Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Moderator: CSFBL Moderators

User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:53 am

R27 wrote:If I recall, the original League of Legends spreadsheet we used to base our lottery on had 16 states that had mid-day pick 3 lotteries.

Going digging...

I'd be interested in hearing andujar's thoughts on this. This was him three years ago when we first talked about adding the lottery. I'd be in favor of a system like this that was maybe a little looser.
We would want so limitations in place so a team doesn't get multiple top picks in a row and dominate the league on luck. Most leagues I've been in use a 3-9 and 4-16 rule (your picks for the last three seasons must add up to 9 or your picks for the last four seasons must add up to 16, if they don't reach that number your pick is pushed is that the threshold is met. IE: you pick 1st in '60; 2nd in '61; in '62 your pick cannot be better than 6th. If your pick is 6th in '62, then your '63 pick cannot be better than 7th. I will be willing to track this.

That does sound good. And if he is willing to track it, that will work for me as taking care of the 16 team lottery shouldn't be much different than what I do now for it.
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2114):
78 seasons, 7790-4690 (.624), 69 Playoff Apps, 47 Division Titles, 31 League Titles
10 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104)
User avatar
R27
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:50 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby R27 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:06 pm

mhardy_03 wrote:That does sound good. And if he is willing to track it, that will work for me as taking care of the 16 team lottery shouldn't be much different than what I do now for it.

He's in a different place now (I'm sure we all are) than 3 years ago, so I'm not sure if he could still, but we can work something out. It wouldn't be that hard to track.

We'll leave this open for discussion for a couple more days. I've begun writing the rule for vote. It will be a vote at the CSFBL forum. Each owner will be notified by email of the vote and we will need 13 votes to affirm the change.

I currently have in that the "3 in 5" rule will be removed for the next 10 seasons. For the 2107 draft it will be reintroduced automatically unless we vote to eliminate it permanently between now and then.
@JonDobleRBD - Redbird Dugout

El gato es en fuego en mi pantelones.
Dbacksfan72
Bench Warmer
Bench Warmer
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:13 pm

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby Dbacksfan72 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:42 pm

mhardy_03 wrote:
R27 wrote:If I recall, the original League of Legends spreadsheet we used to base our lottery on had 16 states that had mid-day pick 3 lotteries.

Going digging...

I'd be interested in hearing andujar's thoughts on this. This was him three years ago when we first talked about adding the lottery. I'd be in favor of a system like this that was maybe a little looser.
We would want so limitations in place so a team doesn't get multiple top picks in a row and dominate the league on luck. Most leagues I've been in use a 3-9 and 4-16 rule (your picks for the last three seasons must add up to 9 or your picks for the last four seasons must add up to 16, if they don't reach that number your pick is pushed is that the threshold is met. IE: you pick 1st in '60; 2nd in '61; in '62 your pick cannot be better than 6th. If your pick is 6th in '62, then your '63 pick cannot be better than 7th. I will be willing to track this.

That does sound good. And if he is willing to track it, that will work for me as taking care of the 16 team lottery shouldn't be much different than what I do now for it.

I like this, I think it's better than the 3/5 rule. I would only question how it applies in the case of traded picks.
User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:46 pm

R27 wrote:If I recall, the original League of Legends spreadsheet we used to base our lottery on had 16 states that had mid-day pick 3 lotteries.

Going digging...

I'd be interested in hearing andujar's thoughts on this. This was him three years ago when we first talked about adding the lottery. I'd be in favor of a system like this that was maybe a little looser.
We would want so limitations in place so a team doesn't get multiple top picks in a row and dominate the league on luck. Most leagues I've been in use a 3-9 and 4-16 rule (your picks for the last three seasons must add up to 9 or your picks for the last four seasons must add up to 16, if they don't reach that number your pick is pushed is that the threshold is met. IE: you pick 1st in '60; 2nd in '61; in '62 your pick cannot be better than 6th. If your pick is 6th in '62, then your '63 pick cannot be better than 7th. I will be willing to track this.

mhardy_03 wrote:That does sound good. And if he is willing to track it, that will work for me as taking care of the 16 team lottery shouldn't be much different than what I do now for it.

