new arb formula. I'd like to also propose we scrap the prohibition on re-auctioning players you previously cut. It's a pain to administer, and I don't really see the harm in letting people clear some extra cap room. I figure we can at least vote on it. Anyone have anything else?
Pavin Meadows on
October 10, 2019 10:54 AM
-
Ok, I think I've entered everyone's coupons. Please send me a msg ASAP if I've missed you.
Pavin Meadows on
October 10, 2019 8:41 AM
-
So one of the great reads for me is Twins Daily, a fantastic website that goes into great depth throughout the Twins system. They release an offseason handbook every year after the world series that goes into great detail about the issues facing the team, contracts, etc. and some really great content. Do your favorite teams have sites like this? I'd love to have a gander at some of your favorites. By the way, the coupon thing this year was fine. Liked it much better.
-
Of course the Twins look like total goobers when you have the Rays and Nats pushing the Astros and Dodgers to the brink. Found it interesting watching MLB Network before the series. A few of their analysts liked the NL wild card (Nats or Brewers) to do some damage in the postseason. Not sure anyone was giving the Rays a chance. But no one was picking the Twins. I did find that kind of telling.
-
Twins just didn't have their team. Pineda was their best starter in the second half and their best chance at getting a competitively pitched game in that series. Kepler, whether rusty/hurting, was a non-factor. And for anyone who doesn't watch the Twins regularly, it's hard to overstate what Buxton does for this team. He obviously makes a huge difference defensively, but he also gives them a presence they don't have otherwise. NY is better, obviously, but the Twins were a shadow of themselves.
-
Too bad about the Twins--they had a great year, but just ran into a whirling death machine in the playoffs.
Pavin Meadows on
October 8, 2019 2:30 PM
-
Exactly—one of the major purposes of the coupon is to limit prospect hoarding.
Pavin Meadows on
October 8, 2019 6:43 AM
-
I had a bunch of injuries to starters in late August, and knew I wouldn't be able to make 1475 innings w/o sacrifice. Had to cut Canning (injured) , Pache (prospect) and others in order to make it. Canning and Pache were snatched up. It's a tradeoff. I valued the extra 4 coupon points. Fran, you valued your injured and minor lg guys.
-
I would have had to cut injured players I wanted to keep in order to hit my threshold without spamming bad pitchers (and ended up missing it anyway).
-
I do sympathize with what WAR was saying (I decided it was a good idea to throw Ivan Nova on five (5!) separate occasions, but I think it just takes a year to get used to having to use up your thresholds early. I would not be averse to IP thresholds going down to 1450/1400 instead of 1475/1400.
-
I appreciate WAR's proposal and the ensuing discussion. One thing working against it is some inertia to change after correcting the original coupon rule in response to top placed teams getting the most points. Would look forward to changing it again in the future with the right incentives in place. I find this league to be pretty competitive overall.
-
Right, the rich get richer problem is why flat points thresholds don't work. But I do think there is value to "something to play for." So I was trying to craft to a system that did that while also making sure that the strong teams didn't benefit disproportionately. I also get the tanking issue, but I really think the math would work out that lost coupons from losing points would counteract the tanking incentive the vast majority of the time. If there isn't appetite for a change, th
-
"Having something to play for" means rewarding success, which lends itself to "the rich getting richer". The current system avoids that.
-
Why incentivize losing/placing lower? Just set points thresholds. We did that last year, though, and people didn't like it (or were at least happy to move on).
-
Not sure i understand what was wrong with last years coupon system we had 3 and maybe 4 teams that had a chance at 2nd place it went down to the last day have no interest in a hard cap or rewarded teams that don't manage there teams or tank to get a higher coupon then teams that are doing trades and using the waiver wire and picking up free agents to improve there team. Thanks Chuck
4 Baggers on
October 4, 2019 9:36 PM
-
I don't disagree with that. But if even second place is so worthless as to be traded for a shot at $4 in coupons, isn't it better to accept mixed and relatively slight tanking motives over the last few days of the season than let most of the league have nothing to play for for most of the season? Trying to tank for more than a few days would end up losing more from fewer points than it gains from lower standings places.
-
The argument for these systems is always "well no one is *actually* going to tank", which I think is a dumb reason to give people incentive to tank.
-
I'm also a hard no on WAR of 18.12's proposal about using standings placement to determine coupon threshold. Three teams were in competition for second and I will outright admit I would have benched my whole team if it got me a coupon.
-
I'm also against hard caps. We can make a more extreme penalty for extreme cases of we want, but I agree: if a team is willing to pay the penalty, they should be able to take on any amount of loans. I think this actually favors parity.
-
I would be 100% against hard caps. The coupon tax creates more than enough of a deterrent against runaway loan gathering as it is, effectively becoming a soft cap
The Lōgunate on
October 3, 2019 11:38 PM
-
Well this year only two teams, Baggins and yours truly, took in as much as $30 in loans. So I think what we have in place discourages big-time loan taking.
-
On loans, I've been in one of those leagues where teams routinely went more than $100 over the cap. It's all personal preference, but that was my least favorite part of Ottoneu, and I would be in favor of putting a hard cap on how much salary cap space a team could acquire in a season regardless of what happens with the coupons.
-
I don't think streaming for IPs or GPs is that much of a problem--the two day auction clock and the relatively quick accumulation of cap hits make that not very feasible. The bigger problem to me is that while it's true that the current system encourages activity, that activity is (or at least felt to me) largely divorced from the goal of fielding a successful team. Put another way, I wish I had a reason to care how my players were doing each day rather than just whether they entered the game.
-
I like WARs idea, but I do believe our current system does what we intended; keep owners active and somehow get a ‘luxury tax’ in for those that play over the cap with loans. If we want to add ‘quality component” to the intent maybe the min bid after a certain date(s) gets raised so if you are just streaming to get coupons while hoarding prospects it gets harder and harder to get to the targets and stay within caps. Not sure I can put it in a formula but One of the sabermatricians can
-
I'd be for anything that would further enhance competitiveness and allow rebuilding rosters to contend as quickly as possible, but to be honest, I'm not sure what to think about WAR's proposal. I did find it interesting to check out other leagues to see how they tweak the game.
-
I assume the check on this comes the following year, when those top rosters are forced to discard much of their pricey talent to get back under the $400 cap for the auction. At least one of those teams was like fifth the prior year, so I can see where that sort of structure would thwart dynasties. But as I said last week, this league seems to be in a pretty good place as far as overall competitiveness.
-
WAR kind of lost me at... well, algebra. But since loans came up, I will share this. Toward the end of the season I perused some other leagues (via the global leaderboard). In a couple of leagues with the highest scoring rosters in Ottoneu points, there seems to be no limit on loans whatsoever. Those rosters took on $250-plus in loans. I take it the idea is that in any given year, owners near the top of the standings go for it and get all the talent they can.
-
yeah, and hopefully ppl wouldn't be trying to game it that much. the previous coupon system was based entirely on points though, and people rejected it in favor of the current version based solely on volume. but thanks for getting the ball rolling--it's a very creative and interesting way of doing it. i'd be up for trying it. what do other ppl think?
Pavin Meadows on
October 3, 2019 4:49 PM
Previous 50 messages |
Next 50 messages