Debating Rule 1a In Ottoneu Baseball

Rule 5f

Yet another important rule to keep in mind:

5 f. The team that dropped the player may not nominate or bid on the player until 30 days after the drop date, unless the keeper deadline occurs in between the drop date and the player’s new auction.

A whole lot more discussion and feedback on this Rule 1a conversation here: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/the-joy-of-ambiguous-fantasy-rules/

To take some of the interpretation out of rule 1a, maybe it could be flipped? Instead of “each team must maintain an active roster”, it could be “No team may have more than 18 prospects at any one time. If they do, their team is illegal and a minor leaguer must be cut.”

Then it could be enforced and not left up to the commissioners to decide.

1 Like

I think @niv has generally left the interpretation of enforcement up to the leagues on this issue (Rule 1a), and though I agree with @jjdouglas that leagues should address how they want to enforce this at the beginning of the season, many new players and even commissioners aren’t aware of it being a problem until someone abuses it. Agree with @fathead04 that it does impact the parity of the league when someone rosters 19+ minor leaguers and basically tanks the season. Hard-coding the lineups/roster could be something the community tries to talk @niv into but probably depends on how prevalent it becomes.
In one of my leagues we never could quite agree on the enforcement so we agreed to have every owner vote “in or out” every other owner at the conclusion of each season, giving teams the option of voting against someone that abuses Rule 1a (or some other rule).
In leagues that use “coupons”, I still really like the idea of awarding arbitration discounts based on meeting GP and IP thresholds throughout the season instead of by standings or points, just to keep everyone engaged all season long filling their lineup actively. @jjdouglas is right that in League 649 (which uses coupons) it has been much harder to fill games because nearly every team is incentivized to play a full legal lineup, even those lower in the standings. The league has been a lot of fun because of it.

Rules question about salary cap. Harper was cut by a team in my league at $78. He cleared waivers. I was the only team in the league with enough salary cap to meet the $39 minimum bid. I place a fair bid of $45, just to solidify my position, in case other teams made cuts, trades, etc, to loosen up salary cap, and monitored my position up until the auction close. No trades or cuts sufficient to outbid me.

Auction closed, and lo and behold, the Commissioner wins the auction with a $45 bid, which puts him at $36 over the salary cap (436), and 36 negative cash!!! What’s up with this. I posted on the chat board, and no one has said a word! How do I force the issue, or am I in a crooked league?

Now his buddy, the co-commissioner responded, saying he has an opportunity to make cuts to get under the salary cap. Is this correct? Can you bid more than your salary cap, and then make cuts to get down?

Yes, that is absolutely correct, and legal. There is no requirement that FA auction bids you make be equal to or less than your available cap, and if a move puts a team over the salary or roster limits, that team’s roster is frozen (no lineups/trades/pickups/etc) until they make cuts to get legal.

First year doing Ottoneu, just need a clarification: in a vote off league, is salary arbitration just when people get to choose which player they vote off? Next question: is the keeper deadline a set date when players can be cut but then can be bid on/picked up off waivers, or are they just cut and can’t be bid on until the next auction draft?

  1. Yep, vote-off is a style of arbitration, with the other one being a “allocate dollars to players on other teams” mode.

  2. After the keeper deadline, players cannot be added until in the auction draft. There are no waivers in the off-season. Players actually can’t really be ‘added’ in the off-season, though they can be traded and cut.

Perfect, thanks for the clarification.

1 Like

Great discussion today from HMP on the impact of Ottoneu arbitration on the trade deadline (8/31), which is essentially a keeper question. Easier to post the full discussion here for future reference for those with questions regarding the arbitration process:

HMP [1:06 PM] (@hartspassman)
Curious to get the group’s take on a strategy question from an Ottoneu rookie. I am playing for 2017. I have Dahl at $1. He is surely the most likely target on my team for allocation in October. Knowing that, is it better to deal him now for multiple parts, or hold him and hope that his ultimate price isn’t too crazy? I’m anticipating that he’ll climb to $15-20. 5x5 league.

Micah [1:10 PM] (@MicahN)
Hold

I’d be surprised if Dahl got arbed up that high unless he is literally your only surplus player

John [1:11 PM] (@pittsburgh)
Even if he does get arbed that high, wouldn’t you rather trade him after he absorbs all your arb dollars?

