Compensation Pick Rule Change (Relievers)

[bcslouck]

My problem again is this was done in season. Why couldn't wait until after the World Series on this? And say after this round of comps, we are going to this. People asked why I signed a closer. I did it for 2 reasons. One was for the fan interest bump. Two was for a potential comp down the line. You guys just decided my chance at that was cut in half long after I played within the rules.

And this would apply to anything. Getting rid of them, adding comps, etc. Doesn't matter what it is. Make that go into affect before people start using assets based on current league structure/rules. It's really frustrating.


EDIT: And not only my comp chances were cut in half, but now I can't get the highest possible comp.

Just to be clear: The comp chances were not cut. We did, though, decide relievers would all be Supplemental Round 2 picks.

So were RP's top 10 and 20% before?

[RonCo]

yes.

Now all relievers who would have gotten #1 supplimentals get #2s instead. Nothing else has changed.

[udlb58]

First off, I would 100% be behind the dropping of comp picks.

Second, I don't think this makes any sense. Why aren't elite relievers worth Type A comp picks, while barely above average hitters (3.2 WAR was the type A cut-off) are? The easy answer is raise the WAR requirement, or the % of players used to determine the cutoffs. Also, how could someone 'game' the system by making their starters RPs? Were we really only going off in-game position designation instead of GS%? That seems the major flaw if so. Or are you saying that people were using guys good enough to be in the rotation strictly as relievers? If that's the case, how is it gaming the system?

While I can understand that 1.6 WAR for a Type A RP is far to low and an issue to be dealt with, I don't see how saying Peter Grady is worth the same compensation level as a full season of Max Hatcher is really the correct way to handle this. It may be the easy way, but surely the top relief pitchers are as valuable as a 3.2 WAR hitter (if they were to hit the market).

I kinda feel like the thresholds are a little too low for both hitters and RP. I'd be fine with halving the % a player's WAR needed to be in to reach compensation levels, and maybe an even more drastic cut to Type A RP (but there should still be 5-8 RP who would be Type A if they hit the open market, knowing that very few would actually be free agents and comp eligible)

[Bumstead]

The Boise budget is $106M this year, its payroll is $36M, so you had $70M to spend. I know you were swamped, but that's a different problem. Boise could easily have tried to over-pay a blue-chip for 1 season and either dealt him at the deadline or (more likely) let him play out his season and turn him into a draft pick if he signed someplace else. Given that many weaker teams tend to greatly underspend their budgets (HAW is roughly $40M shy, LOU is $40M shy, WIC is $28M shy of salary cap, CCJ is $25M shy of budget), this is a greatly underutilized tool.

Deeply struggling teams need to utilize as much of their budget as they can to leverage either future players (future wins), or future budget (by gaining current wins/FI). [he says, pompously]. Leaving that kind of budget on the table is not helping things, and has nothing to do with the "haves" getting comp picks.

Your budget (current and future) is based on what your owner thinks you'll create in revenue, so the risk in spending a large part of your budget is not high. In fact, by not spending to improve your team, you run the risk of having a lower budget next year. And, to me, that would actually be the worst outcome your build could have.

I understand how the budgets work in OOTP. I didn't have time and whatever. It doesn't matter. I wasn't really referring to my team this season. It was more a reference to how OOTP GM's manage their teams in on-leagues. I don't care if comp picks are kept or not for my sake, I am just saying that comp picks are a hindrance to competitive balance because of how OOTP GM's manage their teams and budgets.

As to Boise this season, they were never part of the discussion. Although I did sign a potentially comp eligible player who is sucking and probably will never be worth what I paid for him regardless of a comp pick or no comp pick.

[bcslouck]

First off, I would 100% be behind the dropping of comp picks.

Second, I don't think this makes any sense. Why aren't elite relievers worth Type A comp picks, while barely above average hitters (3.2 WAR was the type A cut-off) are? The easy answer is raise the WAR requirement, or the % of players used to determine the cutoffs. Also, how could someone 'game' the system by making their starters RPs? Were we really only going off in-game position designation instead of GS%? That seems the major flaw if so. Or are you saying that people were using guys good enough to be in the rotation strictly as relievers? If that's the case, how is it gaming the system?

While I can understand that 1.6 WAR for a Type A RP is far to low and an issue to be dealt with, I don't see how saying Peter Grady is worth the same compensation level as a full season of Max Hatcher is really the correct way to handle this. It may be the easy way, but surely the top relief pitchers are as valuable as a 3.2 WAR hitter (if they were to hit the market).

I kinda feel like the thresholds are a little too low for both hitters and RP. I'd be fine with halving the % a player's WAR needed to be in to reach compensation levels, and maybe an even more drastic cut to Type A RP (but there should still be 5-8 RP who would be Type A if they hit the open market, knowing that very few would actually be free agents and comp eligible)

I agree with this. Instead of doing 10/20 for RP's, do 5/10. If you want comps but want to reduce the amount, lower the %'s. IN THE OFFSEASON.

