Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 20 Aug 2014, 7:08 pm

From ESPN site. Seems like a good idea to have a permanent record of this discussion on playoff acquisitions. Conversation occurred Aug 18-20.

Freeman

From what I understand, looking at the constitution, there are no adds for the play-offs. That's not a big deal except for injuries. So I guess I want to make sure that the only way to deal with injuries is to have enough depth on the bench--is that right? Just in case I make the play-offs.

George

For some reason the constitution was changed to outlaw the practice. Well, the reason was that an amendment was offered and the owners voted to change the rule to forbid adds during the playoffs. I'd like to change it back. Can we consider that an amendment for next year?

Michael

Correct. We experimented with limited playoff adds a few years ago but it was poorly received and voted back out. I think teams (myself included?) just used it as an opportunity to stream an extra pitcher or two.

Michael

George - you're certainly welcome to put if forth as an amendment. There may be some discussion of it at Redscape in the '2013 Discussion' thread.

Freeman

I was looking at the 2013 discussion and I think an easy resolution would be (in 2015) simply to allow replacements only for players going on the DL. Commissioner would not have to enforce, honor rule and the opposing player could complain (or anyone who cared to inform the commish. At the end of the play-offs all play-off adds would be dropped. Simple, no streaming allowed, and the randomness of play-offs being decided by injuries would be eliminated.

I took a look at the teams in the top 6 as to their susceptibility to injury. The Bombers actually have pretty good coverage--two bench players and he could cover at least one injury except to C and SS; The Lumberjacks are pretty good as well, he would have every position except C covered (but this is dependent on his getting Lawrie and/or Machado back--Ramirez will be back); Foes have three bench players but all OFs and he is susceptible to injury at C, 1b, 2b, SS, and 3b: Sauce only has one OF on bench and he would suspectible at C, 1b, 2b, SS, and 3b. And I have a 2b on bench right now and I would have problems except at 2b and 3b (If Soler were promoted then I could cover the outfield as well).

Matt

I agree it's a problem but I hated the arbitrary adds as I didn't feel they solved the problem. For example, if my C/2B/SS went down in the playoffs I probably wouldn't replace him under the old system. A pitcher stream would be much more likely to influence the outcome than what's often available on the wire at those positions. That might even be true for OFs.

There's also the issue of dropping guys at the deadline, even if they can't be kept. I like that I can freely set my team for the playoffs on Aug 30 and not worry about how anybody I drop will influence the rest of the season.

Also, while I do like your proposal, keep in mind that teams often don't use the DL in September due to expanded rosters. It's stupid, but it happens all the time. You know, the guy who is 99% going to miss the rest of the year stays on the active roster "just in case" and doesn't play another game, especially on teams that are out of it.

Matt

Alternatively, you could do a common sense injury rule and use the honor system like you mentioned. Maybe something like consecutive games missed with a documented issue. There would probably need to be different rules for position players, RPs, and SPs.

Freeman

Some interesting points that I had not really considered, honestly. But perhaps you could limit the replacement only to a position played by the player that has gone on the DL? I had not thought of the fact that a team might not bother with the DL when rosters expand, but I had thought about players being hurt but not being put on the DL, and I just thought there was no way to allow a replacement for that. As far as being able to cut people without worrying that another team could use the player, I guess that has to be looked in a cost-benefits way (does the benefit of the rule outweigh that cost or not).

Freeman

I just saw your recent post (cross-post). I guess you could come up with a rule allowing for replacement of a player who has not played in 5 or 7 days in a row, something like that. A bit of micromanagement but it may be possible. After all, the opposing player is going to be very motivated to call you on it.

George

The Bombers could cover every position (at least right now they could) should there be an injury to one player, even catcher.

That said, we play all season with the waiver wire as our injury/lousy play bench, but when the playoffs start, we suddenly change the rules to how we've played all season. That makes absolutely no sense to me. The two pick ups we had during the playoffs was a good rule; you could use those two to stream, if you wanted, or you could save it for an emergency, just like we play the regular season. Why change the rules to the game when the playoff start?

Ryan

Would it be possible to lock teams from dropping players, but allow them to have two adds?

That would limit the possibility of streaming, as the only way to add a player would be if a player was moved to the DL and a roster spot was freed up.

Nick

Is it really streaming if you only have two adds throughout the whole playoffs? There'd be strategy of when to use them: do you burn them to get an edge in your first matchup to stay alive or do you optimistically save them for the semis or finals?

Todd

Why change the rules to the game when the playoff start?
We already do that by going to a single elimination format, having a two-week championship, etc. The playoffs operating by different rules is far from unusual (MLB has much greater differences between their playoffs and regular season).

Is it really streaming if you only have two adds throughout the whole playoffs?
Yes. It might be less streaming, but that was the majority of use cases that we saw.

