Our Editor-In-Chief thought a sit down with the commissioner was long overdue. We even brought him Timmy Horton donuts as a peace offering! So far he’s done a fantastic job of pushing the little red button and keeping fights between him and the blog rather than between owners. As we’ve written about in the past, that’s partially because of the great owners we have here in Cobbfather. Owners who respect the integrity of the game. Owners who want to challenge each other and try to keep Cobbfather as one of the best worlds within WIS. But that is also why we find ourselves here today, to discuss the elephant in the room. The recent overt tanking that has been going on is excessive.
We’d like to welcome you to debate (as an adult) any of these items on global chat within the league, or feel free to jump on discord where we find it easier to have a back and forth. World chat is really meant for one liners, not full conversations. Or, if you'd prefer to have a quite voice; feel free to site mail Commish Daubs.
Editor: Welcome Commissioner Daubs, can you remind us; what season did you take over as commish of Cobbfather? But before we jump into the discussion, let our readers know what have you enjoy most out of this role and what do you hope is your legacy as Commissioner of the league?
Commish: Honestly, I do not remember what season I took over. It was likely around Season 47 or 48 -- I just know that it's been over 3 years.
What I've enjoyed most of out of the role is getting to know some of the people on the other side of the keyboard. We all come from various places and points in our life and I enjoy learning about people -- whether from our New Owner Interviews, or interactions. I don't really care much about a legacy. What I care about is leaving Cobbfather a better world than when I took over, if that makes sense. Many seasons ago, there was a big blowout between our Commissioner and others in the world. FW did an amazing job stepping in and righting that ship and if I can be considered half as good as he was, I'm fine with that.
Editor: Alright, now for the elephant in the room, the recent tanking. It’s gotten rather bad, the last couple of seasons. To the point we had one team vying for their 5th straight #1 overall draft pick. From the discussions I've heard, no other world within WIS has had a team with more than 3 straight #1s. Some owners have chosen to play a AAA roster at the ML level in an effort to save money for IFA spending and to improve their chances at the #1 pick. Now we understand every owner can build the team the way they want, but that’s an excessive route to build a “super team”. Nobody tell Kevin Durant, he might try to join. What in your mind can be done to bring back some the competitive balance to the world? We’ve heard a few suggest a minimum win rule, spending limits, or even transfer limits; what’s your hot take?
Commish: I've played in worlds with a variety of different rules. Personally, I do not like a minimum salary floor because it does take away from owners (who are FAR better than me at this game) to be creative with their squads. I'm not opposed to it if that is what we want to do though.
We've already addressed playing people out of position, but it's difficult to police on day-to-day basis. If I had the power to strip draft picks, I would. Let me rephrase. MLB has now set it up that if you have a top 5 pick in Season A, in Season B your next highest pick is 9 or 10 (or something like that). I would love that power, but it would probably go to my head.
I think the simplest solution is to have a rolling Minimum Win Requirement. Something along the lines of 55/115/180 over a 3 year period. A new owner would automatically get 1 season "free" so to speak. We know this solution wouldn't end all tanking, but it would alleviate owners playing guys who shouldn't be above AA ball in the majors just to accumulate more losses.
Editor: I understand the 3 year rolling window, but how strict is that? 50 games is acceptable but 49 gets you a ban? That's just the sim not liking someone for an extra game or two. What about 48? Is there really a difference between a 48 win team and a 50 win one? How far does it go, 47? At some point yes there's a clear difference. Everyone understands you have to draw the line somewhere, but I wouldn't use a screwdriver for a nail. It will get the job done, but there's a much better tool for that. Maybe a MWR is fixing the wrong problem in tanking. That said, I completely understand that it's the easiest to police.
Commish: I think the rules will mostly be a guideline and not 100% black and white. I'm all for giving new owners a year grace period. If we set a MWR at 55 wins and an owner (new or well established) ends at 54 but are doing the correct things (minors stocked, competent ML team, etc). I'd rather put that owner on probation and give them another season. That's why I generally prefer a rolling progressive MWR, but it's not a deal breaker for me by any means.
