Fantasy Baseball Isn’t Poker
In a poker tournament, the top 15 percent of participants usually land “in the money.” House games can be a little more communist, I played in an eight man tournament last weekend where the top three received some portion of the pot (third got less than money back after counting his three rebuys). In fantasy baseball, it’s common for only the top 16 to 25 percent of participants to receive a payout. While that’s more than your average poker tournament, it’s still a top heavy distribution.
It strikes me as curious that poker and fantasy baseball have similar pay structures. The games are not very comparable. At the highest level, poker is a three day sprint. Fantasy baseball is an ultra marathon by comparison. In poker, the poor performers are knocked out and can no longer influence the outcome. In fantasy baseball, those poor performers can throw gum in works with mid-season fire sales or lopsided, lazy trades.
Yesterday, I proposed flattening your league’s pay structure as a means to combat early season fire sales in a keeper league. The commenters included a number of interesting alternatives that could work for certain league types and structures. Today I’d like to focus more attention on a flat pay structure that awards some return to most owners. It is my belief that this is the most intuitive pay structure for a basic fantasy baseball league and should become the standard.
The premise is simple. Let’s imagine we have a 12 team league. Traditionally, first place would get about 70 percent of the pot with the remaining 30 percent going to second place. Sometimes third place gets money back. Head-to-head leagues will often split payments into regular season and playoff pools, but let’s focus on roto leagues for now. By the time July rolls around teams five through 12 are probably dead in the water. They have no hope of reaching first place. Maybe second place is assailable. At that point, we’ll see large volumes of fire sales in keeper leagues and inactivity in redraft leagues. Both behaviors can substantially affect the outcome of the season compared with a format where everybody tries.
Now let’s imagine a 12 team league where the 10th place team gets some money with an increasing amount going to each consecutive place. This is the exact pay structure I discussed yesterday, and some variation should work for redraft and head-to-head leagues too. Owners are constantly incentived to improve in the standings, and they have a monetary reason to think twice about making a bad trade.
As one commenter pointed out yesterday, we’re trading a lesser award pool for the winning teams in return for greater in season effort by all owners. I don’t see that as a problem. Based on my own personal preferences, I think that is an excellent trade off. More to the point, you can have your cake and eat it too. All you need to do is decide on the pool you want and double the buy-in.
For example, let’s say I want the top two owners to share a prize pool of $240 ($20 per owner). If I make the buy-in $40, then I have $200 to distribute from places three through 10 while the winners still get the intended award plus $20 extra dollars to cover the increased buy-in. While it’s true that the winners receive a lesser return on their investment, not many people play fantasy baseball as an investment. I’ve always used money purely as a means to incentivize better behavior in my fantasy leagues. The payouts for any league that I can afford are piddling when compared to the amount of time that I invest.
That in a nut shell is why I now believe that a pay structure that awards most teams is ideal for fantasy baseball. The theoretical outcome is improved play from all owners. Anecdotally, I’ve seen this work with a N=1 sample (so keep your grains of salt handy) and there’s no theory-based reason why it shouldn’t continue to work. Moreover, while the winner has to accept a lesser ROI, you can easily ensure that the raw payout matches the intended amount under a more traditional pay system.
You can follow me on twitter @BaseballATeam
You could also discourage fire sales by penalizing last place. Sort of a “last one in is a rotten egg” policy.
I’ve tried this in the past. I find that it tends to increase the quit rate of the league. John quits because he doesn’t want to pay an extra $20 to get his crappy team back, Ben quits because he wants to play with John. Then maybe Joe quits because he was on the fence and now his two best trade partners are gone.
Doubling the entry fee without any bump to the winners piece of the pie. Sounds like we’ve really solved problems here.
It’s a matter of preferences. Do you prefer the season to be well played start to finish by the entire league or do you prefer to maximize payout to the winners. I prefer the better experience to the money. Since very few people play traditional fantasy baseball to make money, I assume most owners share my disposition.
If I’m playing for money, I’m playing to win money. Maybe I’m weird that way. When my league suffered from poor play, we forced that owner out. I suppose we could have rewarded his lack of effort with a bigger piece of the pool, but that seems counterproductive.
You also have to account for people’s loss aversion. Since the league already has a payout structure, his proposed change can be implemented by one of two methods. The one where the entry fee is doubled and the winner’s take is practically unchanged. Or the second way, keep the entry fee the same and cut the winner’s take nearly in half. Change will encounter resistance in either case, but option one certainly seems the smoother route to the desired outcome.
Suggestion for your 8-man home games (we do $30 buy-in, either one or two $20 bounties), rebuys for first hour to 1:30 — I always tell the guys that the minimum number of players for a three-place cash is NINE. Here’s my breakdown: 2-4 man games — WTA; 5-8 players — 2 places; 9-14 players — 3 places; 15-20 — 4 places. In your eight-man game, if people really want to throw that third guy some cash, cut a deal once it’s down to three. Hope this helps.
