 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Waiver claiming system overhauled
tysonlowery
It should have the same functionality as it did before, but how it works on the backend has changed. So please keep an eye on waiver priorities and start claiming a number of players so we can test this.
Once we have that working, I'm going to add some new logic to put a team that has claimed a player at the end of the line - to prevent one team from gobbling up all the players. I'm also going to create a page that displays what the current waiver wire order is.
Waiver claiming system overhauled
October 06, 2004 at 10:53PM View BBCode
I ripped the guts out of the program that processes waiver claims and re-wrote a lot of it.It should have the same functionality as it did before, but how it works on the backend has changed. So please keep an eye on waiver priorities and start claiming a number of players so we can test this.
Once we have that working, I'm going to add some new logic to put a team that has claimed a player at the end of the line - to prevent one team from gobbling up all the players. I'm also going to create a page that displays what the current waiver wire order is.
DeVeau31
October 06, 2004 at 10:59PM View BBCode
beautiful. I've always thought that would be a great addition.
ballplayer
Regards, Mike
October 07, 2004 at 12:09AM View BBCode
Great! Glad to hear about the gobble-limitiation!Regards, Mike
tysonlowery
October 07, 2004 at 02:27AM View BBCode
Help me out by testing the current logic - so I can start working on the gobbling thing.
lvnwrth
Bad teams ought to have first priority on all waiver claims. If I claim a B- player on waivers today, just because he's the best available at the time...and somebody waives a B+ player tomorrow, why should my team be at the end of the line for the better player?
All this will do is discourage teams from claiming anyone, waiting for a better guy to hit the waiver wires. Why fix something that's not broken, when there are so many other things that could have been addressed.
October 07, 2004 at 03:26AM View BBCode
Too bad. This is time that could have been better spent fixing the high contact/low power hitter or the high velocity/low control pitcher problems; or implementing a functional depth chart so we can choose our backups when ABE rests a player; or correcting the disparity between hitter and pitcher improvement chances. If you wanted to fix something about waivers, why not fix it to allow off-season claims to be processed, so teams can set their rosters before the season starts, instead of waiting till the third day of the new season to process those claims? So many things to address, so you fix something that wasn't broken because a few people whined about it a lot.Bad teams ought to have first priority on all waiver claims. If I claim a B- player on waivers today, just because he's the best available at the time...and somebody waives a B+ player tomorrow, why should my team be at the end of the line for the better player?
All this will do is discourage teams from claiming anyone, waiting for a better guy to hit the waiver wires. Why fix something that's not broken, when there are so many other things that could have been addressed.
DeVeau31
October 07, 2004 at 03:41AM View BBCode
because it's a quicker, easier fix and improves stability on the back end. Be patient.
lvnwrth
Good teams whine alot because bad teams get players off waivers that they want. That's how waivers are supposed to work. It's a redistribution mechanism, so that good teams don't get to keep getting better at the expense of lousy teams.
There is simply no justification for stopping a lousy team from claiming multiple players on waivers.
October 07, 2004 at 03:48AM View BBCode
But it addresses something that wasn't even broken.Good teams whine alot because bad teams get players off waivers that they want. That's how waivers are supposed to work. It's a redistribution mechanism, so that good teams don't get to keep getting better at the expense of lousy teams.
There is simply no justification for stopping a lousy team from claiming multiple players on waivers.
FiveToolPlayer
October 07, 2004 at 12:33PM View BBCode
I'm not sure I like this new system either. That's not how it works in real life as far as I know. The problem I see is that bad teams acquire almost every player that is designated for assignment and then immediately designate them hoping that they can sneak this player through. This isn't realistic. Is there a rule in MLB that says a claimed player must remain on the roster for some period of time? Maybe that's a better way to handle this problem. Make the claiming team keep the player for the rest of the year or a month or something like that.
tysonlowery
I viewed this as a problem and would have had a solution to this before if I had time to put it in. I've been basically cleaning up the enhancements from last time around - fixing things that people have commented on or I felt needed tweaking.
