Super 2 Eligibility -- Too many players eligible?

[snowymagician]

Hey all,

Just as a bit of background: we just wrapped up the 2nd year of our online league. There are 24 teams, arbitration eligibility starts at 3 years and players hit FA at 5 years, and we started by doing an inaugural draft.

Here's the problem: I noticed that there are a TON of players in our league are now eligible for arbitration after only exactly 2.0 years of service time. Normally, a player is not eligible for arbitration until he has at least 3 years of service time but if a player is in the top 22% of service time after having at least 2 years of service time, he will become eligible for arbitration as a "Super 2" eligible player. In other words, if a player (i) has less than three years of service time, but more than two; AND, (ii) the player ranks within the top 22% of ALL 2-year players in terms of service time, then the player will become eligible for arbitration early.

Unfortunately, this is causing a problem in our league. After noticing that there were a lot of super 2 eligible players, I took a look at every player with at least 2 years of service time and it turns out that EVERYONE who has at least 2 years of service is arbitration eligible. This is a problem because now many many teams are far over their budget and it places a ton of teams in terrible financial shape. Unfortunately, even as a Commish, we cannot simply turn off Super 2 eligibility, and we cannot even make any other adjustments to the arbitration setup until the Preseason hits.

My diagnosis of the problem is that the reason this is happening is that of all of the players with more than 2 years of eligibility, 22% did not have more than 2.0 years of service time. That means the game was like: "well we can't make less than 22% super 2 eligible, so we have to make them ALL super 2 eligible." In other words, if you take all of the players with at least 2 years of service time but less than 3 years of service time, smaller than 22% of them had over exactly 2 years. This means that in order to grab a minimum of 22%, the game had to take ALL of them with exactly 2 years of service time. The result is that everyone with 2 years or more of service time (but less than 3) is now Super 2 eligible.

I'm posting this for a few reasons:

(1) Has any of you encountered the same problem?
(2) Is this how it is designed to work? (Seems pretty silly if you ask me but I'd like some different perspectives).
(3) What have you done to remedy the 'problem', if anything?

For our league, as I see it, we have 3 options:
(A) leave it as is because this is how it is suppose to be and too bad for those teams that get the short end of the stick.
(B) Increase the salary cap and/or team budgets so teams can accommodate for the ridiculous increase in salaries among these players.
(C) Edit the contracts of all the players who have exactly 2.0 years of service time so that they each have another year at contract minimum (i.e. the rookie, pre-arb salary amount).

Option A seems too harsh. Option B involves too much complicated tinkering that seems problematic. Option C is not ideal but seems fairest since this is how it should be working anyways, right?

Anyways, any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[RchW]

If all players over 2 years service are arb eligible that would be a bug. Let's say you had 50 2 year plus guys. Exactly 11 of them (22%) should be Super 2. Report the bug.

[snowymagician]

Originally Posted by RchW

If all players over 2 years service are arb eligible that would be a bug. Let's say you had 50 2 year plus guys. Exactly 11 of them (22%) should be Super 2. Report the bug.

Thanks. I will report it.

It's actually a little more complicated than that. What is happening is that, e.g., there is 50 guys and only 9 of them have more than exactly two years of service time (but less than 3).

This means that while 11 is 22%, only 9 have more than the other 41. The other 41 all have the exact same amount of service time. Thus, the game is forced to make the decision: grab less than 22% of players to make Super 2s (in our example it's 18%), or grab ALL of them? It's currently doing the latter and it should be doing the former.

Or, logically, it could pick 2 of the remaining 41 arbitrarily so that exactly 22% are Super 2 eligible, but it's not doing that either.

[bwburke94]

The way Super 2 works is that if there is a tie for the top 22%, all players in the tie earn that status. Provided that all players with 2y0d of service time had at least 86 days of service time in the immediately preceding season, all are eligible for Super 2 status. Therefore, the game properly followed the Super 2 rules.

I'm not actually sure the 86-day figure scales with season length in OOTP (it should be 50% of the days required for one year of service time, rounded up) - Markus, can you check this?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

The way Super 2 works is that if there is a tie for the top 22%, all players in the tie earn that status. Provided that all players with 2y0d of service time had at least 86 days of service time in the immediately preceding season, all are eligible for Super 2 status. Therefore, the game properly followed the Super 2 rules.

So no bug? Good to know.

Originally Posted by bwburke94

I'm not actually sure the 86-day figure scales with season length in OOTP (it should be 50% of the days required for one year of service time, rounded up) - Markus, can you check this?

I'm slightly confused. The 86 days is on an active major league roster. Does that mean that a player on the DL would acquire total service time towards FA but not towards Super 2 status?

Edit FWIW I use 172 days as the min for 1 year, so by definition any player with exactly 2.0 years service would have to have had more than 86 days service time/roster time unless they were on the 60-day DL.

[snowymagician]

Originally Posted by bwburke94

The way Super 2 works is that if there is a tie for the top 22%, all players in the tie earn that status. Provided that all players with 2y0d of service time had at least 86 days of service time in the immediately preceding season, all are eligible for Super 2 status. Therefore, the game properly followed the Super 2 rules.

Thanks for the input. Can you show me where your getting this idea: "if there is a tie for the top 22%, all players in the tie earn that status." I've never heard of that before.

I mean, it's logically possible to set up the system that way if that's how it is intended to work but that's a pretty stupid system, imo. That, in effect, is saying that, "well, if most players who have at least 2 years of service time but less than three have a very similar amount of time, then we're just going to go ahead and make them ALL arb. eligible. So, you thought you were playing in a league where arb started after 3 years typically, but too bad we're totally changing that and making them all eligible after two years." That is the core rationale if it is in fact that way.

Because, alternatively, the system could easily be set up where you say: "22% and NO MORE than 22% of that group of players will become Super 2 eligible; otherwise, we run the risk of destroying the whole point of the whole '3 years and then arbitration thing for MOST of the players.'" The ole adage that lawyers and scientists like to say: don't allow 'the exception to swallow the rule.'

[Honorable_Pawn]

If I was a GM I would have to go with C. 9 guys get super-2 and the rest don't. That's fair.

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by snowymagician

Thanks for the input. Can you show me where your getting this idea: "if there is a tie for the top 22%, all players in the tie earn that status." I've never heard of that before.

I haven't been able to find out a direct quote stating this is true but it is logical. A player qualifies if he is in the top 22% of service time so then the number of players who qualify would be large if their service time falls in the top 22% (ie. If every player had 2 years service time then they are all in the top 22% of service time). Now if it were top 22% of the Players that qualified then the total number of players would be restricted 22% percent of the players with enough service time. Players would never accept that because there could be 2 or more players with the same exact service time and one might qualify and another might not (how would that be determined?).

It might be a stupid way to set up the system from a management perspective but not from a player's perspective and Super Two status is definitely there to benefit the players.

I think your problem my stem somehow with the way you started the league and the fact that so many players started collecting service time at the same time.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by snowymagician

Thanks for the input. Can you show me where your getting this idea: "if there is a tie for the top 22%, all players in the tie earn that status." I've never heard of that before.

I mean, it's logically possible to set up the system that way if that's how it is intended to work but that's a pretty stupid system, imo. That, in effect, is saying that, "well, if most players who have at least 2 years of service time but less than three have a very similar amount of time, then we're just going to go ahead and make them ALL arb. eligible. So, you thought you were playing in a league where arb started after 3 years typically, but too bad we're totally changing that and making them all eligible after two years." That is the core rationale if it is in fact that way.

Because, alternatively, the system could easily be set up where you say: "22% and NO MORE than 22% of that group of players will become Super 2 eligible; otherwise, we run the risk of destroying the whole point of the whole '3 years and then arbitration thing for MOST of the players.'" The ole adage that lawyers and scientists like to say: don't allow 'the exception to swallow the rule.'

