|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Oct 11, 2019 6:27:17 GMT -8
As hinted, the following is the list of rule changes slated for the 2020 JBL season. After observing the league's trajectory for 3 seasons I am very pleased with current rules and incredibly thankful for a dedicated group of managers, but am convinced that the following will improve parity, empower rebuilders, and force tougher decisions on the part of playoff contenders by increasing the number of playoff eligible teams and deepening offseason free agency especially.
I encourage feedback on these changes but unless I hear widespread and convincing opposition to any of these changes they will be enacted this winter.
Expansion of Playoff-Eligible Teams from 8 to 10 Teams qualifying for the postseason will become the 3 division winners in each league, plus the 2 wild card teams (non-division winners with the highest win percentage), an increase over the single wild card winner in 2019's rules. A new wildcard play-in week of playoffs will be added at the expense of one mid-season inter-divisional matchup. This wildcard play-in will occur in the first week following the conclusion of the unchanged regular season, with matchups dictated by winning percentage. The highest win percentage division winner in each league will be on bye during the wildcard play-in week.
Lineup Change Period changed from Weekly to Semi-Weekly: Roster changes are applied semi-weekly, meaning there are 2 lineup periods per week. The first period of the week runs 4 days long (Monday through the end of Thursday’s games), while the second period of the week is 3 days long (Friday through Sunday). Both lineup periods aggregate into a single weekly scoring matchup. The benefit I see here is injury management. Gone will be the days of a Monday injury significantly affecting your team’s chances all week. Instead, your injured player will be replaced for the weekend series. This will be a huge relief to playoff contenders especially, and encourage playoff contenders to acquire bench depth for the stretch run, deepening the pool of trade deadline candidates.
Free Agent Calculator Update The following minimums have been integrated into the Free Agency Calculator, and the file linked above updated to the new location. All league members will need to re-download / make a new Google Sheets copy of the 2020 calculator. 1 year = $600,000 minimum 2 year = $2,000,000 minimum 3 year = $3,000,000 minimum 4 year = $4,000,000 minimum 5 year = $5,000,000 minimum
The bid point effect of team options has also been updated to make team options deduct a higher amount from the bid point total. Mutual options have been deleted altogether.
Trade Deadline Extension The trade deadline will be extended from 1 week behind the MLB’s trade deadline to 2 weeks behind the MLB’s trade deadline.
Retained Salary Obligation Limit Increase The retained salary obligation limit will be increased from $20 MM to $50 MM to remove constraints on trading and make the league’s largest contracts tradable as those players might approach “twighlight” years.
Arbitration Awards Change TL;DR arbitration awards will change somewhat, with slightly higher awards going to the studs of each position and marginal awards assigned to ~25% more players. Starting pitchers’ values in arbitration will receive a slight boost as deserved.
While processing this season’s arbitration awards I identified a couple of things I feel I can improve in both the time it takes me to assign raises and some gaps in the realism of the awards themselves.
Instead of grouping all hitters by defensive position to assign awards I will be modifying the awards to treat all hitters as one group. The intent of this is to eliminate the need for me to determine which defensive position to assign each player I had been looking up each player to determine the position with the most games started in the prior season), with multi-position eligibility becoming more common. While this sacrifices some realism (no more awarding based on the presumed defensive value each position carries) it reflects our fantasy purposes better as at the end of the week our hitters are judged on offensive output alone. I will also be restructuring the arbitration award ladder somewhat, as shown below:
Instead of 100% raise being the maximum arbitration award (for the top 3 qualifiers at the position) the awards will be derived from earned value. The formula for determining arbitration award will be earned value (in millions) / 2.5 / 100. 2.5 is a factor that I found appropriate to match the average awards between current rules and the changed arbitration awards. Additionally, all arbitration-elligible players will have a salary capped at $40 MM. While steep, this is a reasonable bound on the absolute generational talent that at least one team in the league will be able to structure around. No player in the JBL’s history has even come close to maxing out arbitration awards each year – the ceiling on this is currently $38.4 MM/year – 6 years of arbitration eligibility finishing in the top 3 at an offensive position multiplied by the minimum starting salary ($600,000 * 2^6 = $38,400,000). This will be applied to all players who generated top 500 earned value (the numerical limit of the Rotowire calculator I use for this exercise) with the 500th earner typically earning around 3% raise. This is a deeper award pool than current use by around 100 players.
I will also be using total Ks instead of K/9 as input to the Rotowire calculator in order to more fairly award SPs for their value relative to RPs. I find that with the K/9 input starters are unfairly devalued in arbitration.