As for lvnwrth's suggestions, I have no plans to fix the contact/power inbalances at this time. It will be fixed at some point, but I don't see a pressing need for this to be addressed before some other things get done. I would like to put the backup system in. I had DaMaestrio start working on this earlier this summer, but he never got around to getting very far with it. I think we might have the database schema or something for it.
October 07, 2004 at 01:35PM View BBCode
I am also planning on attaching the Waiver logic to some other events besides regular season games, been waiting for the short term league to run the OffSeason first so we could test that other bug.I viewed this as a problem and would have had a solution to this before if I had time to put it in. I've been basically cleaning up the enhancements from last time around - fixing things that people have commented on or I felt needed tweaking.
As for lvnwrth's suggestions, I have no plans to fix the contact/power inbalances at this time. It will be fixed at some point, but I don't see a pressing need for this to be addressed before some other things get done. I would like to put the backup system in. I had DaMaestrio start working on this earlier this summer, but he never got around to getting very far with it. I think we might have the database schema or something for it.
lvnwrth
This is not a bad control mechanism. Make the guy stay on the roster for 30 days before he can be designated for assignment.
Concerning the proposed changes, you're right...this is not how it works in MLB. It's also not realistic. The Kansas City Royals will have first shot at every player waived in the American League this off-season. And if they claim somebody today, they're still first in line tomorrow. In short, all waiver claims go through Kansas City. I know that because I live here and they've discussed that at length (specifically with regard to Jose Guillen, and whether the Angels are peeved enough with him to waive him.)
October 07, 2004 at 02:51PM View BBCode
Originally posted by FiveToolPlayer
I'm not sure I like this new system either. That's not how it works in real life as far as I know. The problem I see is that bad teams acquire almost every player that is designated for assignment and then immediately designate them hoping that they can sneak this player through. This isn't realistic. Is there a rule in MLB that says a claimed player must remain on the roster for some period of time? Maybe that's a better way to handle this problem. Make the claiming team keep the player for the rest of the year or a month or something like that.
This is not a bad control mechanism. Make the guy stay on the roster for 30 days before he can be designated for assignment.
Concerning the proposed changes, you're right...this is not how it works in MLB. It's also not realistic. The Kansas City Royals will have first shot at every player waived in the American League this off-season. And if they claim somebody today, they're still first in line tomorrow. In short, all waiver claims go through Kansas City. I know that because I live here and they've discussed that at length (specifically with regard to Jose Guillen, and whether the Angels are peeved enough with him to waive him.)
CaseyStengel
-------
When I was hovering near the bottom, I claimed everyone who could improve my team and demoted those players they replaced. Since most of my starters were undesirable they ended up in my minors and set off another round of waived players to bring my minors down below 25.
Now isn't that the way it is suppose to work? Strengthen your team with players destined to spend time in the minors? Everyone must remember that we do not have a 50 man roster. It is a 25 man roster with up to 25 players developing. A good player should NOT be hoarded in the minors and in real life, he would be looking for a team to play him.
I DO NOT support adding "new logic to put a team that has claimed a player at the end of the line - to prevent one team from gobbling up all the players."
---------
Most of my teams, thank goodness, are contenders (at least most of the time). As manager I must decide when to bring up someone from my minors and demote a still useful vet to make room. I have to weigh the fact that the last place team may "gobble him up." But isn't that the way it is in real MLB. If a player is sent down to the minors and another team wants him in the majors, he is claimed? If I don't like losing the aging star, I can keep him in the majors until he retires. It is a choice I have to make.
----------
In conclusion - don't start fixing a problem by creating a bigger problem. There will always be owners who will complain, some loudly. You already have a built in mechanism for shuffling the claim order that is based on the standings. Adding code that puts a team at the bottom of the order after they have made a claim will only retard the improvement of teams at the bottom.
Remember - the minor league is filled with players who are not playing in the majors. Let them play on a team that can use them.
