tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21356710619210493122024-03-12T18:49:08.340-05:00Benchwarmer BaseballOfficial blog for the fantasy baseball game Benchwarmer Baseball.swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-82067132349752521142023-03-26T19:11:00.000-05:002023-03-26T19:11:05.986-05:002023 Open Comment Thread on Possible Rule Change - Expanded playoffs?<p>Once in awhile, someone asks about expanding the playoffs.</p><p>This has typically been a non-starter for me, but I'm at the point where I'm at least curious about what you all think.</p><p>I've always wanted to not diminish the reward for winning the division. 4 teams out of each 16-team league make the BWB playoffs - so 25% make the postseason.</p><p>When BWB started, 4 teams in each league made the MLB playoffs. 8 teams out of 30 - or 26.7 percent. BWB was right in line with that.</p><p>With the latest playoff expansion, now 12 of the 30 MLB teams move on - that's 40%</p><p>We're used to it now in the real sports world - no doubt you're used to other fantasy games where a larger number of teams make the playoffs. Adding wild cards could put more teams with something to play for at the end - or provide some consolation to a team that loses a tiebreaker. Or maybe you're in that division with the super team that has won 10 straight division titles and you can win a lot of games but still finish in 2nd.</p><p>I'm shrugging my shoulders on this at the moment. I'm not so strongly opposed to this as I might have been 10 years ago but I'm not saying I'm ready for the change yet.</p><p>What do you think?</p><p>I suppose there are 2 - maybe 3 options if we were to expand.</p><p></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li>Nudge into expanded playoffs. In each conference, there is 1 wild card to go along with the 2 division winners. The wild card plays the division winner with the worse record while the best team gets a bye. (6 out of 16 teams - 37.5%)</li><li>Dive in deeper - there are 2 wild cards per conference and both division winners play a wild card team to start. (8 out of 16 teams - 50%)</li><li>In perhaps a more radical change, do away with the divisions. 8 teams per conference and the top 3 or top 4 move to the playoffs and are seeded by record - more like the NBA.</li></ol><p></p><p>Perhaps to still reward division winners, the first series with a wild card could start with a division winner holding a 1-0 series lead - similar to what we did in 2020 for the Covid season.</p><p>As always, this isn't up for popular vote and BWB has the final say - but I'm interested in your opinions.</p><p>So - please use the comments here for a discussion about this topic</p><p>We haven't kicked off the season yet - if we were to change this soon, it's still possible to implement for 2023 but I'd guess it it would be more likely in the 2024 season.</p>swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-3087518893487683412023-03-26T18:31:00.003-05:002023-03-26T18:35:20.698-05:002023 Open Comment Thread on Possible Rule Change - Off season draft/transaction order<p>Over the years, there have been a few times that questions have come up regarding the transaction order in the off-season - for the Redistribution Draft and spring and early season free agent signings.</p><p>We have always set the draft/transaction order in reverse order of wins from the previous season - with division winners in the last four slots.</p><p>Of course, the possible complaint about this is that team that is clearly tanking - clearing its roster of star players or sticking them on the taxi squad - not setting the best lineup/rotation - etc. All with the design of landing the top draft slot (and the first spot in the waiver order in the first 2-3 weeks of the season when there can be other new players added to the list).</p><p>I've had some people say this is a major problem - some say that it's not an issue at all.</p><p>As always, this isn't up for popular vote and BWB has the final say - but I'm interested in your opinions.</p><p>So - please use the comments here for a discussion about this topic:</p><p><br /></p><p>1) Should we change the way we determine the off-season order? (plus why or why not)</p><p>2) If you think we should change it, what's your suggestion as a replacement?</p><p><br /></p><p>Some possible different options:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>2nd-place teams get the top spot(s)</li><li>Determine the order of the first 8 places based on the results of the Bottom Feeder Open</li><li>Draft lottery</li><li>?</li></ul><div>Keep in mind that whatever method we use needs to be relatively easy to implement - and post results - for 68+ leagues. It's one thing for the NBA to do a draft lottery for a single league. Is it something I can automate for all of BWB?</div><div><br /></div><div>The major question at this point is whether it should change or not - a replacement option can be dealt with in more depth later.</div><div><br /></div><div>If this were to change, this is still an open thought to change in the next off season (Winter 2023/2024)</div><div><br /></div><p></p>swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-4303497526637621962019-12-07T11:16:00.002-06:002019-12-07T11:16:26.365-06:00Help! New league names neededWe head into 2020 and I only have 1 remaining named league ready to open up for this season. I have a few more names in my head but I can use help from you. Please use the comment section or email me with your suggestions.<br />
<br />
Leagues generally have some kind of theme - which can be baseball-related but could also refer to culture, history, geography, science, entertainment, other sports - you name it. I do want to stay away from anything overly controversial, divisive, or offensive (so I'm not prone, for example, to use something based on current politics or issues).<br />
<br />
I'm also trying to stay away from things that might flag on copyright issues if someone is searching for that. I'm probably veering close to that with Batman and Superman leagues, but tried to stay a little more hidden with the South Park-themed league called "Blame Canada" instead of "South Park." I don't think I'm going to push it yet with any more themes around Marvel or DC movies right now.<br />
<br />
Puns are welcome, along with multiple interpretations/meanings. For example, "Deuces Wild" can be seen as card-game related, but is actually themed around MLB career leaders in doubles. "Royal Flush" is another card theme, and was used as the Kansas City Royals themed league.<br />
<br />
Leagues generally need 6 related names - 2 conferences and 4 divisions. If 2 of the 6 names are seen as better/bigger/more important, those often serve as the conference names. Or maybe the conferences are groupings. For example, in the Pacific Northwest League, the Washington Conference has the Huskies and Cougars for division names and the Oregon Conference has the Beavers and the Ducks.<br />
<br />
I'm a white guy in my mid-50s, so my perspective can be a bit dated. ThirtyThirtySomething based on MLB players in the 30-30 Club is really pushing it with a name derived from a TV show in the late 80s-early 90s (that I didn't even watch). I spent the 80s and 90s listening to alternative music - so while I'd welcome a rap/hip hop theme, I'm not going to embarrass myself trying to name that one.<br />
<br />
Have at it - and have fun with the suggestions.<br />
<br />
For MLB team-related leagues, I typically pick retired numbers of players or Hall of Famers for conference/division names, but I could use help with the league name. Some teams don't have a lot of history yet, but I suppose we could move ahead with them (I won't be doing this 40 years from now when they have multiple retired numbers). Mostly I started off looking at BWB owners' preferences for favorite teams to choose which MLB teams to use.<br />
<br />
These MLB teams are not yet used for league themes:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Arizona</li>
<li>Cincinnati (can it be anything other than "Big Red Machine?" - I might not wait for more suggestions there and use it this year)</li>
<li>Colorado</li>
<li>Los Angeles Angels (I have "Rally Monkey League" teed up but not wild about it - "Angels in the Outfield?" Something else?</li>
<li>Miami</li>
<li>Milwaukee</li>
<li>San Diego</li>
<li>Seattle</li>
<li>Tampa Bay</li>
<li>Texas</li>
<li>Toronto</li>
<li>Washington</li>
</ul>
swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-58492235544558952392016-12-09T22:04:00.000-06:002016-12-09T23:24:42.523-06:00Open Comment Thread on Possible Rule Change - Changes to Roster Size and Carryover limitsI continually try to look at ways to keep leagues competitive, although that doesn't mean we make a lot of rule changes. One move a couple years ago was to make multiyear contracts more expensive, but that's a slow change that may be starting to take effect as some cheaper long-term contracts begin to expire. I don't want to necessarily penalize really good teams and keep them from contending for repeats. And I know that in some cases, the quality of competition within some divisions over the years has allowed some long strings of repeat division winners. Still, it's a bit discouraging to watch - and I'm sure it is for teams in these divisions - when some pennant races appear to be over after 3-4 weeks.<br />
<br />
Over the last few years, I've received a couple of seemingly conflicting requests from multiple people:<br />
<ul>
<li>"Maybe we should limit the number of players teams can keep so that it promotes more good players going back into the free agent pool"</li>
