bigmark
General Manager 
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by bigmark on Nov 2, 2013 6:05:54 GMT -5
again here comes my point.....i come 11 behind mine...another team is more than 20 and we both lose 10...thats bs
rewards are nice for participation but as they come around it seems like the rich get richer type deal with them
|
|
K.
Other 
Posts: 301
|
Post by K. on Nov 2, 2013 11:41:08 GMT -5
That's definitely an aspect of quite a few rewardable events.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Nov 2, 2013 17:51:48 GMT -5
again here comes my point.....i come 11 behind mine...another team is more than 20 and we both lose 10...thats bs rewards are nice for participation but as they come around it seems like the rich get richer type deal with them Maybe -1 point for every 2 loses, cap at -10 points? I dunno. I am open to ideas. Don't like the idea of a team losing 20 points, regardless of intent. |
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Nov 2, 2013 18:16:50 GMT -5
again here comes my point.....i come 11 behind mine...another team is more than 20 and we both lose 10...thats bs rewards are nice for participation but as they come around it seems like the rich get richer type deal with them Maybe -1 point for every 2 loses, cap at -10 points? I dunno. I am open to ideas. Don't like the idea of a team losing 20 points, regardless of intent. Maybe set up some sort of grouping? 0-3 loses ? point 3-6 7-10 11-15 15-25 25 or more? That way there's more of a punishment for losing more games. I'd say in most cases if you lose that many games you're trying to lose and you deserve to be penalized. Moreso later into the game than now, since most of us were stuck with the team we got from the beginning. |
|
bigmark
General Manager
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by bigmark on Nov 2, 2013 19:10:51 GMT -5
As I have pm'd to Chris..... My idea would be to get rid of it completely after this season and find another way to stop tanking.....that system is way too flawed it hurts the teams that are actually trying to rebuild for the future and makes the rich richer when it comes to reward points
I'll try thinking of something else that may work...or maybe just cap it both ways positive and negative. and do the pool that st. louis suggested. I honestly prefered the lottery idea for the bottom teams to defer tanking but I understand it didnt win the vote. got to be some sort of common ground or idea we can come up with.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Nov 2, 2013 19:46:32 GMT -5
As I have pm'd to Chris..... My idea would be to get rid of it completely after this season and find another way to stop tanking.....that system is way too flawed it hurts the teams that are actually trying to rebuild for the future and makes the rich richer when it comes to reward points I'll try thinking of something else that may work...or maybe just cap it both ways positive and negative. and do the pool that st. louis suggested. I honestly prefered the lottery idea for the bottom teams to defer tanking but I understand it didnt win the vote. got to be some sort of common ground or idea we can come up with. Yes, I understand the concern. The intention really wasn't to stop tanking, but rather a quirk. It's not the rich getting richer at all. Look at how the Dodgers had to give up a bunch of points to the Phillies, even though they only finished 2 wins apart. In any case, I am OK with a cap both ways, even to do it retroactively. Grouping the points is an idea. Winter Meetings will be coming up in a couple days, where I basically will have a week off of simming and will just be doing prep work for the draft. In that time, you guys can do whatever you want. Put up a poll about any proposed rule change. I'll consider changing things if there is a majority vote. Put up a poll to propose the top 3 or 4 (bottom 25%) picks be randomized (lottery). |
|
bigmark
General Manager
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by bigmark on Nov 2, 2013 20:03:20 GMT -5
after discussing this with chris and using st. louis idea...the idea would be something like
0-1 = 0
2-3 = +/- 1
4-6 = +/- 2
7-9 = +/- 3
10-12 = +/- 4
13-14 = +/- 5
15-16 = +/- 6
17-18 = +/- 7
19-20 = +/- 8
+++21 = +/- 10
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Nov 2, 2013 20:14:03 GMT -5
I could get on board with that.
How about doing that, AND doing a lottery with the first three picks?
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerfantu on Nov 2, 2013 20:14:25 GMT -5
And we should retro the points, obviously.  |
|
bigmark
General Manager
Chicago White Sox
Posts: 6,176
|
Post by bigmark on Nov 2, 2013 20:15:22 GMT -5
I'd be down for the lottery as well but a hot topic like that would definitely need a league poll
|
|
Matt
Other
Posts: 5,757
|
Post by Matt on Nov 2, 2013 20:18:22 GMT -5
I'd love a lottery. Hate when teams are horribly bad on purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Nov 2, 2013 20:29:41 GMT -5
I'd love a lottery. Hate when teams are horribly bad on purpose. Make a poll! |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Nov 2, 2013 21:32:02 GMT -5
after discussing this with chris and using st. louis idea...the idea would be something like 0-1 = 0 2-3 = +/- 1 4-6 = +/- 2 7-9 = +/- 3 10-12 = +/- 4 13-14 = +/- 5 15-16 = +/- 6 17-18 = +/- 7 19-20 = +/- 8 +++21 = +/- 10 Looks good to me; except I will do: 0- 3 = 0 4- 5 = 1 6- 7 = 2 8- 9 = 3 10-11 = 4 12-13 = 5 14-15 = 6 16-17 = 7 18-19 = 8 20-up = 10 When doing it in a formulaic manner, I come up with: ROUNDDOWN(IF(x>19,10,(IF(x>3,(x-2/2),0))) This means if the difference is greater than 3, subtract 2, divide it by 2, round down, else it is 0. If it's 20 or more, it's 10. It shall be effective immediately and retroactively. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Nov 2, 2013 22:29:47 GMT -5
Good idea bigmark/Matt; thanks for the idea, it's better than what I originally had.
Go ahead and claim 2 points and add it to your bank.
|
|
|
|
Post by CSCommish on Nov 2, 2013 22:37:55 GMT -5
I'd be down for the lottery as well but a hot topic like that would definitely need a league poll Personally I like the idea; so if no one posts a poll, I will do it when Winter Meetings begins tomorrow night. |
|
