About that Tanking Thing

[Rasputin]

Some people are worried about tanking. I'm not really one of them, but it got me thinking. Teams tank because they don't think they can compete and they don't feel like spending the money to be mediocre while they rebuild and rebuilding is both quicker and easier if you finish with a terrible record.

What if it weren't?

What if instead of incentivizing finishing with a terrible record, we incentivized finishing at .500?

The #1 draft pick doesn't go to the team with the worst record, but to the team that is closest, but not over .500. I don't know exactly how the international bonus money is distributed and I don't feel like looking it up, but I'm pretty sure it's also based on record.

I'm imagining a system where we rank teams by absolute value of the distance from .500 with the best teams (top 6, say) automatically slotted at the bottom even if they're further from .500 than the worst teams, and a tiebreaker that goes to the bad team.

So for 2017, there's a tiebreaker between LAA, KCR, and TBR for the first pick because they all finished at 80-82. The fourth pick would go to STL who finished at 83-79.

The idea is to incentivize teams to be competitive even when rebuilding. The second wild card generally goes to a team that is a little bit above .500 so if you're trying to optimize your rebuild, you're aiming for a team that's fringe competitive and depending on where exactly you are in the standings come the deadline, you're going to have to make some hard decisions about trading vets to get minor league talent, or trading minor league talent to make a run.

I think the obvious risk here is that it will cement some teams as being terrible year after year after year, but I don't think it's really that hard to be mediocre. It requires spending a bit more money which is good from a revenue sharing perspective--nobody wants revenue sharing money to go to teams not trying to be competitive.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

So a truly bad team in a small market is screwed because they won't get high picks, right?

 

[Adrian's Dome]

So a truly bad team in a small market is screwed because they won't get high picks, right?

In theory, but even the "poorest" owners (that hurt to type) these days have enough money to post consistently competitive squads and compete for the picks if they were competent enough and really wanted to.

It's difficult to be historically bad in baseball unless that's actually the goal...which is the point of the topic, because right now, there's actual incentive to be historically bad, but none to be consistently mediocre.

 

[Whiteroom802]

What if it wasn't the draft position or international bonus money, what if revenue sharing was based on competitiveness? A team that spends no money on trying to field a competitive team, looking at you Mr Jeter, doesn't get to use rev share to pay down debt. I think there should be a hard floor of payroll, say $60M then 100% of revenue sharing should be mandated to be used to add to that to have a 'good' team.These franchises, even in small markets, make money. The owners have money. If they are unwilling to put money into a team that is MLB caliber they shouldn't have an MLB franchise.

 

[jon abbey]

Not that many teams tank, most of the bad teams currently tried to make themselves better this offseason. The Orioles signed Alex Cobb to a 4/57 deal and he has so far rewarded them with a 6.53 ERA. The Mets did their best to win and are still basically tied with the tanking Marlins.

 

[keninten]

What about the NBA model?

 

[jon abbey]

Any tanking that there is (which again, I really think is just a few teams) is a symptom, the disease is the CBA as detailed in the Baseball is Broken thread.

 

[Sad Sam Jones]

The MLB draft is a lousy reward for tanking. Identifying future MLB players is really hard, and slam dunk draftees who will quickly help at the major league level are extremely rare. If you have a half dozen teams tanking for the purpose to improve their draft position, that's a poor game plan and most of them are going to be disappointed in the long run. The draft is such a crap shoot as it is that trying to fix it will probably make it worse through unintended consequences.

I don't think tanking is a problem, and I suspect it's more of a timing issue right now where it just makes sense for several teams, rather than being a growing trend. However, if you want to deter it, I think the focus should be on finding a way to increase the desirability of veteran players/free agents. I don't know of a way to do that, but getting teams to add more MLB level talent will make teams more competitive than giving them higher lottery tickets.

As a fan of the Indians for 30+ years, I've seen teams at all levels of talent and development. Maybe I'm just strange, after all I did start following them when they were more likely to lose 100 games than to finish .500, but I'd always prefer to watch a 90+ loss team with young guys in over their heads but with the hope of potential, rather than watching the Candy Maldonados and Bud Blacks of the world lead a team to 80 wins. If I'm actually representative of most fans instead of an exception to the rule, then give the fans what they want and let teams tank.

*

 

[jon abbey]

Well said, although it occurred to me earlier that if this system were in place this year, the Indians could probably maneuver to get both the #1 pick and win the division comfortably.

