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?
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?
Comment