Revise Rookie Contract Trainings (Again)
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:18 pm
I usually don't like reopening items we have voted on this soon, but it's rapidly become clear that the current rookie contract training system is complex and rather unwieldly - and simplifying it would be highly beneficial to the league. So I'm going to reopen that can of worms.
PHILOSOPHY:
There is a difference between tanking and rebuilding. Rebuilding is reducing a team's current talent level in order to gain assets with future potential and is done at the General Manager/Roster Construction level. This is a legitimate strategy in a league where you are taking the role of a GM. Tanking is deliberately causing a roster as currently constituted to underperform. While we no longer have rules specifically forbidding it (because it is a subjective thing), nothing in the league structure should actively encourage attempts to underperform with a team's current talent level.
This is a philosophical imperative - it is damaging to competitive balance for the league to actively encourage tanking.
It is for this reason that the league uses a lottery instead of directly awarding the worst team the top pick.
It is for this reason that the league awards points based on regular-season winning streaks and total regular season wins.
High-potential rookies generally come into the league more raw than ever before. This means that playing these rawer rookies ahead of established talent - which usually means a worse team on the floor - should not be encouraged by league rules.
Direct incentives for giving rookies playing time regardless of their skill level - first implemented in our awarding points if a rookie plays 30+ mpg (probably copied by AD23 from other sim leagues, as was most of the rest of his points system) and later changes to create our current system of free rookie trainings - have encouraged teams to play rawer rookies ahead of established talent - either forcing the team to make a choice between trying to win now or develop rookies for the future or worse, by "giving teams an excuse to hide behind when tanking."
As stated previously, the league rules should not encourage this, so it is time to modify or excise these rules. Also, the current system is hideously complex. We need to reduce the learning curve to get new GMs into the league, not increase it.
"Free Rookie Training" based on minutes played needs to go.
However, we must also be mindful of the fact that the rookies generated by the college system tend to be more raw than before and so consideration could also be given to making sure their development isn't stunted by removal of the current rookie training system.
APPLICATION:
Any proposals that increase the amount of sim points in the economy (e.g., changing the luxury tax such that non-taxpaying teams get some distribution of points paid in by the tax payers) is also a potential gain for rookies as it makes more points available to train them (granted, there's no guarantee those points will be spent on rookies but the opportunity is there).
Let's also look at the current rookie training system for a moment to get a feel for its current value in the sim point economy. Very few players reach 3000 minutes in a season, but with good luck and health, it is possible. With our current threshold system, a player could - in theory - receive 6, 5, 4, and 3 RCT points over the life of his rookie contract. Assuming a rookie always uses those in the highest-value way possible - training an attribute in the "B" band (2.1 league points per attribute increase) the maximum possible total value of RCT is 6+5+4+3 = 18 times 2.1 or 37.8 league points.
Note that protecting a rookie via TC insurance in that span would cost 40 points. Removing the need for TC insurance would be a net GAIN for rookies. Any proposal that makes TC insurance free for all players on their rookie contracts but removes Rookie Training is a net gain for rookies as the cost savings in insurance more than offsets the "free points lost" by removing RCTs. There is absolutely no "other side" in that discussion, by the way. That 40 is greater than 37.8 is a mathematical fact. If free TC insurance is limited to only 2 players, that of course changes the dynamics of the discussion, since if nobody ever traded picks away, each team would have 6 players on rookie deals (4 first round picks and 2 second round picks) under contract and thus doesn't get the full benefit of the 40 points - but then, playing 6 players 3000 minutes each isn't realistic either, so the discussion there can go back and forth. But what I'm going to propose here is even more simple.
PROPOSAL: Every rookie gets 25 "use it or lose it" points for weight room training after his first TC (i.e., before he ever plays a game). That means 25 league points not 25 attribute points - normal spending rules regarding bands and so forth apply, so you can't bump an attribute unless the potential is in the next band up, you can't bump it more than 10 points at once, etc. - upping a 26 INS to 36 will run you 15 points. These trainings would take place BEFORE any paid training. This would be separate and distinct from spending "normal" points (so, for instance, you could then spend normal points to up the now-36 INS to 46). This replaces the current Rookie Contract Training system in its entirety.
As a separate voting item, conditioned on the first proposal passing, allow multiple foul trainings to be purchased with the use it or lose it points instead of just one.
Also a separate voting item would be whether these points could be spent on potential.
Also also separate vote if these points could be spent on athletic ratings.
This simple method fixes a number of issues. Rookies too raw? They're now less raw. You don't have to meet a minutes threshold with your rookie to get a benefit; if he's still not ready you don't even have to worry you're going to "miss out" on something if you don't put him out on the floor. All the complexity of tracking minutes and thresholds is gone. No more reason to throw rookies out for extended minutes if they aren't ready (so no complaints about excuses to tank or being forced to tank). It also has the desirable side effect of giving every owner a reason to be involved in the offseason training aspect of the league (unless they traded away all their picks). Even teams that are in luxury tax hell can still get use out of their "use it or lose it" points.