 

[Plympton91]

In order to incentivize teams to hold onto potential stud free agents, how about giving them an extra $500,000 each in draft and international bonus money per $50 million of contract value received by a free agent who had been with the organization his entire career. So if the O’s keep Machado and he signs a $200 million contract, they’d get an extra $2 million each in draft and bonus money as compensation. You could adjust the numbers if people think that’s too generous.

 

[LoweTek]

How many thought the Braves or Phillies or even Milwaukee would be competitive this year? Who really thought the Angels would be this bad? Look at their payroll. What about the 2018 Rays? It's a tough division but they are over .500. How about Seattle? Who picked them as a sleeper? When the Royals came on recently, it was pitching, especially 7-8-9th inning specialists. There is correlation between (smart) money and winning but even the Red Sox had a few awful seasons while spending a good deal of money.

I hate to see this calculus reduced to payroll size. There is much more to fielding a competitive, contending MLB team. Gabe Kapler was a pariah in April, not now though. There are soft, not easily measurable factors which have a significant influence over the success of a team.

 

[curly2]

How many thought the Braves or Phillies or even Milwaukee would be competitive this year?

The Brewers went 86-76 last year and added Cain and Yelich. They are no surprise.

 

[jon abbey]

In order to incentivize teams to hold onto potential stud free agents, how about giving them an extra $500,000 each in draft and international bonus money per $50 million of contract value received by a free agent who had been with the organization his entire career. So if the O’s keep Machado and he signs a $200 million contract, they’d get an extra $2 million each in draft and bonus money as compensation. You could adjust the numbers if people think that’s too generous.

You couldn’t have picked a worse example, as Machado can’t wait to get out of town and the Orioles famously don’t use the international bonus money they already have. The idea isn’t good but the example was what got me to comment.

 

[Plympton91]

I hate to see this calculus reduced to payroll size. There is much more to fielding a competitive, contending MLB team. Gabe Kapler was a pariah in April, not now though. There are soft, not easily measurable factors which have a significant influence over the success of a team.

I agree it isn’t totally about payroll. This past winter was one in which a team could have gotten a ton of bargains and executed a moneyball strategy. For example, Adam Lind, who had an 800+ OPS the past two seasons, could have been acquired by Baltimore at any point after the season started for the major league minimum to replace Chris Davis’s historically bad production, but they haven’t done it.

These teams simply aren’t trying to win, period.

 

[Plympton91]

You couldn’t have picked a worse example, as Machado can’t wait to get out of town and the Orioles famously don’t use the international bonus money they already have. The idea isn’t good but the example was what got me to comment.

Why does Machado’s preference matter? The point is to give the Orioles an incentive not to trade him and suck worse. Or to give them more leverage in the negotiations, by improving their BATNA.

Further, whether they spend it or not doesn’t really matter, either. If the orioles don’t want to spend the added international bonus money, they can trade it to teams that want it and acquire a Lorenzo Cedrola type prospect.

Why isnt it a good idea? You didn’t really elaborate on the general beyond the example you provided. Or did you mistype there?

 

[Plympton91]

What if instead of incentivizing finishing with a terrible record, we incentivized finishing at .500?

The #1 draft pick doesn't go to the team with the worst record, but to the team that is closest, but not over .500. I don't know exactly how the international bonus money is distributed and I don't feel like looking it up, but I'm pretty sure it's also based on record.

I'm imagining a system where we rank teams by absolute value of the distance from .500 with the best teams (top 6, say) automatically slotted at the bottom even if they're further from .500 than the worst teams, and a tiebreaker that goes to the bad team.

...

I think the obvious risk here is that it will cement some teams as being terrible year after year after year, but I don't think it's really that hard to be mediocre. It requires spending a bit more money which is good from a revenue sharing perspective--nobody wants revenue sharing money to go to teams not trying to be competitive.

I think a version of this would be a great idea. I don’t think you’d even have to go as far with it as you do. What about just giving the first two picks in the draft to the teams that finish 6th in each league? The ones that just miss the playoffs. Then you could have the rest of the draft go as before—tanking gets you the 3rd pick, not the first.

This would also create another “pennant” race, as teams that are 7th or 8th would have an incentive to try to catch up and finish 6th.

You might have to also provide some incentive for the team that ends up losing the wild card game, maybe an extra $1 million in draft money or something, just to make sure nobody ever tries to finish 6th rather than 5th in a year when there’s a Todd Van Poppel type lock as the consensus first pick.