Chad Young [1:14 PM]
Do not trade players because they might get arbed

Justin Vibber [1:35 PM]
I just pulled the roster of every team that is currently in 1st place across my 11 FGPts leagues, no player is owned on more than four of those first place teams

Joe Douglas [1:35 PM]
Or maybe those 1st place teams just traded for Ortiz or Miggy. That’s happened in my leagues.

Justin Vibber [1:36 PM]
Those players are Zobrist/Dozier/Carrasco/Ortiz/Betances/Villar/Cruz

HMP [1:46 PM]
@pittsburgh: true, but on the flip side, he’ll fetch a lot more at his current price.

@chadyoung: I’m trying to grasp the strategic logic. Why not?

Justin Vibber [1:49 PM]
@hartpassman Mostly because that player attracting arb isn’t a bad thing, 90% of the time that’s just fewer $ being allocated to your other players

Chad Young [1:56 PM]
Because getting arbed is a good thing

It means the player is underpaid. and it means someone else is NOT getting arbed

Basically, if you have Dahl or don’t have Dahl, you are probably going to get $25-$30 in arb total.

If $10 goes to Dahl, that is someone else who did not get hit.

Think of arb on a team level, not a player level

You want allllllll the players who might get arbed. those are the best assets

Justin Vibber [2:00 PM]
I like to have zero assets that should be arbed, that way my opponents waste their allocations on guys I’m going to cut :laughing:

Chad Young [2:06 PM]
Know you are kidding, @vibbot but that is the one extreme here where my logic breaks down. if you have 39 overpriced players and a $5 dahl, you might as well trade him instead of waiting for him to be $30

Chad Young [2:16 PM]
Did that help, @hartpassman?

Basically, you should value guys based on their current price and expected value, regardless of arb. you will get hit with arb no matter what. “downgrading” a player because he might/will get hit with arb dollars is putting an artificially lower value on a guy than he deserves.

HMP [2:24 PM]
It did. I think I mostly agree. Especially with your comment above about having only one surplus player.

But I think “regardless of arb” is potentially mistaken. If you know (or can reasonably guess) that a given player will get hit with arb to a level that makes him overpriced, it would seem that trading hm before that time has some appeal, assuming the return haul is sufficient

I don’t advocate trading for trading’ sake. But there should be no sacred cows on your roster, and I’d rather have two surplus players than one correctly-priced player, generally speaking.

John [2:26 PM]
If dahl’s going to draw twenty dollars of arbitration, then you should expect whatever you’re dealing him for to get twenty dollars of arb.

If your league is arbing someone until they’re overpriced, your team is hopelessly bad or the league is doing it wrong.

HMP [2:29 PM]
First, why is that “doing it wrong”? Second, since each owner makes his own arb decisions independently (right?), isn’t it possible that the league as a whole overshoots a price because of those 11 independent decisions?

And getting back to the Dahl example, if the return haul divides up the arb in a manner that keeps each player fairly priced or even at surplus, then it doesn’t bother me that the same 20 in arb would be divided among them.

Chad Young [2:35 PM]
honestly, you are better served getting one player crushed in arb and becoming a non-keeper than having 5 guys get hit a little and being fairly valued

John [2:35 PM]
You see arb results in real time as other owners add them.

Chad Young [2:36 PM]
Extreme example - you have four players all at $1 all worth $20. if one gets hit with $20 in arb, you cut him and now have 3 players with $57 combined surplus. if they each get $5, you now have 4 players with $56 in combined surplus. more surplus on fewer players is better

HMP [2:40 PM]
That’s a very good example @chadyoung and I think it illustrates your point

@pittsburgh: it’s in real-time? Really? That surprises me.

John [2:41 PM]
You have to hit refresh, but it’s not a hidden process.

Chad Young [2:42 PM]
you can see who is getting dollars arbed to them, but not who put them there

John [2:43 PM]
You can see who assigned them afterwards.

HMP [2:43 PM]
Thanks. I didn’t know that.

And I appreciate the discussion here. Thanks for that as well.

Chad Young [2:44 PM]
i thought you could only see which teams allocated and which players were allocated too, but not who made which allocations. is that wrong?

John [2:45 PM]
After January 31st, when you go to arbitration results, it also shows who each team allocated to. (I might have the link name wrong, but it does exist.)

