Mutiny Simulation Baseball

League Office => Announcements => Topic started by: Scurvy Dogs on January 07, 2019, 10:05:48 PM

Title: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on January 07, 2019, 10:05:48 PM
Nothing has been decided, so don't take this as an "official" announcement at this time.

However, given the overall health of the league (all members returned for the 2019 season) and the fact that we already have 3 qualified owners on a waiting list, we are considering the possibility of expansion next year. This would give us 24 teams, with 6 teams in each division. I would additionally propose adding an additional wild card spot (maybe we follow MLB and have a 1-game "play-in game"?) but that's getting too far ahead of ourselves.

The biggest thing we wanted to convey is that we are trying to be open and honest about this possibility. There are a lot of details to be worked out before then, if it even happens which is a real possibility, but if it happens ideally it would be decided on prior to the summer minor league draft. If so, it may be possible to allow the expansion teams to start drafting minor league players then so as to not have such an impact on our existing minor league rosters. Again, nothing has been decided, but that option is on the table.

The other concern would be playing-time limits. However, even with 24 teams in the league that's still 6 teams shorter than our MLB equivalents. So I propose that there are plenty of AB and innings to go around. What you will see is there will be less "good" AB and innings available however. There's always players to get, it;s just that some of them aren't any good (or worse). The effect will be that teams will look less like an all-star team with more roster space being devoted to less than ideal players than before. Or teams will have to make trade-offs - for example an EX rated SS and CF, who both swing the bat with the wrong end and will stink up the bottom of the order, will get significant playing time vs only being used for a defensive replacement.

Anyway, feel free to respond either on the forum or privately and let us know your thoughts/concerns/excitement


Rod
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: Rum Runners on January 08, 2019, 07:04:31 AM
Seeing this, I would say that I'm not surprised, although I think it should be handled the same way as the previous expansion. Trades and draft positions for the Minor League draft shall not be impacted for 2019.

An increase of 4 teams should mean a smaller percentage in the overall impact to existing teams. If the player protection method (and I think it worked well last time) remains the same, there are similar expectations.

I think the usage is a different issue. While we want to compare to MLB, we are still different. We have a hard salary cap, we have limited plate appearances and batters faced, and a limited supply of the players on our 40-man roster to pull from. There isn't a group of minor league players we can bring up to fill our bench, 5th rotation spot or a spot at the very bottom of the bullpen to eat innings.

I do agree that planting the see now, in advance is a good idea.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: Kyle on January 08, 2019, 11:53:52 AM
I love it, and trust the CO to come up with what's best.  I know Matthew to be a great resource for this as well.  I appreciate the heads-up, and will appreciate it even greater if you guys know how expansion will impact the draft and trades BEFORE we start free agency.   They are minor issues in terms of strategy and decisions on the length of contract for some players out there, but it would be nice to know some of the details (like if there will indeed be playing time limit changes) ahead of FA.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: thebuland on January 08, 2019, 09:16:12 PM
I'm all for it and appreciate the heads up.  I do think it would be worthwhile to make that decision ASAP for all the reasons others have mentioned. 

Keep up the great work CO team.  You hard work is much appreciated and the league is thriving as a result.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: profjason on January 08, 2019, 09:46:44 PM
I'll be honest, I don't know how much I would favor expansion. I'm also a bit of a stick in the mud at times, so I will admit to that too. First, it is a good thing for the league overall that there are people that want to join the league, so we have the opportunity to actually think about expansion.

At the same time though, getting up to 24 teams I think is going to push a lot of things in the league to some breaking point. First, if you think prices of backup catchers is bad now, look forward to 24 teams bidding on backup catchers. As an economist, I believe in p*q = v*m, where p is price and q is quantity. v stands for velocity and m is for the money supply. If we add teams the only thing that initially changes in that equation is m (mo' money, mo' problems). There is no change in q (the supply of players), so the only thing that can change is v (velocity of money, but that isn't likely to change) or p. And it will be p, since there will be more dollars chasing the same players, so prices are going up. Maybe that's not a bad thing, but I certainly think it will disrupt the equilibrium of the league.