Editor: Playing devil's advocate, given those antics of a select few owners, don't you think a MWR just delays when the tanking is done and pushes it to the end of the season; when arguably has a greater effect on the playoff race compared to over the course of an entire season? I imagine some of those teams will reach the minimum on the year (or year 3) and then do everything in their power to not win another game; which is fantastic if you are in a wildcard hunt and get to play 1 or 2 of them the last month of the season.
Commish: This is the problem with the mentality of some Americans. They want to find out the worst in a situation. From my recollection, games at the beginning of the season count just as much as games at the end of the seasons. So, when you win doesn't really matter. Plus, and I could be wrong, but in other worlds that I participate in that have a MWR, I've never seen a team that gets to say 55-60 decide they'll lose the rest of of their games and end up with only 65 wins.
Editor: Fair, the only world I know is Cobbfather; I just know people on the internet and they always look for the loophole, look at NY who tried to circumvent Arb by demoting the AL Cy Young to AAA to try and get another year out of him. Luckily WIS patched that loophole so it didn't work and he just ended up wasting a year in the minors, though that player did win the AAA Cy Young that season. Ha! The players out of position has been discussed, but do you think there should be a hard rule about it? The real issue is the type of players on some of these teams and not just their W/L record. Pause on how it would take to accomplish this...for now....could you imagine a minimum rating in certain categories for common players? Role players and possibly even platoon types could be given exceptions. For example, a pitcher's whose control is below 50 is the owner just asking for a Loss. By the way, there are 6 Starters and 9 Relievers who are below 50 in control! I didn't look but I imagine their average WHIP is something like 1.65 at best. Even 85+ splits or 100 P1/P2 are not going to make up for that. Though that is the clear problem; no one category is the driver for how well a player does. For a hitter, 90+ power could make up for lower contact or splits. And then how do you define different player types like a Shortstop compared to a First Baseman; of course the SS is going to be the worse hitter; his value has a lot to do with his fielding. But I think we can all agree, there are clearly certain players who do not belong on a major league roster. One more flaw in that system is older players on current contracts; do they get a pass if they drop below the mark? Good idea in theory, but still leaves a lot of question marks.
Commish: I'm fine with the minimum rating, but how will that exactly be monitored? Everyone has different budgets and sees players differently (which is a good and bad flaw in this game). So, someone with a low budget might see a player as an overall of 60 (or control of 60), while someone with a much higher budget will see that player in the 40s. Is there a way to balance it? Possibly. And that would be something I'd be willing to discuss.
I would think veterans on an existing contract that start taking a ratings dive would be "immune" to what we're talking about. It's the 40-year-olds that gets a 2-year contract where his skills have diminished so much that he should be on the golf course and not trying to play in CF.
Editor: Everyone sees the same current ratings, which is what we were referring to; not projected ratings. So it wouldn't be hard to figure out whose low and crosses that mark. Not nominating myself, but the blog keeps up with some of that pretty easily and also has seasons worth of data to reference to see how the average major leaguer rates over the last 8 seasons. Perhaps I'll get one of the writers to pull something together on what the average rating is at each position for anyone who accumulates at least 300 at bats. Why 300 you ask? Sparta!
Commish: I'd be fine with a minimum rating if we can come to a consensus that makes sense. Overall is most logical, but then you would have catchers that are low, but might be a 99 pitch calling, as well as defensive shortstops.
Editor: Overall would be the easiest, but the also the worst because it's heavy dependent on some categories that don't directly effect the production on the field. I remember having a high OAV SP back in the day and it was purely driven by a high stamina and durability. Just because he could long innings and often, doesn't mean he was valuable. The ratings could only apply for starters as we said; allowing role players, platoons, back-ups to have some flexibility in their ratings. With the thought being, the main team - with no injuries - is ML ready. Everybody seems to like the no players being played out of position; but that's too general of a rule - it needs some definition to it otherwise it's just an opinion. The Catcher at Centerfield that always comes up, per WIS the average CF has defensive ratings of 85, 85, 60, 65. You could easily say a player needs to be within 15-20 points (still makes them awful at that position) at each rating; so the worst player at CF would be 65, 65, 40, 45 - at least that keeps C, 1B, and DHs from playing there. But could we do better? Yes probably so, but is 10 points difference too strict? 75, 75, 50, 55? If you do a player search for CFs right now, the worst in each defensive category is 73, 63, 46, 48. That doesn't take into account anyone playing out of position.