Please discuss.
PHILOSOPHY:
There is a difference between tanking and rebuilding. Rebuilding is reducing a team's current talent level in order to gain assets with future potential and is done at the General Manager/Roster Construction level. This is a legitimate strategy in a league where you are taking the role of a GM. Tanking is deliberately causing a roster as currently constituted to underperform. While we no longer have rules specifically forbidding it (because it is a subjective thing), nothing in the league structure should actively encourage attempts to underperform with a team's current talent level.
This is a philosophical imperative - it is damaging to competitive balance for the league to actively encourage tanking.
It is for this reason that the league uses a lottery instead of directly awarding the worst team the top pick.
It is for this reason that the league awards points based on regular-season winning streaks and total regular season wins.
High-potential rookies generally come into the league more raw than ever before. This means that playing these rawer rookies ahead of established talent - which usually means a worse team on the floor - should not be encouraged by league rules.
Direct incentives for giving rookies playing time regardless of their skill level - first implemented in our awarding points if a rookie plays 30+ mpg (probably copied by AD23 from other sim leagues, as was most of the rest of his points system) and later changes to create our current system of free rookie trainings - have encouraged teams to play rawer rookies ahead of established talent - either forcing the team to make a choice between trying to win now or develop rookies for the future or worse, by "giving teams an excuse to hide behind when tanking."
As stated previously, the league rules should not encourage this, so it is time to modify or excise these rules. Also, the current system is hideously complex. We need to reduce the learning curve to get new GMs into the league, not increase it.
"Free Rookie Training" based on minutes played needs to go.
However, we must also be mindful of the fact that the rookies generated by the college system tend to be more raw than before and so consideration could also be given to making sure their development isn't stunted by removal of the current rookie training system.
APPLICATION:
Any proposals that increase the amount of sim points in the economy (e.g., changing the luxury tax such that non-taxpaying teams get some distribution of points paid in by the tax payers) is also a potential gain for rookies as it makes more points available to train them (granted, there's no guarantee those points will be spent on rookies but the opportunity is there).
Let's also look at the current rookie training system for a moment to get a feel for its current value in the sim point economy. Very few players reach 3000 minutes in a season, but with good luck and health, it is possible. With our current threshold system, a player could - in theory - receive 6, 5, 4, and 3 RCT points over the life of his rookie contract. Assuming a rookie always uses those in the highest-value way possible - training an attribute in the "B" band (2.1 league points per attribute increase) the maximum possible total value of RCT is 6+5+4+3 = 18 times 2.1 or 37.8 league points.
Note that protecting a rookie via TC insurance in that span would cost 40 points. Removing the need for TC insurance would be a net GAIN for rookies. Any proposal that makes TC insurance free for all players on their rookie contracts but removes Rookie Training is a net gain for rookies as the cost savings in insurance more than offsets the "free points lost" by removing RCTs. There is absolutely no "other side" in that discussion, by the way. That 40 is greater than 37.8 is a mathematical fact. If free TC insurance is limited to only 2 players, that of course changes the dynamics of the discussion, since if nobody ever traded picks away, each team would have 6 players on rookie deals (4 first round picks and 2 second round picks) under contract and thus doesn't get the full benefit of the 40 points - but then, playing 6 players 3000 minutes each isn't realistic either, so the discussion there can go back and forth. But what I'm going to propose here is even more simple.
PROPOSAL: Every rookie gets 25 "use it or lose it" points for weight room training after his first TC (i.e., before he ever plays a game). That means 25 league points not 25 attribute points - normal spending rules regarding bands and so forth apply, so you can't bump an attribute unless the potential is in the next band up, you can't bump it more than 10 points at once, etc. - upping a 26 INS to 36 will run you 15 points. These trainings would take place BEFORE any paid training. This would be separate and distinct from spending "normal" points (so, for instance, you could then spend normal points to up the now-36 INS to 46). This replaces the current Rookie Contract Training system in its entirety.
As a separate voting item, conditioned on the first proposal passing, allow multiple foul trainings to be purchased with the use it or lose it points instead of just one.
Also a separate voting item would be whether these points could be spent on potential.
Also also separate vote if these points could be spent on athletic ratings.
This simple method fixes a number of issues. Rookies too raw? They're now less raw. You don't have to meet a minutes threshold with your rookie to get a benefit; if he's still not ready you don't even have to worry you're going to "miss out" on something if you don't put him out on the floor. All the complexity of tracking minutes and thresholds is gone. No more reason to throw rookies out for extended minutes if they aren't ready (so no complaints about excuses to tank or being forced to tank). It also has the desirable side effect of giving every owner a reason to be involved in the offseason training aspect of the league (unless they traded away all their picks). Even teams that are in luxury tax hell can still get use out of their "use it or lose it" points.
Please discuss.
