Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Moderator: CSFBL Moderators

User avatar
R27
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 2474
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:50 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby R27 » Tue Aug 25, 2015 12:52 pm

So I've gotten a couple people who have mentioned to me that they'd like to see some adjustments to the current draft lottery system. I'd like to get a discussion going about whether or not we should make some adjustments to the way it's handled. Two points specifically.

Personally, I can see how these would stifle competition a bit, and I feel like the league may be at it's least competitive in quite some time. Some of the peripheral lottery rules are making it harder to build a team into a contender rather that it's actual stated goal.

The "3 in 5" Rule: Initially the rule was to prevent teams from consistent tanking to simply collect high picks and then go win, but rather create a rebuild window. What's happened though are that rebuilding teams are incredibly dependent on the depth of the drafts. You can win a lottery pick and still not get a core caliber player. It's happened to me this entire rebuild, though that's not the specific reason why I bring this up.

Suggested alternatives: Removing the rule completely, extending it to a "4 in 5" Rule, or a "3 and 2" rule where only three consecutive lottery wins would lock you out of the lottery for the next two years. Or maybe where the total of your picks in the previous three seasons needs to be 9 (or some other number) or higher.

Lottery Win Assignment: We didn't really cover this when initially accepting the lottery, so it defaulted to this rule, but we have basically assigned lottery wins to whatever owner owns the pick when the lottery is run. This creates a ticket for rebuilding teams to trade with with teams who have lots of talent, but what usually happens is owners dumping out of their lottery pick without really helping themselves.

Suggest alternative: Assigning the lottery win to whoever owned that pick to begin with. So in a situation like I'm in with the #3 lottery pick under the "3 in 5" rule, it would be ineligible to win the lottery regardless of who owned it.

So lets hear some thoughts perhaps towards making a rule change a season or two down the road.
@JonDobleRBD - Redbird Dugout

El gato es en fuego en mi pantelones.
User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Tue Aug 25, 2015 1:17 pm

Yeah these 2 had good intentions but after some use, they aren't working fully to what they were put in for.

Agree 100% that the 3 in 5 rule needs to change in its current form. Currently it treats all lottery slots equal, which is very much not true. #1 is wayyyyyy more valuable than #5 and should be treated as such. My proposal would be to give each lottery slot a value (for simplicity, I'd suggest 5 for #1, 4 for #2... 1 for #5) and then if your total over the past so many years reaches a certain number, then you are ineligible. So say we keep it at 5 years and set the point total at 10. If you win #1 in back to back years, you will be ineligible for 3 years. If you win #5 every year, you will never become ineligible. If you win #2, then #4, then #2 again, you would be ineligible for the next 2 years. And so on.

The only issue with leaving the assignment with the original team is this situation. Let's say I trade for a couple picks and get extremely lucky to have both hit the lottery. Then the following year I trade for another team's pick and it hits. I can continue to hit every year with no repercussion. The other thing is that what if a team trades a big group of future picks away like Galesburg did now and like Peoria did in his last build? Let's say Windy City wins the lottery 5 years in a row with Galesburg's pick. Windy City is not penalized at all but Galesburg is for when he finally does get his picks back. I see the issue here, but I'm not sure this is the best solution. Honestly I think the best thing to do might just be to dump the "ineligibility" rule altogether to fix this issue.

And as a side note, I wouldn't be against putting in a full 16 team lottery instead of the top 5 lottery that we have now.


TLDR: I'd be for dumping the ineligibility rule altogether since the lottery seems to lessen the value in doing "tank and bank" since the worst team in the league doesn't get #1 a majority of the time and the rules we put in aren't fully working how we hoped they would. And 16 team lottery instead of 5 I would vote for as well.
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2119):
83 seasons, 8309-4971 (.626), 74 Playoff Apps, 52 Division Titles, 36 League Titles
13 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104, 2115, 2117, 2119)
User avatar
R27
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 2474
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:50 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby R27 » Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:16 pm

mhardy_03 wrote:The only issue with leaving the assignment with the original team is this situation. Let's say I trade for a couple picks and get extremely lucky to have both hit the lottery. Then the following year I trade for another team's pick and it hits. I can continue to hit every year with no repercussion.

How often has that happened though? Has any team outside the top-5 even hit three times in 5 years. Or about even in back-to-back years. I don't think so. You will eventually run out of talent to trade for said picks too.

I'd say the typical draft lottery runs like this. 3 of the top-5 hit and the other two come from 6-10. On average, that's what I would expect.

mhardy_03 wrote:The other thing is that what if a team trades a big group of future picks away like Galesburg did now and like Peoria did in his last build? Let's say Windy City wins the lottery 5 years in a row with Galesburg's pick. Windy City is not penalized at all but Galesburg is for when he finally does get his picks back.