<li>"How about if we can keep more of the younger players to allow time for prospects to make it to the majors?"</li>
</ul>
I used to think these were exclusive options - but as I thought about it through the 2016 season, I think they can be done at the same time. This would be a major change in the roster composition that has largely been in place since BWB began in 2000.<br />
<br />
As I talked to one of BWB's original players this summer, the "if it's not broke, don't fix it" phrase came up - so I am doing this with some caution. And I don't think it's necessarily broken, but might be made better.<br />
<br />
So please provide any feedback you might have toward this option. We're already baseball nerds playing this game instead of just a simple roto game, but it shouldn't be too complex.<br />
<br />
IF this were to happen, it would take effect after the Redistribution Draft - it will not affect your current carryover of 28 players.<br />
<br />
Please comment to this post if you have any feedback. It's not really a vote, but if there's significant leaning one way or the other that will help me.<br />
<br />
More details to be fleshed out if the rules actually take effect, but here are the basic ideas:<br />
<br />
<b>40-man roster changes to a 50-man roster with this breakdown</b>:<br />
<ul>
<li>14 active hitters (9 starters, 5 bench)</li>
<li>12 active pitchers (5 SP, 5 RP, 2 spot)</li>
<li>4-man taxi squad, increased from 2 - provides a bit more flexibility for injuries and minor league demotions for players with salaries 251 and higher</li>
<li>10 players, down from 12, in the minor leagues - must have salary 250 or lower</li>
<li>10 players in a new "Low Minor Leagues"</li>
<li>plus the one IR spot that doesn't count against the roster</li>
</ul>
<br />
<b>The Low Minors work this way</b>:<br />
<ul>
<li>After the Redistribution Draft and at any time during the season, players can be designated for the Low Minors with these conditions:</li>
<ul>
<li>100 salary only</li>
<li>Can never have played in the majors (at the time of designation)</li>
<li>There is a non-refundable charge - probably 100 - for moving a player to Low Minors - let's call it "player development costs"</li>
<li>Move is permanent for the current season - cannot be moved out of the low minors until after next season's Redistribution Draft, but can be traded or cut.</li>
<li>Players in the low minors do not count against the total number of players carried over in December (though can be cut at that time).</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<b>Roster Carryover</b>:<br />
<ul>
<li>Players in the Low Minors are not counted against carry over numbers.</li>
<li>Maximum number of players that can be carried over from the 40-man section of the roster into the next season is decreased from 28 to 20</li>
<li>Teams must pay for the salaries for the next season for all the players they keep at this time</li>
</ul>
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Redistribution Draft</b>:<br />
<ul>
<li>Players in the Low Minors do not count against roster size</li>
<li>Draft proceeds as it currently operates, with maximum roster limit for drafting new players remaining at 40</li>
<li>After the Redistribution Draft, the players in the Low Minors are moved back to "Regular Minors" and the process starts over to move players into the low minors for the next season</li>
</ul>
<br />
The "40-man roster" would still be a consideration during the regular season for transactions/trades. To sign a player, there would have to be room on that 40-man portion - so corresponding moves of eligible players to the low minors may be needed. I would plan on providing a new signing option - to allow eligible players to be signed directly to the Low Minors so that rosters don't have to be torn up when signing new prospects.<br />
<br />
There would be a time after the Redistribution Draft where there might be more than 40 players on the "40-man" roster. Before Opening Day, teams would need to move players down to the Low Minors - and would not be able to acquire any new players at all during the time the roster is above 40.<br />
<br />
To cover an extra 10 roster spots of players at minimum salary, an extra 1000 would be added to the salary cap. But the transaction cost of 100 per move to Low Minors would NOT be added to the cap.<br />
<br />
New leagues would draft with a roster limit of 40. The moves to Low Minors would open when the league moves to weekly transactions.swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-89542300943690266132014-12-09T21:08:00.001-06:002014-12-09T21:31:54.763-06:00Rule Change Aftermath - Comments on Redistribution DraftA lot of the comments regarding the idea of breaking up the Redistribution Draft into weekly submit/post parts delved into changing the structure - to not give 3 picks at a time...<br />
<br />
Those comments are taken seriously - and may result in changes in the future - but that's not up for a change this time. This is a holdover from Robot Baseball that I like - it's a method for instant improvement if done correctly (and if guesses are correct).<br />
<br />
It's communism. It's socialism. It's welfare. Whatever - and I am aware of the fears of "tanking" to get the first draft spot. There are some other pieces of the game that hopefully are in place (or can be strengthened) to provide incentives for keeping teams improving through the season (post-season tournaments, cash for each win - just increased, etc.).<br />
<br />
But the idea here is to try to provide quick turnarounds with some effort so that there's hope from one season to the next (or maybe within 2-3 years).<br />
<br />
What's the history in BWB? Here's a check about how 90-loss teams do in the next season, two seasons later, and three seasons later. Then how about 90-win teams?<br />
<br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 20%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Category</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;"># of Teams</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Avg wins first year</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Avg wins next period</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Avg change in wins</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;"># of Improved Teams</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">% Improved Teams</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;"># of Division titles</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">% of Division titles</span></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Losses - 1 year later - Total</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">368</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">53.54</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">69.42</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">15.88</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">309</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">84.0%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">50</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">13.6%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Losses - 1 year later - Same owner</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">248</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">54.40</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">68.33</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">13.93</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">205</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">82.7%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">27</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">10.9%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Losses - 1 year later - Different
owner</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">120</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">51.80</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">71.67</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">19.87</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">104</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">86.7%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">23</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">19.2%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Losses - 2 years later - Total</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">298</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">53.43</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">71.95</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">18.52</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">269</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">90.3%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">55</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">18.5%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Losses - 2 years later - Same owner</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">164</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">54.65</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">70.29</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">15.64</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">147</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">89.6%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">27</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">16.5%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Losses - 2 years later - Different