As for playing time, again think of the backup catchers. :) Looking at last year's stats, I think it might be a challenge for most teams to have functioning rosters of players, at least with the playing time rules that are currently in place. Let's say that a team wants just 20 batters on their 40 man roster, that is a total of 480 batters. Last year, there were 629 players that would be considered batters in MLB. However, 181 had less than 100 plate appearances, so that leaves only 448 with 100 or more plate appearances. Now some of the 181 players could be functional, since they could have 80 plate appearances and could fill in just a bit. While I haven't run the numbers on pitchers, I have a feeling the same pattern would exist there. Again, this might not be a total problem, but it is a constraint that we face as a league.

However, I think these two things (higher prices and the size of the talent pool), will form a huge challenge for the league. Since our pool of players is locked at the end of free agency, there is a real possibility of teams facing a crunch of playing time. And unlike a real major league team that could call up scrubs from the minors (or we could just call that team the Baltimore Orioles), we don't have that luxury. Throw on top of that that every team will go into free agency after expansion down a few extra players from expansion.

I'm sorry, but I'm just skeptical about this. I think keeping things with 20 teams and letting the league find its equilibrium there (since we've only had one season since the last round of expansion and the beginning of arbitration and reduced playing time limits). To some degree, I don't know exactly how this makes the league more enjoyable, since it will lead to more frustration (think minor league draft delays, last minute bids on players, higher salaries for poor players) and more work for everyone (constant playing time adjustments) and more uncertainty. That's just my two cents on the issue.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: bob_h on January 09, 2019, 10:59:11 AM
I'm not necessarily against expansion, but I have many of the same concerns Jason raised. As a personal example, in my first season in this 20-GM league, almost 100% of the thought and effort I put into constructing a roster and manager profile for the Robots was expended in an effort to make sure guys did not exceed their usage limits. Players were evaluated and acquired based on how many IPs or ABs they had, not if they were likely to help my team win more games.  Deals were made to acquire ABs and IPs, not Ws or RBIs. Even now, I see that the tops of all my wish lists for the upcoming auction are dominated by the high-usage limit guys, not necessarily the best players available. I've already started scheming to figure out what it would take to resign Caleb Joseph and his 265 ABs.  What should my bidding strategy be? I mean, Tucker Barnhart is probably out of my reach, so go all-in on Joseph or Chris Ianetta early? What do you guys think?

bob h - Robots

Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: profjason on January 09, 2019, 12:05:03 PM
Thinking about it more, I also share Bob's concern here. I think one of the big things that a lot of us enjoy about fantasy baseball is building your team with the types of players you want. Some of that building is trying to find gems in the minor leagues and also finding a player that you think will have a solid upcoming season. The last wave of expansion was a bit of a hit to that long range planning, especially given the immediacy of expansion. While this time we would have more warning on the expansion, it still is a disrupter of the long-range plans of teams. Why build a deep minor league system when you might a layer of that deep system wiped away, either through the minor league expansion draft or by the fact that you can't protect all of your promoted players. Expansion might even have a bigger effect on the previous expansion teams, since a lot of them went heavily into building strong minor league systems, so they could compete in a year or two.

I'm actually unsure what the case for expansion is. We aren't profiting off of expansion like real sports do with expansion fees. I guess the sense of pride of beating 23 other teams, instead of 19 teams might be part of it, but we have some really great teams. I really don't think any benefits from expansion outweigh the costs of expansion for the league both in the short and long run.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: Kyle on January 09, 2019, 01:47:27 PM
I have to admit, I'm really being swayed quite a bit by Jason's arguments.  It would never happen in the realm of politics, but in baseball simulation, it happens! :) 

I think the best question (in addition to all the spot-on concerns about player eligibility) is WHY?  Why expand?  What benefits do we see, other than the claim that we're an awesome league (which we can and should already claim loud and strong)?

I'm also concerned about the quickness of doing another expansion so close to the last one.  I lost Jeter Downs in the last expansion draft (he was #16 on my rankings list), and I'm a little ticked off now that he's been traded to the Dodgers and getting lots of hyped-up media play.  But I digress...

