First off, can someone tell me exactly how the "top 20%" and the "top 40%" are determined for each position.  Is it based on the past season's performance?  An average of the past several season's performance?  Current player ratings?  Projected player ratings? Does age factor in?  If it is based on player ratings, which ratings are used? (since we all know the overall rating can be way out of whack compared to what that player can actually do)

The reason I ask is that I had a 32 year old perenial all-star starting pitcher approaching Free Agency in A-Rod world a couple of seasons back.  In his final season of his contract (after 3 all-star selections in his previous 4 seasons) he led the league in most categories and won the Cy Young Award.  Knowing his age and pending Free Agency, I decided to structure my pitching staff for the next season, expecting to let him go and receive Type A compensation.

This did not happen.  I was shocked to discover my reigning Cy Young winner was only a Type B.  This seems ludicrous.  A Cy Young winner should have automatic Type A status.

Who agrees and who disagrees.  Tell me your reasons.

I disagree.

First off, to answer your first off paragraph, Type A and Type B are determined by current OVR rating and current OVR ratings only, within specific position groupings. No, this is not ideal, but it is better than your suggestion.

There are too many things that can impact stats to make that a reasonable and reliable alternative for determining Type A or Type B. Home park, for example - you'd have the majority of hitters who play in Coors netting compensation picks; likewise for the majority of pitchers in Safeco.

Piling onto the flawed notion of basing it on stats, basing it on awards may be even worse, since you'd likely run into situations where the clearly most deserving player of, for example, the Cy Young award, doesn't garner votes because he is in a contract year and opposing owners either 1) don't want to see the current owner pick up a first round pick next season; and/or 2) want a chance to sign the reigning best pitcher without having to give up a draft pick for him.

but isn't basing the Type A  and Type B on a flawed rating just as bad? I've seen below average players, with 80+ OVR, who have played in beneficial parks be released for a 16th or 17th overall draft pick resulting in a franchise player being selected.  Is that not the same problem only in reverse?

 

Just to add fuel to the fire, the same year my Cy Young winner went out as a Type B, another SP with an 80+ OVR (but who also had a 34 control rating) went as a Type A.  This pitcher had played in a pitcher friendly park and never had an ERA below 4.50.  You can't tell me this isn't severely flawed.  Also to answer your claim that unfair conspiracies could be spawned by other owners,  there is already a miriad of different ways to corrupt the game as it is, if that is what you choose to do.  Fortunately, I've yet to come across another owner who is willing to ruin the game by acting on these possibilities.

Posted by holer on 7/26/2010 7:19:00 AM (view original):

but isn't basing the Type A  and Type B on a flawed rating just as bad? I've seen below average players, with 80+ OVR, who have played in beneficial parks be released for a 16th or 17th overall draft pick resulting in a franchise player being selected.  Is that not the same problem only in reverse?

 

It's not just as bad because owners cannot manipulate the OVR ratings of their players. Owners can, however, manipulate the statistics of their players to some degree, especially with pitchers.

Another point, if I take over a team that was abanonded the prior year, it may have a stud pitcher going to FA with terrible stats for pitching at zero stamina for a part of the prior season.  So that would suck balls for the new owner to not get a type A or B due to a prior owner's abandonment or poor management.  That being said, the real solution is for OVR to be more representative of a player's value.  Come on WIS, you have smart people, come up with a formula that works.

It used to be worse when the OVR was skewed upward due to stamina, so it's an improvement from what it was.  There is no perfect formula for OVR rating.  It does its job...it gives you a starting point when looking at an overall list.  In general, the players with the higher overall rating are going to be better than those with a lower overall rating.  People feel very differently about the weight that should be given to splits, pitches & velocity for pitchers, contact & eye for batters, durability, and health.  (I'm guessing most have a similar opinion on control for pitchers and power for batters)  I use a formula I've developed to determine my value of players.  You can do the same.

But back to the original point of the thread, there is no perfect way to determine type A and B free agents, but OVR rating is the best of the possible options for reasons zbrent has laid out.