owner</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">134</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">51.93</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">73.98</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">22.05</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">122</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">91.0%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">28</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">20.9%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Losses - 3 years later - Total</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">233</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">53.22</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">73.24</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">20.02</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">212</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">91.0%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">46</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">19.7%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Losses - 3 years later - Same owner</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">108</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">54.23</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">71.63</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">17.40</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">94</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">87.0%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">23</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">21.3%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Losses - 3 years later - Different
owner</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">125</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">52.34</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">74.64</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">22.30</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">118</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">94.4%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">23</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">18.4%</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
As comparison, what about teams on the opposite end of the scale - those with 90+ wins:<br />
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" style="width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 20%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Category</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;"># of Teams</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Avg wins first year</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Avg wins next period</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Avg change in wins</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;"># of Same or Improved Teams</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">% Same or Improved Teams</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;"># of Division titles</span></b></td>
<td style="text-align: center; width: 10%;"><b><span style="font-size: x-small;">% of Division titles</span></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Wins - 1 year later - Total</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">350</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">94.99</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">84.48</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-10.51</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">63</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">18.0%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">175</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">50.0%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Wins - 1 year later - Same owner</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">332</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">95.10</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">84.80</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-10.30</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">61</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">18.4%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">168</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">50.6%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Wins - 1 year later - Different owner</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">18</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">92.94</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">78.50</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-14.44</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">11.1%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">7</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">38.9%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Wins - 2 years later - Total</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">284</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">94.85</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">81.08</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-13.77</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">43</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">15.1%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">106</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">37.3%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Wins - 2 years later - Same owner</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">249</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">95.00</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">81.83</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-13.17</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">36</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">14.5%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">95</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">38.2%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Wins - 2 years later - Different owner</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">35</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">93.74</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">75.74</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-18.00</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">7</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">20.0%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">11</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">31.4%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Wins - 3 years later - Total</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">216</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">94.75</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">79.26</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-15.49</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">38</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">17.6%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">84</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">38.9%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Wins - 3 years later - Same owner</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">166</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">95.11</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">80.38</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-14.73</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">30</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">18.1%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">68</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">41.0%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-size: x-small;">90 Wins - 3 years later - Different owner</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">50</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">93.52</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">75.54</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">-17.98</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">8</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">16.0%</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">16</span></td>
<td align="right"><span style="font-size: x-small;">32.0%</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
So...whether or not it's the Redistribution Draft doing it or some of the other mechanisms designed to allow losing teams to improve, it looks like one of the goals of allowing that instant improvement is being met...84% of 90-loss teams have a better record the next season and it's up to 90% of teams with better records than that low point in years 2 & 3. But even then, the average record 2 years later is still below .500. It's also encouraging that teams are able to go worst-to-first, but it's not so overwhelming (still fewer than 1 in 5 teams) to make me think the scales are tipped too far in their direction.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the teams that win 90 games still continue to do well in following seasons. 90 wins is pretty high - and when the average of those teams hovers around 95 wins, then the measure of "same or improved record" may not be a great measure for these team. They are dropping 10-to-15 wins over years 1-3 after 90 wins, but half the teams still win their division the following season and around 40% are still winning in years 2 & 3. If anything, that leads me to want to make it even harder for those top teams...but not at this time.<br />
<br />