Would it be possible to lock teams from dropping players, but allow them to have two adds?
This is the idea that I think has the most merit. All this 'honor rule' stuff... bleh. It doesn't solve the problem of players not being put on the DL, but it's perhaps better than nothing.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that logistically the answer is no. But it would be easy enough to monitor, I think.

Freeman

I have to say 2 pick-ups (for any purpose) seems reasonable to me .
I have had opposing players stream effectively against me several times--if teams use the strategy effectively to get into the play-offs, what's the big deal at allowing a minor amount during the play-offs?

Todd

I have had opposing players stream effectively against me several times--if teams use the strategy effectively to get into the play-offs, what's the big deal at allowing a minor amount during the play-offs?
A big part of the issue was this:
There's also the issue of dropping guys at the deadline, even if they can't be kept. I like that I can freely set my team for the playoffs on Aug 30 and not worry about how anybody I drop will influence the rest of the season.
I'm not sure why Matt was feeling that so much, but for teams out of the race it's definitely an issue.

Also, for what it's worth, we've tried in general to limit the impact of streaming on the regular season. I think the general view is that streaming is to be avoided where possible, and it's certainly possible in the playoffs.

Michael

My preference for any amendment that is floated on this issue is not to have any restrictions on the acquisitions. Keep it simple, like the last time we did it.

Todd

That's what I liked about Ryan's idea- it IS simple. Probably about as close as we could get to the original intention while maintaining simplicity. Though I'm still not sure I wouldn't prefer the even-simpler rule of no transactions.

Michael

The problem with Ryan's solution is that you don't get any adds if you're already using all of your DL spots going into the playoffs.

I'm ok w/ no adds as well - in fact I voted to remove playoff adds (as did the majority at that time). We've had some ownership changes since so I've no problem with putting it out there.

Ryan

That may actually be a competitive balance thing, Mike. Teams that are in the playoffs don't need to be stashing players on the DL for an entire season.

If worse comes to worst, they can petition Mike for roster relief. I'm sure he'd grant it for everyone but Todd. I'm okay with that.

Michael

What about stashing a player slated to come off the DL during the playoffs? That's not stashing for next year... that's now.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 21 Aug 2014, 3:44 am

Personally, I'm much more interested in the discussion on G+ about allocation (and the related possibility of eliminating multi-year contracts). Playoff adds are a pretty marginal rule either way, whereas that discussion addresses a much more fundamental structure of the league.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 21 Aug 2014, 5:39 am

Soooo.... what are you saying?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 21 Aug 2014, 9:29 pm

I guess I'm saying you might want to transcribe the salient points here?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 05 Sep 2014, 12:11 am

Since it came up, some reasons NOT to allow playoff pickups:

1. It's easier not to. We can just look at the rosters from the end of season to see what players are eligible to be kept. We don't need to figure out how to handle it or what the limits are. Simplicity is good.

2. Playoff pickups are not analogous to regular season pickups. There are at most 4 teams playing in the playoffs, which creates a different situation in terms of competition for available players. In other words, using available pickups for streaming is much easier.

3. Non-playoff teams end up in an awkward spot if they want to drop potentially impactful players prior to the playoffs. Remember the Tulowitzki thing? That wasn't the exact situation I'm describing here, but it's similar enough to illustrate. Granted, this problem kind of exists no matter what, but playoff pickups make it much worse.

4. The stated purpose is to allow people to cover for injuries. However, when we had playoff pickups they were almost exclusively used for streaming. If that's what people want, let's at least call a spade a spade and say that we want streaming during the playoffs. If you want to cover for injuries, use your bench (like you're gonna pick up a useful position player at this point anyway, barring something from #3).
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Sep 2014, 12:55 am

(1) It's tough to cover when you have two injuries. Now Rizzo actually got hurt shortly before the play-offs but it was not clear until the play-offs started that he was going to be out for a long-time.
(2) even waiver wire material can allow you to win in a close category or categories; playing short sucks and having more than one injury is not that improbable.
(3) The complaint in the past was about streaming; I think it could be fixed to just allow for injury replacement
(4) And I am not that averse to a minor amount of streaming--that is a problem we deal with during most of the year. If people started throwing out 5-6 starters then I would be concerned. If you can only pick up a couple of guys, I don't see what the big deal is.
User avatar
NASCAR Driver (Pro V)
 
Posts: 7810
Joined: 08 Apr 2002, 9:45 am

Post 05 Sep 2014, 7:51 am

Playoff adds would be non-keepers. Not an issue there.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 967
Joined: 30 Aug 2003, 5:17 am

Post 05 Sep 2014, 8:20 am

As much as I'd love to see the fireworks that would go off when Steve gets blocked from a pickup in the playoffs by the 10th place team's attempt to win the consolation bracket, I'm going to vote against both of those things anyway.