View Single Post
Old December 8th, 2007, 01:50 PM   #127
Popes
Feeding Frenzy
 
Popes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 1,052
Popes is on a distinguished road
Default Re: 2007 Rules Discussion - Weighted Lottery for the #1 pick

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaxwless
Playoff expansion + Lottery solves the same problem as the toilet bowl as it encourages teams to stay competitive throughout as there are more playoff spots to be had, yet it does not sacrifice the worst teams from getting a chance at the best pick.
No, it doesn't. A toilet bowl solves the problem completely because there is NO INCENTIVE for tanking, or not trying, or not paying attention.

Your playoffs + lottery minimizes the chances of those things happening, but it doesn't not eliminate them, because your plan still includes incentives to tank/not try/not pay attention for the worst teams.

Let's apply it to this year to see your plan in action (note, I'm not saying it's bad, just pointing out that it does not "solve" the problem).

At the trade deadline this year Opihi, Derby Cars, and Dodgers were division leaders. The 3 wild card favorites would have been Preds @ 8-3, Freedom @ 6-5, and Mutts @ 6-5. Absolut would have been tied with them @ 6-5. Popes (4-7) and Ragers (3-8) would have been alive for our division (plus I'd have had wild card hopes). That leaves the following eliminated from any playoff contention:

Highlanders @ 3-8 (though 3 out of wild card with 3 to go, the teams above him play each other and can't all lose 3 times)
Rake Fighters @ 2-9
Insects @ 1-10

So, the playoff expansion has added no incentive to the bottom 3 teams. Now all three teams have some incentive to lose, because losing increases the odds of getting the #1 pick. In fact, Highlanders' incentive to lose has gone up under your system, because now he doesn't have to drop all the way down to the bottom, he can drop one spot and increase his odds A LOT. The incentive for you and Joel to lose has gone down, because finishing worst doesn't guarantee you the top pick, but don't kid yourself and suggest that there's no incentive for the bottom teams to lose.

Brian's plan is the only one that eliminates the incentive to lose. Like I said, the issue to be determined is how bad the problem is, because Brian's fix does hurt the principle of "draft picks should improve the worst teams". So if the problem is minor, then minimizing the chances w/ your plan is probably enough.

Last edited by Popes; December 8th, 2007 at 01:55 PM. Reason: clarifications
Popes is offline   Reply With Quote