Comments welcome - fire away - and in the future I'll do a similar history check with the absolute worst records and with league champs and see how the extreme parts of the draft fare in future seasons. There was also worry that breaking up the Redistribution Draft into multiple weeks will completely tip the scales in favor of the bad teams. Yes...the team with the worst record will essentially be guaranteed all their top picks each week. However, the multi-week format should benefit teams 2-16 in the draft order as well. The league champ should be able to get more than the 3-5 players they typically were awarded in the past...<br />
<br />
But at this point, no change.swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-17199697770572953902014-08-09T11:36:00.000-05:002014-08-09T11:36:08.703-05:00A Host of Rule Change DiscussionsI've got a number of things under consideration for rules changes.<br />
<br />
Some of these might happen, some of them definitely won't (or so I think) ...but I'm always curious to get feedback from owners on what they think. This is a better forum for me to collect opinions (and hopefully for some intra-owner discussion too) than just to collect emails.<br />
<br />
They're all in the posts below, but here are direct links to the call for comments/opinions:<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule.html" target="_blank">Changing the trade deadline</a></li>
<li><a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule_72.html" target="_blank">Are cash-only trades good or bad?</a></li>
<li>If cash-only trades would be changed, <a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule_14.html" target="_blank">how to change them?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule_4.html" target="_blank">Larger roster size</a></li>
<li>A suggestion about <a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule_44.html" target="_blank">how to get more high-priced free agents in the off season player pool</a> - and prevent late-season dumping of players via cuts or trades.</li>
<li><a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule_53.html" target="_blank">Better lineup flexibility with multi-position players</a> - allowing starters with multiple positions to be put in different positions</li>
<li><a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule_65.html" target="_blank">Don't count players in game scoring who have zero plate appearances</a></li>
<li>Dealing with team finances that may be too high: <a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule_74.html" target="_blank">Higher cost for multiyear contracts</a></li>
<li>Greater control in the startup draft - <a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule_22.html" target="_blank">adding cash bid/bonus to your initial draft list</a></li>
<li>Greater control in the startup draft - <a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule_38.html" target="_blank">using #1 draft ranks as the order of player awards</a></li>
<li><a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule_9.html" target="_blank">A multi-week Redistribution Draft</a></li>
</ul>
Some things I like to hold to the tradition of the original Robot Baseball rules - or maybe "that's just how it's done here."<br />
<br />
Some changes suggested make the rules more complicated...with different conditions for different parts of the season and I like to keep things simple when possible (though I know we do have different rules at different times already).<br />
<br />
Changes that revolve around lineup usage - it's always easier to look at one or two games and consider how you'd do the lineup differently if you were doing it by hand. It's another thing to have a rule in place to check the starting lineups/bench usage (and the computer code to do so) for the 328 unique games that are scored for each BWB game.<br />
<br />
Some things may just have no easy technical or web implementation.<br />
<br />
Beware of unintended consequences... <br />
<br />
Some things may make sense to change...<br />
<br />
Chime in where you have opinions - and not just if you desire a change. The squeaky wheel here is usually the push for a change - I'm interested in hearing as much from the defenders of the status quo to get an accurate feel.<br />
<br />
You don't have to do this all at once - none of these changes would likely be announced until at least October - and the history here will also be useful to check back on in another year or two.<br />
<br />
As always, thanks for your input....swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-85333129117977085962014-08-09T10:39:00.000-05:002014-08-09T10:39:29.599-05:00Open Comment Thread for Potential Rule Change - Trade DeadlineIs the trade deadline too late in BWB?<br />
<br />
Deadlines for contract extensions (last transaction period in July) and trades (last transaction period in August) have been calendar based since we started.<br />
<br />
In 2014, the trade deadline is the final one in August - Wed, August 27.<br />
<br />
This is Week 22 and traded players hit new rosters/lineups for Week 23 and just 3 weeks of the regular season plus the playoffs.<br />
<br />
Do you think that's OK or do you see any problems with this? (Whether that's in the balance of competitiveness so late in the season, possibility of collusion, salary dumps so late in the season after there are no rebates for releases, etc.)<br />
<br />
For example, would a better trade deadline be, say, Week 20 - regardless of calendar date?<br />
This year that deadline would be August 14.<br />
<br />
I'm not leaning one way or the other - just trying to see where people stand on this.swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-84444227995173996642014-08-09T10:35:00.000-05:002014-08-09T10:38:28.193-05:00Open Comment Thread for Potential Rule Change - Cash Trades, Good or Bad?<b>What's your thought on cash trades?</b> ...that is, player(s) given up and the only return is cash<br />
<br />
I don't want to get rid of them entirely, but have some concerns in implementation - largely in the <i>"Player X is available for $100"</i> broadcast message types types of trades. Or even absent the email broadcast, there end up being some trades with minimal cash trading hands.<br />
<br />
This isn't to demonize the people who do it - they're playing within the rules and it's a smart move on their part. There are reasons to do it, including helping the team's bottom line financially. But my concerns are:<br />
<ol>
<li>This turns what I like to be a game you can check in on once a week if you prefer into a first-come, first-served situation. Yeah - all trades are first-come, first-served to some extent if a target team likes the first offer - but the announcement of taking the first $100 to come your way is a little different.</li>
<li>It's a glorified cut - and the trade to the first team to pony up a small amount of cash circumvents the waiver order system that would come into play in attempting to sign that player via free agency if he was cut instead of traded.</li>
<li>It's an unintended loophole to allow salary rebates after Week 15. Rebates for cut players end on Week 15, but prorated salary rebates for trades continue as long as the trades do. That in itself is a good thing - I want that to be available to stimulate trades. But for the "glorified cut" style of cash trade, this kind of circumvents the general spirit of the salary rebate.</li>
<li>You could argue also there are collusion concerns, but that's not my general feeling.</li>
</ol>
I finally figured out the post-Week 15 proliferation of bargain-basement cash trade offerings a few years ago - getting that late salary rebate for a guy you'd actually be cutting for no return. But this year I noticed a lot of it coming in the early part of the regular season too - and I think again the rebate structure comes into play...from Weeks Zero through 5 the maximum salary rebate is 80%, but the trade rebates cycle from 100% down to 80% - so there's added benefit on a $100-trade for a player rather than cutting him.<br />
<br />
In a game where cash limitations are a prime concern, I get the need and the strategic value for cash/salary relief in the late season. However, I think overall cash balances are out of whack (and too high) and I'm looking for ways to tighten the finances.<br />
<br />
This may or may not be one of the ways to do that.<br />
<br />
I'm interested in hearing your opinion on this - whether you see it as a major problem, you strongly defend the status quo, or fall somewhere in between (or don't even care). Maybe you have some other reasons that what I've outlined above.<br />
<br />
<b>For the purposes of this comment thread, I would just prefer you to comment on the situation of cash-only trades</b>. <a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule_14.html" target="_blank">We'll discuss alternative strategies in a different post</a> and I'd rather see your comments or suggestions there in one spot on potential changes.swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-85330985413785891162014-08-09T10:30:00.000-05:002014-08-09T10:36:48.774-05:00Open Comment Thread for Potential Rule Change - Cash Trades: Fixing ItLet's say in the <a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/2014/08/open-comment-thread-for-potential-rule_72.html" target="_blank">thread about cash-only trades</a> the overwhelming sentiment is that change needs to be made (or regardless of comments, I decide to change it unilaterally).<br />
<br />
<b>What would be a good fix?</b><br />
<br />
<b>Things to keep in mind:</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Avoid as many different rules for different times of the season as possible</li>
