Recently, in one of my worlds, I was forced (by the market) to lose the best SP (and one of the most valuable players) in the world to free agency.  However, the team that signed him signed another Type A FA - an OF that was 9 points less overall and far less valuable in the grand scheme.  However, the other team was awarded the first round pick - and I, who let watched three Type A's sign elsewhere - have zero first round picks to show for it.

Long story short, WIS says that overall is too subjective (despite the fact that it does positively correlate with objective player value, AND that my SP (best in the world) was nearly 10 OVR better than the other signed player) and that the worst team gets the better draft pick.

Well, I got cheated by a broken system.  Three Type A's and because my team did well last year, three second round picks.  My proposal to fix it:

Have GM's from the world rank Type A free agents prior to FA period.  This way, we have a list of how the owners prioritize free agents, and can control for some of the subjectivity between owners.  A composite list of rankings can be made for Type A free agents, and then teams like mine can be rewarded for having lost the top SP in the world.

The players in reference:  #p5647886Heinie Swann (P)#p is the SP I lost; I received the 83rd overall pick in the draft.  Burlington, his new team, also signed  #p4567324Vic Flores (3B)#p, and received the 20th overall pick.

Under certain circumstances, the system is broken, and owners ranking 20-30 type A FA is a simple fix so that nobody gets screwed like I did.

You'll never get owners to do that. 

That's the way the system works for every owner in every world.  We all play on the same field.

I'm guessing that of the 32 franchises in your world, 31 of them don't care that you're not getting a first round Type A comp pick.

You're right. But anybody negatively impacted by this will and should. The point is that the "most fair" solution can be incredibly unfair. MikeT, even if you couldn't get owners to do it, some would. And almost certainly an 87 ovr SP would never be ranked below a 78 3B with L/R splits of 54/44. That 3B drew a pick 63 picks higher than my SP with L/R, velocity, and ground ball tendency all in the 80s and 90s. So even if many owners don't rank, the composite rankings should still be able to differentiate between those two players.

As someone who has seen the drawbacks of this very flawed rule, I think that at least offering a solution is fair. Just because every owner currently works with a flawed system doesn't mean it's optimal or fair for any owner, tecwrg.

The problem is, if owner participation is limited(think HOF voting), the numbers will be skewed.    Say three people rank them.   I'm sure all three owners have Type A and put their guys first.   Once could be that 87 SP but the dude with the 78 3B is going to put him first.   He could collude with other owners to put his 78 3B first. 

I'll be honest, if the WS winner in my world had 2 Type A FA or if my divisionmate had a Type A, would you like to guess where they'd be ranked by me?    It sounds like "last". 

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that you can get all 31 other owners on board in your world to objectively rank the Type A's from best to worst.

Then what?  A ticket to WIS to manually change the draft order?

Now, multiply that by 168 worlds, or whatever the number is now.  Logistically speaking, that's just not going to fly.

You would need to have a solution that could programmatically be implemented.  Which means it needs to be very well defined.  Which is what they have in place right now, going by overall rating. 

If you try to introduce something that has a subjective element to it, i.e. "voting" on how to reorder the FA's, then you're asking for problems.  As with post-season awards, or with HOF voting, you're probably going to have only a handful of owners who will care enough to do so.  Which in turn would mean that only a handful of owners (most likely, the ones with the most vested interests), will be determining the FA Type A allocations season after season.  That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

tecwrg - you're wrong both on what the situation currently is and on my suggestion. Let me try to clarify:

1. I could never get anybody to objectively rank players.  Rankings are inherently subjective.
2. It wouldn't be convincing all other owners.  It would be like a HOF vote as MikeT likened it - but actually probably more like draft rankings.
3. It WOULD be programmable.  That's why it's in the suggestions section.  This is probably the easiest part of it all - extending a draft-type ranking system for Type A's, problems MikeT raised aside.
4. The current system is not based on overall rating.  That would be much fairer.  My current issue with this is that I had the best SP in the game walk and I received the 83rd pick overall in favor of a free agent whose L/R splits are 54/44 - his old team received pick 20.  Both were signed by the same team.  TL;DR: The current system assigns Type A comp by previous record - it has literally NOTHING to do with the player value.  That's the huge flaw.  If it were overall rating, I'd have at least one pick in the first round.
5. It wouldn't be submitting a ticket.  It would be programmable, like amateur draft rankings.  This would automatically then be factored into the FA process.

As for your final point, tec, which agrees with MikeT's point, I agree: it would be possible in theory to bug the rankings.  But the best overall FA isn't going to change by that much: 1 vote carries a weight of 1/32, or 3.33333% on composite rankings.  He might slip a spot that way.  But the 87 OVR SP never loses preference for draft pick to the 78 OVR 3B who can't hit very well.  Almost all 31 other teams would really have to collude for that to happen.

So I see your point, both of you.  But the idea is that the rankings prior to owner ranking ARE based on overall.  Then each owner has the chance to rank the top FAs.  If they don't rank, then 3.33333% of the composite rankings will be comprised of the initial, completely overall based ranking.  Collusion is possible, but exceedingly unlikely, especially to a degree that would drastically influence the rankings.  You both seem to believe I mean that the rankings would only be weighted based on the five to ten owners who vote.  Not so.

Anyhow, it's just a suggestion.  But this is a HUGE flaw of the game.  I let three Type A's walk and have zero picks in the top 40 (I signed one type A).  Meanwhile, one was the best SP in the game, and the other two signed so early that for a brief period, I also had the 26th and 28th picks.  There must be a better way to do it than it currently is set up.  As I said, though, it's a suggestion.  One that is programmable, and couldn't be influenced greatly by anything other than near total collusion.

Thoughts?

I don't think it's a bad idea, and I think it creates a more fair solution than a plethora of problems.  But I didn't post here to be torn apart.  A constructive discussion would be cool.

No one's tearing your idea apart.  But there are many reasons from a programming standpoint why it might not work.

As noted:
1/ Introduces subjectivity to a process which is currently totally automatic.
2/ Introduces opportunity for owners to manipulate system which is currently not possible.
3/ Majority of owners will not participate.  Season prep is enough - as Mike says, more like "work", not like "gameplay" - that I ignore things like HOF and Rule 5 already, whenever possible.

From a programming standpoint, you don't add an extra layer to a system just to mitigate a 1% possibility - which is probably a high estimate - when it's completely unnecessary 99% of the time.  That's waste.

As the system stands, you lost out in compensation.  Not because of the value of the players, which is fully objective, taking into consideration nothing about the team they're coming from.  You lost out because of your team's own previous success.  The other owner was in a position to take extreme advantage of the compensation system just as much as you were at a disadvantage.

This is a case where user feels wronged by the system and devises a great idea to correct his problem.   Unfortunately, as usual, it's just not a great idea and it targets one specific issue while ignoring the big picture. 

1.  Owners, at least the ones who bother, will rank Type A out of self-interest.
2.  #1 creates a problem due to limited participation and self-interest of those who get involved.
3.  It's a very specific situation.   Most teams don't have multiple Type A let alone let them walk.
4.  With the current draft, it seems that the higher pick is no longer guaranteed to be better.
5.  Because of 1-4, it creates a bigger problem than it solves.

It sucks to lose a Type A and get the 45th and 96th pick.    But it works the same for everyone and other owners aren't responsible for it.

This suggestion keeps drawing responses that argue points that I'm not arguing and/or are untrue.  I'm going to try to explain this one more time.  Please read it carefully before responding.

First, I'd like to address my premise, and misconceptions thereof:

"This is a case where user feels wronged by the system and devises a great idea to correct his problem" - Mike T

• Simply untrue, and rather cynical.  However, I don't blame your cynicism; I have seen many posts like that in the suggestion forum.  So, it is true that I was wronged by the system, which I will explain momentarily.  But by being wronged by the system, I discovered a flaw of the system that has the potential to wrong any talented team, beyond the tenets of competitive balance. That is what I want to fix, and that is why I want to fix it. 

The premise itself:  The current system for assigning draft pick compensation does not consider player value at all when assigning pick.  It only considers previous team ranking.  Therefore, whereas a team should be compensated for losing one of the best players in the league (believe me, I wish that I had been able to retain him - I tried), it is currently penalized for having been good.  It is extremely unrealistic and unfair.  If a team loses a top free agent, they should be compensated as such; the fact that I made the playoffs should have no effect on that.

However, WIS contends that because we all value players differently than their built-in ratings, they cannot use it.  This is, they say, the most fair solution.  It is not fair, though, to penalize good teams for being good.  This goes beyond what could be classified as competitive balance.

• Follow up question:

1. It is impossible to deny that WIS overall rating directly and positively correlates with player value; i.e., on the whole, better overall rating equates to a better player.  There are weighted attributes that make this somewhat non-linear, but it holds for probably 90% of players.  So, if they choose to employ this rating system at all, why do they refuse to use it for such pertinent matters as assigning draft compensation?  Further, if they don't wish to use their overall rating system, then why even show it to us?  It goes to serve as a general guideline for many owners, and actually adds a certain level of objectivity to the subjectivity of player value.  Their current argument seems to suggest, "you players don't use it, so we won't either."

Important note: One point that you view as a drawback is actually a benefit.  If composite rankings were based on the rankings of all 32 owners, and each owner can only influence the rankings by 3.33333%, then owners who do not vote will actually make it even more difficult to swing the rankings.

• For example, let's say there are 25 type A free agents, and five owners collude and rank the top FA last.  His composite ranking would be calculated by 1*(27/32)+25*(5/32) = 5.  The top FA would only fall to 5.  And I contend that people wouldn't collude on these rankings, because it is in every owner's self interest not to collude at the risk of aiding their competition.
• As a result, concerns of collusion are almost certainly well overstated in their effect.  Limited participation among owners in Type A rankings would prevent large effects of collusion.

Finally, while it's true that the higher pick is not guaranteed to be better, it is still more probable.  This is the case in MLB, as well.  And to your point, damag - it is not a 1% possibility of something like this happening; it is much higher than that - both good and bad teams lose Type A's every season.  But as the system currently works, the good team would not only lose a better FA, but would receive drastically worse compensation for that player solely by virtue of having been good.

As it currently stands, this is only guaranteed to be a compensatory system for losing a great player if your team was bad.  By extension, it can actually serve as a sort of penalty for losing a great player simply because your team was good last season.  That is not an equitable system; by definition, that is not fair to all 32 owners.

The fact that all 32 owners deal with this does not make it a fair system.  The fact is, this is not a level playing field.  Thus, as with any flaw, there stands ground for improvement.  This proposal is a simple fix, and some things that have been offered as negatives (e.g. lack of voter response) would actually negate the effects of collusion, and would side with the overall rating system imposed by WIS, which does, for the most part, align with subjective player valuation.

This suggestion is not because I care only about my team.  I care about the game being realistic and fair in its results.  This would not be fair, in my purview, if it had happened to the reigning WS champ, or to the worst team in the league.  Teams should be compensated for great players, not penalized for great teams.

Even if you view this as a problem that won't affect many owners, it is still a glaring problem.  Therefore, it should at least be considered, and possibly addressed.  This is neither a ridiculous nor a radical proposal, and is certainly one whose kinks can be overcome.

Overall, it would not create more problems - beyond being another thing for some owners to ignore, as you've both suggested - but would work to close a gap that WIS has not attempted to resolve beyond, "if you were good last season, you better hope he doesn't jump ship.  Otherwise, you're SOL."  For a game that is so comprehensive, that is as half-*** as it gets.

 

 

That's way too long.   I'll address one point and drop it:

"I have seen many posts like this in the suggestion forum"

The game is almost 10 years old.   There may have been many posts complaining about compensation.  I'd be willing to wager 99% of them came from users who felt wronged in the last FA in their world.

Now, beyond that, the game is designed to keep everyone on somewhat equal ground.    58-104 teams that loses a Type A is damaged more than a 104-58 team that loses one.   So, to balance that out, the 58 win team gets the higher pick.   Fair? Meh.   Designed to keep owners interested? Oh yeah.

Anyway, if you truly had to re-rank them, do it by total salary given.   There would be no owner manipulation.   The team that lost a 5/110m guy would be compensated higher than the team that lost a 3/12m guy.

That said, MLB hasn't done it like HBD since 2012.  So one could say "Be glad you got something."  

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/20763514/how-the-new-free-agent-compensation-system-works

I'm aware of how MLB FA works, and I'm aware that it is quite different than HBD.   But it isn't like comp went away in the new MLB system, anyhow.  Fairness would be receiving something proportional to your loss.

The most important thing to me is making the game less flawed.  You seem to group me with owners that simply feel they were ripped off.  I resent that and can tell you it isn't true.  This is about all owners, and a better way to compensate for FA.  The sort of reverse standings, competitive balance esque order to compensation is apparent (and rightfully so) in the supplemental picks.  Why hit owners with a double whammy based on the same premise?  I support competitive balance measures, but this isn't a level playing field.

To your point, a salary based system would work even better.  Let the market decide who is more valuable in relative terms.  Would certainly eliminate owner manipulation.

Well, I'm not really interested in arguing with you but could you direct me to other thread where you addressed this issue?

If it doesn't exist, am I being unreasonable in grouping you with owners who felt ripped off and needed to provide a solution?

I've been the beneficiary of the current system and, like you, I've taken some lumps under it also.   Everyone is playing on the same field. 

But I'm glad you've given up the "let the owners rank them" in favor of "highest paid".