Well, I'd argue that those picks traded already should be handled under the old rules by which they were traded (if rules become more restrictive, might take a little extra work to track for a few seasons).

But in that situation going forward, teams would factor that into the trade talks when coming to terms.

mhardy_03 wrote:And as a side note, I wouldn't be against putting in a full 16 team lottery instead of the top 5 lottery that we have now.

I can't say I'd be totally against that either. I initially thought that's what we were talking about when we first considered putting it into place.

More trying to flesh out arguments than stake claim to any opinion yet because I still haven't really analyzed to figure out what I think is best.
@JonDobleRBD - Redbird Dugout

El gato es en fuego en mi pantelones.
User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Tue Aug 25, 2015 2:48 pm

R27 wrote:
mhardy_03 wrote:The only issue with leaving the assignment with the original team is this situation. Let's say I trade for a couple picks and get extremely lucky to have both hit the lottery. Then the following year I trade for another team's pick and it hits. I can continue to hit every year with no repercussion.

How often has that happened though? Has any team outside the top-5 even hit three times in 5 years. Or about even in back-to-back years. I don't think so. You will eventually run out of talent to trade for said picks too.

I'd say the typical draft lottery runs like this. 3 of the top-5 hit and the other two come from 6-10. On average, that's what I would expect.

On average, no it won't happen. But if it happens once, it is a problem. Look at Montreal who had 2 top 5 picks this year, a year after winning the WS and current 110+ win team. He has plenty of talent to continue to trade for picks such as those going forward while still keeping a current playoff team. Windy City was in a similar situation a while back as was I at one point.

R27 wrote:
mhardy_03 wrote:The other thing is that what if a team trades a big group of future picks away like Galesburg did now and like Peoria did in his last build? Let's say Windy City wins the lottery 5 years in a row with Galesburg's pick. Windy City is not penalized at all but Galesburg is for when he finally does get his picks back.

Well, I'd argue that those picks traded already should be handled under the old rules by which they were traded (if rules become more restrictive, might take a little extra work to track for a few seasons).

But in that situation going forward, teams would factor that into the trade talks when coming to terms.

Agree here. But still think that the team trading for all these picks should have to be part of the ineligibility rule if there is one in place. More on that thought later.

R27 wrote:
mhardy_03 wrote:And as a side note, I wouldn't be against putting in a full 16 team lottery instead of the top 5 lottery that we have now.

I can't say I'd be totally against that either. I initially thought that's what we were talking about when we first considered putting it into place.

I was against it originally because I didn't want to see someone drop from 1 to like 10 in the lottery. Wanted to cap the downward movement at 5 for worst case. But now seeing it run for as long as it has, the only way that will happen is with EXTREME bad luck. And IMO that is just part of it, just like winning a high pick with a double digit original "seed."

R27 wrote:More trying to flesh out arguments than stake claim to any opinion yet because I still haven't really analyzed to figure out what I think is best.

Yep same even though I am starting to lean 1 way.

The more I think about this, the more I think a straight forward 16 team lottery with no other rules is going to be best. Keep it simple. Just need to grab 10 more states that have midday lotteries every day (ET or CT would be best probably). The reason we originally put the lottery in place was to try to stop the "tank and bank" strategy from being as successful as it was. That strategy doesn't work as well now because of the lottery and weaker draft classes as a whole. I think all these extra rules are just adding complexity without changing anything really substantial.
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2119):
83 seasons, 8309-4971 (.626), 74 Playoff Apps, 52 Division Titles, 36 League Titles
13 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104, 2115, 2117, 2119)
drmeyer87
Bench Warmer
Bench Warmer
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:37 am

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby drmeyer87 » Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:06 pm

R27 wrote:This creates a ticket for rebuilding teams to trade with with teams who have lots of talent, but what usually happens is owners dumping out of their lottery pick without really helping themselves.

Suggest alternative: Assigning the lottery win to whoever owned that pick to begin with. So in a situation like I'm in with the #3 lottery pick under the "3 in 5" rule, it would be ineligible to win the lottery regardless of who owned it.

Referring to the parts in bold, this would hurt rebuilding teams. If the pick is ineligible regardless of who owns it, the pick is less valuable to other teams. Thus, the rebuilding team gets less in return. Under the current model, the original owner of the pick always has the option to keep their ineligible pick. For example, R27 could have kept his ineligible lottery chance at #6 if he deemed it more valuable than SS/3B Terry Clark, RF Lloyd Castro, and 3 1st round picks.