<li>Avoid unnecessary difficulty and complexity for the website and general administration of the game</li>
<li>Avoid a lot of extra steps on the part of owners</li>
<li>Maintain options for teams...including how to get some extra cash if needed.</li>
</ul>
<b>Some possibilities</b>, with one or more of the above concepts in simplicity violated in each suggestion:<br />
<ol>
<li>Eliminate cash-only trades altogether.</li>
<li>Disallow cash-only trades after Week 15.</li>
<li>A pass-through-waiver system for cash-only trades after Week 15 - or maybe all trades for the last few weeks of the trade season. (But the weekly free agent pickup process is our real implementation of a waiver system).</li>
<li>An auction system for cash-only trades after Week 15 - Team puts up a player on the blocks within the first 1-2 days of a transaction period (kind of like our current flurry of broadcast email messages) - and teams have until the transaction deadline to submit a blind bid - highest bid wins.</li>
<li>Some minimum fixed cash amount required to be sent in the trade - say, $500..or $1000 (pick a number).</li>
<li>Some minimum cash amount required to be sent in the trade based on player salary - say 10% or 25% of the player's salary must be offered up to get the player.</li>
</ol>
The auction system goes to the highest bidder...but provides no control to the team trading away the player - you might prefer to trade him outside your division or conference.<br />
<br />
Either minimum cash proposal actually funnels even more cash back to the team dumping the player, but perhaps limits the pool of possible buyers or makes them think a bit more about it (pay more cash + pay the pro-rated salary).<br />
<br />
<b>Other suggestions? Or thoughts on these?</b>swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-33517675394380870932014-08-09T10:25:00.002-05:002014-08-09T10:25:49.435-05:00Open Comment Thread for Potential Rule Change - Larger Roster SizesSuggested to me this year:<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"How about adding 5 more minor league spots. These extra spots will help teams that are low in the standings to build a stronger farm system and also help teams that know their prospects well. The catch though would be that once a team assigns a minor leaguer to one of these 5 special spots, they CANNOT be moved to until the end of the season (September call ups)."</i></blockquote>
<br />Your thoughts?<br />
I'm personally in favor of maintaining the 40-man roster - largely to keep more players in the pool - one of the "constraints" in BWB is roster size and a choice in the late season to keep a prospect or cut him loose to make room for an injury replacement is a big decision.swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-59698907648456356682014-08-09T10:21:00.001-05:002014-08-09T13:06:08.750-05:00Open Comment Thread for Potential Rule Change - Put more established players into the off-season free agent pool with transaction order based on salary cutSuggested to me this year:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>I just wanted to offer one possible idea that may increase a "rebuilding" team's incentive to retain big money studs rather then trade them to a short-term super team. <br /><br />As the system sits now, the team with the worst record gets first crack at the top 3 picks in the redistribution draft. That alone Is a huge incentive for teams to tank, Along with the top weekly picks they receive along the way. This may help parity since it allows them a mechanism for gaining assets, but it also may diminish the in-season competition. In short, what if the redistribution picks were ordered as a result of total dollars of players released to free agency at the time of the 28 man roster crunch?<br /><br />It seems this could possibly incentivize struggling teams to think twice about trading a 10 million player for future salary relief. It may still be practical to do such a thing, but it think it would help some. Last year was a huge haul with Tanaka and others I remember. Also, I think it would make the redistribution draft a huge event if suddenly guys like Miggy or Kershaw were floating around. Doubtful the top redist picks would net a bigger haul then trading one of those studs, but it does seem increasingly difficult to move high priced talent in the off-season.</i></blockquote>
Your thoughts? (I'm personally in favor of no change as this would be something difficult to track and I do feel there's importance for teams that finished at the bottom one season to get first crack at the draft list)<br />
<br />
Also note this change is as much about preventing dumping of players for salary reasons and for tanking late-season to get a better draft position (leaving some teams even more non-competitive during the last few weeks of the season). swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-40192477303536435342014-08-09T10:15:00.002-05:002014-08-09T10:17:03.160-05:00Open Comment Thread for Potential Rule Change - More flexibility with multi-position placing in lineupsThis one comes up a lot from owners - usually at least once or twice a year:<br />
<br />
The only players able to fill any open lineup spot when a starter does not play are the DH and bench players. Identified starters at positions cannot be moved into other positions.<br />
<br />
Current situation via a scenario.<br />
<br />
Part of your lineup consists of:<br />
<ul>
<li>David Wright 3B</li>
<li>Miguel Cabrera 1B (but eligible at 3B)</li>
<li>Matt Carpenter at DH (eligible at 2B-3B)</li>
<li>No other 3B-eligible players active</li>
<li>Brandon Belt (1B) on the bench at B1.</li>
</ul>
Then...David Wright does not play<br />
If Matt Carpenter plays that game, he takes Wright's spot at 3B. Belt, who played, fills in at DH.<br />
<br />
But - let's say Wright sits out AND Carpenter doesn't play either:<br />
<ul>
<li>No one available to play 3B</li>
<li>Belt fills in at DH</li>
<li>You get a Benchwarmer Batter at 3B for the game</li>
</ul>
<i><b>But...you say...if I could readjust the lineup on the fly I could see that I could instead move Cabrera to 3B. Then Belt could be at 1B, and another bench guy becomes the DH.</b></i><br />
<br />
I'd like to know your thoughts on this - <br />
<br />
Should this be changed?<br />
<br />
I'll say that the technical change here to implement this in a computer program would be tricky, if not impossible (or become a process that simply takes forever - the current brute-force coding method of finding best lineups and checking pitching rotations takes 35-40 minutes for every 2 BWB games through the 41 active leagues). So I will admit that there may be overwhelming support to change this and I still decide not to do it.<br />
<br />
But you might say "leave it the way it is" despite some possible benefits, maybe because:<br />
<ul>
<li>It becomes a strategy consideration in roster construction, lineups, and working around injuries and player promotions/demotions.</li>
<li>It's just fantasy baseball - if that's the rule, that's the rule.</li>
<li>Often when MLB teams make a lineup/position choice for a player who last year played multiple positions, it's fixed. Sure - Joe Mauer is eligible at C along with 1B, but even in an emergency there's no way he'll catch this year. Carpenter has zero games at 2B this year (so far) - the Cardinals made a choice and had other options there. You place a player in a given fielding position...you're making a similar choice.</li>
<li>If you want position flexibility for a guy, you put him at DH...or even on the bench.</li>
</ul>
<br />swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-56333233919779753912014-08-09T09:59:00.000-05:002014-08-09T10:04:27.086-05:00Open Comment Thread for Potential Rule Change - Guys who play but have no plate appearancesThis also comes up every year - <br />
<br />
So you've got a guy in your starting lineup, who appears in the MLB game, but maybe it is as a late-inning defensive replacement or a pinch runner. Or maybe he gets injured in the field in the top of the first inning and gets replaced.<br />
<br />
Whatever, you've now got a guy in your lineup with box score:<br />
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, you've got a guy on the bench who would have filled in at the position and lineup slot and went 3-4 with a homer and 3 RBI.<br />
<br />
Or even let's say he went 0-4...if you had been able to put him in the lineup you would have at least had a real shot at a positive contribution.<br />
<br />
Should this be changed?<br />
And, if so, what are the cutoffs?<br />
<ul>
<li>Zero plate appearances?</li>
<li>1 plate appearance?</li>
<li>Do we base it on "at bats" or "plate appearances"? (Keep in mind that BB, HBP, SB, etc. contribute in the scoring formula to ATB (Adjusted Total Bases) </li>
<li>If no one can fill in, does he maintain the lineup spot? Or do you take a Benchwarmer?</li>
<li>Is a bench player who played but with no plate appearances eligible to fill in at an open lineup spot?</li>
</ul>
Possible side effects:<br />
<ul>
<li>What if he was a defensive sub with no errors - and the guy who would replace him had 2 errors? - potentially costing you the game.</li>
<li>What if he was a defensive sub and had an error - if not counted, this potentially hurts your opponent.</li>
<li>What if he was a pinch runner with no plate appearances, but stole a base (adding to his ATB) and/or scored a run? Maybe that costs you a game.</li>
<li>If you're cutting out guys with 1 AB (as suggested below), what if the guy hits a 3-run HR in his only appearance?</li>
