"Floaters" Discussion

[Tyler]

And now, my thoughts on the floaters.

Altering Ratings

I am strongly in favor of altering ratings for the reasons stated by John and others - our scouts are just too danged minute in their reports, even though they may have wildly differing opinions on players overall. On the other hand, I see Kevin's side of things - scouts do give pretty detailed reports. I would hate to lose scouting overall, though. It's one of the things that makes PEBA unique. I believe the best of both worlds for me would be:

Actual/Potential/Other 1-20
no stars

Stars seem redundant with VORP and can be easily muddied by a scouts "favor talent/favor potential" preference.

I'd prefer we keep actual and potential on the same scale (whatever that may be). Having them on different scales just seems confusing.

Sim Schedule

I have a strong opinion on this issue, and it's the opposite of the way I felt last year. I am strongly against adding another sim. Last year, I voted to increase the sim schedule. What prompted the change?

Life got busy. You'll note that I haven't written an article in months. I have a long-term plan for the Coal Sox that is woefully incomplete, and no plan for the offseason other than "complete the 2010 roster". I've previously been one of the more active owners in the league, creating extras like team art, the 2007 Division Standings graphs, co-authoring the Trade Tally with Kevin (who has in reality done 95% of the work), and so forth. Not only did I lose my time on these extras when my life demanded more of my time, I lost time to run the Coal Sox organization.

My life has calmed down now, and you can expect that I'll start churning out more extras after I give the Sox some emergency attention. The experience taught me to respect the fact that sometimes real life gets in the way. It may not get in my way for awhile, but we have 36 owners in this league. I'd be surprised if at any time at least 25% aren't participating as much as they'd like. I'd hate to lose the heart of the PEBA - the articles and participation - by making it too time-intensive.

Sometimes I'm frustrated by the slow pace of PEBA. I'm sure I will be again in the future. But having been on the "other side" of the participation fence, I've learned to be patient with the league and I'd urge others to consider this side of the issue.

Think of it this way: fewer sims, more Cobb.

[Tyler]

Yeah, it's the way they do it now. It wasn't the way they did it until just recently. They've been messing with those postseason rules like crazy over the last few years as teams figure out ways to exploit loopholes in the various systems.

Weird. I was thinking about 2005, when the Indians called up Franklin Gutierrez on August 31st on the off-chance they made the playoffs, intending to use him as an epic pinch-runner and defensive replacement. Which he would have been.

[Zephyrs]

In terms of the # of sims, I did vote 3, but I agree with posts earlier that state that this should be at the complete discretion of the commissioner---I commend him for making this a floater when he really doesn't have to

I would like something that shows us potential(whether its stars or potential ratings); I wouldn't even have a problem with having potential ratings listed during the draft, and then never being able to see them again(don't know if that's possible)

I would also like the "other" ratings on(intelligence, work ethic, defense, speed, etc); I actually rely on these much more than the actual/potential ratings such as contact, power, etc---I can see those elements in a player's performance/stats

Other than that, I'd prefer everything else off and just rely on stats; I'm looking forward to my personal coaching season being over so I can spend more time with my leagues :)

[Leones]

I would also like the "other" ratings on(intelligence, work ethic, defense, speed, etc); I actually rely on these much more than the actual/potential ratings such as contact, power, etc---I can see those elements in a player's performance/stats

I think this demonstrates why I'm in favor of keeping potentials around. Each of us has a different style of playing the game. Some of us predominantly use stats, some rely on potential ratings, some think things like work ethic are the most important. That's a great part of the league that we risk eliminating if we eliminate certain ratings. I'm pretty neutral on reducing the potential range somewhat to 1-20 to hopefully make it more balanced, but I think that eliminating one avenue of evaluating players (and thus one type of play style) would be counterproductive.