Justin Vibber [2:47 PM]
@pittsburgh is right, you can definitely see who each team allocated to. You can’t directly find out which teams allocated to a particular player, but you can find it by looking at each team one by one to see all the players they allocated to

John [2:49 PM]
I use it to make retribution lists.

I just peruse it to make sure teams aren’t trading allocation dollars on an $14 Adam Conley and an $8 Ben Paulsen.

Chad Young [3:05 PM]
I would actually like to use that for trade purposes

Every year a guy or two on my teams get hit that surprise me

I would love to approach that owner about a trade

HMP [3:10 PM]
@pittsburgh: you didn’t answer my question. Why is it wrong to arb a player to a point where he is overpriced?

John [3:12 PM]
Because he gets cut and owner is shed of the money.

Say you have two guys paid five dollars and worth twenty, and twenty-two dollars are allocated.

If all twenty-two go to one guy, you cut him and still have one player at five dollars.

Justin Vibber [3:14 PM]
It’s all about that surplus!

John [3:14 PM]
If the twenty-two dollars are evenly split, you have two sixteen dollar players you’re keeping.

lagamer [3:28 PM]
@hartpassman think of it this way. I have a team that has a bunch of players who are undervalued. One of them is Jose Fernandez at $26. If Fernandez gets $33 of arb (max possible), I just cut a $59 Fernandez and have a team that took $0 in arb. Yes, I’ve lost Fernandez, but I can probably buy him for $45 in the upcoming draft…now I have all the same players plus $14, which is a win for me. I think the best strategy is to arb an opponent’s player up to what you think he will go for in the draft (or maybe $1 less) making it difficult to decide and saddling that opponent’s team with the most kept arb dollars.

HMP [3:32 PM]
These make sense. Thanks. I wonder though if there’s a situation in which you WANT the other owner to drop the player so you have a shot at him. For example, if your team desperately needs a 2b in the draft, it might make sense to load up other teams’ second basemen in order to free up as many as possible for draft day. It’s a myopic strategy, but not necessarily a bad one under certain circumstances.

Chad Young [3:32 PM]
agreed with @lagamer on this, but i know there are other owners who like to use arb to force players into FA

Personally, i think you hurt yourself by doing that, though

All those teams whose 2Bs you turned into cuts now a) need 2B and b) have less negative impact from arbitration than you do

So you have increased inflation league wide but in a way that favors the teams you were trying to steal a 2B from

HMP [3:33 PM]
It seems risky. But the prevailing surplus-focus here presumes that owners have perfect information on draft day and will (a) recognize where they have surplus, and (b) draft “correctly”. As we know, that’s the goal but it’s near impossible to do.

John [3:35 PM]
I firmly believe others’ mistakes don’t justify my own.

Chad Young [3:36 PM]
i don’t assume anyone has perfect information, per se. but i do assume that teams are trying to maximize the production their roster and that the more players they have who produce more value than they are paid, the better.

HMP [3:54 PM]
Sure. That’s obvious.

John [3:56 PM]
I’m not sure I see the logic. Is arbing over what you think a player is worth able to hedge against imperfect information?

Chad Young [4:04 PM]
Another example, related to arbing guys up until they get cut - using your situation, @hartpassman, you need a 2B. i have a 2B at $15 that you think is worth $25. Other teams have allocated $10 to him, so now he is $25 and you have to make a decision. If you think I think he is worth $25, you assume I will keep him and if you want me to cut him, you have to allocate to $26. Of course, you also have to assume I would pay $25 for him at auction, in which case you would have to bid $26 to win him - and you do not want to do that, you think he is worth $25. If you think he is worth $25 and hope to get him at auction for $25 or less, the only way that happens is if I (and others) value him less than you…but if that is the case, I will already plan to cut him at $25 (since you value him at $25 and I value him less).

It’s just a thought experiment, and there are a lot of assumptions built in there about rational behavior, but i think the point stands - if you value a guy at $X and have to allocate above $X to get him cut, then you also have to assume that other owners value him the same. your best bet is always to allocate up to $X and no higher - if it turns out you value him more highly than i do, I will cut him and you can bid on him up to $X (which I will not be willing to pay). if we value him the same or I value him more highly, you have maxed out my cap hit, which is good for you

John [4:07 PM]
I rather keep the player’s salary down and try to trade for him.

