Thread: Stage Four

It doesn’t exist. But we keep hoping.

Welcome! You are invited to wander around and read all of the comments that have been posted here at Patton & Co., but as soon as you register you can see the bid limits that Alex, Peter and Mike propose for each player, and you can post your own comments. Registering is free, so please join us!

Our supplemental draft picks are at least projectable based upon minor league stats.  The MLB draft is even more of a crapshoot.  Sure, there is usually a consensus #1, but frequently there are 3-4 players in contention - like this past year in which Royce Lewis was a surprise.  Granted, the difference of getting the #1 pick compared to #3 or 4 may be nominal versus getting the 20th pick.  But, remember, guys like Mike Trout slide because of exposure, etc.  True: Griffey Jr., Chipper Jones, ARod.  But also: Brien Taylor, Mark Appel, Steve Chilcott.  And everyone in between.

Eugene Freedman EugeneFreed
Feb 5 '18

We tried the "#1 pick goes to the 5th-place team" thing.  Didn't accomplish anything; we eventually went back to the reverse-order-of-standings.

Mike Dean TMU2009
Feb 5 '18

What is the problem that this is trying to fix?

In other words, what's wrong with a team being "terrible at the big league level for a number of years" that "the market" doesn't already address?

And so is a 5-year-run of 60-70-60-70-60 really better than 60-60-60-60-60?

It seems like the fact that "Teams that have tanked, seriously tanked over a long period, have now won the last three World Series" means that 60-60-60-60-60 is more likely to lead to a World Championship than 60-70-60-70-60 ... so ... what's the problem?

Why does someone want rules to make it harder for a team to win a World Championship?

PS.  Maybe real life can learn from fantasy ... without thinking about it too deeply, if "the problem" is "tanking", then I'd propose doing in MLB what most fantasy leagues do ... #1 draft pick goes to best team that's out of the money (ie. postseason).  That seems to provide the some incentive for every team to finish as high as possible every season.

Howard Lynch LynchMob
Feb 5 '18

Teams that have tanked, seriously tanked over a long period, have now won the last three World Series. You know what that means.

Here's a great proposal from J.J. Cooper at Baseball America:

If the goal is to eliminate the incentives that entice a team to be
terrible at the big league level for a number of years, you have to
create incentives for not being awful, or disincentives that punish
teams for being putrid.

So that's why I propose the tank tax.

It's relatively simple. The same draft system continues to exist. The worst team picks first, the
second worst picks second, etc., with one caveat: any team that fails to
win 70 games in back-to-back seasons faces a 10-spot draft penalty.

Have one awful season (like the Giants and Tigers 64-win teams in 2017) and your club reaps the benefits of having the top picks in the draft and the larger draft bonus
pool that comes with it. But if a team wins 60-something games two
years in a row, they pay the penalty. Instead of drafting first again,
that team would draft 11th.

And the penalty escalates. Win less than 70 games three seasons in a row and it's a 15-spot draft penalty. Four straight seasons with less than 70 victories and the team
pays a 20-spot draft penalty. Twenty spots would the be maximum penalty,
so a fanbase unfortunate enough to suffer through five straight seasons
of 93 or more losses would see their team face another 20-spot penalty.

But much like the luxury tax, the penalty resets anytime a team wins 70 or more games. What this would do is still allow rebuilding teams to garner better draft picks
than successful teams, but much like relegation in soccer, it would also
give them reasons to care about winning at the big league level.


Alex Patton Alex
Feb 5 '18


Peter Kreutzer Rotoman
Jan 30 '18

The biggest difference between ump's calls and robo calls? The strike zone expands for umps when the batter is ahead, contracts when the pitcher is ahead.

For robots a strike is a strike is a strike and a ball is a ball is a ball.

Alex Patton Alex
Jan 29 '18

Interesting if over-long article at BP on Roto Umps.

I can't say I read every word or even every other word, but the two charts under Impact, showing the strikes that human umps flagrantly miscalled as balls in 2017, should be required viewing for human umps.

Alex Patton Alex
Jan 29 '18

Random thought:

Have a roto league where players are offered contracts of length & size (up to five years).  Players are signed based on total value but then you are stuck with that contract for the duration.  You can cut the player, but then lose that amount as dead space on your cap until the player is gone.

Would probably have to be a mixed league so that people didn't just sit around and hope for a cross league trade to bail them out of a bad contract.

Kent Ostby Seadogs
Jan 25 '18

They are quick to up-date in the off-season as well. Bruce trade was taken care of within a couple of hours.

Tim McLeod tlmcleod
Jan 11 '18

Should have thought of that -- thanks.  I've looked at that site plenty of times, and just never said, "Y'know, these guys probably have it under control."  Oy on me.  Thanks again.

Mike Dean TMU2009
Jan 11 '18