Yeah the slow draft in our no loans league was great, even if I sucked at it, so I would definitely be up for another chance to not blow it.
It’s possible I could be talked into making this a SABR league instead of FGPTS (with 4x4)
One of my other leagues just swapped to SABR so I was hoping this one would be FGPTs to complete the set (!) - but I’m not totally against the idea…
I hope to have a lot more details about this new league later this weekend, and I’m definitely leaning towards the slow draft, which means we’ll need to firm up the league soon - I could see a nice slow draft going on from November to February (or something like that).
Hi Trey, very interested in the league, I DM’d you about it on Slack and you told me to post here…please keep me updated. Thanks.
I would just add that it seems to me like the coupons should be awarded more in bulk near the top tier of the incentives, rather than gradually. Does someone really deserve a coupon for getting to 2,000 AB’s? Why not give them like, 1 at 5,000, 2 at 6,000, 3 at 7,000? Just spitballing those numbers, but philosophically, that makes more sense to me than doling them out gradually for milestones that even a totally dead team should meet.
You could also still base the coupons somewhat on finish. Personally, I think a last place team that trudges through and meets their caps should get more coupons than a first place team that does the same.
This is an interesting point and I will think through this…this is still a work in progress but this feedback is helpful. Should have more on this soon.
I’ve made some progress on the rules for this league. Here’s a quick snapshot, followed by some details. If you want to read the full rules (in progress), check out this link.
There’s been a lot of gnashing of teeth on Slack this last couple of weeks about top teams getting rewarded with coupons - the argument being that they, as the top teams, have all the best assets and that by giving them coupons you’re just helping them hold on to them and keep on winning.
I’m completely new to coupons, but I wondered what your thoughts on this were?
I can see how it would be frustrating to other owners, but I guess as long as they played by the rules there’s no reason why they shouldn’t also be rewarded?
EDIT: Actually, on reading back through the Slack comments it seems most people were frustrated at owners being able to put $24 of coupons on a single player - and ending up with a $1 Betts, for example.
I think the set up here - with $12 per league and a max of $3 per player - neatly avoids this problem.
If a team wants to implement coupons there are basically three big questions:
Who gets them?
How do you earn them?
Settling in a $12 is basically just enough for the weakest team to offset all of arbitration (if they only receive $11, which rarely happens).
In this case I wanted the coupons to be more about activity/engagement than parity. Activity and parity are related, but parity is tough to legislate and engagement does most of the work for you, so my thought is that making the same level of coupon available to all teams allows them to be indifferent: both the good and bad teams know what they have to do right from the beginning to maximize them, and it’s completely up to them to manage towards them or not.
The big lesson I learned in @Brinksmanship this year (coupons and prizes) is that when every team is heavily engaged, it makes the waiver wire so thin that it really levels the playing field for all teams, which is a blast, because it forces all owners to search even harder for value and scrap just to hit 1,500 IP (example), even if your final 100 IP come in at sub-4.00 P/IP.
That’s the kind of league I really enjoy. Hopefully this AB/IP threshold setup will deliver that.
I don’t think AP/IP threshold will help as much as point with involvement for what it’s worth
You mean you don’t think AB/IP thresholds for coupons will be a big driver for parity? I agree.
It would be designed to drive activity/engagement. But I believe improving parity is a positive consequence of having more owners more engaged for more of the season.
There are a couple things I mean. I don’t think AB/IP thresholds would keep people involved. They could, but I think points would probably do a better job. There are different forms of involvement besides setting lineups. Trades, waiver pickups, auctions etc. If the bar is total points or place in standings, then there is more likely to be an incentive to drive activity/engagement as outscoring the next guy represents some form of a gain.
Limiting this to the scope of coupons as a proposed carrot, I think that the top also needs to be limited. The carrot system set us is basically coupons for the sake of coupons, not coupons for the sake of any parity - which is the only reason I’d really add them in. No qualms on disagreement. I wouldn’t be giving coupons to the league winner, probably would give second more than none, but less, etc. Similar to Brinksmanship.
For those of you that have expressed interest in this new @Dynasty league I plan to create this year, what are your thoughts on the “Franchise Tag” model instead of coupons? I’m warming to the former, but would love to discuss…
Hey Trey - just had a quick read of the Tag discussion over on the other thread and I think I like it.
I especially like the fact that the best teams actually get fewer tags - one problem I had with the coupons method is that the best teams get just as well (and sometimes better) rewarded as teams that finish lower in the standings.
I’d be more than happy to adopt the Tag model to this new league.
True. Regardless of the type of incentive system, I think they are most effective at increasing engagement when heavily weighted towards (probably) teams 4-6.
Though in general I feel strongly that the last place team (at least) shouldn’t be rewarded.
I think that the franchise system may have some merit - I seem to remember one league used coupons and it heavily distorted top players salaries.
I would also want to be careful on the tiers. For example, if a team is 4th, I wouldn’t want them to manipulate their roster so that they get 3 franchise players, rather than 2.
I also agree with Joe Catz’ point on players having to be from the draft, rather than winning in-season auctions.
Also how are we looking numbers wise (who has made the cut etc)
I’m taking a slow approach on setting this up, so I don’t expect to put all the pieces together until later this winter. There are some big things coming from Ottoneu pretty soon that may influence how we put this league together, so I’m sort of waiting for those to drop before we really get into this.
Curious why you wouldn’t want in-season player auctions to be eligible for a franchise tag?
From my understanding It’s generally that 2nd year that you want to keep prices down anyway.
Now in a most of my leagues, guys like Schwarb, Harvey & Pollock were dropped - then reauctioned. I also had a league where Harper, Stanton and Clutch were reauctioned. I wouldn’t want to see some opportunist franchise a $10 Pollock.