Broken Bat - Discussion Forum: Waiver Claims

Forum >> Discussions >> Waiver Claims

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#15110	02/21/2015 4:38:52 pm
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5198 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	But a system where someone can't put a claim on a star player because they already picked one up earlier so that others can have their turn I don't think is very fair either. Sure it might add a level of strategy, but I think it wanders a bit far from reality. You could bid on more star players. You would have a reduced chance of winning them once you had won one. As for wandering from reality ... why would any of these superstars sign with bottom half VI teams when they have an offer from a winning top division team? Sometimes departures from reality are good for game play. Frustrated? Sure. I'm not really that frustrated either. I am very much a do-the-best-with-what-you-got kind of guy. Tho I rarely win superstars, I pick up a lot of serviceable players. I'm quite happy with my last 2 waiver pick-ups. Think they will be decent players. I wasn't opposed by a single bid on either of them (might be why I won :P). I see here an opportunity to add some skill to the game. I am extremely impressed - astonished really - by the success you've had in the game. It is not my intent to diminish that. But when I look at a Legends line-up I see 15s and 16s, won through dumb luck in waivers or pulled through dumb luck on friday. I am always left with the impression that the most important ingredient for success is luck rather than skill. Any system that limits or prioritizes anyone in anyway is no different then going with using money to buy players, or going with weighted bids so guys go to the lowest ranked team etc. We're just changing who the haves and have-nots are. Everyone gets a chip. Everyone is on equal footing. If it changes the haves and the have-nots, that suggests the haves are getting more bang from their chip. They perhaps deserve to be haves. I don't have time for a full response, but using two teams (mine and yours) with limited data points (four good players in two seasons vs two good players in four seasons) reeks of small sample size. How many seasons is required for a good sample? 10? 20? Next 120SI stud that appears that we both bid on ... do I have a better chance of winning than you? Nope. Past history doesn't matter. I mentioned Gambler's Fallacy above. I'm not good enough with statistics to know what kind of sample is needed to shrink the delta when dealing with 1/30 or 1/60 type events. I suspect it is a pretty big sample. Anyway, I can appreciate that a Use-if-you-really-want-the-player button that disappears after you win a player is probably rocket science for some, and that any system that in any way restricts an individuals ability to acquire reeks of communism. Communist rocket science. The worst kind. So I'll let it drop.

#15114	02/21/2015 6:10:40 pm
MrTwoPlums Joined: 04/14/2012 Posts: 213 Inactive	But when I look at a Legends line-up I see 15s and 16s, won through dumb luck in waivers or pulled through dumb luck on friday. I am always left with the impression that the most important ingredient for success is luck rather than skill. Speaking for myself, it was a completely different game when I first joined (2008 season). It was much easier to build a core back then and I think I just got in at the right time. As for the other teams in Legends, and tier II as well, the vest majority of us have been playing since the 2013 season or earlier, so it shouldn't really be all that surprising that we've been able to put together some solid rosters. While I'll never deny Lady Luck her due, I'd say our success is more time and skill than luck. And here's that caveat again over time things should even out.

#15115	02/21/2015 6:18:17 pm
garfscores Joined: 10/13/2014 Posts: 488 Battle Creek Sting IV.7	Seca, did you just imply that we were too dumb to figure out your silly everybody gets a medal button? Just because we don't like your idea doesn't mean we don't understand it. I understand the way odds work, too. I just don't think you do.

#15116	02/21/2015 6:25:33 pm
mduban4 Joined: 10/08/2013 Posts: 75 Inactive	So I'll let it drop I thought it was a nice idea... and you wrote enough about it to compile a short novel the way it is now is the only actual way that is fair across the board for everyone. Any system that limits or prioritizes anyone in anyway..... It is certainly fair as it is, but I wouldn't go so far as to say its the only way to make it fair. Seca's way wouldn't prioritize any team, it just involves teams prioritizing their claims. All teams would still have equal opportunity, it's just that it's not equal opportunity by sheer luck. Think of it as analogous to American society. We don't hold a lottery for best/ highest paying jobs. But if we give everyone an equal opportunity (just pretend it's completely equal opportunity for a second here) we let the most skilled earn the more preferred jobs. Although with that said, I'd have to think some more on this one to determine if I think it's the best way to go... certainly a well thought out idea