While my initial statements remains unedited, I'd like to add the request to move very slowly with the idea.  Even if we add a mid-season Free Agent Auction AND slide up the playing time limits back to 120/150, this might be a difficult sell.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: dgonser on January 09, 2019, 08:44:42 PM
I lost Jeter Downs in the last expansion draft (he was #16 on my rankings list), and I'm a little ticked off now that he's been traded to the Dodgers and getting lots of hyped-up media play.  But I digress...

This angst is enough for me to want another expansion :) /s

But seriously,  these are the types of conversations I hoped to see. 

One of the arguments for expansion was to get away from the look and feel of all-star teams.   It has been possible for an owner to set a MP with an all-star team, check in 6 months later and be in the play-offs.  So the question is can we improve the strategy, the gamesmanship, and overall activity of the league by increasing the competition for players.  More importantly, teams that were unable to get a couple star players felt like they had to give up and toss in the towel.

The answer to that question could very likely be: A) No. B) The last expansion achieved that or C) we need another handful of teams to get there. 
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: profjason on January 09, 2019, 09:34:42 PM
One of the arguments for expansion was to get away from the look and feel of all-star teams.   It has been possible for an owner to set a MP with an all-star team, check in 6 months later and be in the play-offs.  So the question is can we improve the strategy, the gamesmanship, and overall activity of the league by increasing the competition for players.  More importantly, teams that were unable to get a couple star players felt like they had to give up and toss in the towel.

To be honest, I thought that this might be the logic behind why some people might be in favor of expansion, but I basically disagree with the argument. I think with 20 teams, it will be hard for a team to just set a profile and then let it autopilot for the entire season. But another question there is why is that a problem. If a team through good planning, skilled drafting, digging hidden gems in free agency, careful trading, puts themselves into a position that they can have a regular lineup, rotation and bullpen that is ready to go, then great for them. We should be applauding teams that have that skill, and that's one of the rewards for them. I'd actually though say that some of the better teams do it through getting platoon matchups or knowing that a player might not give them 100% of a season, so they'll need to find a reserve to make it through the season with.

However, how many teams can have that perfect swirl of events happen to place them in that position? And how long can they maintain that? It doesn't happen often and it is harder to maintain than we think. For example, I'm in great shape with my everyday lineup, but I only have about $10 million right now to stabilize the back of my rotation and to build a bullpen. Next season, I'll have a lot players still coming back, but a bigger bill is due on Mookie Betts and I'll see the first year of arbitration with Lindor. So, I think even though it might seem like setting an MP for the season and letting it go is somehow devoid of strategy is just not true. Strategy comes in many different forms, but the biggest in a league like this is the players you have, and how you acquire them, and which ones you acquire.

I think last year with expansion, the dialing back on the playing time, a new system of arbitration and from the previous season with the changes to the minor league draft eligibility, a lot has been done to try to limit the autopiloting of a team. I also think those moves have increased the strategy of the league and most likely the activity level of the league. I just think it is wiser to let the league find a new equilibrium before throwing another wrench into things.

As for overall activity, in any league, you'll have various degrees there. I like the team building aspect, so I'm in for the minor league draft and really studying free agency. Other teams love the wheeling and dealing of trading. But I think trying to make changes in the rule structure just to get more activity will tend to backfire. I keep coming back to the thought that I think we are trying to make this more complex, just so that it is more complex, and that's not a good reason. If we wanted to do that, we could just get a game of The Cones of Dunshire going and be done with it.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: profjason on January 09, 2019, 09:36:35 PM
I have to admit, I'm really being swayed quite a bit by Jason's arguments.  It would never happen in the realm of politics, but in baseball simulation, it happens! :)

I'm still holding out hope in that other realm. :)
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: Rum Runners on January 10, 2019, 06:35:22 AM
I think last year with expansion, the dialing back on the playing time, a new system of arbitration and from the previous season with the changes to the minor league draft eligibility, a lot has been done to try to limit the autopiloting of a team. I also think those moves have increased the strategy of the league and most likely the activity level of the league. I just think it is wiser to let the league find a new equilibrium before throwing another wrench into things.