[agrudez]

Second, I don't think this makes any sense. Why aren't elite relievers worth Type A comp picks, while barely above average hitters (3.2 WAR was the type A cut-off) are?

3.2 WAR is significantly better than 'above average'. I think having a really good team for a really long time is seriously skewing your valuation here. Many teams don't end the season with more than 1 batter with >3.2 WAR and some others don't even get one.

Also, how could someone 'game' the system by making their starters RPs?

It happened quite a bit when I was monitoring and administering the comp picks. The metric was based on GS% (something like only 1/3rd of G could be GS). What would happen is teams would purposefully throw a starter in 15ish games and then put them in the 'pen for the rest of the year. 15 games as a SP gave them ~100 IP and 30 games as a RP gave them ~40 IP. A normal closer is only logging ~70 IP a year, so this scenario is giving the former pitcher twice as much chance to accrue WAR.

While I can understand that 1.6 WAR for a Type A RP is far to low and an issue to be dealt with, I don't see how saying Peter Grady is worth the same compensation level as a full season of Max Hatcher is really the correct way to handle this. It may be the easy way, but surely the top relief pitchers are as valuable as a 3.2 WAR hitter (if they were to hit the market).

I mean... that's not true at all. A 3.2 WAR bat is a bonafide all-star. Those guys get 15M+ on the open market, easy - with an upward bound of well over 20M. An elite reliever has a floor to ceiling of 8-12M or so. Just look at the past few FA classes.

I kinda feel like the thresholds are a little too low for both hitters and RP. I'd be fine with halving the % a player's WAR needed to be in to reach compensation levels, and maybe an even more drastic cut to Type A RP (but there should still be 5-8 RP who would be Type A if they hit the open market, knowing that very few would actually be free agents and comp eligible)

Uh... you realize that means that the supplemental first round would end up being like 60-70 players deep every year, right? So the bad teams are now getting the #1 overall pick and the equivalent of a 4th or 5th rounder with their 2nd round pick. Just knife parity in the back and be done with it.

[bcslouck]

I kinda feel like the thresholds are a little too low for both hitters and RP. I'd be fine with halving the % a player's WAR needed to be in to reach compensation levels, and maybe an even more drastic cut to Type A RP (but there should still be 5-8 RP who would be Type A if they hit the open market, knowing that very few would actually be free agents and comp eligible)

Uh... you realize that means that the supplemental first round would end up being like 60-70 players deep every year, right? So the bad teams are now getting the #1 overall pick and the equivalent of a 4th or 5th rounder with their 2nd round pick. Just knife parity in the back and be done with it.

He means halving the top percentage, not the WAR number. I brought it up in my post. RP comp was top 10% and top 20%. Change it to top 5% and top 10%. Then you're basically just getting the guys who were originally worth Type A comp in the old system but splitting them between A and B.

[Ted]

Kyle, while I agree with some of what you said, a 3.2 WAR player is not an all star. That's a solidly above average starting position player, or a mid rotation or weak #2 starter.

THere were over 130 players with 3+ WAR last year. Almost 80 3+ WAR bats. Definitely all good players. But not all bonafide all stars.

All Star is like 4-5, depending on the distribution each year. Paying 20 million on the free agent market for a 3.2 WAR player is a really bad idea. 15 mil is a bad idea most likely, unless it's say CF or SS and its a younger player that your trying to get a long term deal on.

[agrudez]

Thanks for the mis-reading point out, bcs - I get his point now.

Kyle, while I agree with some of what you said, a 3.2 WAR player is not an all star. That's a solidly above average starting position player

The FA comp threshold for Type A batters is 15%. Let's assume all 30 teams have 12 position players that meet the AB threshold to qualify. That means 54 players a year will be Type A eligible. All-star teams have what... 20 position players apiece? So you're at the 40 all-stars + the next closest 7 from each conference. Being in serious contention for an all-star game makes you all-star caliber, imo. Also, someone being an all-star in 2 of 3 years makes them a 'bonafide all-star' in my book, too, so it broadens from there past what you just get in a single discrete season as all-stars. It's fine to split hairs over the semantics, though.

All Star is like 4-5, depending on the distribution each year. Paying 20 million on the free agent market for a 3.2 WAR player is a really bad idea. 15 mil is a bad idea most likely, unless it's say CF or SS and its a younger player that your trying to get a long term deal on.

