IBC

JP and I had a discussion a week or so ago about draft seeding. Right now, we go by regular season record, however, this means that we could have a situation where a team with the 9th best record (or worse) wins the World Series.
JP and I both like the idea of switching it so that the last pick goes to whomever wins the WS, second las to whomever lost the WS, 3rd to the team with the best record of the two LCS teams, 4th to the team with the worst record of the LCS losing teams and so on, much like the NFL.
This is not something that would effect this year's draft, but rather next season.
Any thoughts?

RedSox wrote:JP and I had a discussion a week or so ago about draft seeding. Right now, we go by regular season record, however, this means that we could have a situation where a team with the 9th best record (or worse) wins the World Series.
JP and I both like the idea of switching it so that the last pick goes to whomever wins the WS, second las to whomever lost the WS, 3rd to the team with the best record of the two LCS teams, 4th to the team with the worst record of the LCS losing teams and so on, much like the NFL.
This is not something that would effect this year's draft, but rather next season.
Any thoughts?

The bold would be one of those side bar discussions between two members of the ExCo I referred to earlier.

That aside, I like this idea for next year.

For those keeping count, once JP confirms his personal concurrence, the vote tally would be 3 - 0 with 3 not weighing in yet. I don't feel the need to discuss this because it makes perfect sense to me ...

Agreed, I think it's a fine idea.

yup

So 4 - 0 with 2 not having an opportunity to weigh is the current benchmark to throw something out for a league-wide discussion ...

Just trying to keep up with the "rules" - or whatever ...

I don't think we have a benchmark for when to toss a subject out to league-wide debate other than that it should be done before a vote is held. There seems to be no opposition yet to the idea I was careful not to say "we're doing this" just that we're discussing it. And there is no harm in letting the league know what we're discussing. Tallying votes before giving the league any opportunity to chime in would seem to be a step backward.
This is not a sensitive subject along the lines of removing inactive GM's (which i don't think should be brought to full leaguewide discussion). This is something that should be made public before we vote.
Not that it matters, but I also asked JP if he thought it should be posted and he agreed.

RedSox wrote:I don't think we have a benchmark for when to toss a subject out to league-wide debate other than that it should be done before a vote is held. There seems to be no opposition yet to the idea I was careful not to say "we're doing this" just that we're discussing it. And there is no harm in letting the league know what we're discussing. Tallying votes before giving the league any opportunity to chime in would seem to be a step backward.
This is not a sensitive subject along the lines of removing inactive GM's (which i don't think should be brought to full leaguewide discussion). This is something that should be made public before we vote.
Not that it matters, but I also asked JP if he thought it should be posted and he agreed.

Bren -

I admit I was giving you a little bit of shi_ ... sometimes I think you need to think about the subtle difference between rules (what to expect) and procedures (how to accomplish those expectations). I know I am over simplifying things here but rules should be overarching and require a great more deal of effort to change then procedures which are basically subject to change more frequently as technology, among other things, enhance opportunities to do things easier, better and more effectively.

I have no problem with this issue (which is definitely a rule) going out for a league-wide discussion. My post was a reaction to your "two proposals" post. You can over codify things to the point that PEOPLE get hamstrung by the process. We are human ... we try our best ... we learn from mistakes - especially, he said optimistically, "group mistakes" ...It doesn't mean you need a "RULE" every time to deal with every instance.

Honestly, I'm undecided on this rule. Brett may make my opinion moot, but I'm not sure whether I like it or not. The best team in October has often not been the best team in the IBC that year, so punishing the WS champ to me seems like not the way to go. On the other hand, they won the WS, so they're pretty damn good anyways. Generally I would err on the larger sample side (regular season > playoffs), but JB's team is in 3rd right now (absurd), so maybe that's not the best way to do it.

I agree about JB, though, as it is, he'd have the pick 5th from the bottom under the old system since he has the 5th best record. St Louis and Atlanta would have the two worst picks since they have the two best records. No offense to either of them, but I don't tihnk either of them has a top 2 team. Does anyone else?

I don't have a very strong opinion on this, fwiw. I do feel like the WS winner should pick last, and I haven't read the other thread carefully, but I tend to think that the NFL has the right basic setup, in that playoff teams pick after all non-playoff participants. I get some feeling of fairness in getting some compensation for being unfortunate enough to have a great record but missing the playoffs.

I'd probably say that the best order would be all non playoff teams in order of their regular season record, then all playoff teams in order of their regular season record, then WS winner last (maybe WS loser next to last, but I'd probably lean against that). That would seem to me to balance fairness with reality the best.

But again, we're not talking about horrible options however we do it.

I guess we decided not to use this?

Shawn,
The discussion was for next year (as was mentioned in the initial post and echoed by Jim in the second). Changing the format for this year would not, IMO, be appropriate (even though I'd likely benefit).

We've basically had two options on this.
Option A: NFL Style - last pick to Series winner, then series loser, then two LCS losers, then 4 LDS losers, then non playoff teams
Option B: NBA Style - all non playoff teams by winning %, then all playoff teams by regular season winning %
Does anyone have any preferences? Mine, personally is option A, though I think both are better than what we have.

RedSox wrote:We've basically had two options on this.
Option A: NFL Style - last pick to Series winner, then series loser, then two LCS losers, then 4 LDS losers, then non playoff teams
Option B: NBA Style - all non playoff teams by winning %, then all playoff teams by regular season winning %
Does anyone have any preferences? Mine, personally is option A, though I think both are better than what we have.

I prefer A ...

A. I don't think there's any reason we should have a draft lottery when we're trying to disperse talent to the worst teams. We've all seen that rarely does the worst team get the first pick in the NBA draft.

I'm not proposing a Lottery in option B, I'm talking about how the NBA handles the playoff teams v. the non-playoff teams. I don't think a lottery is a viable option right now either.

Oh, sorry didn't read your post closely enough. I still prefer option A, though I'm not sure I prefer option A over making a change.