[Steel Dragons]

I just turned in my homework and I think I hit on a good point. Maybe it's not a good point but if anything it should stir up some good friendly debate as I know I'm a marshmellow in a box of milk duds when it comes to the baseball purest VS sabermetricians

I feel like it(ratings) gives a better description of a players true talents. Stats are often covered in the fog of situational baseball that sabermetrics is illiterate to. If a player hits 8th in an NL lineup he will draw a good amount of "unintentional-intentional walks". Does that mean he has a good eye? Is the player who drives in 90 runs out of the cleanup spot on a good team really a better RBI man then the one who bats leadoff on a bad one with 80? These are situations that a scout has to ask himself when evaluating a player. If anything I'd think the more realistic thing to do is to turn off the ratings for the actual scout himself(if that's possible). This way large market teams with money won't automatically have the best scouts because they can outbid the small teams.

[John]

My life has calmed down now, and you can expect that I'll start churning out more extras after I give the Sox some emergency attention. The experience taught me to respect the fact that sometimes real life gets in the way. It may not get in my way for awhile, but we have 36 owners in this league. I'd be surprised if at any time at least 25% aren't participating as much as they'd like. I'd hate to lose the heart of the PEBA - the articles and participation - by making it too time-intensive.

A very interesting perspective, and one I admit has been on my mind both times this floater has been proposed. It's particularly interesting coming from you because, as you say, you've been an extremely involved owner over the course of our league's history. And also as you say, life does happen. Recently I've received notes from owners experiencing family crises, overbearing work schedules, sudden and unavoidable trips, etc. If this were the regular season and we were simming at a rapid pace, those owners would end up much further behind when they life finally provided them time to refocus on the PEBA. It's possible they'd feel so behind that they'd lose connection with their team, which of course we don't want.

Now that said, I also see the other side of it. Seeing those sim results are fun! I know I look forward to the end of sim night responsibilities when I can sit back and start reading all my in-game emails from around the PEBA universe. Who wouldn't want more of that? I also love building a history, and faster sims allow you to do that more quickly. One thing I know I'll be looking forward to is eventually holding Hall of Fame voting sessions. That won't occur until we've progressed a bit down the line, though. Speeding up our sims would get us there quicker.

Looking at it all together, when push comes to shove I'm going to err on the side of making life more comfortable for our owners. If I get the sense that a number of people would lose connection with their team through a faster schedule, that trade-off is not worth more PEBA to me. I have no idea yet what the prevailing feeling is on this yet, though; there are still plenty of votes to be tallied.

Weird. I was thinking about 2005, when the Indians called up Franklin Gutierrez on August 31st on the off-chance they made the playoffs, intending to use him as an epic pinch-runner and defensive replacement. Which he would have been.

It was precisely because of moves like that one that MLB changed the rules. They've actually changed the rules multiple times since 2005 to try and plug loopholes in the system. Remember K-Rod getting added to the Angels postseason roster in September of 2002? That was the big wake-up call for MLB that they needed to address the playoff roster wackiness, I think.

[Leones]

Ehh both have a "fog of war" built into them. The stats have deviation and ballpark factors and such. The scouts have the fact that they're naturally not entirely correct and that there's a range built in by the scale used (though if you're using RBI you're definitely going to run into problems trying to figure "true talent"). I have to say that I dislike your second idea though. Teams invest different amounts of money into scouting in the big leagues all the time. It makes more sense for a team thats rebuilding to invest money in scouting and player development, while a team thats winning should be investing money in free agents. The max of the scouting budget which is I think 5 million for the LRS, 10 million for PEBA should be possible for any team to pay. It's another way to allow for diversification of play styles which is a great thing.

Weird. I was thinking about 2005, when the Indians called up Franklin Gutierrez on August 31st on the off-chance they made the playoffs, intending to use him as an epic pinch-runner and defensive replacement. Which he would have been.

It was precisely because of moves like that one that MLB changed the rules. They've actually changed the rules multiple times since 2005 to try and plug loopholes in the system. Remember K-Rod getting added to the Angels postseason roster in September of 2002? That was the big wake-up call for MLB that they needed to address the playoff roster wackiness, I think.

Did this change take effect this year? Because Tampa did a similar thing with Price in September last year (using the 60 day dl loophole to get him in the playoffs I believe)

[Steel Dragons]

I have to say that I dislike your second idea though. Teams invest different amounts of money into scouting in the big leagues all the time.

My point on that is that you don't always get what you pay for in real life. Sure MLB teams spend different amounts of money on scouting. But do the teams that spend more always have better scouts? Seems in OOTP if a scout has 100 ratings across the board he is going to be really good and ask for a lot of money. I'm not saying it should be completely random but maybe a little less predictable.