I do like the idea of making a claimed options player stay on the major league roster for a period of time. This is a better and more logical way to deter teams from claiming multiple players just to take them away from another team.
[Edited on 10-7-2004 by CaseyStengel]
October 07, 2004 at 04:38PM View BBCode
I agree with lvnwrth. I have been on both ends of the spectrum.-------
When I was hovering near the bottom, I claimed everyone who could improve my team and demoted those players they replaced. Since most of my starters were undesirable they ended up in my minors and set off another round of waived players to bring my minors down below 25.
Now isn't that the way it is suppose to work? Strengthen your team with players destined to spend time in the minors? Everyone must remember that we do not have a 50 man roster. It is a 25 man roster with up to 25 players developing. A good player should NOT be hoarded in the minors and in real life, he would be looking for a team to play him.
I DO NOT support adding "new logic to put a team that has claimed a player at the end of the line - to prevent one team from gobbling up all the players."
---------
Most of my teams, thank goodness, are contenders (at least most of the time). As manager I must decide when to bring up someone from my minors and demote a still useful vet to make room. I have to weigh the fact that the last place team may "gobble him up." But isn't that the way it is in real MLB. If a player is sent down to the minors and another team wants him in the majors, he is claimed? If I don't like losing the aging star, I can keep him in the majors until he retires. It is a choice I have to make.
----------
In conclusion - don't start fixing a problem by creating a bigger problem. There will always be owners who will complain, some loudly. You already have a built in mechanism for shuffling the claim order that is based on the standings. Adding code that puts a team at the bottom of the order after they have made a claim will only retard the improvement of teams at the bottom.
Remember - the minor league is filled with players who are not playing in the majors. Let them play on a team that can use them.
I do like the idea of making a claimed options player stay on the major league roster for a period of time. This is a better and more logical way to deter teams from claiming multiple players just to take them away from another team.
[Edited on 10-7-2004 by CaseyStengel]
tysonlowery
Lets assume its a Dynasty league, with 4 days for waivers.
If you claim a player on July 1st, you would fall to the end of the line for the next 4 sim days. On July 5th, you'd return to having the #1 choice.
I agree - its not how it works in MLB - but it is how it works on a lot of fantasy baseball sites.
If people think its no longer a problem, I won't spend any more time on this and just hope you guys step up and help defend the decision if it gets questioned by the rest of the site.
October 07, 2004 at 05:15PM View BBCode
The way I was going to implement the system is as follows.Lets assume its a Dynasty league, with 4 days for waivers.
If you claim a player on July 1st, you would fall to the end of the line for the next 4 sim days. On July 5th, you'd return to having the #1 choice.
I agree - its not how it works in MLB - but it is how it works on a lot of fantasy baseball sites.
If people think its no longer a problem, I won't spend any more time on this and just hope you guys step up and help defend the decision if it gets questioned by the rest of the site.
DeVeau31
In your system Tyson, why return them to 1st? If they make a claim, they fall to the bottom. This is a fantasy game, and in all fantasy games, this is how it works. So when you pick up a player, make sure it's one you want. This way, waivers also become a part of the game because as it is now, they're really not.
October 07, 2004 at 05:24PM View BBCode
I couldn't diagree more with lvnwrth and Casey. We can't match MLB because they have salaries, we do not. Crappy MLB teams do not gobble up everyone because they don't have the salary to do so. If they did, you sure as hell would see a different MLB.In your system Tyson, why return them to 1st? If they make a claim, they fall to the bottom. This is a fantasy game, and in all fantasy games, this is how it works. So when you pick up a player, make sure it's one you want. This way, waivers also become a part of the game because as it is now, they're really not.
CaseyStengel
Most "gobbles" occur at the beginning of the season when teams adjust their lineups. The second bulge occurs when those with successful claims need to adjust their lineups. After that, players passing through options are minimal, usually when a team needs to bring up a vet to replace an injured player and having to waive them when the injury is healed.