Chad Young [4:11 PM]
that’s another good call out, @pittsburgh, though for me that is definitely secondary, only cause I don’t want to do something like avoid putting $2 on the player I most want to put that $2 on in the hopes I can trade for him instead.

Joe Catanzariti [8:10 PM] (@joecatz)
I’ve tried every philosophy in the book and am pretty convinced that the best way to arb is to make it simple.

  1. I put $1 on the highest surplus asset on every team.
  2. I take the five best offensive surplus assets and add $2 to each (if a team owns more than one, I may split it, and then add $2 to asset number 6 etc…
  3. Repeat for pitchers.

I don’t play payback, or target higher finishers, or grudge arb, or worry about guys I want to trade for. I just want to pull surplus away from every clear keeper I can and keep every dollar I put out there on your roster and out of the auction pool.

John [8:14 PM]
I disagree. I want to arb the owner, not the player. I’m not wasting money on inferior owners because one of their prospects hit.

HMP [8:23 PM]
I should start saying really dumb things then, so @pittsburgh doesn’t arb me. :grin:

Joe Catanzariti [9:02 PM]
@pittsburgh: it’s very rare that that is the case. Conversely, a team at the top that has considerable surplus typically owns multiple assets if they’re at the top or very few that are deserving of more than $1

Henry Woodbury [9:08 PM]
I tend to work top of the standings down, though there are always a few wildly cheap players that deserve an extra buck no matter who owns them. I also don’t worry too much. Arbitration is a crowd source activity.

1 Like

Just for clarity on the trade deadline, @nivshah, you can accept a trade up until 11:59 EST on 8/31, correct? You don’t have to accept 48 hours earlier, on the 29th, right (48 hour veto timeline)?

1 Like

Correct - this question comes up every year and no one but me seems to ever remember the answer.

EDIT mild caveat, it’ll be EDT, not EST, because daylight savings time is still in effect on August 31.

as a secondary note, auctions are different: auctions have to be started 2 days before 11:59pm ET of the last day of the season, so they can end during the regular season.

2 Likes

@nivshah, just question of clarification because I think there might have been a rule change last year regarding the dropping of players:

Rule 5f reads:

f. The team that dropped the player may not nominate or bid on the player until 30 days after the drop date, unless the keeper deadline occurs in between the drop date and the player’s new auction.

If Team A trades a player to Team B, and Team B immediately cuts the player after the trade is executed, is Team A prevented from claiming, bidding, and or/auctioning that player inside of 30 days? Just want to confirm.

Thanks

You cannot take a player back on your roster you removed from your roster (via cut) in the last 30 days.

EDIT: Team A can claim, bid on, and auction the player cut by Team B.

Just wanted to make sure Niv’s response was captured here. This is an acceptable way to play the game.

Back to Rule 1a - my biggest problem is the strategy of teams maxing out their catcher games by June and then dropping them.

This is a strategy designed to help the team win, not to punt, so a points deduction punishment could work.

I know next to nothing about programming, but I’m pretty sure it would be possible to enforce managers having an MLB catcher at the C slot for all games.

Of course, managers may still want to platoon or choose not to actually play their catcher - so I would also have a dedicated ‘MLB Catcher’ bench position.

So to score points for any given day, either one of these slots must be filled with an MLB catcher (which could be determined within the software by looking at the player’s team designation).

I would also add a specific rule along the lines of ‘At all times teams must carry an MLB catcher on their 40-man roster’.

1 Like

Is a roster which has fewer than 5 major-league relievers a roster of 22 major-league players capable of filling out a starting lineup?

What does, “RP spots must be taken by pitchers who are in the bullpen in MLB games" mean?

1 Like

I’d say that every team needs to carry (5) RP; however, guys on the IL count towards that. When I’m rebuilding, I usually only roster 5 RP because I’d rather allocate a roster slot to someone with more potential to be a future contributor. .

1 Like

I tend to believe a team needs to be able to fill out a reasonable number of innings rather than have 5+ SP and 5+ RP. Using fewer than 5 RP and leaning on your starters is a viable (though not a good) strategy. If a rebuilding team is going to fall short of the innings minimum in roto or below like 1200 innings in points, that’s more a signal to me of an issue than not specifically having relievers. But this is something you should work out/define with your league because, as you can already see, different managers will have different answers for your question.

3 Likes