<li>The suggestion below also had a cutoff for "no official AB" - and 3 walks and a Sac Fly would contribute to your offensive performance. </li>
</ul>
<br />
From an owner this year - this is the most recent suggestion sent to me to change this:<br />
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">"I know it may be a difficult task to program, but in instances where a player in real life participates in a game and either registers 1 official AB, No official AB (BB, HBP), or No official AB due to being a defensive sub or pinch runner, I believe that the BWB team should NOT be penalized by this. My reasoning is that in real life, the player was not intended to be a starter in that game, but in BWB, since we do not make daily lineup changes, we assume that he WILL be the starter. Therefore, my suggestion is that in these instances, the current BWB procedure should be used as if the player never appeared in the game to allow our bench players to be the starters. An argument can be made that this affects all teams, but I believe that it will make the BWB more realistic"</span></i><br />
<br />
Last time this was brought up, most of the feedback I got was "keep as is"<br />
<br />
I won't hide my desire to make no change here - both on the rule itself and once again this may be as much trying to avoid a computer programming quagmire...<br />
<br />
But I'm interested in your views...swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-42726615807822981492014-08-09T09:51:00.001-05:002014-08-09T09:52:34.243-05:00Open Comment Thread for Potential Rule Change - Higher cost for Multiyear contractsIn a game about constraints (cash limits, roster limits) the wise team can build up a roster of players on multiyear contracts and save a ton of money in future seasons - providing more cash for free agents or taking on more expensive players in trades - and providing more cash for future contracts ... and the cycle continues.<br />
<br />
In some leagues, it's to the point where many teams have no real cash worries. (Some of my teams included).<br />
<br />
This can make moving a player to IR instead of cutting and getting a salary rebate a no-brainer.<br />
This can mean the team has no real cash concerns when choosing 28 keepers.<br />
This can mean the high-priced players never reach the open market.<br />
<br />
There are some different moves going on to try to change this, including some adjustments/corrections in the salary and salary cap formulas. One possibility is making the cost of a multiyear contract more expensive.<br />
<br />
I think perhaps the basic formula is OK - with a 33% increase in successive seasons (used to be 25%).<br />
But maybe where we can tinker here a bit is with the minimum cost to extend:<br />
<br />
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Contract Length</th>
<th>Current Minimum</th>
<th>New Minimum (a suggestion)</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">1st year</td><td style="text-align: center;">250</td><td style="text-align: center;">500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">2nd year</td><td style="text-align: center;">1250</td><td style="text-align: center;">1750</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">3rd year</td><td style="text-align: center;">2500</td><td style="text-align: center;">3500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">4th year</td><td style="text-align: center;">4000</td><td style="text-align: center;">5000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: center;">5th year</td><td style="text-align: center;">6000</td><td style="text-align: center;">700</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
We could also set a maximum if we're fooling around with this since the current maximums for high-priced players out even a year or two are a bit ridiculous - like tie any season maximum to be the maximum salary of the current season (or maybe historically within BWB). Extending a guy 5 years out isn't very likely, but is more possible in successive seasons rather than in a single 5-year extension.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thoughts?swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-78996661215475945742014-08-09T09:40:00.002-05:002014-08-09T09:40:45.074-05:00Open Comment Thread for Potential Rule Change - More control in the Startup Draft with Cash bidsAs much as possible I like to give people control over their fates in the startup draft. I still like total team salary as the first tiebreaker rather than draft ranks because in the end we're still trying to distribute the talent as much as possible. If you get a high-priced player that 6 other guys were shooting for, then it's not unreasonable that the high salary keeps you out of the running for a while on other contested picks.<br /><br />I think separating salary 100 players starting in 2014 and awarding them in succession first had the intended effect: In the past a team that went overwhelmingly with cheap players/prospects that won out early on for a cheap player was often set up to miss the most desired expensive players - which in turn eliminated those other teams when going up against the prospect-heavy draft list...that team kept getting players and a salary hit at 100-200 at a time still kept them at the top.<br /><br />Also, with reintegrating the "draft rank" several years ago as a tiebreaker, we've cut down on the number of random draws required to settle a player's selection. We might get 1-3 per draft now where 8-12 random draws were the norm back in the past.<br /><br />I'm also looking to cut down on the number of tiebreakers. I think consulting the number of pitchers vs hitters on a roster or number of third basemen or whatever has kind of lost its value.<br /><br />Here's the current order of draft tiebreakers:<br />
<ol>
<li>Most salary cap space</li>
<li>Team with the fewest number of awarded players in the draftee's category (hitter, SP, or RP)</li>
<li>Team with the fewest number of awarded players</li>
<li>Team without a qualifying starter at the draftee's position</li>
<li>Player ranking</li>
<li>Random draw</li>
</ol>
<br />What I'd now suggest:<br />
<ol>
<li>Most salary cap space</li>
<li>Team with the fewest number of awarded players</li>
<li>Player ranking</li>
<li>Random draw</li>
</ol>
<br /><b>And now the new bit...this could be modified for amounts or processes, but this is the basic idea:</b><br />
<ul>
<li>Allow a team to reserve up to $5 million (5000) of it's statup draft cash for "draft bidding" or "contract bonus"</li>
<li>Along with picking a player, fitting him into a roster position, and giving him an optional draft rank for tiebreakers, a team could use some of its cash pool as an extra tiebreaker - listing a bid/bonus amount for that player</li>
<li>We'd make it simple - minimum bid is $500 and would be in $500 increments, making the draft bid an easy menu choice on the screen (a pulldown menu of 0-500-1000-1500...5000).</li>
<li>The bonus amount comes out of the original draft cash and will be counted in the draft list's salary total. For example, if the salary cap for the draft is 40000 and a team uses all of it's possible 5000 in bonus cash, that means that the total salary for all the players on the list has to be 35000 or lower.</li>
<li>On a contested draft pick, the new first tiebreaker is the "bid/bonus" - this provides the control factor beyond the randomness of how much cash you have left at the time the player comes up.</li>
<ul>
<li>If no team offered a bid/bonus, tiebreakers continue as normal</li>
<li>If one team offered a bid/bonus, that team gets the player</li>
<li>If two or more teams offered a bid/bonus, the team that bid the highest dollar amount gets the player</li>
<li>If the highest bid comes from a tie between two or more teams, those teams with the highest bid continue with the remainder of the tiebreakers...all other teams out of the running for this player.</li>
<li>If a team wins out via the bid/bonus, they pay the cash that they listed.</li>
<li>I'm not sure if that cash bonus counts later on in the tiebreaker of cap space (actually I think it does because the rule is "cap space" left, not team total salary - and I think the bonus would count against the cap), but regardless, that cash is gone - even in Phase Two</li>
<li>Teams that lose out to higher bids keep their cash for future use (for Phase Two or the regular season).</li>
</ul>
</ul>