We were doing an ultra turbo with unlimited rebuys for the first hour. There was a lot of action so the initial $160 pot turned into $360. I took down the top spot with only the original buy-in 🙂
You seem to imply that a losing / last place owner that conducts a fire sale once their team is unlikely to finish in the money is not playing competitively. I would say this is the exact opposite. An owner that is low in the standings should be looking to optimize the future value he can bring in by shipping out current assets. Therefore, whoever is willing to offer the most in terms of cheap keepers / picks in next years draft, etc will likely gain the most in present value via trade.
Preventing salary dumps takes away one of the most fun parts of the game for me – if I have, say, a 4th place team within shooting distance of 2nd, should I push forward and sacrifice future value for a higher chance of a better finish or stand pat and stay the course for future seasons? Assuming all owners are acting rationally in their long-term best interests, this adds an interesting dynamic to the league that flattening payouts takes away.
Though tastes for this will vary league to league, I think you are creating a problem where there isn’t one.
It was discussed yesterday, but it comes down to what camp you are in- rebuilding is fine it circulates talent vs. nearly all teams should continue to try to win throughout the season.
Since I only play in keeper leagues I gravitate towards the former idea. But I could see where the second idea would work better for one-year leagues.
Salary dumps aren’t prevented, just discouraged. Many leagues have a problem where owners are incentivized to trade elite player for very mediocre keepers due to an imbalance in supply/demand. Flattening the pay ensures that owners only take “fair” salary dumps.
Case in point, in a keeper league, I trade $10 Chris Tillman for Even Longoria back when Tillman was just breaking into the league. Tillman probably had a -$2 projection for next year (and was actually much much worse), but with a couple months left in the season, he was one of the best potential keeper prospects available. That trade should happen 0 times out of 1000 unless your league is built wrong.
then you need to offer someone better than Tillman to get Longoria. If there’s only one buyer in the market, that’s a different story
In our league, a 13 team NL only roto league with a small farm system – we have a number of things that theoretically keep people involved. Places 1-5 get some sort of compensation (or in the case of 5th place, no league fees the next year). 6th place gets the #1 pick of the minor league draft, which is a big deal for dynasty (for example, they would get to select Kris Bryant this year or someone of that ilk who was recently drafted and not currently owned). Last place has to pay for the food at the next auction. While occasionally there are bad trades by many standards – ultimately if an owner values that player or that prospect, that’s his business. However, teams that might be out of the money still jockey for the best draft pick AND teams do not want to foot the food bill for ~20 people in addition to league fees and transaction fees (the cost for teams 6-13 to participate in the league is roughly $500, depending on contract extensions, minor league keepers and buy-outs). Again, we still get crazy bs trades (like last year’s Joey Votto for Rafael Montero deal), although given salaries (votto $48, montero $5 rml) its not terribly egregious, since votto probably wouldn’t be kept at that salary but montero most definitely will be (since rml salary doesnt count against the cap). Just some other suggestions.
Although it would probably increase the quit rate as noted above (not a draw back in my opinion because we have some dead weight we could replace) and would probably require a retainer or something, I’ve been advocating our league a tiered entry fee so that the worse you finish, the more the year cost you and vice versa. Nothing too dramatic, but something that makes the rebuilders balance the value they’re getting for their non-keeper stars with $.
the problem with this approach is that there is only a certain threshold that a league can support a quit rate before the league is unsustainable. If you set this up in a way that penalized last place teams too much, you’re not going to find owners to take over those abandoned teams which hurts the teams in the top places even more by taking away that future earning potential.
this is the problem of competitive balance/parity vs rewarding winners. Winners justly deserve the reward– everyone joined the same system with the same rules knowing what they signed up for so why give special treatment to the people who can’t win? BUT if the losers decide to go home, suddenly the winners don’t have that opportunity to win anymore.
In a keeper league competitive balance becomes that much more important, because you need to create incentives for returning. If you can replace dead weight in your league, just vote them out and do it– set an ultimatum or something.
I’ve never played in a money league, but do you think that incentivizing performance increases would help? Say you double the buy in, keep the payout the same for the first and second place teams (+$20), then give 3rd his money back and then the most improved team gets money and/or whoever dethrones the reigning champ gets a bonus, perhaps a vote gets held for best trade of the season three nominees get voted on and the winner gets some money.|
This would incentivize players to keep playing all season and try to make more competitive trades. Of course, like I said before, I’ve never played in a money league, but teams getting the opportunity to earn money without winning but instead trying to get better should make the league more competitive over all.
We have a $40 buy in. Twelve owners is $480 and we pay it:
1st $200
2nd $100
3rd $60
Winner of each of the ten rotisserie category gets $12. So, you have guys at the bottom of the standings making moves to try to win a category and recover some money at least. If it’s July, and you’re in tenth place but are second in Saves, we see guys try to climb to the top in that category, which increases season long activity.
should everyone get a participation ribbon as well?
