|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Aug 11, 2019 21:05:17 GMT -5
This seems like a quick and easy one to me...
Seems silly to me that we have a policy where only have an outcome is changed, based on a precedent where we didn’t want to take away a win that had put a team in 2018 into a playoff position. To me, we should either replace phantom wins with a dual-outcome swap for both teams involved, or just leave the matchup as is. The argument that a dual-outcome rewards tanking is silly to me because it’d be honoring an actual outcome, not “rewarding” them something they didn’t actually have. If we’re moving the policy to “nothing gets changed,” obviously that’s fine too. I just think this should move in one of the two directions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Aug 11, 2019 21:10:36 GMT -5
Can you explain what we currently do and what you are proposing we do?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Tim) on Aug 11, 2019 21:12:46 GMT -5
I like changing the outcome of the game. The problem I can foresee is trying to dictate who should be in the roster over someone else.
For example, I’ve got 7 active relievers contributing on my active MLB roster. I’ve got 5 RP slotted into my roster at all times but what if I have a guy slotted in that doesn’t pitch and a guy on the bench who scores points. Do those points then get added back. To the final score? I’d have a problem with that because it’s hard to forecast what reliever will pitch and what reliever won’t.
If it’s a common sense situation where there’s a guy on an active spot in your roster who isn’t even active in the MLB starting over a guy who’s actually playing, that’s a different scenario entirely that those points should retroactively be added. I like changing the outcome of the game. The problem I can foresee is trying to dictate who should be in the roster over someone else.
For example, I’ve got 7 active relievers contributing on my active MLB roster. I’ve got 5 RP slotted into my roster at all times but what if I have a guy slotted in that doesn’t pitch and a guy on the bench who scores points. Do those points then get added back. To the final score? I’d have a problem with that because it’s hard to forecast what reliever will pitch and what reliever won’t.
If it’s a common sense situation where there’s a guy on an active spot in your roster who isn’t even active in the MLB starting over a guy who’s actually playing, that’s a different scenario entirely and those points should retroactively be added.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Tim) on Aug 11, 2019 21:17:08 GMT -5
Our rules clearly state we should be actively checking and setting our lineups...regardless of whether or not our teams are rebuilding or competing for a playoff spot. Even though you’re not actively tanking, not checking/setting your lineup (even if it’s weekly) goes against the competitive nature of the league.
Not singling out any one owner as we’ve had several guilty of it over the past 2 years. I think we can all understand not starting a particular guy who was sucking ass in AAA and got called up for a spot start that you happened to miss the deadline on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Aug 11, 2019 21:29:34 GMT -5
Can you explain what we currently do and what you are proposing we do? So, I guess we don’t *technically* have a precedent for inactivity-related record/score correction when a pair of rebuilding/non playoff contending teams are playing, but the sense I got for what was going to be done in this most recent case in the Rays/O’s matchup was that due to lack of other precedent, the case of the Padres/Pirates game last year was going to be used. In that scenario, Padres beat Pirates, who had been sitting Aaron Judge because they were rebuilding. I don’t remember the score or if Judge would’ve impacted the outcome, but Max was assessed a “phantom win” penalty for what was essentially deemed nefarious roster management. Padres, however, were not stripped of the win, as it was determined that it wouldn’t be fair to punish them for another GM’s mistake. In this case, that precedent ironically actually harms the other team involved, as not reversing the result on my end actually costs me the 1st draft position in MiLB and 2020 summer drafts. Since I have the Padres 2020 1st rounder, it effectively costs me the winter MiLB first pick/Jasson Dominguez, as I slide to second. So a precedent set to not hurt the non-wrong doing team is actually harming the non-wrong doing team here. So what I’m proposing is to basically reset how we handle these “record correction” scenarios. I’m open to going either direction, so I’m proposing that we either *don’t* assess the team in the wrong a phantom win, and leave things as they are for both teams in that given matchup, or, we correct the entire matchup, giving team in the wrong the win from that week and the team that should’ve lost...a loss. Basically, I propose we either “do it right” or “don’t do it at all,” both of which I’d be fine with. |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Jays GM (Stephen) on Aug 12, 2019 6:48:04 GMT -5
To Tim’s point, I think it just needs to be arguable. If of those 7 you benched Arnoldo’s Chapman in favor for a LOOGY that would also be nefarious in my opinion. (This is what happened with Judge I think) As long as a roster makes logical sense to the league, I think it is fine.
As for an official rule, I am not sure what the right answer is. I certainly think we need to lay down some consequences for this type of situation since it has happened two years in a row and will probably happen again since it is much harder to lock in to the league when your team sucks and you are incentivized to lose.
Every result in this league has some sort of implications whether that be draft or Playoff. We are talking specifically of the Rays for this week, but they would have been very close to challenging Boston if they had set their lineup the week before as well and that messes with playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Padres GM (Denver) on Aug 12, 2019 9:13:37 GMT -5
I don’t think that’s how the Padres/Pirates one went down.
I thought there was a trade that had been accepted and passed on proboards but wasn’t executed on espn, that caused the pirates to lose instead of beating the Padres like they should have.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Tim) on Aug 12, 2019 9:25:42 GMT -5
The pirates traded for Judge and then he sat on the waiver wire for a few weeks before it was noticed. If I’m not mistaken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Padres GM (Denver) on Aug 12, 2019 9:36:43 GMT -5
I know the matchup in question there was a trade between me and the pirates and that’s when he was given a win but I also kept the win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Braves GM (Jared) on Aug 12, 2019 11:30:46 GMT -5
Phantom Planet
|
|
|
|
Post by D'backs GM (Kyle) on Aug 13, 2019 11:30:55 GMT -5
The O.C.
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Aug 14, 2019 12:52:22 GMT -5
We already have a rule regarding tanking and that's taken on a case by case basis - and it really should only apply if there is foul play suspected. Any hard rule we come up with here will be convoluted and skews towards affecting the bottom of the league.
The best way to go about this is to remind owners that they have incomplete/sub-optimal lineups and give them the chance to update. If they then ignore this reminder - then it will seem more deliberate and action can be taken by the commish. If the owner is AWOL then we may have to find a new owner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Aug 26, 2019 20:34:45 GMT -5
Not enough votes on this... not sure everyone is clear on what they're voting for either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Sept 6, 2019 13:38:10 GMT -5
Not enough votes on this... not sure everyone is clear on what they're voting for either. Currently, when a team gets a "phantom win," the change only affects their record, not the record of the other team involved in the matchup. I was suggesting that rather than making a change to one team's record for that week, we either change both teams' records, or neither of them. It seems weird to me to only change the one team's record. Especially if we're changing it for draft pick purposes. Here, Alex got assigned a win, so that helped save draft position of Josh and Tim, but didn't change anything for me, even though I'm the one who was involved in the matchup to begin with (and miss out on the most as a result of the game). I want to change this one direction or the other, and was asking the league to sort of give a voice to one option or the other. The first option would be "change the records of both teams in an "inactive owner" matchup." The second option would be "change neither, and leave things how they are. Such is life." I'm fine doing either, so wanted to see what the league preferred. I just don't like the current system where we sort of "half change things." |
|