Tom - the reason they are returned to 1st is because they are the worst team in the league. They have a right to claim your discarded players if they help their team. I define discarded as a player not on your major league roster. If they are valuable, don't demote them. Remember this is a fantasy league.
October 07, 2004 at 06:26PM View BBCode
Tyson - what happens if the last place team places claims on 5 players passing through options? On July 1st, does that team get all 5 players (gobbling up) before falling to the end of the line? If they claim only 1 player, which one?Most "gobbles" occur at the beginning of the season when teams adjust their lineups. The second bulge occurs when those with successful claims need to adjust their lineups. After that, players passing through options are minimal, usually when a team needs to bring up a vet to replace an injured player and having to waive them when the injury is healed.
Tom - the reason they are returned to 1st is because they are the worst team in the league. They have a right to claim your discarded players if they help their team. I define discarded as a player not on your major league roster. If they are valuable, don't demote them. Remember this is a fantasy league.
DeVeau31
This will be somewhat of a non-issue, since the most claims I have ever seen on a player is 7 anyways.
October 07, 2004 at 06:58PM View BBCode
exactly Casey. And in a fantasy league, if a team claims a player, they go to the end of the waiver list and only return to the top if every other team has claimed a player since they did.This will be somewhat of a non-issue, since the most claims I have ever seen on a player is 7 anyways.
tysonlowery
I'm not sure if this would change, but that's how it works today.
In the new scheme I am thinking though, you would have top priority only for the first claim that is processed.
Tom - on Sandbox.com, the waiverwire gets reset every Wednesday according to team record. I'm not sure how it works on other sites, but I was thinking something along those lines.
One of the reasons I'm starting to go through all this, is that I think it makes sense to put undrafted players on the waiver wire and make them go through the claim process. I could see this causing problems if we left the system the way it is today. Particularly after the Initial draft.
October 07, 2004 at 07:02PM View BBCode
The waiver claims are processed beginning with the one with the most claims. So if 3 teams claimed the same guy, that would be processed first. Then the player claimed by 2 teams, then the player claimed by 1 team. If there are multiple players claimed by 3 teams, I think it would go in order of which the players were originally waived.I'm not sure if this would change, but that's how it works today.
In the new scheme I am thinking though, you would have top priority only for the first claim that is processed.
Tom - on Sandbox.com, the waiverwire gets reset every Wednesday according to team record. I'm not sure how it works on other sites, but I was thinking something along those lines.
One of the reasons I'm starting to go through all this, is that I think it makes sense to put undrafted players on the waiver wire and make them go through the claim process. I could see this causing problems if we left the system the way it is today. Particularly after the Initial draft.
ballplayer
Regards, Mike
October 07, 2004 at 08:16PM View BBCode
Tyson, I think that this will work well to eliminate the "gobble" syndrome. It's not right for it to be first come, first served, that's for sure. Having no salaries to deal with makes this unlike real MLB, so we need to have our own system. Having a team's priority level reset after 4 days is fair.Regards, Mike
CaseyStengel
Assume my team finished last last season. After the amateur draft I claim 8 players passing through options or waivers.
If Babe Ruth with 7 claims is the player with the most claims. My team gets him and I go to the bottom of the list.
As other teams get their claimed players they go to the bottom of the list.
Now we are down to the last player with one claim (my team). I assume that since I am the only team claiming him, I get him and go to the bottom of the list.
So I get 2 players instead of 8.
On Wednesday, the order is reset and I am again at the top of the list.
October 08, 2004 at 03:16PM View BBCode
This is beginning to make sense and I think it will work. Lets see if I understand the process you are proposing:Assume my team finished last last season. After the amateur draft I claim 8 players passing through options or waivers.
If Babe Ruth with 7 claims is the player with the most claims. My team gets him and I go to the bottom of the list.
As other teams get their claimed players they go to the bottom of the list.
Now we are down to the last player with one claim (my team). I assume that since I am the only team claiming him, I get him and go to the bottom of the list.
