AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 15,504
Threads: 3,964
Joined: Jul 2010
How, if at all, are we taking into account our big injury upgrade into compensation calculations?
dejota
Offline
Admin / Astros GM / 2012 & 2016 Champion
Posts: 3,778
Threads: 548
Joined: Jul 2010
At the moment, we're not. If you (or anyone) can find anything on how the Elias bureau does (I didn't in my previous research) that would be a great starting point.
Houston Astros - 2012/2016/2023/2025 Champs!
Cumulative Record: 1894 - 1184 (.615%)
AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 15,504
Threads: 3,964
Joined: Jul 2010
Well, here's my issue with this....some players are going to be punished with our God-like action over injuries that won't be fair until we've kept a set injury percentage for the full time we're evaluating for compensation. Fluctuating things back and forth will make for some very unfair compensation ratings.
ezpkns34
Offline
MinnesotaGM/2014 Champion
Posts: 817
Threads: 209
Joined: Jul 2010
10-29-2010, 06:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-29-2010, 06:45 PM by ezpkns34.)
Pujols can play himself back into compensation :P
NYY GM (2010-2017):
791-507 (.610)
4-time ALCS Champs
2014 World Series Champs
AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 15,504
Threads: 3,964
Joined: Jul 2010
(10-29-2010, 06:31 PM)ezpkns34 Wrote: Pujols can play himself back into compensation :P
lol, yeah, I have a dog in the fight, but I'm sure there are other players that may fall out of compensation altogether because of this.
I just don't think we should punish teams in terms of compensation for what we did to normalize injuries. It serves neither of the purposes we have compensation for. (Improved free agency and support of lower market teams)
'PR'
Offline
Chicago Cubs GM
Posts: 2,579
Threads: 667
Joined: Jul 2010
(10-29-2010, 07:01 PM)AndyP Wrote: (10-29-2010, 06:31 PM)ezpkns34 Wrote: Pujols can play himself back into compensation :P
lol, yeah, I have a dog in the fight, but I'm sure there are other players that may fall out of compensation altogether because of this.
I just don't think we should punish teams in terms of compensation for what we did to normalize injuries. It serves neither of the purposes we have compensation for. (Improved free agency and support of lower market teams)
Yea like Lucas May.
ezpkns34
Offline
MinnesotaGM/2014 Champion
Posts: 817
Threads: 209
Joined: Jul 2010
Part of the point of compensation is so that players that produce are the ones getting compensation. If a player misses over 600 ABs due to injury, that's a lack of production which can cause them to miss compensation-eligibility. If we're just gonna let good players who missed time for injury get compensation automatically, then we need to just go back to the 90+ are Type A, 86-89 are Type B
NYY GM (2010-2017):
791-507 (.610)
4-time ALCS Champs
2014 World Series Champs
dejota
Offline
Admin / Astros GM / 2012 & 2016 Champion
Posts: 3,778
Threads: 548
Joined: Jul 2010
I'm still open to a means to do it and again, that's the starting point. Unless there's a legitimate way to address it debating the fairness is moot in my opinion.
Houston Astros - 2012/2016/2023/2025 Champs!
Cumulative Record: 1894 - 1184 (.615%)
mike
Offline
Florida Marlins GM - Holds record for most times to quit and come back
Posts: 3,931
Threads: 1,225
Joined: Jul 2010
There is no real fair option as even if you did come up with a way it would be a best guess scenario anyway. I say just go forward with the way it is now since we have changed the injury rating back (as far as I believe). For the amount of players that it effected its not worth the hassle. If you compensate the players that got injured then you would have to compensate those who didn't because they were extra durable and yada yada yada. Comp barley effects too many players as it is anyway.
AndyP
Offline
Commissioner/7 time Champion
Posts: 15,504
Threads: 3,964
Joined: Jul 2010
10-30-2010, 11:38 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2010, 11:39 AM by AndyP.)
(10-29-2010, 07:31 PM)ezpkns34 Wrote: Part of the point of compensation is so that players that produce are the ones getting compensation. If a player misses over 600 ABs due to injury, that's a lack of production which can cause them to miss compensation-eligibility. If we're just gonna let good players who missed time for injury get compensation automatically, then we need to just go back to the 90+ are Type A, 86-89 are Type B
That lack of production was a one year abberation then because we ticked up injuries. Last I checked, in real life, Bud Selig can't unleash the plague - which is the closest equivalent to this. I love the production based system, what I don't love is us playing God with injuries, causing a wave of injuries, and then holding it against the unfortunate teams who felt the affect.
Since we played with the injury function, we should exempt seasons lost to injury as a direct result of that change.
In my opinion, any time the league opts to make a radical change like that, any affects that would hurt the teams should be taken into account.
(10-30-2010, 04:29 AM)mike Wrote: There is no real fair option as even if you did come up with a way it would be a best guess scenario anyway. I say just go forward with the way it is now since we have changed the injury rating back (as far as I believe). For the amount of players that it effected its not worth the hassle. If you compensate the players that got injured then you would have to compensate those who didn't because they were extra durable and yada yada yada. Comp barley effects too many players as it is anyway.
But it can be a major problem for the teams screwed by it. The fix is simple - if a player got crushed in 2014 by injury due to our tampering, we should go back to their last healthy season.
If we're going to maintain this injury level, then we should keep that rule in effect until 2-3 years have gone in the books so that it's fair across the board. As it stands now, it was a lottery of bad luck.
|