[John]

Did this change take effect this year? Because Tampa did a similar thing with Price in September last year (using the 60 day dl loophole to get him in the playoffs I believe)

Yup, brand new. In Price's case, though, he was eligible to be added because he was already on the 40-man roster. He signed a major league contract after being drafted 1st overall out of Vanderbilt. That's the tricky thing with these top draft picks nowadays; a lot of times they demand major league contracts right away, which ties up a precious spot on the 40-man. Obviously Price was worth it, though.

[Leones]

I have to say that I dislike your second idea though. Teams invest different amounts of money into scouting in the big leagues all the time.

My point on that is that you don't always get what you pay for in real life. Sure MLB teams spend different amounts of money on scouting. But do the teams that spend more always have better scouts? Seems in OOTP if a scout has 100 ratings across the board he is going to be really good and ask for a lot of money. I'm not saying it should be completely random but maybe a little less predictable.

While I don't think OOTP represents scouting anywhere close to perfect, I don't think it favors the wealthiest teams as much as you think. Can someone who's been around clarify how much the top scouting directors go for in the offseason? I highly doubt it's more than the cost of 2 minimum priced free agents, but I could be wrong (EDIT: I just looked at every PEBA scouting director. No one makes over 400,000 which happens to be the minimum salary in the league. I think it's pretty clear that, at least for the scouting director, rich teams aren't heavily advantaged.) I think the Improve Personnel should help this as well if even that's too much for small market teams to pay. I do think the teams that invest the most money in the minor leagues generally have the best results (Watching my hometown Rangers leap to 1st in most farm system rankings after a few years of spending over slot and aggressively pursuing International free agents has probably colored my thinking a little).

Did this change take effect this year? Because Tampa did a similar thing with Price in September last year (using the 60 day dl loophole to get him in the playoffs I believe)

Yup, brand new. In Price's case, though, he was eligible to be added because he was already on the 40-man roster. He signed a major league contract after being drafted 1st overall out of Vanderbilt. That's the tricky thing with these top draft picks nowadays; a lot of times they demand major league contracts right away, which ties up a precious spot on the 40-man. Obviously Price was worth it, though.

Yeah I think the college studs that demand it are usually worth it because its not like it counts against ML service time and they should be in the majors by the time they're out of options anyways. It's the high schoolers that demand it that are usually the problem.

[John]

Can someone who's been around clarify how much the top scouting directors go for in the offseason?

In the LRS the going rate for Scouting Directors has been in the $130-170k/year range.

[Leones]

In the LRS the going rate for Scouting Directors has been in the $130-170k/year range.

Alright, and as I noted in my previous post the going rate for PEBA scouting directors is under the minimum salary for players. That pretty much leads me to conclude that rich teams shouldn't have an advantage in terms of hiring the best scouting directors, or at least that their advantage is minimal compared to the one they have with signing players.

[Steel Dragons]

In the LRS the going rate for Scouting Directors has been in the $130-170k/year range.

I must be looking at the wrong thing then, cause in the LRS I see one team at 151k and all 11 other teams at one third to half that(50-75k). To avoid hijacking this thread anymore I'll just admit that portion of my statement was wrong. But I still stand by main statement that position in order for a hitter and pitchers that pitch to the scoreboard are greatly overlooked in a stats only mentality.

[John]

You're both right. Current salaries for Scouting Directors are in the 50-75k range, but new contracts and extensions are being signed in the 130-170k range.

[Dinosaurs]

My only comment is on the rating system change. I would be ok with keeping it the way it is, but I do like (i.e. leaning towards) using a smaller scale specifically the 1-20 scale as I agree that it is close to the 20-80 that is typically used. The only caveat is on defensive ratings. I believe that the statistics available to gauge defensive performance are too inaccurate. Fielding PCT and Range Factor are simply not very good metrics. They are the best that we have, but because of their inefficiencies I prefer to weigh my scouts ratings more and consider the stats secondary, albeit as part of the overall evaluation. So if we can keep a 0-100 scale on defense I would vote for a change to 1-20 scale for everything else.