Here as some FA bats and SP:
-Martinez had a 4.1 3-year running average WAR and got ~17.5M (despite being a pure DH and likely seen by many - wrongly, imo, but still - as a platoon player)
-Salazar had a 2.3 3-year running average WAR and got 16M for 1 year and some decreasing TOs (with an option to opt out from his side at season's end)
-Flores had a 5.06 3-year running average WAR and got ~25.5M (despite accruing his numbers in an overt pitcher's park and having some warts that look like they'll get exposed outside those friendly confines)
-Gagne had a 3.36 3-year running average WAR and got 11M (potentially a slight overpay to get him to agree to a 1 year deal)
-McHone had a 2.36 3-year running average WAR and got ~10M (counting the final year TO)
-Greenwood had a 4.266 3-year running average WAR and got ~14M (despite a bad 3rd pitch and wonky ratings fluctuations/declines over the years)
-Rios had a 2.46 3-year running average WAR and got ~14M

Here are some FA RPs:
-Ortega had a 3.166 3-year running average WAR and got ~11M (not counting the 5th year TO and subsequent PO which are way beyond what I imagine someone being willing to pay for a RP)
-Velasquez had a 1.933 3-year running average WAR and got 8.5M

So, per WAR...
-the batters above were given 44.5M for 9.76 WAR = 4.56M/WAR
-the SP above were given 63.5M for 14.146 WAR = 3.54M/WAR
-the RP above were given 19.5M for 5.099 WAR = 3.82M/WAR

You know what? I retract my statement. At least in one season's worth of a sample size, we actually seem like we valued elite closers similarly to 'all-stars' on the open market.

[RonCo]

Those are good numbers.

[Ted]

Kyle, you are lumping together 5 win players, 4 win players, 3 win players, and two win players in your math, and saying that justifies giving a 3 win player "all star" level money. That's bad science. There is not a linear correlation between WAR and dollars spent. That is because there is not a linear distribution of players. 2 Win players are nice, but no big deal. 3 win players are good, but not something to lose your shit about. 4 win players a legitimately great, and 5 win ones are guys you might consider breaking the bank on.

I have no idea how you looked at these numbers and concluded people were willing to pay 15-20 million for a 3.2 WAR player. You can't just add up average salary totals for different caliber of players on different length deals (which VASTLY changes the AAV) and then average them to come up with a blanket rate for things with vastly different levels of scarcity. That's bad science. The fact that is is is demonstrated when only TWO players in the group of eight came close to your estimates. The 3rd closest was off by 20%. The rest were off by around 30-40%.

By your averages,
Alfredo Martinez should have gotten 18 mil. He came in at 19 (I'm calling him a one year deal)
Salazar should have gotten 10, he came in at 16
Gagne should have gotten 15, he got 11.

Salazar's outlier drives all this up. Martinez is also a one year deal essentially. Both of these are one year deals.

By your model,

Flores should have gotten 18 mil and got 25
McHone should have gotten 8.3 and got 14
Rios should have gotten 8.7 and got 14
Ortega should have gotten 11.8 and got 11
Velazquez 6.8 and got 8.5

Your model is wildly inaccurate. Your sample sizes are small. You have put apples, oranges, and steaks in the same basket and called them similar enough to simply average the results. This isn't a good model.

Lastly,
Two players in this group got around 20 mil or above. Both were better than 4 win players.
One more got above 15 million, and it was the one year portion of Salazars deal.

This in absolutely no way demonstrates that people are willing, or that anyone should, spend 15-20 mil on a 3.2 win player on the open market.

[Ted]

Those are good numbers.

These are terribly constructed numbers. See my previous post.

[RonCo]

There are holes in the conversation Kyle's trying to have, but for purposes of thinking about how one can or should assign compensation picks, it's an interesting way of looking at it.

[Ted]

There are holes in the conversation Kyle's trying to have, but for purposes of thinking about how one can or should assign compensation picks, it's an interesting way of looking at it.

This I can agree with. I actually thing a lot of people on "opposite sides" of the argument have had good points. I would venture a guess that this is largely because there isn't a consensus on what comp picks SHOULD be doing, whether they should be doing it, and what they are actually doing.

[Bumstead]

There are holes in the conversation Kyle's trying to have, but for purposes of thinking about how one can or should assign compensation picks, it's an interesting way of looking at it.

What?

[recte44]

Did not expect three pages on this relatively minor change. Wowza.

[Ted]

Did not expect three pages on this relatively minor change. Wowza.

You sir, have underestimated us.

[Ted]

And it's more like one page of actual complaint about the change, and three pages of complaints about what the change means and definitions of things where we all split hairs.

[Bumstead]

I'm happy to split hair if it means it will stick around longer!

[udlb58]

And it's more like one page of actual complaint about the change, and three pages of complaints about what the change means and definitions of things where we all split hairs.

This.

Quite honestly, I'm still all for just scrapping comp picks; but if we are going to have them, I feel there's a better answer to this RP problem than just completely excluding RP from Type A.