Super 2 Eligibility -- Too many players eligible?

[snowymagician]

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

To the OP.


Option C would work.

Yea, that's what we ended up going with. Thanks!

[Honorable_Pawn]

I do agree with you, though, that the rules as implemented (whether they be OOTP or MLB) do not account for an inaugural draft. I tend to agree with you that it would be good to have a 2nd option for online leagues.

The real only other alternative would be to sim 5 years then erase league history before starting the inaugural draft.

[snowymagician]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

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.

This is interesting. I'm guessing the players were hoping that the owners would screw up/the players get lucky and some years it would turn out that there would be less than 22% of the class of players with more than exactly 2 years of service time. This would create the bombshell for owners that we are dealing with that allows all of them to be eligible for arb. early. Maybe the players stuck that "tie" language in there hoping this sort of situation would arise and the owners accepted because: (1) like you said, they probably got something else that they wanted, and (2) because the owners didn't think it was very likely that this would happen. Most of the time more than 22% of the class has more than exactly 2 years of service time and, thus, then the "tie" language simply allows for 23%, 24%, etc. of the players becoming Super 2, rather than less than 22%.

[snowymagician]

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

I do agree with you, though, that the rules as implemented (whether they be OOTP or MLB) do not account for an inaugural draft. I tend to agree with you that it would be good to have a 2nd option for online leagues.

Exactly. I don't think any of this even arises when there is no inaugural draft. I mean, it could, it's just not very likely.

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

The real only other alternative would be to sim 5 years then erase league history before starting the inaugural draft.

I really like this idea! I bet it would solve the problem. And you get the added bonus of having 5 years of stats to go on when drafting as well.

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by snowymagician

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. :-)

How about instead of not implementing a MLB rule (since OOTP is a simulator which attempts to simulate MLB) something be done to prevent what happened in your on-line league that caused the issue? In other words fix what caused the problem (something in your online league) and not adjust the rules to make it work?

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

I do agree with you, though, that the rules as implemented (whether they be OOTP or MLB) do not account for an inaugural draft. I tend to agree with you that it would be good to have a 2nd option for online leagues.

The real only other alternative would be to sim 5 years then erase league history before starting the inaugural draft.

Simming forward is what I do when I start any league. I used to do that because it was thought there was an issue with talent levels initially created (don't think that is an issue now) but also for service time. Otherwise I ended up with huge FA classes because so many players started at the same time. In fact that may be in the future for the authour of the OP. All these players with exactly 2 years service time will all reach free agency at the same time.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by byzeil

How about instead of not implementing a MLB rule (since OOTP is a simulator which attempts to simulate MLB) something be done to prevent what happened in your on-line league that caused the issue? In other words fix what caused the problem (something in your online league) and not adjust the rules to make it work?

That's a good point, too, but I think this would be a real easy thing to miss. I guess it could happen in a solo league too. I mean, I never thought of it before. How many of us have. I'm sure a lot of people reading this will be checking out super 2 players now when they hold an inaugural draft in their solo league.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by byzeil

Simming forward is what I do when I start any league. I used to do that because it was thought there was an issue with talent levels initially created (don't think that is an issue now) but also for service time. Otherwise I ended up with huge FA classes because so many players started at the same time. In fact that may be in the future for the authour of the OP. All these players with exactly 2 years service time will all reach free agency at about the same time.

I'm going to reference this thread from time to time in the New to the Game forum. I've been playing for years and never thought of this. Then again I never do an inaugural draft.

It's a good point that the OP brought up and there are some good suggestions for working around it. In any event, it still would be nice to have an alternative.

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by snowymagician

This is interesting. I'm guessing the players were hoping that the owners would screw up/the players get lucky and some years it would turn out that there would be less than 22% of the class of players with more than exactly 2 years of service time. This would create the bombshell for owners that we are dealing with that allows all of them to be eligible for arb. early. Maybe the players stuck that "tie" language in there hoping this sort of situation would arise and the owners accepted because: (1) like you said, they probably got something else that they wanted, and (2) because the owners didn't think it was very likely that this would happen. Most of the time more than 22% of the class has more than exactly 2 years of service time and, thus, then the "tie" language simply allows for 23%, 24%, etc. of the players becoming Super 2, rather than less than 22%.

Wow now that is an interesting conspiracy theory.I highly doubt that the thinking went that deep.

During negotiations MLB wanted something and in return they raised from 17% to 22% of players with 2-3 years service time arbitration eligible. Since there was the possibility of players being 'tied' they needed to put language in to handle that. As simple as that. Players liked it because more players got Arb, owners liked it because they got something else.

edit: Now snowy get your focus back on the Santa Fe team!

[byzeil]

All these players with exactly 2 years service time will all reach free agency at the same time.

You may want to start planning for the FA flood in a few seasons.

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by Honorable_Pawn

That's a good point, too, but I think this would be a real easy thing to miss. I guess it could happen in a solo league too. I mean, I never thought of it before. How many of us have. I'm sure a lot of people reading this will be checking out super 2 players now when they hold an inaugural draft in their solo league.

I don't do inaugural drafts generally.

What you might want to do when you release all players for the inaugural draft is make sure not to reset service time. You still may end up with a bunch of players starting their clocks but not an overwhelming number.

In one early test league I released everyone for the inaugural draft and wiped all history and service time. Well for 6 years I had almost no free agents then after year 6 everyone was going to be eligible. I learned from that one

[snowymagician]

Originally Posted by byzeil

You may want to start planning for the FA flood in a few seasons.

Yea, I didn't think of this. It is going to be pretty insane. We might need a cap increase!

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

The players cannot be happy with the way it's set up now. GMs/owners manipulating service time the way they do.

Given the boost arbitration has given to player salaries, I'd wager they're pretty happy with the system overall. The reality is that owners are not likely to give back the concession they received in the 1985 CBA, so expanding the number of 'Super 2' players is a good compromise—it means more players receive the salary benefit arbitration provides. (Note that even players who lose their case in arbitration still typically get hefty pay raises. Which is why owners have never been fond of the arbitration system.)

Originally Posted by tejdog1

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).

It does help players, because arbitration itself benefits players. The more players that have access to arbitration earlier the better, from the players' perspective. And that's because player salaries in their pre-arbitration years are artificially held down. (Numerous econometric studies have looked at this point over the years.)

Originally Posted by tejdog1

I'd look to make it performance based (PERISH the thought! Actual performance leading to payment? What is this - the real world???)

The owners have proposed that a couple of times in past CBA negotiations. The players would have none of it because they knew the financial benefit arbitration provides.

Originally Posted by tejdog1

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?

Arbitration started in 1973. It was seen as a way to placate players who, back then, still were subject to the reserve clause for their entire career. Arbitration offered a way for salaries to be determined by an independent process rather than the club holding all the cards (if negotiations failed the club could mostly offer any salary it wanted unilaterally and the player's only recourse was to either accept or hold out).

The threshold was two years. In the 1985 CBA, as a concession to the owners, the players agreed to let it be raised to three years (though it would not come into effect until 1987). During the 1990 lockout the players advocated for a return to the two-year level while the owners wanted to retain the three-year threshold (in addition to limiting arbitration awards to an increase of 75% over the prior year's salary). The compromise that was eventually struck saw the introduction of the 'Super 2' arbitration-eligible players.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by snowymagician

This is interesting. I'm guessing the players were hoping that the owners would screw up/the players get lucky and some years it would turn out that there would be less than 22% of the class of players with more than exactly 2 years of service time ...

I think the reasoning was likely mundane: the players likely proposed a return to two years, the owners wanted to keep the current thresholds. In exchange for the players signing off on the amateur draft signing bonus pool system (owners had for some time wanted some sort of bonus cost control put in place) the players wanted a bump in the number of players qualifying for 'Super 2' status.

It seems the sort of quid pro quo one would find in a negotiation.

[captaincoop17]

You could also go back to before arbitration and edit the players' service time? (Would require a backup league file)

Make 2 guys have more then 2.0 years of service, giving you the 11 you need.

Go through arbitration and then following, just edit those 2 players' contracts and service time ?

Just a thought, before you go and edit 40 contracts or whatever?

[tejdog1]

So LGO - from 1973 to 1985, was it this?

2 years of team controlled minimum
3 arbitration years
FA

Whereas now it's 3-3-FA?

Discounting Super 2.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by tejdog1

So LGO - from 1973 to 1985, was it this?

2 years of team controlled minimum
3 arbitration years
FA

Whereas now it's 3-3-FA?

Discounting Super 2.

I don't have some of the relevant CBAs, so certain details I am unsure about. But here is how it worked as far as I'm aware.

Arbitration was first part of the 1973 CBA, effective in 1974. The threshold was two years of Major League service. The threshold for arbitration was described as follows in the 1976 CBA:

Originally Posted by Article V (E)(1)

... ... any Player with both a total of two years of Major League service and Major League service in at least three different championship seasons, but with less than six years of Major League service, may submit the issue of the Player's salary to final and binding arbitration without the consent of the other party ...

I do not know if the requirement for service in at least thee different seasons applied in 1974-75. There was no arbitration in 1976 and 1977 as it required the consent of both the player and club to occur, and it seems in both years there was no such mutual consent between any player and club to go to arbitration.

In the 1980 CBA it seems the requirement for service in at least three different seasons was dropped, leaving only a threshold of two years of Major League service, however acquired. In the 1985 CBA the threshold was raised to three seasons, effective with the 1987 season. This meant that the change would not affect many of younger major league players early in their careers in 1985.

In the 1990 CBA the "Super 2" category was added, effective in 1991, with the top 17% of players with more than two but less than three years of Major League service, and with at least 86 days of service in the preceding season, qualifying. In the 2012 CBA the "Super 2" category was expanded to include the top 22%.


An interesting quirk from earlier seasons folks may not be aware of is that players were limited in how often they could declare free agency: once used, a player could not elect regular free agency again until another six years of Major League service had been earned. Any club that held the rights to a player due to such 'repeater rights' limitations had to offer to go to arbitration to determine the salary for the player's seasons not covered by contract for which he could not yet elect free agency. If the club didn't offer arbitration, then the player became an unrestricted free agent. This repeater restriction was eliminated in the 1996 CBA.