League pairity rules

[kawaise]

At the All-Star Break meeting of my local $260 auction, 11-team AL-only keeper, 5x5 (use 3xSV + 2xHld instead of Svs) league discussion of league pairity was talked about (not all the league members were in attendance). It was an interesting conversation.

The crux of the argument appears to be this simple fact: of all the money that we've put into the league since its inception (this is its 19th season), about 72% of it has been won by five owners. Those owners have won 14 of the league's 18 pennants.

Ideas talked about included:

1) Allow fewer keepers (even the idea of having a redraft league (no keepers) was talked about) - this is an "old school" league where as many as 15 players can be kept on our 23-man active roster (no reserve/bench spots - though you can keep up to four farm players), going into the auction;

2) Give teams that finish lower in the standings more money in the following year's auction, as well as decreasing the amount of money of the top finishers;

3) Possibly using a three year average to determine auction money instead of the previous year's standings (for there are teams who tank on purpose - selling off "commodities" - to get cheap keepers for the following season). The idea was if a team had a three-year average of finishing 8th/9th (wasn't determine) or below, give them up to as much as $270 at auction, and those who had a three-year average of finishing in the top three or four (wasn't determined) would only have $250 (or $255) to spend at auction.

4) Allowing teams that finish in the bottom to pick players from the top teams. This idea kind of met an early death because the fact that top teams frequently get players in trades that are in the last year of their contracts - these players wouldn't be available to be picked up with this idea/option.

5) Maybe do nothing, because some owners simply make poor decisions and have poor planning. There was one owner who was in the league for 11 years before his untimely death (RIP) who only finished in the money once; he, however, insisted on filling his roster with either veteran "name" players (probably name familiarity) or fringy prospects just coming into the league. There is another owner who consistently ignores injury history/risk and each year has a huge list of disabled players (this year is no different; he had eight players on the DL and who have been sent to the minors). Yet another owner was fond of Seattle Mariners - you could throw a Mariner out and you could bet that he would be in the final bidding.

I've just posted this thread on our league message board and am interested in the input of other league members.

Personally, I fall in the camp of argument number five - you just can't fix poor strategy/logic or plain stupidity. However, as commissioner it's my duty to get input and shape league rules to fit the needs of the majority.

Do you play (or have played) in a league the has rules in place to encourage parity? If so, what ideas do you have to share?

[Pauly]

Since #5 is do nothing, #1 seems like the only logical way to address the situation...but I am of the mind (like you) that it's not a situation that needs addressing in the first place. I guess there will always be owners who play to win and owners who play to have something to root for when they watch baseball games.

Im curious if it was the perennially good teams or the bad ones that even started the conversation in the first place (one camp looking for better competition or another just complaining because they always lose). Or, you can go with #6 and try to replace the bad owners, but Im sure nobody would be in favor of that.

[kawaise]

Im curious if it was the perennially good teams or the bad ones that even started the conversation in the first place (one camp looking for better competition or another just complaining because they always lose). Or, you can go with #6 and try to replace the bad owners, but Im sure nobody would be in favor of that.

It was actually brought up by an owner who has won the pennant three times.

Trying to replace bad owners is difficult in a community of under 3,000 people. We've rotated through a few people but currently have a fairly stable ownership group.

[joncarlos]

I mean, if the owners who don't win don't seem to mind, what's the issue? As long as they're having fun.

[mjl]

Are you playing for relevant money? Do the people who consistently do poorly know or care?

[Gregg]

I mean, if the owners who don't win don't seem to mind, what's the issue? As long as they're having fun.

I agree with this.

[heyelander]

I had a league sort of like this, 12 teams and realistically only 4 or 5 were ever going to win (I was one of them actually, which lets you know the quality of the rest of the owners). A few of us that were always in the money tried to fix things, we saw the holes we were exploiting and tried to fix them, but the rest of the league was suspicious of our motives and wouldn't vote to change.

I dislike the idea of crippling/aiding winners/losers but the idea of reducing keepers might be a good idea. Seems odd though that the winning teams are gutting their keepers for expiring contracts and still coming back the next year. Not sure how that would play out if you had less keepers. Do the also rans now have less good contracts from the good teams in trades, or with less keepers, there would be less opportunity for the good teams to trade for the expiring contracts?

[joncarlos]

I don't know if reducing keepers will actually help. If the "bad" owners have to rely more heavily on their auction, which they're clearly bad at, then they might not improve. If it's truly a difference in skill (or effort, which often substitutes for skill), then the only way to really level the playing field is to dumb it down. Reduce the skill required and make it more luck dependent. Is that what you really want? You could try things like shrinking the # of reserves so the free agent pool is better and good owners don't hoard talent on their bench. Take away some of the farm components so less research is required. Reduce the ability of teams to lock up superstars for 6-7 years by getting rid of extensions.