Dbacksfan72 wrote:I like this, I think it's better than the 3/5 rule. I would only question how it applies in the case of traded picks.

That is true. If someone has 2 picks in the top 5 like Montreal did this year, how does that work? Or even if he had like #1 and #16? You can't take both because then you are always going to be safe from the rule. Would you only take the higher pick of the 2? I would think that could be abused though. I dunno. Would have to ask andujar I guess. :)
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2114):
78 seasons, 7790-4690 (.624), 69 Playoff Apps, 47 Division Titles, 31 League Titles
10 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104)
User avatar
EOCF
Everyday Starter
Everyday Starter
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:33 pm
Location: Normal, Illinois

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby EOCF » Wed Sep 02, 2015 2:04 pm

How are we handling current ineligibilities? Are we implementing the new system for this year and wiping them out? I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I figured it should be clarified.
CSFBL: New York River Pirates: (2037-2114)
40 Playoff appearances, 19 Division titles, 8 League titles
2053, 2057, 2058, 2074, 2090 & 2113 World Champions
User avatar
R27
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:50 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby R27 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 2:05 pm

EOCF wrote:How are we handling current ineligibilities? Are we implementing the new system for this year and wiping them out? I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I figured it should be clarified.

I figure any changes would be implemented for the 2098 draft. Not this up coming one. So those of us ineligible (me) will still be ineligible.

mhardy_03 wrote:That is true. If someone has 2 picks in the top 5 like Montreal did this year, how does that work? Or even if he had like #1 and #16? You can't take both because then you are always going to be safe from the rule. Would you only take the higher pick of the 2? I would think that could be abused though. I dunno. Would have to ask andujar I guess.

First step would be to figure out how we want to distribute points for picks. All the way through 1-16 or just to the top-5 or top-10?

But there would be three options.

First: Only your pick counts against you.
So if you traded for the #1 and your team owns the #16 in a single year, only the #16 counts against you. The loophole to this is that you could trade up for picks and not be penalized for collecting them year after year, a complaint against the current system.

Second: Only your best pick counts against you.
So if you traded for the #1 and your team owns #16 in a single year, only the #1 counts against you because it is your best pick.

Third: Both picks count against you.
So if you traded for the #1 and your team owns the #16 in a single year, both count against you. To really consider this . The loophole is for a rebuilding team to collect later first round picks to inflate their point total to allow them to continue making early picks. Same if you made it an average of your picks.

I think with those three options the second is really the only one without a major loophole that I can see at this point.

The team trading picks away: This needs to be considered too. I'd argue that teams that trade picks away shouldn't have any picks counting against them. It provides an added value to trading top picks away when players are under penalty because they can trade them to reduce penalty in future years. But still thinking through how that would work all the way around.
@JonDobleRBD - Redbird Dugout

El gato es en fuego en mi pantelones.
Dbacksfan72
Bench Warmer
Bench Warmer
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:13 pm

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby Dbacksfan72 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:07 pm

R27 wrote:
But there would be three options.

First: Only your pick counts against you.
So if you traded for the #1 and your team owns the #16 in a single year, only the #16 counts against you. The loophole to this is that you could trade up for picks and not be penalized for collecting them year after year, a complaint against the current system.

Second: Only your best pick counts against you.
So if you traded for the #1 and your team owns #16 in a single year, only the #1 counts against you because it is your best pick.

Third: Both picks count against you.
So if you traded for the #1 and your team owns the #16 in a single year, both count against you. To really consider this . The loophole is for a rebuilding team to collect later first round picks to inflate their point total to allow them to continue making early picks. Same if you made it an average of your picks.

I think with those three options the second is really the only one without a major loophole that I can see at this point.

The team trading picks away: This needs to be considered too. I'd argue that teams that trade picks away shouldn't have any picks counting against them. It provides an added value to trading top picks away when players are under penalty because they can trade them to reduce penalty in future years. But still thinking through how that would work all the way around.


I think the 2nd option is best. I agree with the sentiment that a traded pick should not count against the team that traded it away.

