|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Aug 27, 2015 21:37:40 GMT -5
Proposals for rule changes will be allowed to be posted here. The Commissioner and co-commissioners will discuss as to whether the proposal will be brought to a League Vote. No rules changes will occur during the season.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Aug 28, 2015 11:03:59 GMT -5
Just an idea about scoring categories - I've been in a league that counted TB (total bases) and OBP instead of AVG and OPS. It worked nicely, if you prefer to have an extra counting stat instead of a rate stat.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Aug 28, 2015 13:35:13 GMT -5
Thanks Alex! I like the Total Bases category and will definitely consider that as one of our options. Either OBP and SLG, or OBP and TB.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 15:31:24 GMT -5
I like the OBP & TB.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 15:37:48 GMT -5
Oh, and I love the possibility of QS. although isn't it a shame what is considered a QS nowadays. Greg Maddux would have 150 of them, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Sept 2, 2015 18:17:45 GMT -5
I wish QS were 6 IP or more with 2 ER or less, as opposed to 3 ER or less. I've already asked Fantrax and unfortunately they can't make that sort of custom stat. I also looked into seeing if they could do something like Bill James Game Score for pitchers. No dice. I think QS will be ok though. Of all the QS's in a season it will be interesting to see how many are actually 6 IP and 3 ER. I bet most are 6+ IP and 2 or less ER.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2015 20:18:12 GMT -5
And still even as it is it's better than Wins which doesn't always dictate how well/bed a pitcher pitches. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Sept 4, 2015 14:14:33 GMT -5
In my opinion, K's, ERA, and WHIP are enough to separate the aces from the middling guys. Making a QS achievable by mediocre pitchers gives them some value that they wouldn't otherwise have. Otherwise I find it just becomes a game of whose aces don't get injured.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2015 16:58:55 GMT -5
The 2015 version of Shelby Miller and Drew Hutchinson is enough to validate QS over using wins. One has great ratios and a terrible team around him while the other has horrific ratios and a great team around him.
I prefer OPS, but the total bases idea is interesting. I looked at the TB leaders for this year. The usual suspects are at the top and it seems to line up fairly close to what you would think of when you thought about dynasty players. QS's are very similar to what you would expect with the exception of a few outliers that you would not associate with a typical top 20 list.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Oct 8, 2015 10:09:46 GMT -5
One suggestion regarding the initial team draft, I assume spots will be selected by lottery - I think we should use an online system that emails all owners the results (from the neutral site). This ensures everything is above board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 12:48:57 GMT -5
And maybe that can be done today. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Oct 9, 2015 13:50:58 GMT -5
Yes, 1st round franchise selection will be a random order 1 thru 15 generated and emailed to everyone at the same time. Then the 2nd franchise selection round will be reverse order of that.
Would love to but sorry. Not today. Need to figure if I'm removing one owner and adding another, then nail down scoring categories before we pick our franchises.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on Oct 19, 2015 9:17:19 GMT -5
I'd like to make a suggestion for the blind bidding. When bidding is complete I think it would be fair that the top 3-5 bids are announced to everyone. It's important information that should be shared with the whole league.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Oct 19, 2015 12:42:48 GMT -5
I can do that Alex. No problem. This will be for blind bids in season only.
All of the Initial free agent contract offers we have following keeper selections will be on the board, auction-style, that everyone will see.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Jan 9, 2016 13:33:41 GMT -5
How about this for a suggestion for next year's free agency bidding. Too late to change anything for this year since we've already started.
