Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:22 pm
Steve:
Thanks for getting back to me. I understand its one player at a time, but imagine there will still be a relatively large talent gap between the team picking #1 and the team picking at the 12th spot and would also assume that we would all rather be choosing at the #1 spot than the 12th spot. So to Scumby's point, I think it would be common sense for anyone going into the finals to prefer to be drafting versus teams with less points rather than those who have more points. If we all agree on those points, I do think that will shape (don't know how it couldn't) manager decisions in the semi-finals.
For example, a team that is around 12-24 in rankings for the semi-final and has in their league the #2, #6, #8, #11, #15, #18(the example team), #20, #23, #27, #30, #33, #36 seeds. Of course they would prefer to advance along with any of the seeds below them (20, 23, 27, 30, 33, 36 in the example) and would prefer to see the teams seeded higher than them (2, 6, 8, 11, 15) eliminated. Since the semi-finals are going to be played on a much more level playing field, the time for the lower seeded teams to "beat" the higher ranked teams will actually be that semi-finals round. They won't be able to control the other two leagues but if they can advance without any teams seeded higher than them advancing from their semi-final league, they would ensure themselves at least a 9th pick overall.
Hopefully you're still with me and for teams entering it ranked 34-36, won't make much difference so I understand Scumby not viewing the situation in the same light as myself. The team in my example most definitely prefers if higher ranked teams are eliminated and thus, semi-final decisions will most likely be made with that seeding in mind. If all of the teams ranked anywhere from something like 8th all the way to 30th have the same mindset, then the same tactics would most likely be used in all three semi-final leagues. The team in our example can't affect those other two semi-final leagues, but the other "middle of the road" teams will most likely prefer the same situation and so those teams ranked near or at the top will have a relatively large target on their backs and will have that target from the majority of teams they will be facing in their semi-final round.
Where I may be incorrect is in the assumption that there will be a sizeable talent difference between the finals team drafting 1,13,25,37, etc, etc when compared with the team drafting 12, 24, 36, 48, etc, etc. I don't have any experience with live drafting where the teams draft in the same spot each round but from reading the recent thread about the ATG live draft, seems like there is a huge difference and I assumed (and maybe incorrectly) that because there was less talent in our card set than in the ATG card set, would think that the difference would be even greater. If that assumption is correct however, it will be important for the teams ranked approx. 10-30 to try to not only advance to the finals but do so with some of the teams ranked above them not making it so they aren't stuck drafting near the bottom.
So ultimately, my point, and I understand it is somewhat of an unknown for everyone is, knowing what we know and assuming a few things that I think we can safely assume, there will be a lot of teams with a high level of incentive to try to knock off the higher seeds in the semi-final round rather than waiting for the finals. That could be even more pronounced if managers have the mindset that making it to the finals and picking 10-12 would be nice but is most likely not going to allow for my team to be competitive so need to do whatever it takes to make sure that I'm not advancing as the 12th seed.
You can imagine those teams changing pitching strategies, saving certain pitchers to use against the higher ranked teams or even altering their teams after the draft to make sure they match up well against those higher seeded teams. Now imagine 6 teams per each semi-final round doing that and you may be able to see what I was getting at -- that being the #1, #2 or #3 seed may not be advantageous whatsoever going into the playoffs as you may have a huge advantage if you make it to the finals but you're most likely going to have a lot of teams working hard to make sure you don't make it that far.
Even worse, since the semi-finals will be balanced, there is a good chance that a team ranked near the bottom may be able to open up a sizeable lead over other teams and be able to use that lead to "shape" who is going to advance with them to the finals.
Sorry to be so long-winded and imagine confusing but I'm hopeful I've made myself somewhat clear -- that we all will want to draft as close to #1 as possible and therefore although the top teams will have an advantage if they reach the finals, they will have a significant hurdle to overcome in the semi-finals in order to get there and don't imagine that we would want to have rules that encourage either, at least in my opinion.
Again, I just missed this rule and actually thought I had at one point read the exact opposite -- the best 36 teams would make the semi's and the playoff qualifiers from each of those leagues would make the finals. And not complaining or asking for a change for this year but definitely think it is something to think about as seems more fair to play the playoffs by the same rules/format as the regular season and not give one team an advantage over another team or, as I was suggesting, unintentionally put a target on the back's of those teams you were trying to give an advantage to in the first place.
Does that make any sense?
Does anyone know how much of a difference there will be on a team that is drafting 1st each round versus a team that is drafting last each round relative to the card set we are using? I am hopeful its not much and if that's the case, could greatly alleviate teams "ganging up" on the higher seeded managers in the semi-finals round.