So I get 2 players instead of 8.
On Wednesday, the order is reset and I am again at the top of the list.
ballplayer
If a team gets a player because they are the only team that put in a claim, then I think that they should not be moved to the bottom of the claim list.
Regards, Mike
October 08, 2004 at 03:33PM View BBCode
CaseyStengel, Good post. It got me thinking about something.If a team gets a player because they are the only team that put in a claim, then I think that they should not be moved to the bottom of the claim list.
Regards, Mike
FiveToolPlayer
The waived player issue is most prevolent at the beginning of the season when teams are waiving tons of players to get to 15 minor leaguers. The bottom of the list for a week idea would work well here. Players waived in the middle of the season are usually fringe minor leaguers anyway.
The gobbling of the player designated for assignment is the bigger issue in my opinion because these players usually very good. Last place teams seem to gobble every B+ or better player. They then do one of three things: keep him, trade him, or immediately designate him hoping that nobody else claims him and he then has a good player to store in the minors until he is ready to contend (I think this is a smart strategy). My solution is this: force the claiming manager to keep the player on his team for 30 games, after this time, the player can be demoted and will remain with his new team (must go through regular waiver process). If the player is designated before the 30 games are up and is not claimed by another team, he would go back to his original team's minor league system.
I'm sure there a flaws in this idea but I feel that the issue of gobbling every player designated for assignment just to immediately designate them needs to be addressed.
October 09, 2004 at 12:56PM View BBCode
I feel there are two gobble problems. One is gobbling of the waived player and the other is the gobbling of the player designated for assignment.The waived player issue is most prevolent at the beginning of the season when teams are waiving tons of players to get to 15 minor leaguers. The bottom of the list for a week idea would work well here. Players waived in the middle of the season are usually fringe minor leaguers anyway.
The gobbling of the player designated for assignment is the bigger issue in my opinion because these players usually very good. Last place teams seem to gobble every B+ or better player. They then do one of three things: keep him, trade him, or immediately designate him hoping that nobody else claims him and he then has a good player to store in the minors until he is ready to contend (I think this is a smart strategy). My solution is this: force the claiming manager to keep the player on his team for 30 games, after this time, the player can be demoted and will remain with his new team (must go through regular waiver process). If the player is designated before the 30 games are up and is not claimed by another team, he would go back to his original team's minor league system.
I'm sure there a flaws in this idea but I feel that the issue of gobbling every player designated for assignment just to immediately designate them needs to be addressed.
Dr_Benway
Won't it just create a new stupid war of ppl sometimes "baiting" the waiver market by waiving weaker players... to make other teams "use up" their ability to claim according to their current place in the standings... just food for thought.
October 21, 2004 at 10:42PM View BBCode
I don't like the 'go to the end of the line for 4 days' thing. Yes it will "solve" the "problem" of people gobbling up players (I do NOT think it's a problem at all). But..Won't it just create a new stupid war of ppl sometimes "baiting" the waiver market by waiving weaker players... to make other teams "use up" their ability to claim according to their current place in the standings... just food for thought.
tysonlowery
I do think it makes sense to change the waiver priority for the first month of 1950 - especially with the new draft system that will be coming eventually. But it would probably just be based on team record, even if you didn't play a significant number of games yet.
October 22, 2004 at 04:16PM View BBCode
I decided not to change this. I figured it was a slam dunk and everyone would agree - but that wasn't the case. I remember this being something that was complained about before we went live with the waiver system, but I haven't really heard that much about it since.I do think it makes sense to change the waiver priority for the first month of 1950 - especially with the new draft system that will be coming eventually. But it would probably just be based on team record, even if you didn't play a significant number of games yet.
DeVeau31
October 22, 2004 at 04:29PM View BBCode
bad decision IMO. I see complaints on this from time to time, but not so much during the season, because it doesn't matter all that much. Beginning of the season moreso. It is the designated players during the season that this really needs to be in place for.Pages: 1 2