I'm fine with making the lottery 16 slots. I'm also fine with assigning a point value to each pick and using a threshold number for future ineligiblity (though this seems like more work for the commish). However, I think the main challenge for recent rebuilding teams is the god awful draft lists we've had for the most part.
User avatar
R27
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 2474
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:50 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby R27 » Tue Aug 25, 2015 5:39 pm

mhardy_03 wrote:On average, no it won't happen. But if it happens once, it is a problem. Look at Montreal who had 2 top 5 picks this year, a year after winning the WS and current 110+ win team. He has plenty of talent to continue to trade for picks such as those going forward while still keeping a current playoff team. Windy City was in a similar situation a while back as was I at one point.

Eventually though, if he continued, he would be out of pieces. You can't continue trading multiple pieces for one and continue getting better. Eventually you're going to hit the wall. If it happens once it's luck. If it happens consistently, then it's an issue that needs to be addressed. If someone can hit the lottery from the back end over and over again, then wow good for them. That's how a lottery is intended to work. Why is that a bad thing?

The forums won't load for me, so I can't go get the real numbers, but if we're trying to build the lottery to prevent someone mid-pack in the lottery from hitting big multiple years in a row, we're really focusing on something that has less than a 1% chance of happening when we're talking about multiple seasons. Even if you have the #1 lottery position three times, winning the #1 pick all three times has less than a 5% chance of happening.

mhardy_03 wrote:I was against it originally because I didn't want to see someone drop from 1 to like 10 in the lottery. Wanted to cap the downward movement at 5 for worst case. But now seeing it run for as long as it has, the only way that will happen is with EXTREME bad luck. And IMO that is just part of it, just like winning a high pick with a double digit original "seed."

As you said to the exact opposite, "But if it happens once, it is a problem." Bad luck is just part of it, but good luck isn't?

drmeyer87 wrote:Referring to the parts in bold, this would hurt rebuilding teams. If the pick is ineligible regardless of who owns it, the pick is less valuable to other teams. Thus, the rebuilding team gets less in return. Under the current model, the original owner of the pick always has the option to keep their ineligible pick. For example, R27 could have kept his ineligible lottery chance at #6 if he deemed it more valuable than SS/3B Terry Clark, RF Lloyd Castro, and 3 1st round picks.

Definitely. If every owner was able to use their ineligible picks to make a strong move like that would be one thing. But I recall feeling like those trade talks broke down two or three times. I can probably go through my Facebook messages with Wes and find myself calling the deal dead. Not everyone is willing to sit on what they believe the value for that pick is or risk walking away from the table. They take what they can get, and perhaps that leads to some taking pennies on the dollar for a high pick which does more damage for them and really helps better teams.

In a large part though, that responsibility should fall on the individual owners for that.

I think it's becoming apparent, a handful of owners into this discussion, that there is definitely support for removing eligibility requirements or at least finding a less restrictive system.
@JonDobleRBD - Redbird Dugout

El gato es en fuego en mi pantelones.
User avatar
EOCF
Everyday Starter
Everyday Starter
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:33 pm
Location: Normal, Illinois

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby EOCF » Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:50 am

I'll jump into a more detailed discussion tomorrow when i'm more awake, but my initial reaction is that I like the point system idea. I also would support a 16 team lottery.
CSFBL: New York River Pirates: (2037-2120)
46 Playoff appearances, 24 Division titles, 12 League titles
2053, 2057, 2058, 2074, 2090, 2113, 2114, 2116 & 2118 World Champions
User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:11 am

R27 wrote:The forums won't load for me, so I can't go get the real numbers, but if we're trying to build the lottery to prevent someone mid-pack in the lottery from hitting big multiple years in a row, we're really focusing on something that has less than a 1% chance of happening when we're talking about multiple seasons. Even if you have the #1 lottery position three times, winning the #1 pick all three times has less than a 5% chance of happening.

Yeah, when you put it that way, it makes me want to have any sort of extra rules on the lottery removed and either keep the 5 team lottery we have or move to 16 with no extra rules.

R27 wrote:I think it's becoming apparent, a handful of owners into this discussion, that there is definitely support for removing eligibility requirements or at least finding a less restrictive system.

Yeah, I think we need to decide what the reason for having the lottery is. If it is to avoid tank and bank, I think we can just do what I mentioned in this post above. If it is some other reason, I'm sure we can come up with a relatively simple system to handle it.

And honestly I think the point system is better than the 3 in 5 rule, but I don't think it will make any sort of substantial changes and will only add a bunch of extra work that ends up being almost completely for nothing. So at this point, I am fully in support of just removing the 3 in 5 rule, which takes care of both of your original concerns and really doesn't affect anything too too important. We have had ineligible teams hit the lottery and others trade their picks, but IMO it doesn't make enough difference to justify having a rule in place which just adds to the amount of work needed to handle the lottery.

