Part of me thinks that fixing tanking with a different method of deciding a draft order is a solution in search of a problem. For starters, the "science" of drafting is very inexact. If it wasn't, Mark Appel wouldn't be drafted before Kris Bryant nearly as often. There is still a wide amount of variance for 1st round draft outcomes, and teams like the St. Louis Cardinals do very well in the draft despite almost never picking in the top half of the first round.
Still, if you want a team to incentivise winning games 60 through 85, there's a relatively straightforward way to that. It's called a futures draft. Instead of having your draft position determined by your record, you instead draft teams for next year based on your previous year's record, and then the record of THOSE teams sets the draft order.
Let me explain.
Say you are Philadelphia in 2015. That allows you the first pick in the futures draft, where you can pick any team besides yourself (the only exception is that if you are forced to take yourself, that's fine). Let's say you draft Cincinnati; this is an implicit bet that Philly thinks that they are the worst team in baseball this year (which, in my estimation, is very likely). If Cincy finishes 2016 with the 3rd worst record, then Philly gets the 3rd pick in the 2017 draft.
There are two great features to this. One, it reduces the certainty of where you'll pick; you don't know for certain how poor your team will be next year. More importantly, it gives you incentive to do well, because every team you finish ahead of is another chance you'll pick earlier the next year. If Philadelphia is 60-90 and Cincinnati is 61-89, Philly wants to win those games to pick 1st instead of 2nd.
The two main drawbacks to this are that you have to wait 18 months to actually draft based on your position, and that it screws up qualifying offers. The first is a real criticism, but the second is a feature, not a bug. QOs are going to be a thing of the past very soon, so I'm not overly worried about it.
I think this would be kind of cool (with the incidental bonus of having a one-year rooting interest against another team), but I'm not sure the only system needs fixing anyway.
Comments
Interesting idea, but I like how it is now.
dmick89Quote Reply
I’d be cool with a draft lottery for non-playoff teams. No weighting based on record, unlike what is done in the NBA.
berseliusQuote Reply
I think simply doing away with the QO and possibly hard slotting would help immensely.
Rice CubeQuote Reply
For starters, just to clear things up, I don’t think “Tanking” is really a problem. I agree with Myles, drafting is an inexact science, there’s typically a several year lag before the top pick even begins to make an impact on the MLB club, and one player in baseball can only do so much anyways. So there is definitely less incentive for a team to tank for a high draft pick in baseball compared to some of the other sports. Nothing needs to change. For that matter, teams already have plenty of incentive to win (fan support, job security,) that I doubt the High Draft Picks are enough to cause a team to actively decide to lose for a year or two. I just like the exercise in wondering what impact a change like this would have.
So, first things first, higher draft picks certainly do have value, especially the top 1-3 picks. Not just the benefit of getting first crack at a possible elite talent, but also the expanded draft budget. Misses still happen early, and teams can still find great talent later in the draft, but there’s usually a big enough drop off after the first couple picks that getting one of those top 5 picks is still a big deal. If you give a good FO higher picks, they’re going to turn those picks into solid talent. Again, probably never enough to cause a team want to tank, but I’d say it’s enough for a 70 win team to make the quick calculation that they’re better off as a 70 win team than a 75 win team heading into the season.
What I like about determining the draft order based on a team’s own record is that it rewards FO’s for being good at their job and building good teams, and it’s something that’s generally in the team’s control. Teams wind up with a very clear incentive and a very clear reward for each additional win they get. If a GM keeps building a 70 win team, they don’t automatically get the benefit of getting first crack at the future impact talent. But if a GM can turn that 70 win team into a 75 win team, they start getting better resources, and a better shot at improving in the future.
MillertimeQuote Reply
Here’s a fun idea:
They should just relegate the worst teams. Expand to an odd number of teams, then the worst team sits out for a year, but still gets the top draft pick during the sit. But how does one decide which team is the worst? Why not the same flawed way we figure out who is best? Have a relegation playoff where the four worst records do a round robin.
Such might seem terrible for small market teams, but if expanded may allow for more smaller market teams to basically timeshare a few slots in the bigs. These teams would play AAA teams mostly, but they could also play the AAAA teams from Cuba or Japan etc. (Though come to think of it, would MLB want the likes of a Loria team being ambassadors for the game?)
Also, for MLB teams, a three-year moving average salary floor should probably be put in place with penalties for dipping below—that is a soft floor similar to the soft cap that luxury tax is now. Note that MLB does have a salary cap, not that one is necessary with a salary floor because these are completely independent features of markets that get glommed together for whatever reason.
ceruleanQuote Reply
cerulean,
I honestly love the idea of relegation, but it could NEVER happen. I’m pretty sure I’ve pitched relegation on this site before, because it really is the best way to punish tanking, but it’s a pipe dream.
mylesQuote Reply
http://obstructedview.net/relegation-in-baseball/
Old Shit
mylesQuote Reply
Yeah, I was going to say relegation, but I remember it being discussed and I think most of us are in favor and agree it would never happen in baseball.
dmick89Quote Reply
Zambrano went to the Long Island Ducks, and Rant Sports. I like old comment sections.
MillertimeQuote Reply
Matt Murton ——> Cubs, minor league deal (dying laughing)
berseliusQuote Reply
G . T . F . O .
Suburban kidQuote Reply
berselius,
The triumphant return of Orange Guy.
I guess this team’s WAG tally was going to be a little lower than usual with Jonathan Herrera not likely to come back.
Smokestack LightningQuote Reply
totally thought this was in reference to millertime’s “old comment sections” comment. but apparently it’s real. what the fuck.
EnricoPallazzoQuote Reply
This makes as much sense to me as Marco Rubio saying that by going to a mosque and reaching out to Muslims, Obama is dividing the country, i.e., none at all.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
Murton Most Foul. yes.
MillertimeQuote Reply
Suburban kid,
Don’t tell me what to do.
berseliusQuote Reply
Mlb could also join the 20th century and allow teams to trade draft picks.
dmick89Quote Reply
I guess that answers the question of whose cap he wears to Cooperstown.
uncle daveQuote Reply
Arrieta arb hearing ——-> Feb 9
berseliusQuote Reply
(dying laughing) been a long time since we’ve talked about WAG around here. I have not missed those days of Cubdom.
dmick89Quote Reply
hard to believe Fowler is still available
dmick89Quote Reply
Wal to wall coverage here that day, as usual.
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
(dying laughing), I had forgotten about that and was trying to remember if Murton had an objectively hot wife or something.
berseliusQuote Reply
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/exit-velocity-part-iii-applying-meaning-to-the-data/
ht to Tango
dmick89Quote Reply
dmick89,
Maybe there’d be more traffic here is we discussed Restaurants Above Replacement (RAR) again.
JonKneeVQuote Reply
http://obstructedview.net/the-midpoint-of-nl-central-teams/
New Shit
mylesQuote Reply