Broken Bat - Suggestions: Visible waiver number

Forum >> Suggestions >> Visible waiver number

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#17006	04/02/2015 12:28:51 pm
FurySK Joined: 02/07/2015 Posts: 299 Inactive	I think my stance is that neither the tier nor the visible waiver number system solve the core issues that most people have with the waiver system. The biggest problem is that the waiver system appears to be unequal amongst members, where some teams in some divisions get better talent than others for either a bad set of math behind it (sorry Steve, i can't see your programming nor do i wish to, but it is a possibility) or just bad luck. I also don't know that there really is an all encompassing solution. A tier system draws definitive lines between divisions, making it harder for teams in the worst shape to get back into the game. This to me is the worst thing to do for that reason, i feel that additional game population would be better. Take for example some of the teams that have gotten wrecked by bad financials in either an AI driven or Human driven catastrophe. They have probably 7-8 guys in the minors, who are of the ages of 24-35, who would otherwise have been too old for the minors and cut or brought up. They have a majors team of over 35's. I don't want to limit their ability to fund their team with waivers and free agents to completely restructure their team. You threaten to make some teams uninhabitable for new owners. I would argue in fact that the core of the problem may not necessarily be the waiver system, but the fact that certain talents get cut in the offseason by teams with negative finances that are mostly AI at that point. I think the goal for Steve would be to a) make sure that the rates of success are fair and then b) work on improving the AI run teams to allow them to hold on to younger better talent and cut 35+ level talent. This would hurt the offseason waivers in terms of actively shoping for good 13's and any 14's and 15's under 25, but it would better stabilize what teams can shop for, and reduce the feelings that people inevitably will get when good talent lands on the same team consistantly. At that point, then maybe we can revisit a waiver system. Updated Thursday, April 2 2015 @ 12:29:12 pm PDT

#17007	04/02/2015 12:43:17 pm
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	And I would point out that two 15 potential young pitchers would not have gone to the same team under a two tier waiver system. Some owners would have determined that one of those guys was exactly what their teams needed and used their priority claims on them. Since you would only have one priority claim per season, no one would get them both. Keep in mind if you're unsuccessful with your priority claim you get it returned to use later but you can only make one priority claim at a time.

#17008	04/02/2015 12:55:50 pm
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5199 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	Agreed Bilbo. Its a good system when you are at the top of the list. Its a good system when you are at the bottom of the list (I talked about amassing low value assets at the bottom of the list in my post). My question is - how good is it when you are in the middle of the list? My experience with SK was that the middle of the list was really boring. And that you spent most of your time in the middle of the list. But again, I didn't play SimYard. Maybe the dynamic was different. Also, given the feedback in other threads, I think a system that involves artificially spacing the acquisition of quality assets is going to be a very hard sell. @ FurySK. Nice well-thought out post. (Well, I'm not really onboard with the random number conspiracy theory ). I believe the AI of bot teams was modified a season or two ago to do more of what you said - cut older players, keep younger ones. Intention was to keep teams from becoming completely inviable for new owners. It is a bit of a balancing act though. You don't want bot teams so well managed that they rival the humans. I think your point about player supply is really insightful. The supply of good players is in a bit of an odd position. They aren't exactly rare - usually see a handful each week, bigger cluster at the beginning of the season. Enough of them pop up to make people think they should win the odd one. And yet there aren't enough of them for everybody to get what they want. This is part of why I think working the financial side out will help. If player salaries were a more significant factor, it would increase player liquidity. There would be more movement, and more opportunity. Updated Thursday, April 2 2015 @ 1:03:04 pm PDT

#17009	04/02/2015 1:11:54 pm
FurySK Joined: 02/07/2015 Posts: 299 Inactive	I'm not on board with the conspiracy theory either necessarily, but i've dismissed bad formulas in the past that weren't working as intended, so i didn't want to rule it out either.

#17011	04/02/2015 3:46:55 pm
Bilbo Shaggins Joined: 01/01/2015 Posts: 59 Inactive	My question is - how good is it when you are in the middle of the list? My experience with SK was that the middle of the list was really boring. And that you spent most of your time in the middle of the list. But again, I didn't play SimYard. Maybe the dynamic was different. It works fine, even if your in the middle it won't take long to get to the front. There are currently 756 teams, not sure how many active owners there are or bot owners, but it seems between 100 -200 are actively involved in waiver claims. So if you are in the middle you may be front runner for a 13 pot player the top half of owners may pass on to get a 14 pot player.

#17014	04/02/2015 4:28:13 pm
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5199 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	I still have my notes from this past off-season. I identified: 9 marquee position players. 1 marquee pitcher (think this was a poor crop) 3 marquee position prospects 4 marquee pitching prospects --- 17 players That's from 3 weeks of waiver lock-down. My estimate is about 6 marquee players per week. Ie., 60 per season. For context, there was a 23 yr old pitcher with over 150 claims. I look at that and think I'd be getting a good player once every 2+ seasons. The rest of the time I'm sitting on my hands (or making hopeless waiver claims with my midling rank). That's probably worst case scenario. Not all those 150 managers would "save" their pick. And my definition of a marquee player is different from others. It may cycle faster as you say. But I'm ... skeptical.

#17017	04/02/2015 7:21:50 pm
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	I'm in favor of the tiered waiver system, but not the top-of-the-list one. Most owners would sit around doing nothing when they're not in the top 50. Knowing you'll only get one every several years isn't fun. Tiered let's you consistently judge whether or not you want to use your priority claim. This is all well and good, but creating a fair, competitive balance of talent could easily be remedied with an improved draft system. Waivers is the back end problem. Balance the front end better and waivers becomes a much smaller issue.

#17019	04/02/2015 9:26:40 pm
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	SK, had the tiered waiver system I saw purposed wrong. That involved a priority waiver claim, and then a regular waiver claim. I was actually on board with that system, this one not at all. Several people are being far too optimistic as to how this queue would work with the numbers of good players and users involved.

#17054	04/03/2015 5:14:57 pm
Bucfan Joined: 09/23/2014 Posts: 50 Inactive	Anyone have a ballpark idea on about how many players clear waivers each day for, say, the first four days of a new season? 50 a day? 100? More? Less? Steve? Anyone else?

#17055	04/03/2015 7:36:04 pm
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	Plenty of really bad ones. :p