 

[jon abbey]

Why isnt it a good idea? You didn’t really elaborate on the general beyond the example you provided. Or did you mistype there?

The CBA is badly broken, pushing clubs into (correctly) not valuing most players at the free agent prices/lengths we'd all become accustomed to. Once they hit free agency, it's much more cost effective to just bring up the next set of 23 year olds that you have cost controlled for the next six season, rinse and repeat and guys are done at 32 or 34. It's nust just money, the option system also works against veterans at this point, being optionable if you are not one of the best 25 is great for a team;s flexibility. It all needs to be rethought out drastically so that salaries are more connected to performance, it has gotten way too far away for the health of the sport and it is pushing older players out too early while simultaneously paying the equivalent of 'minimum wage' for pre-arb superstars and a huge percentage of big salary deals go to guys who have turned into duds (Turncoat Dreamboat, take a bow from witness protection, wherever you may be).

Also trying to incentivize bad clubs into taking on likely shitty albatross deals with tiny incentives isn't likely to be effective or result in anything good, IMO. The fundamental problem of the salary structure of the game is what needs to be addressed as I've posted about in length in the Baseball is Broken, off the field thread. Baseball really should address this now somehow and not wait until the CBA runs another three-plus seasons, but it looks like that is what will happen. Hopefully at least at that point, the owners will realize how collectively good they've had it this time around, and so the strike will not last so long or maybe they can even somehow avert it, if we're all lucky. How Tony Clark still has a job though is beyond me, there is no way he can be anywhere near the next negotiations.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The MLB draft is a lousy reward for tanking. Identifying future MLB players is really hard, and slam dunk draftees who will quickly help at the major league level are extremely rare. If you have a half dozen teams tanking for the purpose to improve their draft position, that's a poor game plan and most of them are going to be disappointed in the long run. The draft is such a crap shoot as it is that trying to fix it will probably make it worse through unintended consequences.

Every study I've seen in every sport says that Expected Value of the top of a draft is factors higher than anywhere else in the draft. In fact once you get beyond the first 10 or 15 picks, everyone else is basically guessing.

The way MLB is set up right now, the greatest advantage a team can have in acquiring talent is having the top draft picks.

 

[Plympton91]

Well, I agree that the CBA is a problem, but not for all the same reasons you do. I wouldn’t raise the luxury thresholds at all, for instance. I’d raise the minimum salaries and restore eligibility for arbitration after 2 years, plus make everyone a free agent after 5 years normally, but no later than age 30 regardless of service time.

I don’t see what “albatross deals” are necessary to implement my idea of increasing the compensation for losing a top free agent without penalizing the signing team ( which just increases the owners share of revenue more ). In this case the O’s simply tell the Dodgers they’ll have to come up with a better package or no deal. The Os either get a better package or they suck less this year.

It still has no bearing on what Manny “the knee hunter” Machado wants. So still not sure what you meant by that.

In these other ideas people have and I endorsed, such as rewarding mediocre teams with high draft picks rather than the worst teams, you similarly don’t need to give out albatross contracts to compete. The Red Sox have two players who were above average major leaguers last season signed to minor league deals playing at Pawtucket. Hanley Ramirez hasn’t even had a sniff. That’s absurd, and has nothing to do with “albatross contracts.” It has everything to do with incentivizing failure.

On the flip side, such incentives would serve to disincentivize marginally competitive teams from becoming tankers mid year, like the Red Sox did in 2014 and 2015 or the Yankees in 2016, even though they are the biggest spenders in the game.

 

[jon abbey]

It still has no bearing on what Manny “the knee hunter” Machado wants. So still not sure what you meant by that.

Oh, I totally misunderstood. Go back and read your original post without knowing your intention "So if the O’s keep Machado and he signs a $200 million contract", I read it like you wanted to incentivize teams for holding on and resigning their own guys to big deals (a la Chris Davis), not for signing elsewhere.

So now I at least get your point, but disagree for different reasons. First of all, trading a veteran allows a kid to step in, sometimes this is an upgrade (the game gets collectively younger all the time). Secondly, forcing a mini-arms race every July that essentially makes contending franchises send prospects to non-contending franchises is great for the sport as a whole, even if there are a few teams currently who seemingly have a never-ending supply to dig into. Also BAL went 28-68 with Machado, how much worse could they possibly get?

 

[jon abbey]

Also the playing time for the replacement players is helpful for non-contending franchises, cycle whoever you have into the newly opened spot and who knows who might blow up, and if not at least you have a better idea of what you actually have (or don't).