While this article was about payout, if you don’t think poker and fantasy sports are alike, I recommend this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Think-Like-Fantasy-Football-Winner-ebook/dp/B00D454Q58
If you are in a money league. and you decide to stop paying attention, that’s you that’s burning the money. No, it doesn’t help with league integrity if teams quit….but it’s the nature of the beast. There are people in the world that just don’t have the drive or hunger to continue to give their all even when there is no hope of winning. The difference of $5 or whatever between 9th and 10th place in the model you suggest is not going to inspire most of these people. Personally, whether I’m out of the running or 20 points out in front, I’m still trying to optimize my point total. More than once I’ve been ridiculed for making moves the day before the last day of the season when I have the league safely won. And more than once I’ve taken a team from the lower third of the standings in June into a money spot in Sept. In fact, those have been some of my most satisfying efforts, even compared to the leagues I’ve won going away.
And so, I FIRMLY believe that the managers that finish in the top 3 ABSOLUTELY deserve all of the winnings. Managers throwing in the towel is inevitable in all but the most competitive leagues, and even there there is usually 1-2 teams at the bottom that eventually give up.
i concur
I would rather win a league where all of the members are competitive. I would also feel more satisfied in winning a league that does not involve me fleecing another owner in a trade.
i agree with this in theory– i don’t think 100% activity at all times is realistic in any league. There will always be that guy who is happy to join the league and play in the draft but just isn’t paying attention by August/September; as long as that guy is only a small percentage of the league it really doesn’t hurt anything.
at the same time, I think there are ways to reward teams who try to compete. Think of it this way: if you can incentivize active ownership year-round, this should encourage owners to return for future years. if owners come back, then the guys at the top may be giving up a little of their current winnings in return for stability.
If you’re joining random leagues with people you don’t know, this really isn’t a requirement at all. There is no incentive to rewarding strangers, you’ll always be able to find more strangers to play with for money in any format.
If you’re playing with friends/co-workers, then there’s a case to be made for encouraging longevity in the league. Finding a way to make sure everyone wants to come back next year will only help the guy in first/second place in the long run– his opportunity to win more over time increases.
one thing to consider is that any financial incentive relies on the financial incentive being meaningful enough to the owners in the league to change behavior. In the original ottoneu league, we have seen owners sell within easy striking distance of third (which gets paid)and had one owner discuss selling while sitting in third. The rationale is that “flags fly forever” and that you are playing to win the league, not to get money.
This leaves you with two choices – make the finances so meaningful that they drive behavior or find a non-financial incentive to not be at the bottom. I like the leagues that reward the top non-money/non-playoff teams with top picks, etc. Help those on the outside look in rebuild faster, thereby increasing parity, but do so in a way that rewards competing year round.
In two on my “only” 12 team keeper leagues, with a two round farm draft. The top 5 teams get paid each year, but we penalize the teams in last place by giving the team that place in 6th, or just out of the money, the first pick in the two round minor league draft, so there is incentive to keep playing for this year.
Then again, the team in last place still gets first dibs on waiver wire when top prospects not drafted get called up.
I see no problem with firesales in keeper leagues. I do it all the time where I decide to bail and rebuild. It is a strategy I have used with success for quite awhile.
In my league what we do is add an extra $30 to the pot. Everyone who makes playoffs (top 6) gets their $30 kicker back.
The bottom six teams who don’t make playoffs now finish the year for a consolation prize of $150.
Seems to work pretty well. It is enough money where people still care, and they have to pay upfront so there is no risk of quitting.
i like this solution for h2h leagues. the consolation ladder in h2h is the saddest thing in the world, and putting a prize at the end of it is smart.
Actually the solution is to randomize one payout. 1st/2nd/3rd get what they get – and some other position (chosen by everyone before the season) gets their money back. So if that ‘money-back’ position is 9th, then you create a slightly different trade dynamic as the season goes on. Owners aren’t necessarily purely buyers or sellers and you really avoid the massive (and usually stupid and annoying) team-swap trades with a last place owner who may not even return the next year. Basically that single randomized payout ensures that owners think about their trades. Money this year is an incentive. Money/standings next year is NEVER an incentive – merely a bunch of sales bs.
In our rotisserie league there is a nominal monthly payout to whoever improved the most that month. Still a hefty pot for the winner.
Why keep score…Everyone gets a trophy! They do this for my six year old when he plays soccer, and some kids still cry after. Dump trades and real teams not playing hard or giving up are also a part of real MLB.
I haven’t really seen this in practice, but I have friends and family who do fantasy nascar in pay leagues. The nascar points system is similar enough to baseball– and the season is incredibly long– that I think there are options here.
Let’s presume the goals of a pay league are 2 fold: 1) reward winning team(s) with money, 2) encourage active participation down the stretch and/or discourage team abandonment.
How the nascar league I’m aware of handles this, is through giving prizes to winners of various segments in time as well as the overall winner. So, for instance, awarding prizes for the best performance in each 2 month stretch– April/May, June/July, Aug/Sept, in addition to the overall winner.
This accomplishes both goals– it rewards winning performances fairly and evenly, and it incentivizes constant participation.
I haven’t had a chance to try this out yet, and I think it would only really work for roto leagues. But if you have a buy-in of $50-$100, the prizes could be structured in such a way that EVERYONE has a chance to win back the entry fee, while at the same time one or two people could completely wipe the floor and walk way with a ton.