#15117	02/21/2015 6:36:19 pm
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5198 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	Seca, did you just imply that we were too dumb to figure out your silly everybody gets a medal button? Just because we don't like your idea doesn't mean we don't understand it. I was just having a little fun with Mr. Two Plums comment about it being "complicated". And a "welfare program". It wasn't my intent to insult anyone. I understand the way odds work, too. I just don't think you do. If you can give me an idea of the sample size needed to produce a small delta for a 1/60 probability event, please enlighten me. I'll do a little poking around at the office on Monday. I suspect it is a large sample size required. Am I mistaken? I'm not bothered if you don't like the idea. I didn't expect many would. I like throwing out ideas. Sometimes they are good. Sometimes they aren't. Discussion is how to sort that out. I am bothered my posts are upsetting you. Its not my intent to provoke anyone. My apologies. Edit: I misread the statement about odds. More apologies. Updated Saturday, February 21 2015 @ 6:47:39 pm PST

#15121	02/21/2015 8:36:18 pm
gadzooks Joined: 05/11/2014 Posts: 54 Inactive	I think the question is what is a better system then the current random award of a free agent among those teams who make the claim. I think it should be based on the MLB system, when multiple teams make a claim, then the player is awarded to the lowest rank team that makes a claim. However, there are too many brokenbat teams to implement it exactly that way. There already is a rankings system in brokenbat, so that could be used. But higher ranked teams would rarely have a chance to win a player. I propose instead that after a team makes a successful claim, they go to the end of the line, and everyone else bumps up a rank. To account for the different types of free agents that might be signed, there would be 4 classes of free agents: Class A (SI = 100+) Class B (80-99) Class C (60-79) Class D (<60) This would mean 4 lists of claim rankings would need to be maintained, and these lists would be public at all times. In addition, each free agent would have their class displayed and some sort of number associated with where they are in the claim queue. This would resolve ties in a non-random manner. In addition, it would mean that managers would exhibit more intelligent (and more realistic) claim behavior. Claiming a player has consequences for your spot in the queue so you would not see teams pursuing a strategy of claiming dozens and dozens of players and then deciding after they win the player if they really want to keep him.

#15140	02/22/2015 7:09:55 am
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	gadzooks, what you propose has been discussed fairly extensively elsewhere less the class structure which I don't like because it relies far too heavily on SI. It doesn't differentiate between a 17 yo 60 SI player with 16 potential and a 35 yo 60 SI player with 10 potential. The extreme example given is used to illustrate the point only.

#15143	02/22/2015 8:00:30 am
gadzooks Joined: 05/11/2014 Posts: 54 Inactive	I don't see why the class system would need to differentiate between such players. The market will. High ceiling players will get lots of claims and that player will be awarded to the claimer highest in the queue. Crap players can be picked up by just about anyone as there will likely be only one claim. As now, you can make as many claims as you like, but there are some consequences to a claim. High ceiling prospects will be spread across the Class B, C, and D levels so you can strategically exercise them.

#15148	02/22/2015 9:34:02 am
newtman Joined: 11/02/2013 Posts: 3343 Inactive	Because for someone who is actually building long term a 17 yo 60 SI player with 16 potential is far more valuable than even a 28 yo 105 SI with 13 potential. The first guy has a chance to be a top ten player in the game, the second guy is the majority of the major league roster on many teams. Admittedly there is far more risk in the first guy, but the payoff is more than worth it. Thus the flaw in sorting classes by SI.

#15150	02/22/2015 9:41:57 am
Tiger504 Joined: 06/17/2014 Posts: 1314 Kalamazoo Bloody Tigers III.4	I just want to say, I like Seca's proposal. Rather than a complete overhaul, it is a tweak to our current system. The proposal is detailed much better in the Suggestions area. It certainly didn't get fleshed out with as much depth here. I would just like everyone take time to check that thread out before judging, if you don't like it, that's cool, but I think it has merit.