I would be curious to find out how the league that originally used this system accounted for years where the player had no first round picks. Maybe give them an average lotto number like 8-9?
User avatar
josegrapinino
Prospect
Prospect
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 11:23 pm

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby josegrapinino » Thu Sep 03, 2015 3:47 am

R27 wrote:The team trading picks away: This needs to be considered too. I'd argue that teams that trade picks away shouldn't have any picks counting against them. It provides an added value to trading top picks away when players are under penalty because they can trade them to reduce penalty in future years. But still thinking through how that would work all the way around.


If you word it like that then shouldn't we invert values and count picks past a certain point as 0. Let's assume picks 10-24 are worth 0 for this example. Picks 1-9 would be worth their inverted values and you need to stay equal or stay under ??? points.

So if I had picks 1, 11, 3 in three years then my values would be 9, 0, 7

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Though that does seem unnecessarily complex. Perhaps we should just count traded picks against the owner still unless it wasn't their highest pick for that season.
User avatar
R27
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:50 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby R27 » Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:09 am

josegrapinino wrote:
R27 wrote:The team trading picks away: This needs to be considered too. I'd argue that teams that trade picks away shouldn't have any picks counting against them. It provides an added value to trading top picks away when players are under penalty because they can trade them to reduce penalty in future years. But still thinking through how that would work all the way around.


If you word it like that then shouldn't we invert values and count picks past a certain point as 0. Let's assume picks 10-24 are worth 0 for this example. Picks 1-9 would be worth their inverted values and you need to stay equal or stay under ??? points.

So if I had picks 1, 11, 3 in three years then my values would be 9, 0, 7

Though that does seem unnecessarily complex. Perhaps we should just count traded picks against the owner still unless it wasn't their highest pick for that season.

If you want to make it simpler, go with the way andujar originally framed it in his post three years ago. Pick 1 is worth 1, pick 2 is worth 2, and so on. Then you set your value that your picks over a certain time span have to be worth. Andujar's example was 9 over 3 years. So if you had a first and a second going into that third year it's easy to figure out what pick you're supposed to have. 1+2 = 3. 9-3 = 6. So you max out at the sixth pick. Easy to do, easy to understand.

To do it your way, you have to flip the picks values, do your math, and then flip it back.

Actually, if you do the numbers like that, trading your pick and not having it count doesn't help you at all. It actually would hurt you unless we did math to account for that. So we would have to charge each owner for their own pick at least.

I think 9 over 3 years is a little too restrictive. I think I'd rather see 7 over 3. So in any three year period, you could only get two #1 picks and your other would be a #5. You could safely average a #2 pick.

Or you could just do a penalty if you exceed the 6 over 3. If your pick total over the previous three seasons does not exceed 6, you get penalized 1 or 2 spots in the draft.

So concept I like, out of that tossing out of ideas
Charge each owner for their highest pick (or wherever their own pick was if they don't have a first round pick). The number of your first pick has to add up to 6 over 3 years (last two and the current draft). If your pick total over the previous three seasons does not exceed 6, you get dropped two spots in the draft.

So for example. Lets say two years ago I had the #2 pick and then last year I had the #2 pick and I hit the #1 pick in the lottery this year, I would be dropped two spots in the draft to #3 by penalty.

I think the penalty is an easier way to handle it than limiting you to a certain pick. More straight forward.
@JonDobleRBD - Redbird Dugout

El gato es en fuego en mi pantelones.
User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Thu Sep 10, 2015 10:40 am

So we gonna put something out there for a vote?
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2114):
78 seasons, 7790-4690 (.624), 69 Playoff Apps, 47 Division Titles, 31 League Titles
10 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104)
User avatar
R27
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:50 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby R27 » Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:30 am

mhardy_03 wrote:So we gonna put something out there for a vote?

When I get a chance I'll post the rule proposal I have and see if everyone in the discussion is good putting that forward. I just haven't had much discretionary time over the last week. I even missed the start of the season.
@JonDobleRBD - Redbird Dugout

El gato es en fuego en mi pantelones.
User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Thu Sep 10, 2015 11:37 am

R27 wrote:
mhardy_03 wrote:So we gonna put something out there for a vote?

When I get a chance I'll post the rule proposal I have and see if everyone in the discussion is good putting that forward. I just haven't had much discretionary time over the last week. I even missed the start of the season.