To get even crazier and tougher to track - we could say at least two ratings need to match or exceed the big league average with the other two being no more than 10-15 points; that at least means the worst CF might be a 70, 70, 60, 65 --- 85, 85, 45, 50 --- or some combination there of.
With regards to hitters, for hitters to exceed 250 ABs since S54, there have been 21 players whose contact, power, and both splits have fallen below 50. 5 of them have been part of New York Empire's recent tanking scheme; but all of them are Shortstops; though a few do fall below league average for that position. To take a different look, checking out players who have a sub .240 wOBA - meaning their averages are usually below .250, strikeouts above 100, and walks below 40. Fangraphs says anything below .290 is awful as a reference point. Taking out SSs for ease of discussion, a common thread is sub 50 vR and often sub 50 vL. Power varies as some have more speed and contact is all over the place since that appears to be more about consistency from season to season; you end up with a list of 10 or so players that likely didn't below in a starting rotation. Maybe let's just discuss the fielding side and leave the hitting and pitching for another blog post after some research has been done.
Commish: I think our league is now to the point where we can call a fellow owner out on playing someone out of position and deal with it that way. I say that for this reason -- draft picks, as well as international free agents, will show a player as SS or 2B and when you see their ratings, there is no chance that's what they should be. But, if the owner just keeps it at WIS "default" then are they really playing someone out of position? In the future, we can look at the pitchers and hitter ratings, but I can see that going very extreme and turning a lot of owners off. If there is a MWR put in place, I think some of those issues of hitters and pitchers (being on a ML roster) will be much more infrequent.
Editor: Who cares what the projections say at IFA signing or Rule 4 draft; we are talking about once a player makes the Major League --- there all current ratings are the same so it's clear when someone is "out of position". With that said, next topic. What’s your take on the international market? Is it working in a way that you find positive for the world? WYW was nearly $50M, that's more than double the amount someone can budget for in prospects. Most of the time the high IFAs will sign for the $20-30M range; that was just an odd year and a great player. But if their team isn't bottoming out without a truly competitive team at the ML level should they be able to transfer all that money? In the blog's opinion, no; but it's a hard line in the sand to draw. Owners as long as they are taking care of business with their ML club; let money be spent how they want. After all, if someone decides to play the FA game; there's no limitation on how much they don't spend on prospects.
Thinking outside the box, would there be a way to tie in how much a team could transfer based upon the number of wins from the previous year? Example: if they win 55 games, they can only transfer 80% of their unspent Player budget. If they win 65 games, they can transfer 90%, or 75 games and 100%. Obviously just making up numbers for discussion purposes. The actual Wins and Percent could be debated amongst the owners on discord. But sounds like the Commissioner's office might need to hire an accountant.
Commish: I think it's difficult to limit spending in the international market. I mean, we can always cap a player at $20M, but I honestly don't like it. It's the same way I'd be opposed to not allowing only transferring a certain % of money. If we could figure out how to get better draft prospects in here, it might make spending on international less, but that's not something any of us can do.
Editor: How about the minors? There are plenty of teams at all levels that have completely exhausted pitchers and tired position players by the 25th game of the season. AI could run the minors but people don't like letting it have that control; but wouldn't it be nice if up and down the rosters teams were run smoothly? It doesn't even take much effort to make sure your minors are balanced if you don't trust AI to do it.
Commish: I know that running the minors is on the back burner for a few of our owners--not only here, but in other worlds. We can always put some rule in place for people to maintain their minors, but is there a way to penalize someone for not? I'm open to ideas on that one. I get why people don't want AI to run the minors (promotions, inactives, etc.), but it's a simple solution in case someone is too busy to manage.
Editor: Since it really doesn't take much to maintain a minor league, perhaps we could do a three strike system for people neglecting them? After the third strike, they are disciplined in some way. Okay, so there are a few options for rules. But who carries out these rules? Who has ultimate veto power? Are the rules clearly black and white? If you fall below whatever is agreed are is that owner immediately banned from the league or is there a probation period where they get to stay in the league another season but are limited to $0 transfers or maybe even losing the ability to sign their draft pick? Is that up to you as commissioner or would you foresee forming a small committee to review any discrepancies? Sometimes you need quick decisions made and not to let them linger into the next off-season, but a committee gives a voice and let's a discuss happen because not everything is black and white in this world. Is it a rotating committee, is it just the most senior people, or maybe just the blog editor gets to decide the fate and makes a rule that Cobbfather will no longer allow franchises to be located in Canada. After all, it's for the good of the game.
