One comp idea perhaps for next yr and beyond?

[nick]

I was thinking of this. Bare with me, as I'm trying to put it into thought...

What if... for players over a set age... we can say... once they reach X age (maybe between 35 to 37, I'd prefer 36 or 37 because a lot of very good players play to be 36 plus- and then some- so 36 or 37 would be fine) unless they have been with one team for X amount of years or more (maybe 5-8, somewhere in there...), they are void of their comp status at that point going forward. That way, guys like Brad Wilkerson- who jump around from team to team in their later years, partially due to the fact that they generate comp and partially due to their journeyman status- won't constantly be comp elligible.


This would atleast keep a lot of older guys from being comp elligible. We could nail out the details as we go forward if this sounds good, but I don't know what you guys think of it. Obviously, I know a lot of you wouldn't mind there being a few less "older" comp players.

Just reply with an opinion. If you have your own idea, feel free to suggest a way you can add on to the current comp system we have in place. But I am only going to add on, not modify it.

[HollywoodLeo]

I say just keep it as is.

No point in making exceptions just because of a few quirks.

It's not like Wilkerson will go unsigned, anyways.

People will just wait until the first 4 periods are over.

And if someone's not paying attention, that's their fault.

[Slyder]

I say just keep it as is.

No point in making exceptions just because of a few quirks.

It's not like Wilkerson will go unsigned, anyways.

People will just wait until the first 4 periods are over.

And if someone's not paying attention, that's their fault.

I agree plus it gives teams an opportunity to find some real bargains.

[Kingdom]

Case by case is better. There really shouldn't be some set in stone way of determining compensation players, otherwise you're going to miss things every year (in other words, it should never be always about ratings, or always about stats, it's easy to spot compensation types). It's really not that hard as some people make it out to be. You just ask yourself, ...if this guy is comp, what are the chances anyone considers signing him? Brian McCann, Carlos Quentin, Adam Dunn... sure, makes sense, they have ratings and production. Now flip it around, who the hell wants to give a 1st or 2nd rounder up for a Bobby Jenks or Shaun Marcum? It sells itself. And let's be honest, Leo said it himself, people will just wait till round 4 or whatever to sign fringe guys, so what is the point in listing 20 players when half realistically are signed in rounds 1-3?

[Kingdom]

I say just keep it as is.

No point in making exceptions just because of a few quirks.

It's not like Wilkerson will go unsigned, anyways.

People will just wait until the first 4 periods are over.

And if someone's not paying attention, that's their fault.

The DMB rule!

[cjkalt]

Keep it as is, it allows people who are willing to sacrifice a pick (making a WS run, or have a strong system) to get some good bargins, I think that the rule just eliminates creativity for GM's

[DiamondDave]

Still can't believe 123 RBI, 105 R, .300+ avg, #4 in the AL in doubles, #6 in the AL in triples, and 52SB gets Crawford class B

The only thing I can see factoring is actual performance of things like SB (and not just the rating in formula#2) and appearances on the leaderboard

[nick]

I won't change anything then. I just wanted to double check. I'm perfectly fine with everything as is-- more than fine.


And dave, I was pretty shocked myself honestly... really shocked. So shocked I double-checked to make sure he didn't qualify one way or the other- if he qualified type-A for stats, but not ratings, or ratings but not stats, I still would have listed him as type-A either way. But fact of the matter is under both rating systems he was a type-b, which is how it should be I guess anyway (I set the systems up to mirror eachother pretty similarly).... but I still thought he would have been a type-a for one of the two considering how monsterous he was in so many categories. Just bad luck...

As for SBs and other leaderboard categories, the main problem I have with SBs is if a guy is allowed comp for SBs alone or Sbs in addition to other stats, the SBs may become the entity in which he is getting comp for, and if that happens then leadoff men alone will become a bunch of comp collectors in themselves.

[DiamondDave]

No... not saying stuff like that... but for the production leaderboard stat appearances... HR, RBI, avg, SB, tb (or whatever other one you like).... for an appearance on there you could earn an extra point... where it compensates the best from that previous season... while still having it mainly about ratings...

so use your formula and player X ends up with 72... but he's top 10 in HR, RBI, and AVG... gaining 3 extra points... making him 75.. making him class B eligible

[cjkalt]

No... not saying stuff like that... but for the production leaderboard stat appearances... HR, RBI, avg, SB, tb (or whatever other one you like).... for an appearance on there you could earn an extra point... where it compensates the best from that previous season... while still having it mainly about ratings...

so use your formula and player X ends up with 72... but he's top 10 in HR, RBI, and AVG... gaining 3 extra points... making him 75.. making him class B eligible

You'd have to limit the categories to the important ones but this idea might be one to explore

[DiamondDave]

Exactly... it should be limited.. .AB's or PA's or whatever don't really mean squat... same with IP, BABIP etc on pitching.... but choose major categories... and only a few...

[nick]

Honestly, I never even thought to use leaderboards until dave just said that, but that is a really, really good idea. They could be a good source to use with comp if done right. I would try to come up with something that goes along with the rest of the formula we have and factor leaderboards into it, and if people like it, we could go with it for next yr moving forward maybe. I don't really want to impose it though without thinking it over a bit, reading some suggestions from you guys, and then proposing the new write-up to the board.

Some suggestions on what to include on this can be posted in a thread on the board or something, and I'll take them all into consideration before I write something up. Once I'm done, I'll post it and you guys can decide whether or not it'd be worth switching formats next year.

Would that be worth doing? I just feel if we are going to start including something like leaderboards, I'd like to better comp as a whole because Zito is right really, there are some holes in it...

[DiamondDave]

Nick... I think they key is though to keep it very basic and very simple...

We have a great starting point based on ratings... even helping cover the speedy and not just overweigh the power hitters... but the possibility to add a few points from leaderboard appearances in key categories that show actual positive performance, can be a good thing and something that will not take a ton of time and no calculation

I say just choose a few key leaderboard categories.. and add 1 point for an appearance in those categories

[nick]

Ahhh, I see what you're saying. That works good actually as is then... I like it a lot.

really though, I think that is something I would like to add.... let me look over something, and see how it works out.... I will post it in this thread in a minute. I think leaderboards, as you said to use it would be simple but very effective. I wouldn't bother editting any of the comp totals then, atleast not for another yr or two..

[nick]

Leaderboard categories:
2B, 3B, HR, RBI, BB, SB, RUNS


Those are the only potential categories I would propose to include.... a and we could cut one or two from there if 7 is overkill. Honestly- and this is only my opinion, as I couldn't care less if OBP or OPS or AVG is taken instead of BB or RUNS or RBI if we decide on doing this- I think it's redundant to have leaderboard point tallys including OPS (or even AVG or OBP) when OPS is one way how we judge if a player is comp elligible already. If I were to take anything off of the proposed listed categories above, I'd drop triples & doubles.... but I had them up there because a lot of players are valuable in their right because they hit a ton of triples and doubles, i.e.... a Carl Crawford type.

I dunno, all 7 categories work well to me. But would 7 categories be too many? Or too few? Would more like 10 be more on spot? I dunno what you were aiming for Dave... I mean... not often do you see a guy contend for all 10 leaderboards and NOT get class A comp anyway. So maybe 7 is ok.