This is a great snippet of the response from Jason. 16 teams was probably too few, we've only been at 20 for one full season. If there is such a need to have additional ownership and this would require 16 more owners, create another league. Let's not mess this one up.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: Kyle on January 10, 2019, 08:40:19 PM
I'm still holding out hope in that other realm. :)
Weird - me too!!!
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: scubadan on January 11, 2019, 06:58:30 AM
To be honest, I thought that this might be the logic behind why some people might be in favor of expansion, but I basically disagree with the argument. I think with 20 teams, it will be hard for a team to just set a profile and then let it autopilot for the entire season. But another question there is why is that a problem. If a team through good planning, skilled drafting, digging hidden gems in free agency, careful trading, puts themselves into a position that they can have a regular lineup, rotation and bullpen that is ready to go, then great for them. We should be applauding teams that have that skill, and that's one of the rewards for them. I'd actually though say that some of the better teams do it through getting platoon matchups or knowing that a player might not give them 100% of a season, so they'll need to find a reserve to make it through the season with.

I think this is the key to the expansion question. We have a great group of owners. But the more demanding the league becomes, the more commitment it will require of our owners. Many leagues struggle with owner involvement and I'd like to believe our group is the exception to the rule. But is part of our success based on the ability to set an MP and forget about it? It's a difficult act to find the right balance between reality and ease of management. This league is my #1 league and I'd sacrifice other leagues to make this one work. But it will take 20 (or 24) dedicated owners to demand more from each of us.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: profjason on January 11, 2019, 10:15:11 AM
I think this is the key to the expansion question. We have a great group of owners. But the more demanding the league becomes, the more commitment it will require of our owners. Many leagues struggle with owner involvement and I'd like to believe our group is the exception to the rule. But is part of our success based on the ability to set an MP and forget about it? It's a difficult act to find the right balance between reality and ease of management. This league is my #1 league and I'd sacrifice other leagues to make this one work. But it will take 20 (or 24) dedicated owners to demand more from each of us.

This is a good point by Dan. I think throwing more complexity might make some owners struggle more with their commitment to the league. While it is great we have some people interested in joining the league, I think it is better to keep them waiting to replace any GMs that might leave the league for whatever reason. It's extremely rare for a league to keep the same roster of GMs for a long period of time, so there will be openings in the league for these new GMs at some point.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: thebuland on January 11, 2019, 04:20:47 PM
I'm not really up for heavy debates these days.  And really there are completely valid points on both sides but since there is a good debate going  I'll throw some of my reasoning for being pro expansion in to the mix.  Just don't expect me to respond much beyond this.

I think the same arguments for or against were made when we moved from 16 to 20 and I think we all now feel pretty positive on how that went.  So I don't quite follow the logic that 16 to 20 is good but 20 to 24 is so bad.  Where did we all the sudden draw that line?  That's rhetorical.

I wanted to also add that griping (zero offense intended) about the costs of free agents is as American as apple pie. I've never been in a league where that didn't happen.  I can roll with a few more frustrations and I will add, in our case, it's probably led to more active trading which I think is very interesting and exciting and adds a lot to our league.

I read Dan's post and had a completely different reaction to his thoughts.  I think the interplay between the different owners is one of if not best things about our league and keeps me coming back.  I look at 3 new owners as a very positive thing that creates a richer and more dynamic experience at the ownership level.  Yes, the 3 waiting in the wings, could replace someone who decides to leave, but I would rather see them join us and add even more to what we already have.  Adding new differences, new ways of looking at things and new and greater competition excites me and that is probably the biggest reason I support the idea of expansion.

It is true that these changes make our teams weaker, but it also begins to place different values on a wider set of players.  Freddy Galvis pops into my head.  Generally he is a very good defender and his bat is ok with pretty good pop for a middle infielder.  In previous years, he would be a backup and maybe not even play but now he might be considered a viable starter on a potentially good team.  Don't quote me on that this year.  In years past, when he was on my team before expansion, he was always a player I thought could and should have more importance but frankly he just didnt.  That player in todays game would have much more value.  I see that as nothing but good.

I recently made a trade of Dansby Swanson for Chance Sisco.  Dansby's bat wasn't great but he played fantastic defense and that has greater value now.  On my end, I was willing to take on Sisco and his pitiful 160 offensive at bats because that has value in our present league because of the scarcity of good players at this position.  I decided I would rather fill those at bats with a player with more upside than duke it out for backups who will always be back ups.  That choice is interesting.  That choice brings intrigue.  That is a different way to manage the back end of the catching position.  Those are trades that mean something with 20 teams but it may have not been made with only 16.  If it was, it probably would have been done more on the prospect level than anytihng else.  Again, thats an interesting thing that adds to the complexity of the league in a positive way.

Every year I have had a hole in my lineup.  I believe Kyle even wrote about that phenomenon this last year.  More teams will mean more holes.  How I choose to fill them, where I choose that hole to be, etc., will only add to the intrigue and give us a chance to show off our skills and knowledge.  Most anyone can pick All-Stars.  We are way more than that.  We all have greater skills than that.  Looking at a deeper list of players in a deeper way adds a complexity sets us apart.  We probably all have different reasons for what draws us here.  But this is a big one for me and I'd guess it places high on the list for many of you also.

I do think we will get to a point where the negatives of adding outweigh the positives. Some of you think we are already there.  I don't see us there yet.  I think there is more to this thing than we've tapped.  Plus we can always use more potential writers  on the beat (I'm thinking of you three guys waiting in the wings).  ;)

Anyways, that's my two cents but I would like to leave on this note. I am more than fine going with the consensus of the group on this topic.  I think expansion would be a positive, but what we have going right now ain't to shabby.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: scubadan on January 12, 2019, 05:11:55 AM
My comment has been referenced a couple of times. Just for clarity sake, I want to point out that I wasn't advocating for or against expansion. I tend to spend too much time in these leagues already and will continue to do what it takes to manage my teams because I'm competitive by nature and I enjoy doing this. I was trying to point out that you need a complete group of similarly minded people for it to work. So far we have found 20 such people and the next 4 may be just as good. I was only trying to emphasize the obvious point that this is the key to successful expansion.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: tigersfancj on January 17, 2019, 07:09:01 PM
I haven't been as active in this league in the last few months and I am not going to read through this thread at this time. I will say that I still find the free agency to be a pain and unfair (I understand that everyone disagreed with me last year so this is probably a unique comment) but more teams would only make it worse.  That is on top of trying to build "my team" and having players taken from it every other year. If there are enough people considering quitting to accommodate the teams you have in waiting I could be one of them. I already paid for this year so I plan on doing this season but I will think about it in the near future.

This is not an angry email. This is a good group of guys that are very excited and knowledgeable about baseball. Way more than me.
Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: dgonser on January 22, 2019, 07:57:52 PM
I hate speaking for the Rod and David, but all of us are greatly appreciative for the thoughts put into this inquiry.  While we tried to refrain from providing our own thoughts and opinions, many of our same arguments for and against expansion have been expressed in this thread. 

As we have stated, we'll constantly be looking for ways to improve Mutiny.  We'll also be looking to the greater group for guidance on what "improvement" looks like. 

At this time, we will table the discussion of expansion.  If the topic arises in the future, we will be sure to provide ample opportunity for discussion and notice for planning.  At this time we have a GREAT group of dedicated owners that are constantly working towards improving the strategic and competitive levels of MSB.

Personally, I had at least a dozen different long term conversations about trades this OFF-SEASON that were exhilarating, fun, and challenging.  There were evenings this winter where I purposely planned to enjoy a beverage while discussing baseball with an owner or two. Others might have found me difficult, uninformed, and stubborn, but at the end of the day my knowledge of baseball, players, and owners increased --- I'll call it a win.

Here's to 2019!

Title: Re: Expansion - Round 2
Post by: Scurvy Dogs on January 22, 2019, 08:02:57 PM
Well said Darrell :)