If we want to go to full 16 team lottery, the only extra work is to get 10 more numbers from the lottery website, but really anyone can go grab them and send them to me to where it would only take 5 minutes to throw together. Keeping up the point system will be sinking more time into it than I want to I think, even though it was originally brought up by me.
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2119):
83 seasons, 8309-4971 (.626), 74 Playoff Apps, 52 Division Titles, 36 League Titles
13 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104, 2115, 2117, 2119)
User avatar
josegrapinino
Prospect
Prospect
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 11:23 pm

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby josegrapinino » Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:30 am

I'd be ok with 16 and no extra rules. If it stays at 5 then I think my point of view falls out of line with others here.

Open it up to 16 teams and drop the extra rules

or

Make eligibility of the pick dependent on where the pick originated AND it's current owner. If either are ineligible, then then the pick drops back.
User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1505
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Wed Aug 26, 2015 10:21 am

Well we have 4 that are in support of a 16 team lottery with no added rules. Should we post a poll on that on CSFBL forum and see what more people think? Anyone else have an opinion on it?

I would say if we go forward with it, the "ineligible" stuff that is already settled should continue on since those were done under the old rules, but no more of it continues starting next year, if we can agree to do this.
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2119):
83 seasons, 8309-4971 (.626), 74 Playoff Apps, 52 Division Titles, 36 League Titles
13 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104, 2115, 2117, 2119)
User avatar
R27
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 2474
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:50 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby R27 » Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:11 pm

I'd like to see more people weigh in, or get a chance to weigh in before anything goes to vote. This thread is barely even 24 hours old.

No need to rush it to vote to have it fail and then have to start all over again to be right back here. Let it play out. Collect some opinions and try to put something into effect that works for the most people possible. Hearing from less than 20% of the owners probably isn't going to make a great solution.
@JonDobleRBD - Redbird Dugout

El gato es en fuego en mi pantelones.
JRM3888
Prospect
Prospect
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:16 pm

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby JRM3888 » Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:00 pm

I am in favor of the 16 team lottery and dropping the ineligibility rules. I feel like that still discourages teams from tanking, but doesn't cripple teams trying to rebuild.
User avatar
chrisz
Prospect
Prospect
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:03 am

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby chrisz » Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:41 pm

I'm all for simplicity. Extending it to 16 teams and not worrying about 3 out of 5 (or whatever) is easy and also should? accomplish the goal as much as the current rule. I'd be ok with this.

Just one alternative off the top of my head- abandon the lottery but have a rule where you can't be in the top 3 back to back seasons. or top 5. that's pretty easy to keep track of.

Also wanted to add: "Suggest alternative: Assigning the lottery win to whoever owned that pick to begin with. So in a situation like I'm in with the #3 lottery pick under the "3 in 5" rule, it would be ineligible to win the lottery regardless of who owned it." I thought we already did this and I would prefer this.
drmeyer87
Bench Warmer
Bench Warmer
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:37 am

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby drmeyer87 » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:07 pm

chrisz wrote:Also wanted to add: "Suggest alternative: Assigning the lottery win to whoever owned that pick to begin with. So in a situation like I'm in with the #3 lottery pick under the "3 in 5" rule, it would be ineligible to win the lottery regardless of who owned it." I thought we already did this and I would prefer this.

Can someone explain why this would be a good rule? The main benefit I see is simplicity. But the downside is it makes the pick less valuable to rebuilding teams in what they can receive in a trade. Maybe I'm missing something.
User avatar
EOCF
Everyday Starter
Everyday Starter
Posts: 794
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:33 pm
Location: Normal, Illinois

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby EOCF » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:20 pm

drmeyer87 wrote:
chrisz wrote:Also wanted to add: "Suggest alternative: Assigning the lottery win to whoever owned that pick to begin with. So in a situation like I'm in with the #3 lottery pick under the "3 in 5" rule, it would be ineligible to win the lottery regardless of who owned it." I thought we already did this and I would prefer this.

Can someone explain why this would be a good rule? The main benefit I see is simplicity. But the downside is it makes the pick less valuable to rebuilding teams in what they can receive in a trade. Maybe I'm missing something.


I think the incentive there is to cut down on teams acquiring potential top 5 picks for top 10 prices. It hurts the rebuilding teams but also keeps the top teams from distancing themselves.

That said, I don't think this rule will be relevant if we end up doing a 16 team lotto with no restrictions.
CSFBL: New York River Pirates: (2037-2120)
46 Playoff appearances, 24 Division titles, 12 League titles
2053, 2057, 2058, 2074, 2090, 2113, 2114, 2116 & 2118 World Champions

Return to “CardsClubhouse CSFBL”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest