Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Moderator: CSFBL Moderators

User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Fri Aug 28, 2015 4:29 pm

EOCF wrote:
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.

The thing is though, they don't have to trade the pick away if they don't get a package they like. They can just keep the #6 pick, which still should return a very good player. Sure, up higher is better, but if the team trading away the ineligible pick gets a package they like for their "#6" pick and the team getting the pick is giving away a package they like for a top 5 pick, it SHOULD be a win/win for both teams. I don't see the problem with it.

But yeah if we get rid of the restriction like I think we should, all of this is moot anyway.
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2120):
84 seasons, 8407-5033 (.626), 75 Playoff Apps, 53 Division Titles, 36 League Titles
13 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104, 2115, 2117, 2119)
User avatar
chrisz
Prospect
Prospect
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:03 am

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby chrisz » Sat Aug 29, 2015 2:47 pm

drmeyer87 wrote: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 thought the whole point was to not reward tanking (however you want to define it). If your argument is that it makes it difficult on the team that's already been in the lottery 3 times, I don't feel sorry for them. Like hardy said, they can find a deal that's a win-win or they can just make a pick at #6. I don't think that's so bad.
Dbacksfan72
Bench Warmer
Bench Warmer
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:13 pm

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby Dbacksfan72 » Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:12 pm

chrisz wrote:
drmeyer87 wrote: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 thought the whole point was to not reward tanking (however you want to define it). If your argument is that it makes it difficult on the team that's already been in the lottery 3 times, I don't feel sorry for them. Like hardy said, they can find a deal that's a win-win or they can just make a pick at #6. I don't think that's so bad.

Same. The point of the lottery and the limit was to reduce the benefit of tanking. We never had a rule restricting the tradig of Ineligible picks to eligible to teams so the pick would be eligible again. There was some discussion after the first time it was done (which may have actually been me, if I remember correctly), but we never implemented anything. I would be supportive of the ineligiblity sticking with the pick when traded.

A lot of the argument against increasing the restrictions on trading Ineligible picks is protecting the value of them. Yes, if there is not a chance of scoring a top-5 pick, then people are going to pay less for them. But opening the lottery to all 16 non-playoff teams will hurt the trade value of top picks too. Now, when acquiring a top 5 lotto pick, you at least know you can't fall all that far. Teams may hesitate to drop top talent on a #1 pick when there is a chance, albeit low, that their pick could fall all th way to #16.

That being said, I might be in support of the 16 pick lottery, even though my team has never had much lotto success. I think it could make things interesting. But to abandon the limit on top picks, I feel, is abandoning our stance on tanking. If that is what we as a league decide to do, then so be it. Maybe loosening it a bit is a better plan than keeping it, but I think it is good to keep some limitation.


Rolling of some of R27's ideas, maybe something where 3 top-5 picks in 4 seasons (or 5 if we wanted to stay stricter) makes a team Ineligible for a top-5 for 1 season. I also think that if a pick is ineligible at the time of trading it should stay that way after the trade.

This, with a 16 pick lottery, would be pretty good, in my opinion.
gocardinals1511
Bench Warmer
Bench Warmer
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:07 pm

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby gocardinals1511 » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:44 am

If I find the time I may look through cch for the original dissucsion. I think when I proposed the lottery it was for all 16 teams. R27 added the 3 in 5. The league voted for only the top 5 to lotto. I was against the 3 in 5 to start but after watching it play out and rebuilding through it I am a fan. (Don't tell r27 I said that) you can't tank your way to a good team you have to rebuild by more then drafting top players. It took me a year to get my team where I wanted it. I was in eligible and tradedy pick for a deal I liked. I almost just held on to but got an offer I liked.
I would be interest in adding all 16 spots and see how that plays out for 10 seasons. Besides that I'm for leaving it alone it's working just fine.
User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:45 am

gocardinals1511 wrote:If I find the time I may look through cch for the original dissucsion. I think when I proposed the lottery it was for all 16 teams. R27 added the 3 in 5. The league voted for only the top 5 to lotto. I was against the 3 in 5 to start but after watching it play out and rebuilding through it I am a fan. (Don't tell r27 I said that) you can't tank your way to a good team you have to rebuild by more then drafting top players. It took me a year to get my team where I wanted it. I was in eligible and tradedy pick for a deal I liked. I almost just held on to but got an offer I liked.
I would be interest in adding all 16 spots and see how that plays out for 10 seasons. Besides that I'm for leaving it alone it's working just fine.

R27 was originally for all 16 teams. I know I was for just doing the top 5 originally. I have changed my stance on that now. And I just don't think you need a rule for getting top players with this in place. If we want to possibly rethink the percentages, we can do that, but definitely don't need a rule against getting top picks because it is already unlikely to get the top pick, even if you are the top seed.
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2120):
84 seasons, 8407-5033 (.626), 75 Playoff Apps, 53 Division Titles, 36 League Titles
13 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104, 2115, 2117, 2119)
User avatar
EOCF
Everyday Starter
Everyday Starter
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:33 pm
Location: Normal, Illinois

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby EOCF » Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:54 pm

gocardinals1511 wrote:If I find the time I may look through cch for the original dissucsion. I think when I proposed the lottery it was for all 16 teams. R27 added the 3 in 5. The league voted for only the top 5 to lotto. I was against the 3 in 5 to start but after watching it play out and rebuilding through it I am a fan. (Don't tell r27 I said that) you can't tank your way to a good team you have to rebuild by more then drafting top players. It took me a year to get my team where I wanted it. I was in eligible and tradedy pick for a deal I liked. I almost just held on to but got an offer I liked.
I would be interest in adding all 16 spots and see how that plays out for 10 seasons. Besides that I'm for leaving it alone it's working just fine.


I guess I just worry that the league is getting pretty top-heavy again. I was full blown in favor of the lotto when we first instituted it and it's done the job of limiting the advantages of tanking. The lotto hurt me in this last rebuild, but I get that its the nature of the beast. Not every team owner is going to have the knowledge or time to invest in understanding how to work around it though and I see how it can become discouraging. I'm not usually one to say "lets make it a bit easier for people" but if it's the same 6-8 teams going deep into the playoffs every year, we're going to start losing owners.

That's just my opinion on it. I can see both sides of the argument. I'm still in favor of removing the ineligibility rules, but expanding the lottery.
CSFBL: New York River Pirates: (2037-2121)
47 Playoff appearances, 25 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: 1543
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:07 pm

EOCF wrote:
gocardinals1511 wrote:If I find the time I may look through cch for the original dissucsion. I think when I proposed the lottery it was for all 16 teams. R27 added the 3 in 5. The league voted for only the top 5 to lotto. I was against the 3 in 5 to start but after watching it play out and rebuilding through it I am a fan. (Don't tell r27 I said that) you can't tank your way to a good team you have to rebuild by more then drafting top players. It took me a year to get my team where I wanted it. I was in eligible and tradedy pick for a deal I liked. I almost just held on to but got an offer I liked.
I would be interest in adding all 16 spots and see how that plays out for 10 seasons. Besides that I'm for leaving it alone it's working just fine.


I guess I just worry that the league is getting pretty top-heavy again. I was full blown in favor of the lotto when we first instituted it and it's done the job of limiting the advantages of tanking. The lotto hurt me in this last rebuild, but I get that its the nature of the beast. Not every team owner is going to have the knowledge or time to invest in understanding how to work around it though and I see how it can become discouraging. I'm not usually one to say "lets make it a bit easier for people" but if it's the same 6-8 teams going deep into the playoffs every year, we're going to start losing owners.

That's just my opinion on it. I can see both sides of the argument. I'm still in favor of removing the ineligibility rules, but expanding the lottery.

I think the league seems a little more top-heavy because a couple active owners replaced a couple inactive ones and immediately are having success. Montreal has been incredible since he took over. CF4L is going all in but he is very competitive and should be for at least the next 5 or so years. The league is always going to be somewhat top-heavy because it is semi-casual. We have some very active owners, some semi-active owners, and some who basically just set their roster and lineup and don't bother to make moves at all or really even scout draft lists.

Agree that more rules is probably worse for a league like we have. If it was fully active and competitive, then we could look into more depth for rules, but it really seems like the simpler the better as long as it is doing the job it was intended to do. Let's just look at some numbers while I have it in mind.

Seasons of lottery: 29
Top seed to win top pick: 8
#2 seeds to win top pick: 6
#3 seeds to win top pick: 5
Teams outside lottery to win top 3 pick: 24

I mean, I think it is working as expected. If you truly suck, you have a good chance at the top pick, but you are far from guaranteed it. And winning it multiple years is VERY unlikely. You can't just tank for 4 years, get top picks, and dominate because with the lottery you are likely to get a #1, #2, and #3 pick instead of 3 #1s.

From worst record:
Odds of 2 straight #1s: 11.3%
Odds of 3 straight #1s: 3.8%
Odds of 4 straight #1s: 1.3%

Let's just keep it simple. 16 teams in lottery, no extra rules. If things change in the next 10 or so seasons, we can look at it again.
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2120):
84 seasons, 8407-5033 (.626), 75 Playoff Apps, 53 Division Titles, 36 League Titles
13 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104, 2115, 2117, 2119)
gocardinals1511
Bench Warmer
Bench Warmer
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 1:07 pm

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby gocardinals1511 » Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:18 am

EOCF wrote:
gocardinals1511 wrote:If I find the time I may look through cch for the original dissucsion. I think when I proposed the lottery it was for all 16 teams. R27 added the 3 in 5. The league voted for only the top 5 to lotto. I was against the 3 in 5 to start but after watching it play out and rebuilding through it I am a fan. (Don't tell r27 I said that) you can't tank your way to a good team you have to rebuild by more then drafting top players. It took me a year to get my team where I wanted it. I was in eligible and tradedy pick for a deal I liked. I almost just held on to but got an offer I liked.
I would be interest in adding all 16 spots and see how that plays out for 10 seasons. Besides that I'm for leaving it alone it's working just fine.


I guess I just worry that the league is getting pretty top-heavy again. I was full blown in favor of the lotto when we first instituted it and it's done the job of limiting the advantages of tanking. The lotto hurt me in this last rebuild, but I get that its the nature of the beast. Not every team owner is going to have the knowledge or time to invest in understanding how to work around it though and I see how it can become discouraging. I'm not usually one to say "lets make it a bit easier for people" but if it's the same 6-8 teams going deep into the playoffs every year, we're going to start losing owners.

That's just my opinion on it. I can see both sides of the argument. I'm still in favor of removing the ineligibility rules, but expanding the lottery.


I would be more worried that you having 4 competitive teams in your division and one that flares up and makes a run from time to time. ;)
User avatar
EOCF
Everyday Starter
Everyday Starter
Posts: 804
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 8:33 pm
Location: Normal, Illinois

Re: RE: Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby EOCF » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:34 pm

gocardinals1511 wrote:[quote="EOCF"][quote="gocardinals1511"]If I find the time I may look through cch for the original dissucsion. I think when I proposed the lottery it was for all 16 teams. R27 added the 3 in 5. The league voted for only the top 5 to lotto. I was against the 3 in 5 to start but after watching it play out and rebuilding through it I am a fan. (Don't tell r27 I said that) you can't tank your way to a good team you have to rebuild by more then drafting top players. It took me a year to get my team where I wanted it. I was in eligible and tradedy pick for a deal I liked. I almost just held on to but got an offer I liked.
I would be interest in adding all 16 spots and see how that plays out for 10 seasons. Besides that I'm for leaving it alone it's working just fine.


I guess I just worry that the league is getting pretty top-heavy again. I was full blown in favor of the lotto when we first instituted it and it's done the job of limiting the advantages of tanking. The lotto hurt me in this last rebuild, but I get that its the nature of the beast. Not every team owner is going to have the knowledge or time to invest in understanding how to work around it though and I see how it can become discouraging. I'm not usually one to say "lets make it a bit easier for people" but if it's the same 6-8 teams going deep into the playoffs every year, we're going to start losing owners.

That's just my opinion on it. I can see both sides of the argument. I'm still in favor of removing the ineligibility rules, but expanding the lottery.[/quote]

I would be more worried that you having 4 competitive teams in your division and one that flares up and makes a run from time to time. ;)[/quote]
Why do you think I'm trying to give myself a 2% chance at 4 straight #1 picks? ;)
CSFBL: New York River Pirates: (2037-2121)
47 Playoff appearances, 25 Division titles, 12 League titles
2053, 2057, 2058, 2074, 2090, 2113, 2114, 2116 & 2118 World Champions
User avatar
R27
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 2524
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:50 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby R27 » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:40 pm

I like the 16 teams in the lottery rule, but the more I think about it the more we do need a rule to try to prevent potential abuses (not just necessarily good luck). What that looks like, I'm not quite sure yet.

We could look at ways of limiting how far teams can advance above their lottery chance over the span of time (kinda like the point system), but that's just really penalizing luck. Or I think I'd rather have a rule based on consecutive appearances rather than X many in X years.

Dbacksfan72 wrote:A lot of the argument against increasing the restrictions on trading Ineligible picks is protecting the value of them. Yes, if there is not a chance of scoring a top-5 pick, then people are going to pay less for them. But opening the lottery to all 16 non-playoff teams will hurt the trade value of top picks too. Now, when acquiring a top 5 lotto pick, you at least know you can't fall all that far. Teams may hesitate to drop top talent on a #1 pick when there is a chance, albeit low, that their pick could fall all th way to #16.

I think this is an interesting point. It may reduce the value of a top-5 pick knowing you could fall, but it would arguably also increase the value of a 11-16 pick because they can move up. That would make some interesting trade scenarios for teams that just miss the playoffs towards trying to make a push into the playoffs.

In general, as much as I like to exploit the market inefficiency of proven veteran players, I'd actually like to see the value of picks be reduced.
@JonDobleRBD - Redbird Dugout

El gato es en fuego en mi pantelones.
User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:36 pm

R27 wrote:I like the 16 teams in the lottery rule, but the more I think about it the more we do need a rule to try to prevent potential abuses (not just necessarily good luck). What that looks like, I'm not quite sure yet.

We could look at ways of limiting how far teams can advance above their lottery chance over the span of time (kinda like the point system), but that's just really penalizing luck. Or I think I'd rather have a rule based on consecutive appearances rather than X many in X years.

I'm just not really sure how you can prevent abuse. If someone has the ability to continue to trade for high picks, I don't see why you should stop them from doing so. That's 1 strategy to go with. If someone is just really lucky, I don't see a reason to penalize them either. If we do a 16 team lottery with a "consecutive appearances" qualifier, where is the cutoff point? Is it top 5? Does a team who was the worst in the league getting the 5th pick really considered to be "winning"? And are all top 5 picks considered equal? Because I'd say a poor team winning 2 straight #1s and then settling for #6 the next 3 years is actually better than winning #4 or #5 in all 5 years. The one with 2 consecutive "wins" gets more value than the one with 5 consecutive. I guess the best way would be to put a "value" on each pick and then have a threshold that you can't go over. But will that even affect anything? How do we handle this without it becoming convoluted and too complicated for the rare occurrences that it affects? IMO it is just overkill.