Ignore postponed/cancelled games when determining lineup lock times: Enabled Nothing groundbreaking here, I just noticed the option to enable this setting while browsing Fantrax’s league setup pages. If a player’s start time is 4:05 on a Monday and the game is postponed or cancelled you will have the ability to substitute a player later start time game if you wish, instead of that lineup slot locking.
Rough Schedule By Week 1-3 Interdivision 4-7 8-11 12-13 Interdivision (minus 1 matchup) 14-17 18-20 Interdivision 21 Wild Card Play-In: Each league's highest win% team is on bye, 2 wild cards match up against the 2 remaining division winners 22 DS: 4 teams per league 23 CS: 2 teams per league 24-25 WS: Two week
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Oct 11, 2019 15:14:18 GMT -8
I’m not sure I understand the new arbitration formula. Could you give an example?
I also think that limiting in-season free agency to one year is going to eliminate a lot of competition for free agents. Why would a Non-contending team ever bid on anyone? This seems to hurt rebuilding teams and favor playoff teams and teams on the fringe.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Oct 12, 2019 5:47:26 GMT -8
Jon - check out column F in the "2020 Rule Change Arbitration" sheet on the league spreadsheet to see the formula. The sheet is where I've been working through some different options.
In regard to the proposed free agent restrictions and rebuilding teams, I do see significant incentive for rebuilders to bid on free agents in order to capture potential trade deadline value, especially with these rebuilding teams often having ample salary space. After the deadline I can see how some teams would lose interest in free agency, but the expanded playoff pool should keep the majority of the league interested.
I am open to suggestions on how we can eliminate my least favorite kind of inseason free agent contract - those where unknown prospects can be signed at league minimum contract for up to 6 seasons with complete cost control.
Perhaps we cap inseason contracts at 2 years maximum instead of 1?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2019 9:30:54 GMT -8
Jon - check out column F in the "2020 Rule Change Arbitration" sheet on the league spreadsheet to see the formula. The sheet is where I've been working through some different options. In regard to the proposed free agent restrictions and rebuilding teams, I do see significant incentive for rebuilders to bid on free agents in order to capture potential trade deadline value, especially with these rebuilding teams often having ample salary space. After the deadline I can see how some teams would lose interest in free agency, but the expanded playoff pool should keep the majority of the league interested. I am open to suggestions on how we can eliminate my least favorite kind of inseason free agent contract - those where unknown prospects can be signed at league minimum contract for up to 6 seasons with complete cost control. Perhaps we cap inseason contracts at 2 years maximum instead of 1? Or just do something like instead of capping years on contracts, strongly discourage multiple years by having an increased minimum salary requirement - say $5 million - on anything over a one year or one plus an option contract in-season, that way the five teams with cap room can't snipe all the good in-season pickups for multiple years without a risk. With this you would have had to start at $5 million to get Jeff McNeil (an in-season signing two years ago) for longer than beyond this season, or he would have only been a 1.5 year cheap signing at most. It might just lead to more bad contracts though and not improve offseason FA that much, but there is more retained money going forward too and it's a little more realistic on long-term deals than say, Max Muncy for $1.4 million per or McNeil for $4.2 million per. I'm just thinking out loud.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2019 11:25:44 GMT -8
I don't have an issue with most of these. The playoff bump is quite drastic, I'd be fine with 10 teams. With only 24 teams, I really don't like scenarios where half the league makes it into the post season.
I agree with the concerns stated about Inseason FA. A hard cap of 3 years is kind of where I'd lean as the most preferable situation from a simplicity standpoint. 1 or 2 years is way too harsh on bad teams.
What's the possibility of treating Inseason FA kind of like a sign-on bonus. IFA would be limited to 1 year deals, but comes with the option to accept the player into the arbitration process after that? Another option is that if the player would normally be in the arbitration process, at the end of each year of the contract the owner will pay the greater of the two contract values for the upcoming season. For example, If McNeil's arb total this year would be greater then 4.2, I'd pay the new value, otherwise I'd still be paying the 4.2 per year until he surpasses that amount.
Everything else looks good though.
|
|
|
Post by Los Angeles Dodgers (Jon) on Oct 12, 2019 16:27:50 GMT -8
I don't have an issue with most of these. The playoff bump is quite drastic, I'd be fine with 10 teams. With only 24 teams, I really don't like scenarios where half the league makes it into the post season. I agree with the concerns stated about Inseason FA. A hard cap of 3 years is kind of where I'd lean as the most preferable situation from a simplicity standpoint. 1 or 2 years is way too harsh on bad teams. What's the possibility of treating Inseason FA kind of like a sign-on bonus. IFA would be limited to 1 year deals, but comes with the option to accept the player into the arbitration process after that? Another option is that if the player would normally be in the arbitration process, at the end of each year of the contract the owner will pay the greater of the two contract values for the upcoming season. For example, If McNeil's arb total this year would be greater then 4.2, I'd pay the new value, otherwise I'd still be paying the 4.2 per year until he surpasses that amount. Everything else looks good though. I like this idea. That way a team doesn’t just lose a good rookie, but they do have to pay fair value. If they are accepted into the arb process, they could also be non-tendered. Basically they would become like all other prospects, with the exception of many times having a higher starting salary.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Oct 13, 2019 2:23:03 GMT -8
I'll take this feedback and come up with a new suggestion on how to better balance inseason free agency in the coming days. Thanks all!
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Mariners (Robin) on Oct 13, 2019 9:24:22 GMT -8
Not a fan of the playoff expansion. All for the addition of a second wildcard, increasing the number of teams to 10 total in the playoffs.
Love the idea of making the retained salary obligations increased to 50 MIL. Hopefully it will allow the teams with a bunch of cap space to take on more bad contracts and promote more creative trades.
As far the inseason FA, Ill propose an idea. In another league I am in, we split up in season FAs in two Categories, guys that still fall under team control (less then 6 years service) and Vets (more then 6 years). We could assign a predetermined amount of points at the beginning of the season for bidding on players that are under team control. For example the worst team in the league starts with 50, the second worst gets 45 so on so forth. These points are used instead of dollars for bidding on players on team control. The winning team using their points obtains the player with their real life rights and price. So if a team wins a player that just made his debut, the contract would be for the minimum 600,000 and 20xx and the player will go through our same arbitration process. Using this format, all "VETs" are treated the same as the way we have been doing inseason FA, basically an open bidding war.
I would also like to see the issue of the two week World Series addressed. I am not just calling this out because I lost recently but I think a one week matchup is the best option in my opinion. The last week of MLB play should not be used in fantasy playoffs because of the inconsistency of teams not playing their best players during the last week. Especially when roster changes are locked for two weeks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2019 15:41:32 GMT -8
FWIW among the changes Curtis also said lineups can be changed on Fridays going forward, so rosters wouldn't be completely locked in a two-week matchup.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Oct 13, 2019 23:10:29 GMT -8
I've got no issues making the playoff expansion 10 teams (so that the highest winning % team in each league has a 1st round bye). What are the main objections to 12 playoff teams vs 10?
I liked the idea of applying arbitration rules to in-season free agent signings at first, but then realized that they would then be able to be non-tendered during the offseason, basically giving the ability to get out of much worse in-season contracts than the cheap near-minimum contracts of failed/busted prospects that non-tenders currently apply to.
The simplest solution I see is to require a minimum annual contract for each length of in-season free agency offer. Something like: 1 year = $600,000 minimum 2 year = $2,000,000 minimum 3 year = $3,000,000 minimum 4 year = $4,000,000 minimum 5 year = $5,000,000 minimum
This won't completely eliminate the 5-year bargains like Jeff McNeil, but that kind of a contract might have been had in offseason FA too. Instead it'll help avoid the 5 year $1.4 MM Max Muncys, my 5 year $600,000 Nick Anderson, etc. It is also the solution that requires the least amount of oversight/user input - these minimums will be built into the logic of the calculator.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Oct 14, 2019 16:15:53 GMT -8
I would also like to see the issue of the two week World Series addressed. I am not just calling this out because I lost recently but I think a one week matchup is the best option in my opinion. The last week of MLB play should not be used in fantasy playoffs because of the inconsistency of teams not playing their best players during the last week. Especially when roster changes are locked for two weeks. I think that the Monday and Friday roster change rule ammendment will help tremendously with the 2 week world series. We can also clarify to make the minimum games started something like 6 games over the 2 week period. I really like have the series be a 2 week matchup so that the best team has more of a chance to win than in a smaller 1 week sample. "Best" in this regard might not mean best starting lineup, but also takes into consideration bench depth for those second week roster changes as more MLB playoff-bound studs start to cycle games off. Potential world series contenders will therefore be motivated to trade for deeper players in preparation of needing that depth for the playoff stretch.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Oct 16, 2019 8:00:45 GMT -8
Updated my first post above to show 10 playoff teams and the free agency minimum salary change. The playoff team count is something that we can consider further expanding in the future, but I see the benefit of making smaller steps towards a larger playoff pool so that we can more carefully observe the effects on league strategies.
Also, the bid point effect of team and mutual options has also been updated to make team options deduct a higher amount from the bid point total. Mutual options now count as a slight negative towards total bid points instead of a slight positive - as the option is essentially a team option that the player will opt out of with strong performance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 11:40:47 GMT -8
I never saw the mutual option as that practical in its current form tbh...because if you're willing to give a mutual option that's practically a player option with slightly less bid points, then you might as well just give the player option for more bid points since there's almost no way you get to ultimately choose to keep a player on a mutual option anyway. If they're at a good price they'll decline their part and on a bad price you decline, they accept.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 12:51:58 GMT -8
I never saw the mutual option as that practical in its current form tbh...because if you're willing to give a mutual option that's practically a player option with slightly less bid points, then you might as well just give the player option for more bid points since there's almost no way you get to ultimately choose to keep a player on a mutual option anyway. If they're at a good price they'll decline their part and on a bad price you decline, they accept. The sacrifice in bid points allows the team to keep the player in the case that they outperform their salary in the option year. I was confused by the naming of it initially, because I thought both parties had to mutually agree that the player stays. Instead, they have to mutually agree that the player leaves for the player to become a free agent. Like in the case of Alex Gordon who made ~$2M last year and was on a mutual option. Gordon would decline because he was easily worth more than $2M last year, but then the team has the option to keep him, which they did. So it's definitely practical, but probably more so on cheaper contracts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2019 21:09:02 GMT -8
I never saw the mutual option as that practical in its current form tbh...because if you're willing to give a mutual option that's practically a player option with slightly less bid points, then you might as well just give the player option for more bid points since there's almost no way you get to ultimately choose to keep a player on a mutual option anyway. If they're at a good price they'll decline their part and on a bad price you decline, they accept. The sacrifice in bid points allows the team to keep the player in the case that they outperform their salary in the option year. I was confused by the naming of it initially, because I thought both parties had to mutually agree that the player stays. Instead, they have to mutually agree that the player leaves for the player to become a free agent. Like in the case of Alex Gordon who made ~$2M last year and was on a mutual option. Gordon would decline because he was easily worth more than $2M last year, but then the team has the option to keep him, which they did. So it's definitely practical, but probably more so on cheaper contracts. I could have sworn it was written the other way around, that the team would decide first then if the team declines it turns into a player option but it's written differently in the Constitution, maybe it got changed at some point or I just read it wrong. You're correct in that the actual wording of the option does seem to favor doing it for smaller deals.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Oct 17, 2019 9:17:48 GMT -8
Man, I get myself all kinds of mixed up when discussing mutual options. What I stated a couple posts above is incorrect, Alex and Hasan's interpretation is right. The mutual option allows a player to accept a contract higher than his prior season's earned value, without recourse from the team. The player will seek free agency if he outperforms his contract, at which point the team has the option to accept or decline his return.
With all this complexity we might as well just eliminate the mutual option altogether IMO...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2019 13:27:41 GMT -8
I'm good with getting rid of the mutual option for the sake of simplicity. It's hard to gauge the appropriate adjustment in bid points when a mutual option is included. With a big money contract, I think an increase in bid points makes sense, but for small money contracts, it should be more of a negative in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Oct 18, 2019 4:25:05 GMT -8
OK, mutual option eliminated but the rules retained in the Constitution's Archive to help me in processing and honoring all existing Mutual Options. Back to the topic of playoff teams... I realize now why I proposed 12 teams to begin with. If we go to 10 there is no playoff bracket arrangement that will work in single-elimination while keeping the AL and NL separate until the winners face off in the WS, even adding the ability for bye weeks. If we use 12 teams we get a bracket shown in the image attached. This would have pushed the playoff teams to include CLE, CWS, SEA, and LAD, all teams with Win% above 54%. I understand the standpoint that this dilutes the value of earning a playoff spot, but with 2 byes on the line I think there is plenty of value in pushing to improve from a borderline playoff team to a top 2 finisher in each league. Securing a bye increases the odds to win by around 25% - a huge increase IMO. I definitely feel more inclined to trade prospects and push my chips all in while pursuing a 1st round bye. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Washington Nationals (Carter) on Oct 19, 2019 20:13:37 GMT -8
Sorry late to the paahty, but will give my thoughts anyway. I also am not in favor of expanding the playoff teams. MLB has basically 8 teams making it of their 30 total. Here 8 out of 24 is of course a greater percentage but seems to be fair. I suggest we vote on it.
I dont care if we drop mutual options, it isnt a big deal and does complicate things especially for Curtis.
Curtis' last proposal re in-season FAs seems reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres (Sean) on Jan 19, 2020 0:57:21 GMT -8
I am very late to the discussion on this but I would like to express strong disagreement with the new minimum contract rule. Not sure when rule changes can be considered again but I will be very much in favor of the reversal of the now current rule when that topic comes up again.
This is just one persons opinion out of 24. And about one rule out of many many decisions that I generally agree with
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Jan 19, 2020 1:47:28 GMT -8
I am very late to the discussion on this but I would like to express strong disagreement with the new minimum contract rule. Not sure when rule changes can be considered again but I will be very much in favor of the reversal of the now current rule when that topic comes up again. This is just one persons opinion out of 24. And about one rule out of many many decisions that I generally agree with Sorry Sean - what part of the new bid calculator do you specifically dislike?
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Feb 9, 2020 19:22:49 GMT -8
After seeing the new bid point calculator in action I'm not a huge fan of the dynamic it creates while bidding on lower-value but young players. I do think that it has performed some intended functions - namely preventing the locking up of young players for 5-6 years on $600,000 no-risk contracts and as a result will make future free agent classes much deeper. My only complaint is the abrupt increase from 1 to 2+ year contract offering, and how that creates incentive to offer options on pretty much all 1 year contracts.
As resolution, I propose that we change the annual salary requirements to the following tiered structure starting with in-season free agency:
1 year = $600,000 minimum 2 year = $1,200,000 minimum 3 year = $1,800,000 minimum 4 year = $2,400,000 minimum 5 year = $3,000,000 minimum
As always I'd love the league's feedback.
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Phillies (Paul) on Feb 9, 2020 20:55:23 GMT -8
I think, inadvertently, this would hamstring cap-challenged teams from an opportunity to lock up these same youngsters for reasonably-but-not-cheap contracts.
And since cap constrained teams come in all sizes, meaning it's not just contenders but sometimes cellar-dwellers with too many bad contracts and everything in between, I don't think this move helps the league overall.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Cubs (Curtis) on Feb 9, 2020 21:44:16 GMT -8
I think, inadvertently, this would hamstring cap-challenged teams from an opportunity to lock up these same youngsters for reasonably-but-not-cheap contracts. And since cap constrained teams come in all sizes, meaning it's not just contenders but sometimes cellar-dwellers with too many bad contracts and everything in between, I don't think this move helps the league overall. I'm not sure I follow - this is a decreased annual salary requirement from the offseason free agent calculator
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Phillies (Paul) on Feb 9, 2020 22:14:30 GMT -8
I think, inadvertently, this would hamstring cap-challenged teams from an opportunity to lock up these same youngsters for reasonably-but-not-cheap contracts. And since cap constrained teams come in all sizes, meaning it's not just contenders but sometimes cellar-dwellers with too many bad contracts and everything in between, I don't think this move helps the league overall. I'm not sure I follow - this is a decreased annual salary requirement from the offseason free agent calculator My bad. That's what I get for trying to do this on mobile. I misread...disregard my post. I am in favor of this change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2020 22:41:57 GMT -8
Definitely in favor of the change.
|
|
|
Post by Detroit Tigers (Matt) on Feb 11, 2020 19:39:51 GMT -8
I definitely am in favour of those more resonavle numbers. Those are definitely more reasonable while still accomplishing what is intended. Too bad they didn't come sooner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2020 22:17:59 GMT -8
I am ok with the new changes.
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Mariners (Robin) on Feb 12, 2020 0:15:12 GMT -8
I think the previous set up made sense. If you are going to sign a guy to 5 years you should at least have to pay a reasonable salary. It also discourages owners to offer longer contracts because 5 mil per is a bigger risk than 2 years at 2 mil per. Most players are going to see a better raise through arbitration than a million per year after year 3 of service time. Dont want to be a contrarian and I am ok with the new rule just stating my thoughts.
Also I was looking at the playoff structure, if we go to 10 teams, Im trying to figure out the configuration. I think the playoff set up in the the rule change post is for 12 teams. If we have 1 bye from each league, that leaves 4 teams playing in the first round per league. The 2 WC teams vs the other division winners. The winners plus the bye team move on, making 3 teams in the divisional round. I might be missing something. With the proposed MLB playoff setup coming maybe we should just go to 14 teams in the playoffs and let the division Winners pick their opponent Haha
|
|
|
Post by Seattle Mariners (Robin) on Feb 12, 2020 0:37:57 GMT -8
Just saw your post on the problem with the 10 team bracket. So Im assuming we are rolling with the 12 team playoff, two byes per league?
|
|