Yup, no rush, just saw a post on here and was reminded of it.
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2114):
78 seasons, 7790-4690 (.624), 69 Playoff Apps, 47 Division Titles, 31 League Titles
10 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104)
User avatar
andujar
Bench Warmer
Bench Warmer
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 10:21 am

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby andujar » Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:47 am

my thoughts were asked... i skimmed this thread pretty quickly.

the 3/9, 4/16 type rules work for teams that sink for accumulation reasons. It is only for the picks that a team gets each season via the game, traded picks are not involved in this. There are no rules to govern a team that trades into high picks. If a team wants to spend resources to get that pick, totally allowed.

Examples: Carolina earns the 1 in 2000, 2 in 2001, 3 in 2002; in 2002, there pick is adjusted to 6. If they traded that pick to Bayside, it is still adjusted to 6. Carolina should not get the benefit of extra trade value.

I like this rule because it doesn't hamper a team from building through trades but restricts teams for diving for treasure. Also values picks more appropriately, currently a 5, 5, 5 run equals no lottery win the same way a 1,1,1 takes you out of the lottery.
User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1297
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Wed Sep 23, 2015 11:32 pm

andujar wrote:my thoughts were asked... i skimmed this thread pretty quickly.

the 3/9, 4/16 type rules work for teams that sink for accumulation reasons. It is only for the picks that a team gets each season via the game, traded picks are not involved in this. There are no rules to govern a team that trades into high picks. If a team wants to spend resources to get that pick, totally allowed.

Examples: Carolina earns the 1 in 2000, 2 in 2001, 3 in 2002; in 2002, there pick is adjusted to 6. If they traded that pick to Bayside, it is still adjusted to 6. Carolina should not get the benefit of extra trade value.

I like this rule because it doesn't hamper a team from building through trades but restricts teams for diving for treasure. Also values picks more appropriately, currently a 5, 5, 5 run equals no lottery win the same way a 1,1,1 takes you out of the lottery.

That makes a lot of sense. I like that.
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2114):
78 seasons, 7790-4690 (.624), 69 Playoff Apps, 47 Division Titles, 31 League Titles
10 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104)
User avatar
R27
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:50 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby R27 » Thu Sep 24, 2015 11:55 am

I've been trying all week to get this in here. But I'm glad andujar got in here to explain that a bit. Changes my concept slightly. But here's what I've got.

Draft Order
  • Picks 1-16 will be assigned by random lottery drawing. All teams that do not qualify for the playoffs are eligible.
  • Picks 17-20 will be ordered based on regular season record for the Division Championship Series losers.
  • Picks 21-22 will be ordered based on regular season record for the League Championship Series losers.
  • Pick 23 will be the World Series loser.
  • Pick 24 will be the World Series champion.
  • Rounds 2 and 3 will be ordered by CSFBL default.

Draft Rules
  • Win percentage changes will be carried over from the existing draft lottery, along with tiebreak procedures.
  • The "3 in 5" rule will be removed.
  • One of the two new concepts

Requirement to pass: New rules shall pass with 13 of 24 team owners voting for the changes.

And I do have a lottery order for 16 picks. I just need to check that they all meet our needs.

But the new limiting rule. Here are the two options that I've bounced around in my head. Both are based on a "3 ≥ 9" concept.

First, like andujar's proposal. The total of your picks over any three year span must be equal to or greater than 9. For example, if you win a pair of 1st picks in a row, in that third year your pick will be no higher than 7th, even if traded. Your picks count against only you, even if traded.

Second, a simpler penalty concept. Instead of limiting to your pick being no higher than 7th, if the total of your picks over a three year span fails to equal 9, you are penalized two places in the draft order. So if you win 1st, 1st, and 2nd. Your third pick is only pushed back to 4th rather than 7th. My thinking here is that it's a little easier to administrate since it's a set penalty each time rather than having to do the math.

Also, something we need to consider is the people who shift forward a spot because of the pick limiting or the penalty. I would argue they are counted as having their original position in the math for the pick limit before penalties are assessed.
@JonDobleRBD - Redbird Dugout

El gato es en fuego en mi pantelones.

Return to “CardsClubhouse CSFBL”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest