They could snake the first 2 rounds. Gets rid of some benefit.

The second round is already pretty thin on talent. The 2nd round often doesn't begin until pick #51 or so due to compensation picks, so I don't think this would help much at all.

Impact is important.

Worst case scenario. Foxx, which is acknowledged as if not THE, then one of the most 'tarded up leagues in HBD.

Santa Fe is acknowledged as the cause. Bend em over and pilliage.

21 players on the ML roster. Eight top 10 overall picks. Sixteen top 20. Plus three +$7M internationals.

4 World Series in 14 seasons. That's it. In an absolute worst case scenario.

The problem with tanking is people completely and utterly overestimate what impact high draft picks have in building a lock down winner. Even if projections are extremely accurate, even if you get four #1s in 4 seasons, if if if...you're guaranteed NOTHING.

Death-

If what you're saying is that the tanking problem isn't as bad as some make it out, largely because the benefits aren't as great as people think, then I agree. As I said up-thread, "I'm not sure I love the idea of tinkering with the draft, but if it is going to be done, then I think some version of what the NBA does would work best."

And I think that because the in-draft dynamics of HBD and NBA drafts are fairly similar.

The point of changing the rules is to get them to stop tanking, even if they overestimate how useful the strategy is. A lottery realigns the incentives for draft positioning, which is very useful, I think.

Acknowledged good league, Moonlight Graham.

Last season's WS winner - twelve first round picks, of which 5 were supplimental.

Only 3 top ten picks. Highest pick was a 3rd overall.

Education. The tanking problem probably IS bad, but if WIFS puts out stats on the 'typical' winning team, probably people wouldn't waste money trying to be horrid for long periods of time. risk/reward ratio doesn't make sense. At all.

Except that in MG tanking isn't tolerated ... so you CAN'T tank your way to the top ... so showing that the WS winner did so without a stacked team proves nothing because the league won't let such a thing happen

but in a world where tanking and n00b pillaging happens, you will need a stacked team ... and the only way to get there in such an environment to to tank into multiple top picks

just sayin

said another way, it is a "chain is only as strong as its weakest link" thing

if nobody tanks, nobody needs to tank (MG) ... if one franchise tanks, there is a "keep up with the neighbors" mentality that kicks in as the (percieved) only way to close the imbalance

Yea, I get it, but still not convinced.

If I get time (not guaranteed...is it ever?) I'll throw something together that I've noticed anecdotally.

Quote: Originally posted by dmurphy104 on 4/15/2010
They could snake the first 2 rounds. Gets rid of some benefit.

As long as the first 16 picks are protected for Type A compensation, this actually provides even more incentive to tank, no? In fact, most of the ideas discussed here so far add some unintended consequences into the Type A market.

The top of the 2nd round should get you a major leaguer. The bottom of the 2nd, is a crapshoot. I dont see how it would provide more incentive.

Im really against doing anything other than not making the top picks such sure things. Changing the whole dynamics over this perceived problem is a little extreme.

Unintended, maybe. Bad? Maybe not.

You're an owner who puts their best team on the field, and comes *this* close to the playoffs. Your reward is 18th-ish pick overall, and disincentive to sign type A FAs to improve.

In a lottery, maybe not.

I don't see how you can say it's a perceived problem. If an owner has the 10th worst record and there are ten games in the season, is it okay for him to pack it in and shoot for a top 5 pick? He has absolutely no reason to try to win, other than personal pride.

Quote: Originally Posted By kahrtmen on 4/15/2010I don't see how you can say it's a perceived problem. If an owner has the 10th worst record and there are ten games in the season, is it okay for him to pack it in and shoot for a top 5 pick? He has absolutely no reason to try to win, other than personal pride.

Little difference between those 2 spots. How often do you think the #10 slot didnt get one of his top 5 players. Sure, at #5 hed probably get a top 3. I dont know how often the opportunity presents itself to slide 5 places in the last 10 games. Not often enough to change the whole draft.

Quote: Originally posted by dmurphy104 on 4/15/2010
The top of the 2nd round should get you a major leaguer. The bottom of the 2nd, is a crapshoot. I dont see how it would provide more incentive.

If you're tanking for -- and get -- the top pick in the first round, then you'd get the last pick in the second round. That pick is not terribly valuable, so giving it up as compensation for signing a Type A free agent isn't as big a deal as giving up a pick at the top of the second round.

Thus, tankers are still rewarded with the top overall pick and gain additional incentive to sign Type A free agents the following year. I guess that puts them a step closer to winning now, but it still distorts the market.