<br />Thoughts?swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-91946773097236216942014-08-09T09:35:00.000-05:002014-08-09T09:35:09.393-05:00Open Comment Thread for Potential Rule Change - More control in the Startup Draft: basing order of player awards on draft rankI still like draft rank as an optional draft list piece and that's another reason it's the last tiebreaker before randomness. A team could skip ranking altogether or maybe just rank the top 10 (it's not advisable, since even a #40 rank beats out no rank). Another option that might give some teams a bit of added control in a blind draft for their roster construction is using draft ranks to determine the order of player awards.<br /><br />Currently we award players in the order of most popular picks<br />Then award in order of descending salary<br /><br />This tries to ensure that all teams have an early equal shot at the most-listed players and for the most expensive players in that grouping (presumably the best players).<br /><br />But one complaint I get each year is maybe the top-ranked player on your draft list was only picked by 2 or 3 teams...by the time we get to him we've perhaps awarded 125 other players and your only hope here is that by random luck you have the most cap space left.<br /><br />What if:<br />We started by pulling out all the players given a #1 rank in draft lists - this might be 5-16 different players pulled out for the first award - and thus the teams giving these players a #1 rank has a better shot than a random draw or the randomness of other awards. All other tiebreakers would be in play, but before too many awards are made, that #1 draft rank holds greater weight.<br /><br />There are some other levels to this like maybe picking out ranks #1-2. Or awarding until each team gets their highest remaining rank (For example, do all the #1 ranks - then for teams without a player yet, pull all their #2 ranked players and award them - then all #3s for teams without a player - and so on). But on a basic level, should we look at something like this?<br /><br />Comments?<br />swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-19803299558586417872014-08-09T09:18:00.001-05:002014-08-09T09:18:59.302-05:00Open Comment Thread for Potential Rule Change - Multiweek Redistribution DraftOnce upon a time I did each redistribution draft by hand. So when draft lists were submitted and results weren't posted until 2-3-4 weeks later, I needed all that time.<br /><br />Then I automated the award process - but posting was still a lot of manual copy-and-paste. So it still took a couple weeks and I did a "slow reveal" of 2-3 leagues per day.<br /><br />Now it's all relatively automatic. I'm able to collect and post in about the same time as it takes for weekly transactions.<br /><br />Question - <br />No major format change proposed here (reverse order of finish for draft order - teams get 3 players all at one time per round - 5 total rounds), but would you like the opportunity to post one round per week and then redo the remainder of your list before we do the next round?<br /><br />So:<br />
<ul>
<li>Everyone submits their full list as we do now</li>
<li>Week 1 - we award players in the first round and post, then reopen the list.</li>
<li>Teams could choose to redo Rounds 2-5. Or just keep the list the way it was and live with it. Or if they missed the deadline for the initial list they could jump back in for the remainder.</li>
<li>Repeat posting individual weeks and reopening the list</li>
</ul>
<br />This gives each team more control over their roster<br />Lets them adjust their position and salary needs based on what they already got or which players already taken by other teams<br />Lets them set the list and go on vacation for a month if they wish<br /><br />I think it benefits all teams - but does it swing too far in taking some of the advantages of the poorly-finishing teams and their early position in each round?<br /><br />In 2014<br />
<ul>
<li>We finalized Carryover choices on January 26 (this was delayed largely due to the number or orphans I had to work through</li>
<li>Draft lists were due February 9</li>
<li>Draft results were posted February 16</li>
<li>6 weeks of pre-season free agency and trades began February 23</li>
</ul>
<br />This was maybe the latest in a long time that I posted draft results - usually we've started free agency about the first week of February. I don't miss all of that time - it's usually a slow period - but probably another week or two of transactions would be better.<br /><br />As long as we don't repeat the late carryover choices and keep it in December we'd go back to submitting the first draft list in early January (Tentative 2015 schedule had been trade deadlines 12/6/14 and 12/27/14, carryovers by January 11, draft list due Feb 1) and could then have 5 weeks of posting results. I did enjoy the extra time this year for all of January to look at prospects, but could deal with the earlier dates.<br /><br />This would take some changes in the website to allow for list changes between weeks and I can't be sure right now that I will have the time for that this year, but it's a thought for at least the future if not immediately next season.<br /><br />Comments?swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-42464341185083026662013-03-26T06:50:00.000-05:002013-03-26T06:50:24.482-05:00Open Comment Thread for Website Change - Inclusion of MLB player statsThis is a call for comments on an expected change to the BWB website. BWB is exploring database changes to the player list and to the website display of rosters and free agents to show a limited number of MLB stats.<br /><br />Full stats are limited by page space among other things. Additionally, stats will be updated (at least for the foreseeable future) only every 2-4 days (BWB does not get a direct feed and does some offline manipulation to tie players to stats). It's expected that the most complete view of stats will continue to be to click on a player's name to view his information in Yahoo.<br />
<br />
That said, what stats do you want to see...specifically, what customized stats might help you best in evaluating players for your roster? (For example, IP per relief appearance?)swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-34507490682707990642013-03-23T17:07:00.000-05:002013-03-23T17:08:07.122-05:002013 Rule Changes - Tightening up lineup/rotation movesIt's a lot of words to try to explain this - but in response to some complaints about teams being able to cycle pitchers in and out of the rotation after knowing the actual MLB result (and confirmation that it was possible and was being done), there are three major adjustments:<br />
<ul>
<li>Better research into the 2013 MLB scheduling and how it hits BWB deadlines</li>
<li>Tracking the actual date when players first get added to a team's rotation/starting lineup</li>
<li>Clearing out the queued starts when a pitcher moves from spot starter to the rotation.</li>
</ul>
See <a href="http://www.benchwarmerbaseball.net/rules/rulechanges/rule_changes_13.asp">http://www.benchwarmerbaseball.net/rules/rulechanges/rule_changes_13.asp</a> for the exhaustive explanation.<br />
<br />
There might be some tinkering and fixing, but this is an actual change, not a proposed change - it's been in formulation since October/November 2012.<br />
<br />
Dates will be tracked now on your lineup changes - you can play around with it a little bit during the last week of March to check out the effects. All lineups will be adjusted to March 31 at the start of the season.<br />
<br />
But comment below if you'd like. For about 95% of you, you will not notice anything.<br />
<br />
** Under contemplation partially as a result of this change but also just the way my schedule works now - we may set transaction/lineup times to Noon Eastern and push back one day on the current schedule (so Week 1 deadline would be Sunday 4/7 at noon instead of Saturday night 4/6 at midnight Pacific).swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-75730782374516653322013-03-22T06:43:00.000-05:002013-03-22T06:44:23.576-05:00Notes regarding potential rule changesThere are often requests for rule changes and BWB considers requests but that doesn't always mean it will act on them.<br />
<br />
A number of requests often show up with the emphasis on "making the game more like real baseball/MLB." Yes, this is a goal, but it isn't the end all for every consideration. There are some common reasons why rule change requests may not be implemented or even discussed:<br />
<ul>
<li>Yes, we try to be close to real baseball, but in the end this is still "fantasy baseball" and certain comparisons might not work. We're going to always have a more limited and at times arbitrary distinction between real life and the fantasy game.</li>
<li>We may have opened a rule change up for discussion in the past with little overall support from the owners who provided comments at that time.</li>
<li>Implementing some rules may create additional loopholes and different way of doing things. With some exceptions, we'd like things to work the same way in the pre-season to the regular season to the playoffs.</li>
<li>Implementing some rule changes involve defining a process. That process may be difficult or inconsistent to create - some things like lineup adjustments that can be done as "common sense" or inspection by a single manager, general manager, or team owner for your own team may be hard to codify for 500+ teams.</li>
<li>Beyond defining processes for rules and site features, we also have to often create/change computer programs to implement the implications of the rule. Or create a web process/presentation. If implementation is extensive or prohibitive, the benefits of the change might not be enough to warrant the work.</li>
</ul>
That said, please continue to suggest changes and improvements. Over time, some technical obstacles disappear or can be overcome - and some changes once thought not beneficial can be seen in a new light. Several changes over the years have come directly from user input.<br />
<br />
BWB may or may not solicit comments on rule changes.swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-55364243736736528352013-03-22T06:40:00.002-05:002013-03-22T08:10:16.108-05:00 Open Comment Thread for Potential Rule Change - Weekly TransactionsThis is a call for comments on a potential rule change for 2013. Currently weekly transactions are limited to 4 rounds of free agent signings.<br />
<ul>
<li>Should that number be increased? To what?</li>
<li>Should it be unlimited?</li>
</ul>
