Moneyball Q&A

[SeaDogs]

More context:

We won't be making any manual adustments.

Boom!

I had a hunch that was probably the case. Always a loophole to squeeze out a few more points. Now to plot and scheme my way to 77 IP prior to the last day of scoring. Wait - I mean "strategize"

Thanks for digging that info up. I won't be the last person to ask.

[Rob]

Boom!

I had a hunch that was probably the case. Always a loophole to squeeze out a few more points. Now to plot and scheme my way to 77 IP prior to the last day of scoring. Wait - I mean "strategize"

Thanks for digging that info up. I won't be the last person to ask.

Hey, winners always find a way to get an advantage.  Can you tell I'm a Pats fan?

[Jon]

winners always try to find a way to make the rules work to there advantage.  Play ball

[SeaDogs]

30 MLB teams carry 26 active players each; giving us a pool of 780 active players to use.

Our current roster setup for the entire league will hold up to 1200. (Disregarding minors for the purpose of this query).

Initially we are all on equal footing. As the league matures- trades, signings, and waivers will occur.

Once teams start backfilling their 40 man rosters with spot starters, backup catchers, etc. their ends up not being enough players to go around. (1200 roster spots, 780 active MLB)

Aren't we basically asking 10 teams to "tank" the season each year? 20 full rosters wipes out the active MLB pool. It might not happen immediately, but over time it seems inevitable.

My concern would be that people lose interest if they can barely field a starting lineup. If such a team is later abandoned, it's a hard sell to a new owner.

Perhaps after the inaguaral season we trim down to 25 man rosters? Allow expansion to 40 during the off-season? Some other variations? Enhanced roster restrictions to allow everyone equal chance to field a full team for the long term?

Would love to hear anyone's thoughts on the matter.

I think leadership is doing a great job. I'm not asking for a rule change. But perhaps a discussion at some point to ensure a strong, healthy league.

[Rob]

30 MLB teams carry 26 active players each; giving us a pool of 780 active players to use.

Our current roster setup for the entire league will hold up to 1200. (Disregarding minors for the purpose of this query).

Initially we are all on equal footing. As the league matures- trades, signings, and waivers will occur.

Once teams start backfilling their 40 man rosters with spot starters, backup catchers, etc. their ends up not being enough players to go around. (1200 roster spots, 780 active MLB)

Aren't we basically asking 10 teams to "tank" the season each year? 20 full rosters wipes out the active MLB pool. It might not happen immediately, but over time it seems inevitable.

My concern would be that people lose interest if they can barely field a starting lineup. If such a team is later abandoned, it's a hard sell to a new owner.

Perhaps after the inaguaral season we trim down to 25 man rosters? Allow expansion to 40 during the off-season? Some other variations? Enhanced roster restrictions to allow everyone equal chance to field a full team for the long term?

Would love to hear anyone's thoughts on the matter.

I think leadership is doing a great job. I'm not asking for a rule change. But perhaps a discussion at some point to ensure a strong, healthy league.

If you're a team that dumps starting players to the point where you can't field a full starting roster, then clearly you're in rebuild mode and are looking for the lowest stat output possible.  To get back on the map on the rebuild turnaround, yes you would have to do some work via trades and FA to pry starting players off of deep teams.

I don't think anyone is going to want to pay real market value for bench players.  This isn't like NHL or NBA where they play half as many games and teams have staggered schedules.  You're almost always going to be starting your best players.  Therefore depth lineup players should generally be young up and comers or cheap contracts (older players, those coming off injury, etc).  An value of depth pitching is diminished by the IP cap.  If depth players turn into solid producers, they gotta get paid.  So I do think these players will end up on the market in some form or fashion.

Also, in 2024, over 1,400 players put up MLB stats. Yes it's true that at any given time there's around 750-800 active players.  But with injuries, call-ups, expanded rosters in the late season, etc - I still think there will be enough depth to go around.  Especially since those teams that are in the bottom now aren't going to stack their teams with depth, they're going to stack them with prospects. 

Also, we're discussing reducing the minor league roster size to force more good talent into our draft.  If we do that I think you'll see many teams using at least 5 or so MLB roster spots for prospect overflow.

And moreover - these rules are not the US Constitution.  If we find over time that we need to make adjustments to help encourage balance then we will do that.  I've been running my Dynasty NHL league for 14 years and our ruleset looks a lot different than when we started.  We address issues as they come and try to adjust to what's best for the longterm health of the league.

[Jon]

well said @Rob

[Street45s]

When the owners have a chance to draft or add minor leaguers?

[Rob]

When the owners have a chance to draft or add minor leaguers?

1 year from now in our first Amateur Draft.

[dedreger]

In a situation like Keibert Ruiz, I assume the extension salary would be the $6,250,000 AAV regardless of whether the in-year salary is higher or lower.  Do I have that right?

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/player/_/id/28153/keibert-ruiz

[Rob]

In a situation like Keibert Ruiz, I assume the extension salary would be the $6,250,000 AAV regardless of whether the in-year salary is higher or lower.  Do I have that right?

https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/player/_/id/28153/keibert-ruiz

Correct.  That extension would be $6,250,000 (2033).