Commish: First, the blog writer will have no authority whatsoever. He can be a cold, callous human being and sometimes that can just rub others the wrong way.
As discussed, previously, I'm not a big fan of limiting transfer money and such. Limiting draft picks (proposed by slash) is an idea and curious how that would work? But, if someone has that "sentence", what stops them from drafting the top player rand signing them before some of us even get up in the morning of the draft results? Would that owner automatically be booted?
We can form a committee if that is something the league wants. Generally, I counsel almost everyone. When making decisions that affect the league. I typically look towards those owners that have been here the longest. If that's general ideas, I'll get feedback from a variety of owners, including those I recruited into Cobbfather.
Editor: Awwww, you have me down perfectly. Thank you. How do you plan to go about owners being able to weigh in? Would a vote make the most sense? Considering it’s difficult for owners to vote on Awards and the Hall; what are your thoughts on using a percent of those who vote? If an owner decides to not vote, if they abstain - meaning they don’t care which way the results go; they will continue in this world no matter what; going with a majority makes some sense rather than needing X amount of votes.
Commish: Great question. I'm all for voting because this is a demoracy and not a dictatorship that some people believe it is. I don't know if a simple majority or 2/3 vote makes the most sense? My opinion is if an owner abstains from voting, then that is a yes for this purpose. As you said, if they don't care, then to me that means they would be for the change. I'm sure some owners will be adamant against and will take that into consideration.
Editor: Now we have to ask the follow-up question. What happens if an owner doesn’t agree with adding any new rules. Do you expect to have to replace any owners once these rules are put into place? After all, it's a very sensitive subject with rules on how to run a team or how successful an owner needs to be to stay within in the league; especially in the days of leagues having to merge together because there are not enough new owners coming into the game. Too bad there isn't a chance for a relegation system to be put into place.
Commish: I don't expect all owners to agree with adding any rules. Will owners have to be replaced? Possibly. I've communicated with enough owners where they understand where I'm coming from. The goal is not to be restrictive--the goal is to set some rules in place to allow the world to thrive for many, many, many more seasons. My hope is that we have 0 turnover and all owners decide they want to try and give at least one season to whatever new rules are decided upon. The nice thing is there are other owners that have expressed interest from my other dealings and worlds that would be willing to step in.
Editor: How long do you foresee yourself being the commish of the world? Do you have someone in mind who could fill your shoes and keep the balance to the world? Hopefully you do better than Obe Won, Anakin didn't quite bring balance to the force.....or did he? Darth Daubs has an interesting ring to it.
Commish: First, Darth Daubs has an AMAZING ring to it! But I've said this before, and I do mean it--this world is one of the easiest to be Commissioner for. Generally, there isn't much to deal with, and then there will be an occasional season where shit hits the fan and I feel like I've gotten gray hair (not that you can see it on my head). No one should ever want me to be a mentor for being a commissioner, but if we get a couple of rule sin place, I'll be commissioner as long as people still want me to be. But, if someone expresses interest in being commissioner, I have no problem turning over the title to another owner.
Editor: Well thank you for taking the time to sit with us. It was a pleasure stuffing our face with Tim Horton's, but it's time for some real food and back to America! A few rule options that have been discussed, obviously not all are supported by the Commish or the Editor just getting them on the table:
- Minimum Win Rule/Requirement
- 1 year vs 3 year rolling
- Players out of position
- General rule vs hard lined requirements
- Minimum Player Ratings
- Fielding only vs look into Hitter and Pitcher requirements
- IFA Caps
- Transfer limits
- Cap per player
- Minor league activity
- Must keep up vs whatever happens happens
- Voting Rules into place
- Simple majority vs % of league
- Abstaining is a vote for agreeing to the rule change.
- Final decision
- Commissioner vs Committee
- Official name of Daubs
- Commissioner Daubs vs Darth Daubs
- Punishments / Probation
- To be determined by who makes the final decision?