It's not an idea it is the rule.

Major League Baseball transactions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A player with fewer than six years of service time is eligible for salary arbitration if he:
1. is without a contract for the next season, AND
2. has been tendered a contract offer by his current team by the tender deadline, AND
3. cannot agree with his current team on a new contract, AND
4. meets one of the conditions below:

a. has been on a major league roster or disabled list for at least three years, OR
b. has at least two years of major league service but less than three, AND is among the top 22 percent for cumulative playing time in the majors in this class of players (and ties), AND was on an active major-league roster for at least 86 days in the previous season.

[snowymagician]

Originally Posted by RchW

It's not an idea it is the rule.

False. All rules are just implemented ideas. So the two are not mutually exclusive. Rules are just are a subset of ideas.

Also, my post provided a normative argument as to why it's pretty inane to allow the exception to swallow up the rule.

But most saliently, the wiki article does NOT tell us what the rule is in OOTP. It tells us what the rule is the MLB. As we all know, OOTP mirrors MLB rules but does so with some very important deviations. There is no reason to assume this is one of those instances where OOTP follows MLB by the book, especially when it has an absurd consequence.

Relatedly, technically the MLB rule as stated might not be applied by its plain meaning as OOTP has applied it here (i.e. by making the entire class of players Super 2 eligible). This scenario has never happened in MLB and therefore the rule was not designed to deal with this wacky scenario (that has only arisen here because it was a new league started from scratch so there were very few players who had less than 1 year of service time prior the creation of the league). MLB could implement an exception to the rule or not apply it. That's why there are arbitrators and judges for laws/rules.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by snowymagician

False. All rules are just implemented ideas. So the two are not mutually exclusive. Rules are just are a subset of ideas.

Also, my post provided a normative argument as to why it's pretty inane to allow the exception to swallow up the rule.

But most saliently, the wiki article does NOT tell us what the rule is in OOTP. It tells us what the rule is the MLB. As we all know, OOTP mirrors MLB rules but does so with some very important deviations. There is no reason to assume this is one of those instances where OOTP follows MLB by the book, especially when it has an absurd consequence.

Relatedly, technically the MLB rule as stated might not be applied by its plain meaning as OOTP has applied it here (i.e. by making the entire class of players Super 2 eligible). This scenario has never happened in MLB and therefore the rule was not designed to deal with this wacky scenario (that has only arisen here because it was a new league started from scratch so there were very few players who had less than 1 year of service time prior the creation of the league). MLB could implement an exception to the rule or not apply it. That's why there are arbitrators and judges for laws/rules.

Whoa, slow down Superman!

In an effort to help we provide the best information we have. I certainly don't need lectures from you on anything. Have a nice night.

[snowymagician]

Originally Posted by RchW

Whoa, slow down Superman!

In an effort to help we provide the best information we have. I certainly don't need lectures from you on anything. Have a nice night.

I appreciate your help- I just wasn't persuaded yet and explained why

[byzeil]

nevermind

[Le Grande Orange]

The final authority on real-life arbitration is the CBA. Here is what it says:

Originally Posted by Article VI (E)(1)(b)

“Super Two” Players. In addition, a Player with at least two but less than three years of Major League service shall be eligible for salary arbitration if: (a) he has accumulated at least 86 days of service during the immediately preceding season; and (b) he ranks in the top 22% (rounded to the nearest whole number) in total service in the class of Players who have at least two but less than three years of Major League service, however accumulated, but with at least 86 days of service accumulated during the immediately preceding season. If two or more Players are tied at 22%, all such Players shall be eligible.

The matter of how to handle players tied for qualification is explicitly spelled out. Also, note that it says "Major League service" not time on the active roster. Time spent on the disabled list counts as Major League service time, so it would seem any time on the DL (or similar inactive list on which a player earns service time) is included when determining how much service time a player had the prior season. If service only applied to time spent on the active (25-man) roster the CBA would almost certainly specify that.

[snowymagician]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The matter of how to handle players tied for qualification is explicitly spelled out.

Thanks!

But, again, this doesn't settle the issue of how it should be working in OOTP for precisely the reasons that I've presented above. To reiterate:

(1) Just because the minutia of the CBA or current rules of MLB call for this does NOT mean that it is that way in OOTP. OOTP parallels the CBA's rules but not perfectly, nor should it. The most obvious example of major divergence that comes to mind is the workings of Rule 5 draft.

(2) Even though this is the explicit rule provided for in the CBA, this doesn't even mean that the MLB Commissioner or arbitrators would allow for the problematic scenario we are dealing with in our league to exist in MLB. To put it differently, just because a rule, on its face, calls for a certain application does NOT mean that it must be applied as such in ALL situations. In particular, when certain situations are so far removed from the realm of possibility as to not have even been entertained by the people that drafted the rules, it will likely not apply. To apply that maxim's use more concrete terms: the people who wrote the CBA likely never even remotely entertained the scenario where it was even close to being possible that ALL of the relevant class of players would become Super 2 eligible. This has never happened in the MLB and as far as I know, it has not been close to happening. If you have some data on this, that'd be interesting to see. Or, maybe I'm wrong and the players association snuck in this provision just in case this did happen - so that they could start making more money sooner! If you have some evidence regarding that, that'd be interesting!

(3) Even if that is what the MLB calls for in such a situation, as I've argued above, it's a pretty stupid rule that defeats the whole point of the structure of the system to begin with. This, by itself, is reason for Markus not to have included this rule in the game (or to have given us the option to avoid this silly result). People who would like to normatively defend the rationale for the rule, be my guest. I'd love to be persuaded otherwise. :-)

[tejdog1]

It doesn't matter if you think it's "stupid" or not - that's how the rule is set up in MLB. That's how Markus has it set up in OOTP.

FTR I think the whole Super 2 system needs to be scrapped and reworked because it's the most retarded, ridiculous thing in baseball.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

FTR I think the whole Super 2 system needs to be scrapped and reworked because it's the most retarded, ridiculous thing in baseball.

Not going to happen, as it was originally a compromise in the 1990 CBA when the players wanted a return to the two-year threshold for arbitration and the owners wanted to retain the three-year threshold which had been adopted in the 1985 CBA.

It's a bit curious why the owners accepted an expansion in the number of 'Super 2' players in the 2012 CBA, especially considering that they consider (with some justification) arbitration a key reason behind the rapid increase in player salaries over the years. Presumably it was a concession to the players in order to gain something else.

[tejdog1]

The players cannot be happy with the way it's set up now. GMs/owners manipulating service time the way they do. It doesn't help players, doesn't help fans, and I'd argue doesn't help owners (since keeping good/ready players in the minors leads to less wins/less attendance/less fan interest). I'd look to make it performance based (PERISH the thought! Actual performance leading to payment? What is this - the real world???)

Something like: Any player with 130 ABs,40 innings (starter), 20 innings (relief), or 25 days on a major league roster can qualify for Super 2. To qualify, you must be in the top 20% of performers based on an agreed upon set of statistics. My SABR-leaning self would wish/hope/pray that these stats were wRC+, wOBA, WAR, OPS ||| ERA+, FIP, xFIP, WAR ||| dWAR, ZR - but there's probably a 0% chance of that. It would probably be something stupid like "hits, RBI, HRs, average, ERA, wins, saves".

Thanks for the explaination, tho, LGO. I became a baseball fan in 96 and didn't concern myself/care about roster machination stuff until 2005. So that's fascinating to me, that pre-85 it was mandatory 2 years before arby. Was there still 3 years before FA? So teams controlled players for 5 years, not 6?

[Honorable_Pawn]

Look at T. All smart and stuff.

[Honorable_Pawn]

To the OP.


Option C would work.