[kawaise]

Are you playing for relevant money? Do the people who consistently do poorly know or care?

Not really - the pot is typically a just north of $1,000 a year.

The topic of pairity has never really come up before. That's why I say it was an interesting conversation. I'm not vehemently opposed, but it kind of reminded me of everyone gets a ribbon for participating type of discussion. I like challenges, so if I can beat you with a $250 budget and you're playing with $270 it'd make it all that much sweeter.

[kawaise]

I dislike the idea of crippling/aiding winners/losers but the idea of reducing keepers might be a good idea. Seems odd though that the winning teams are gutting their keepers for expiring contracts and still coming back the next year. Not sure how that would play out if you had less keepers. Do the also rans now have less good contracts from the good teams in trades, or with less keepers, there would be less opportunity for the good teams to trade for the expiring contracts?

I made five trades last year going for the pennant. I was in first place on Tuesday of the last week, but slid to third, finishing five points out. I gutted my team of low-priced keepers, taking on some big contracts. However, it hasn't affected me this year. I'm in first place at the break; the teams I traded with are in 5th, 6th, 10th, and 11th (I traded with one of them twice). I had the third fewest keepers going into the auction; all the teams I traded with (except one) had more keepers than me. In fact, more players I had picked up in auction or free agency were frozen on league teams going into the auction than I froze on my team. That hurt my pride somewhat, thinking what could have been.

I don't think that reducing the number of keepers would keep me from trading for expiring contracts if I were in the hunt for a title. In fact, I might trade more knowing that there would be fewer keepers. "Dollar days" at auction time is my time to shine - this is where preparation pays off.

[kawaise]

I don't know if reducing keepers will actually help. If the "bad" owners have to rely more heavily on their auction, which they're clearly bad at, then they might not improve. If it's truly a difference in skill (or effort, which often substitutes for skill), then the only way to really level the playing field is to dumb it down. Reduce the skill required and make it more luck dependent. Is that what you really want? You could try things like shrinking the # of reserves so the free agent pool is better and good owners don't hoard talent on their bench. Take away some of the farm components so less research is required. Reduce the ability of teams to lock up superstars for 6-7 years by getting rid of extensions.

We don't have reserves, thus the free agent pool can be fairly good (especially at the beginning of the year).

" ... it's truly a difference in skill (or effort, which often substitutes for skill)..." You are hitting the nail on the head. Effort plays a big part in this, I believe.

Your idea of eliminating extensions is interesting .... though that's part of the skill needed when picking farm talent (another part some of us excel in).

[kawaise]

I mean, if the owners who don't win don't seem to mind, what's the issue? As long as they're having fun.

JC - all the owners seem to have fun. It's a much more active group than the other "local" league I play in (I live 300 miles away from the home base of that league - all the other members live in the same community).

I haven't known this to be an issue, thus my curiosity about the subject.

[heyelander]

I don't think that reducing the number of keepers would keep me from trading for expiring contracts if I were in the hunt for a title. In fact, I might trade more knowing that there would be fewer keepers. "Dollar days" at auction time is my time to shine - this is where preparation pays off.

I meant the other way. You'd be less able to buy up expiring contracts for volume since they wouldn't be able to keep so many guys. I doubt that would make things better, but it might play out that way.

[heyelander]

We don't have reserves, thus the free agent pool can be fairly good (especially at the beginning of the year).

how do your waivers work? Are players in the free agent pool first come first serve? do you use FAAB? You could force all pick ups through waivers and reset the waiver order every week/2 weeks or whatever so that the last place team gets first crack more often. Also, forcing everything through waivers would make it easier for casual owners to make pick-ups since they wouldn't have to be reading constantly and on top of the latest closer news or whatever the moment it happens.

[kawaise]

how do your waivers work? Are players in the free agent pool first come first serve? do you use FAAB? You could force all pick ups through waivers and reset the waiver order every week/2 weeks or whatever so that the last place team gets first crack more often. Also, forcing everything through waivers would make it easier for casual owners to make pick-ups since they wouldn't have to be reading constantly and on top of the latest closer news or whatever the moment it happens.

The lowest teams in the league standings get first crack at players on the waiver wire up to the All-Star Break. The order doesn't reset each week - simply place in standings. It's been a head-scratcher this year, as the last place team has had many opportunities to get good players off the waiver wire but has either 1) done a somewhat obscure move, or 2) done nothing. After that we use FAAB - highest bid is awarded the player (we don't use the Vickrey method).

In the past I've proposed that we use FAAB all year long for waiver wire and free agent acquisition. However, I think that it would benefit those of us on the top, rather than the league as a whole.