R27 wrote:
Dbacksfan72 wrote:A lot of the argument against increasing the restrictions on trading Ineligible picks is protecting the value of them. Yes, if there is not a chance of scoring a top-5 pick, then people are going to pay less for them. But opening the lottery to all 16 non-playoff teams will hurt the trade value of top picks too. Now, when acquiring a top 5 lotto pick, you at least know you can't fall all that far. Teams may hesitate to drop top talent on a #1 pick when there is a chance, albeit low, that their pick could fall all th way to #16.

I think this is an interesting point. It may reduce the value of a top-5 pick knowing you could fall, but it would arguably also increase the value of a 11-16 pick because they can move up. That would make some interesting trade scenarios for teams that just miss the playoffs towards trying to make a push into the playoffs.

In general, as much as I like to exploit the market inefficiency of proven veteran players, I'd actually like to see the value of picks be reduced.

IMO those 11-16 picks already have that small amount of extra value the way it is now because of the lottery. That shouldn't change except they can now move up to 6-10 as well as 1-5. But at the same time, 11 can also fall to 16 now whereas before it couldn't have (in any realistic situation). I don't think that will change much if anything with a 16 team lottery.

And I agree that I wish the value of picks were less which would inherently add to the value of veterans, but I don't think that is going to change until the CSFBL devs change the scouting algorithm for the draft from something that is a near exact science to something that is more of a crapshoot like real life scouting is. I have seen threads where they are talking about some ideas and IMO the ideas they have are at worst a big step forward, but with the limited time the devs have, I don't see it happening anytime soon, which is unfortunate.

I think we should keep it simple for now, let it run its course for ~10 seasons, and look at it again. If we think we need to add some sort of qualifier to stop abuse or overly good luck, then so be it. Let's start with less and add to it rather than the other way around like we did the first time.
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2120):
84 seasons, 8407-5033 (.626), 75 Playoff Apps, 53 Division Titles, 36 League Titles
13 World Series Titles (2047, 2072, 2076, 2078, 2084, 2087, 2092, 2101, 2102, 2104, 2115, 2117, 2119)
Dbacksfan72
Bench Warmer
Bench Warmer
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:13 pm

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby Dbacksfan72 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:40 pm

Well, if a 16 pick lottery with no restrictions is what the league wants, we need to get a poll out to vote on it.

We also need to create our list of states for the lottery. East and central timezones are probably the best, any ideas on how we should determine what states and order?
User avatar
mhardy_03
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 1543
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 10:04 am
Location: Troy

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby mhardy_03 » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:04 pm

Dbacksfan72 wrote:Well, if a 16 pick lottery with no restrictions is what the league wants, we need to get a poll out to vote on it.

We also need to create our list of states for the lottery. East and central timezones are probably the best, any ideas on how we should determine what states and order?

For order, maybe alphabetical would be easiest? Just gotta make sure that they draw 7 days a week because we originally had a state that didn't draw on Sundays so that didn't work. I think Sundays might be the only day that some states don't have it. Agree on ET or CT.
CSFBL - Bayside Tigers

Team info under my ownership (2037-2120):
84 seasons, 8407-5033 (.626), 75 Playoff Apps, 53 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: 2524
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:50 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby R27 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:34 am

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.
@JonDobleRBD - Redbird Dugout

El gato es en fuego en mi pantelones.
User avatar
R27
Franchise Player
Franchise Player
Posts: 2524
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:50 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: Discussion: Draft Lottery Changes

Postby R27 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:47 am

League of Legends has 16 states listed in their lottery draw:
1. New York
2. Ohio
3. New Jersey
4. South Carolina
5. Maine/NH/VT
6. Indiana
7. Kentucky
8. Tennessee
9. Florida
10. Pennsylvania
11. Connecticut
12. Delaware
13. Virginia
14. Arkansas
15. California
16. (by default)

I'd suggest dumping California and putting Missouri as #1 which would place all in Eastern/Central time zones. We'd have to deal with states that don't draw all seven days or find replacements for them.

Their rule seems to be to skip it and everyone slides up and then that draw is done the next day to finish out. They also don't appear to have a limitation rule.
@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 0 guests