|
|
Post by Blue Jays GM (Stephen) on Aug 27, 2019 18:16:37 GMT -5
I would like to see draft picks 19-30 be a reverse standings of playoff results. Using last year as an example, the draft order from 19-30 would have been as follows (Number in Parenthesis is the number of the pick they had last year with simple reverse regular season record):
19. (19) KC (Lost WC)
20. (21) PHI (Lost WC)
21. (22) TOR (Lost WC Higher Seed than KC and Better record than PHI)
22. (23) COL (Lost WC Higher Seed than PHI and Better Record than Tor and KC)
23. (25) DET (Lost DS)
24. (14) LAA (Lost DS Higher Seed than DET)
25. (29) SF (Lost DS Better Record than LAA and DET)
26. (30) HOU (Lost DS Higher Seed than SF and better record)
27. (24) TB (Lost CS)
28. (26) MIA (Lost CS better record than TB)
29. (27) CHC (Lost WS)
30. (28) CHW (Won WS)
This is a small change as you can see, but also makes it to where playoff teams are guaranteed to always in the back of the draft. In the case of last year the biggest mover would have been the Angels who made the second round of the playoffs despite not having a great season and because of that thy theoretically could have drafted 14 and won the whole thing if things would have broke just a little bit better for them. This would prevent that situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Oct 10, 2019 21:51:38 GMT -5
There’s not really any benefit to this. Postseason’s largely about luck. Best teams don’t always win. By this new rule, Das (who put up over 7000 points) would pick ahead of Max (barely in top half of points scored this year), because of one week in the playoffs. That helps the league somehow? I don’t really get it
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Oct 11, 2019 14:43:52 GMT -5
There’s not really any benefit to this. Postseason’s largely about luck. Best teams don’t always win. By this new rule, Das (who put up over 7000 points) would pick ahead of Max (barely in top half of points scored this year), because of one week in the playoffs. That helps the league somehow? I don’t really get it The league is about winning, good seasons just get you a chance at that. If we valued season success this way, we'd just be a roto league. |
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Oct 11, 2019 14:51:05 GMT -5
There’s not really any benefit to this. Postseason’s largely about luck. Best teams don’t always win. By this new rule, Das (who put up over 7000 points) would pick ahead of Max (barely in top half of points scored this year), because of one week in the playoffs. That helps the league somehow? I don’t really get it The league is about winning, good seasons just get you a chance at that. If we valued season success this way, we'd just be a roto league. In what way does this it make the league better though? Feels like we're changing just to change. Is it somehow better for the league that the team that is third in points drafts behind the team that is 14th? Feels like it only stands to make the league more top-heavy, because good teams either pick "where they theoretically should" or higher, and worse teams only pick "where they theoretically should" or lower. And for as much as we're trying to cut down on tanking, this new way of doing it would only create another disincentive for a team like the Pirates (14th in points) to "risk" making a single-season run and win one playoff game. I'm not saying it'd stop them from doing so, but feels counterproductive to only make it more penalizing for a so-so team to overachieve. |
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Oct 11, 2019 14:55:26 GMT -5
I just feel like the whole point of the league is to win, not pick 5 spots higher in the draft order. Who cares if you pick 3 spots lower if you advanced a round in the playoffs? That's what you should want to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Oct 11, 2019 15:20:05 GMT -5
I just feel like the whole point of the league is to win, not pick 5 spots higher in the draft order. Who cares if you pick 3 spots lower if you advanced a round in the playoffs? That's what you should want to do. Sure. But that doesn't mean our league's best teams should be picking 16th just because they had an unlucky week in the postseason. If the whole point is to win, heck, make the team that wins get to pick first. Incentivize winning. We don't do that because we want some sense of competitive balance, so worse teams pick first (though now marginally-not-as-bad-worst-teams-pick-first which is dumb but such is life). So my point is that this doesn't really do anything to make the league better. If the best teams do what they theoretically should (go deep in the playoffs), it does nothing (so why make the change at all). If they don't, it only stands to help them more. So the byproducts here are either nothing or negative. I don't get the point. I get Stephen's desire to safeguard from a team that sneaks in and then wins the championship from getting a high pick, but if anything, I think that only stands to incentivize middle of the pack teams to compete, which we've spent a year trying to figure out how to do. I think it's worth running the "risk" of the occasional serious overachiever (what a great case for why a team should try and win even if they're not the best!). That's far preferable to creating a system that stands to only help bolster the best teams if they underachieve, for the sake of protecting against the random overachiever. |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Jays GM (Stephen) on Oct 11, 2019 16:20:40 GMT -5
The leagues best team would not be picking 16th. In the current year the best example is Das who lost in the WC round. He would pick 22nd. Really the people this would effect the most are folks who sneak into the playoffs as a division winner, but have a worse record than others who missed the playoffs. It would also effect the opposite of that, people with really good records that miss the playoffs because they are behind the other WC teams. If you make the playoffs the earliest you could pick is 19th. and that would be the worst team that lost in the 1st round. the 2nd best team ever if they lost in the WC would get the 22nd pick which is not ridiculously early.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Jays GM (Stephen) on Oct 11, 2019 16:33:29 GMT -5
this is who would be effected if this rule was in place this season:
Biggest "Winners" +3 or greater: SF +6 (upset in 1st round), Col +4(upset in 2nd round)
Biggest "Losers" -3 or Greater: Sea -9 (Lost in ALCS), Pit -4 (Lost in NLCS), Mil -3 (Lost in WS)
18. (20) Hou Did not Qualify
19. (19) CHW (Lost WC)
20. (22) CHC (Lost WC better record than CHW)
21. (23) LAA (Lost WC Higher Seed than CHW and more Points For than CHC)
22. (28) SF (Lost WC Better Record than other WC losers)
23. (21) Phi (Lost DS)
24. (25) Tor (Lost DS Better Record than Phi)
25. (27) Min (Lost DS Better Record than Tor and Phi)
26. (30) Col (Lost DS Better record than other DS Losers)
27. (18) Sea (Lost CS)
28. (24) Pit (Lost CS better record than Sea)
29. (26) Mil (Lost WS)
30. (29) Bos (Won WS)
|
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 11, 2019 17:06:17 GMT -5
18. (20) Hou Did not Qualify Hey, leave me out of this. |
|
|
|
Post by Astros GM (Will) on Oct 11, 2019 17:11:35 GMT -5
I would prefer to do this by points scored and ignore records altogether.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mariners GM (Phil) on Oct 11, 2019 19:29:11 GMT -5
I am against this leave it the way it is
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake (Former Athletics GM) on Oct 23, 2019 14:59:15 GMT -5
I would prefer to do this by points scored and ignore records altogether. I'd be on board with this. |
|
|
|
Post by Royals GM (Bill) on Oct 25, 2019 20:32:45 GMT -5
Agree with Will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rockies GM (Alex) on Dec 9, 2019 14:48:32 GMT -5
12-8... not enough for this to pass. Draft order stays as is for now, up for further discussion.
|
|