The 4-round approach comes from the model game for BWB, Robot Baseball. At the time, owners submitted transactions onto bubble sheets that had to be scanned - that required some kind of limit. When I started BWB, I was processing all transactions by hand, but that's now mostly automated. Theoretically, on the web this could now be set to a higher or even unlimited number.<br />
<br />
In some situations, the 4-round limit can make it take several weeks to redo/rebuild a team. 4 rounds of submissions do not guarantee 4 successful awarded picks. When a team is dealing with a rash of injuries or taking over an abandoned team, more drastic changes may be desired.<br />
<br />
Possible unintended consequences:<br />
<ul>
<li>Benchwarmer has been a mix of rabid/casual players. The once per week nature of transactions and lineups means that people don't have to log in daily to change their team. Missing a week of transactions can be costly, but currently doesn't have to be deemed critical since other teams are limited in the number of players that they can pick up.</li>
<li>Benchwarmer has typcially had slow gradual changes to teams as opposed to massive overhauls, an approach I generally like.</li>
<li>If transactions are unlimited or at a high number, it is possible that a team or collection of teams, if highly motivated, could corner the market on first-round draft picks/September callups when they are added to the game - rather than be limited to 4 per week.</li>
</ul>
BWB is not yet endorsing this change - but instead exploring owner sentiment for the current system.<br />
<br />
<br />
Please use the comments section for this post to weigh in with your opinion.swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-65318878330522284562010-11-20T14:12:00.000-06:002010-11-20T14:12:47.055-06:00Benchwarmer Baseball - A Year Round PropositionThis is a re-posting of an entry from November 2009...with new dates added. <br />
<br />
Sure, you're probably still working on your fantasy football teams - and maybe you've got basketball and hockey going on too...but Benchwarmer Baseball keeps you active throughout the winter.<br />
<br />
<i>Quick note - some dates below might be in flux...the ones below represent a push back in some dates. They will not be moved any earlier.</i><br />
<br />
What should you be doing from now until Opening Day?<br />
<br />
<b>Trade with other teams -</b> We run 2 fall trading sessions...the <b>deadlines are Dec. 3 and Dec.17</b>. Did you keep a player under contract that you now regret? Do you have too many high-priced players? Do you need a lot of help for your team? Do you want to address a position of weakness NOW? This is the only chance to trade until after the Redistribution Draft in February. Because nobody's paid salaries for 2011 yet, there's no cash assumption/rebate on salaries right now. The team picking up the player will be 100% responsible for the salaries later in December. <b><i>Also - since there are no cuts right now, you temporarily do not have to worry about roster sizes and limits</i></b>.<br />
<br />
<b>Choose players to keep -</b> You can keep up to 28 players for your 2011 roster. You don't have to keep that many (or any at all!). But, if you have any players on your rosters with contracts for 2011 or beyond, you are obligated to keep them. Once the cuts are processed, you will get charged for the 2011 salaries - so you need to pick your carry overs with these things in mind:<br />
<ul><li><b>Your roster must be legal</b>. You obviously won't be over 40 total players, but you must fit in the limits for hitters/pitchers making more than 250.</li>
<li><b>The cash you have now is all you'll get</b>. Whatever you leave yourself is all you'll have for the Redistribution Draft and free agency until Opening Day.</li>
<li>In January-March, if you end up deciding to cut a player you originally carried over into 2011, you do get a salary rebate - <b>but only at 50%.</b></li>
<li><b>Carryover choices are due Friday, Dec.31</b></li>
<li><b>Use the table of information below your team roster to give you some guidance on whether or not your roster will be legal and how much cash you'll have left with your current set of cuts.</b></li>
</ul><b>Pick Players in the Redistribution Draft</b> - Once the players cut from rosters go back into the free agent pool, our first operation is to run the Redistribution Draft. This is an optional exercise, but is your chance to pick up free agents (and new prospects added to the player list in December). Teams pick in reverse order of 2010 finish...and get three players at a time. We run the draft for 5 rounds, so that's 15 selections you can make. Obviously, this is a chance for the lower-finishing teams to pick up good players or prospects. Don't miss the chance. <b>Your picks for the Redistribution Draft will be due Sunday, January 16.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Free Agency and Trading</b> - After we process the Redistribution Draft (sometime in late January), we go into weekly free agent pickups and trades again through the end of March. This is where you put the finishing touches on your roster for your championship run in 2011. Current plans should give you 9-10 weeks of transactions between the draft and the start of the season.<br />
<br />
<b>Set your Opening Day Lineup</b> - Date TBDswanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-6004137983570845532010-06-09T07:57:00.000-05:002010-06-09T07:57:31.318-05:00Long Term PropositionOK, so you're 1/3 through the 2010 season and your team sucks. Maybe you're in the group of us that after 50 games our team hasn't reached double-digit wins or just made it (I do mean "us"...my team in Beer League was a division winner in 2009 and has a whopping 12-39 record this season...17 GB).<br />
<br />
While in a typical league, you might just cash out your time and wait for next season. But - assuming that you plan to come back and give it another shot in 2011 (go "worst to first"!), why put effort into the rest of 2010?<br />
<br />
The future.<br />
<br />
First - you earn $30,000 per win for your team. You can use that for contract extensions this season - or grabbing extra prospects if your cash is low - or saving for 2011 player salaries.<br />
<br />
Second - First Round draft picks. Take advantage of your bad record and high weekly transaction position to grab the top draft pick (or whatever one you want) in the recent MLB draft. We'll probably add those players into the system for the Week 12 transactions. If you were a bad team in 2009 paying attention, you might have just added Stephen Strasburg to your rotation if you grabbed him last summer.<br />
<br />
Third - other callups throughout the season. Perhaps your team wasn't celebrating Strasmas, but another highly-touted rookie made his debut on June 8. Since he doesn't exist in the BWB system yet, we'll be adding him for the Week 11 transactions. Pay attention throughout the season and you may grab some gems. And even if you don't have the top weekly pick in your league, it can still be worth a try - maybe the worst teams in your league actually have checked out.<br />
<br />
Grabbing these new players may end up paying off right away - or not for another year or two - or never at all. But staying active when you have the advantage of pick position can set you up nicely down the road.swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-19650811982278280372010-03-31T07:33:00.000-05:002010-03-31T07:33:05.651-05:00Rounds in weekly transactionsI guess I never saw this as a confusing issue, but I've received several questions this spring about trying to sign free agents and then being asked to assign them to a "round."<br />
<br />
So...think of it this way. Every week when we do transactions, it's like a four-round mini-draft. With the round number, you are ranking your choices. When we process the transactions we run through the picks round by round in that week's transaction order (during the season, the order is set from worst to first in overall record). If you play in a league that processes free agent pickups via a waiver order, it's the same thing - though you may not see it presented the same way. For example, I know that in the CBS leagues in which I play - the commissioner approves picks team by team - in the defined waiver order. But I just have to list them in the order I want - not put "round numbers."<br />
<br />
Doing it round by round allows to add some extra things - like an alternate pick if your primary choice is already gone - or a contingent release that only gets processed if you pick up that player.<br />
<br />
Still confused? Check out a few weeks of the <a href="http://www.benchwarmerbaseball.net/trans/transactions.asp">transaction report</a> for your league(s) and you'll see how the 4 rounds play out. Just click "Transactions" in the navigation bar at the top of any page.swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2135671061921049312.post-7888930420015396732010-03-13T13:20:00.000-06:002010-03-13T13:20:09.148-06:00Multiyear ContractsIf you're new to BWB this season - or want some reminders, you should review the rules and notes about contract extensions before you attempt to use them.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://benchwarmerbaseball.blogspot.com/search/label/Contracts">See past postings on contract extensions</a><br />
<br />
This is often a confusing aspect for new players. Take some time to see how it works if you're not sure.<br />
<br />
<b>Above all - you must have the full cash balance on hand to pay the entire contract. And you never get that money back if you cut/trade away the player.</b>swanjonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13892217015248243980noreply@blogger.com0