Proposal for rule change for minimum raises: $500K - $999,999 contracts - minimum raise $25K ($0.025M) AAS like it is now $1M - $4,999,999 contracts - minimum raise of $250K ($0.25M) AAS $5M - $9,999,999 contracts - minimum raise of $500K ($0.5M) AAS $10M - $19,999,999 contracts - minimum raise of $750K ($0.75M) AAS $20M contracts and higher - minimum raise of $1M AAS
Thoughts? If I have a few guys that think this is worthy of a league poll then I'll create one and we'll do an official vote. Everything would be effective for 2017 free agency and beyond.
|
|
|
Post by Atlanta Indians (Brent) on Jan 9, 2016 13:37:18 GMT -5
I think that a very good idea!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 13:57:17 GMT -5
Too tough to keep track of in addition to everything else we need to watch for. Just my opinion. People have been having a tough time with the FA process as is
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 14:59:35 GMT -5
After thinking about this for the last hour, not so sure I want to think beyond 'minimum $25K'... And current $25k has been little used - so, not sure we need to further regulate it, but... if we do, I prefer the most simplified version possible (which may turn out to be your original suggestion). Fewer levels - like 2? Or maybe make it a flat rate of 5% (of the next highest 'whole' number) or just 10% of the actual last highest AAS bid... Examples: $500,000 = minimum raise $25,000 (5% x $500,000) = $525,000 $525,000 = minimum raise $30,000 (5% x $600,000) = $555,000 $585,000 = minimum raise $30,000 (5% x $600,000) = $615,000 $615,000 = minimum raise $35,000 (5% x $700,000) = $650,000 $1,000,000 = minimum raise $50,000 (5% x $1,000,000) = $1,050,000 $1,050,000 = minimum raise $100,000 (5% x $2,000,000) = $1,150,000 $9,000,000 = minimum raise $450,000 (5% x $9,000,000) = $9,450,000 $9,450,000 = minimum raise $500,000 (5% x $10,000,000) = $9,950,000 $9,950,000 = minimum raise $500,000 (5% x $10,000,000) = $10,450,000 $10,450,000 = minimum raise $550,000 (5% x $11,000,000) = $11,000,000 $18,035,000 = minimum raise $950,000 (5% x $19,000,000) = $18,985,000 $18,985,000 = minimum raise $950,000 (5% x $19,000,000) = $19,935,000
Looks complicated because of the many examples, but it's really easy to think about/remember - 5% of 1,2,5,10,20,21, or whatever... just don't want to have to refer to a table for minimums on every offer. Maybe this will prompt some better alternatives...
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Astros (Paul) on Jan 9, 2016 15:13:35 GMT -5
I'm actually really enjoying all the tedious outbidding. What else do we have better to do- still three months away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 15:15:45 GMT -5
Agree^^^^^
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 15:16:13 GMT -5
And yeah if we do change something, it needs to be a set percentage like Dave said IMO
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cub Sox (Scott) on Jan 9, 2016 16:23:58 GMT -5
My idea was too complicated and too hard to track? I think I had 5 levels and that was it. Dave's 5% rule looks complicated and maybe because I'm a former math teacher it is. But you know what guys, I should have worked on this before we launched DD3 as I've seen this happen for the last 3 years. It is well within the rules, but raising a $20+M guy by $25K just doesn't seem right (in my opinion). But it's totally cool for now and everyone understands that. I just think we can make the system much better for future auctions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 16:33:28 GMT -5
100k limit seems fine. I think it's being made out to be a bigger deal than it is. Whatever we decide, someone will find a way to screw it up. Better to leave it as is, it's what we all made our offseason moves based upon. Doesn't seem right to wanna change it now because owners offers are getting "one upped". That's the rules everyone joined on and shouldn't change because people feel it's having a negative effect on their own personal strategy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2016 17:13:52 GMT -5
Scott, I like your idea but don't feel as if it is a huge need right now, but I would prefer that over the 25k raise no matter the price range.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Giants (Alex) on May 31, 2016 9:10:19 GMT -5
I propose that teams be allowed to pay cap penalties in years earlier than they are scheduled for. IE. if you buy out a 3 year 4M AAV contract (so 2M year 1, 1M years 2-3), you could pay 2M in year 1 and 2M in year 2 and be done with it. This helps to prevent teams from being crushed for many years and makes it easier for a new owner if someone leaves a team in a bad state. Every other cap league I've played in allows something like this and it works great. However, I don't think teams should be allowed to push penalties back because that causes the reverse problem.
|
|