A Nightmare Future

[Crazysilver03]

Ah. I see. So it may be a very miniscule difference. I'd say we have at least a 60% chance of getting one. Would you agree?

I can't give a number with any confidence. But past history of division winners not getting picks probably says the percentage is low. Much lower than 60%.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[weams]

This isn't the first time this information has been presented to you. I brought this up previously in a different thread talking about probabilities of getting picks.

First year we kind of lucked out, but Oakland and Cincy, who were better than us, didn't get picks. And then we weren't as good the following season so it want as difficult to get the pick.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But. There is a big difference in the probability from 85 wins to 96? No one has presented that to me. Is it like the NBA ping pong ball thing?

[Crazysilver03]

I knew that we were not assured. No one has presented any number to me that showed we have less than a 50% probability of obtaining on though. Sorry to have brought the point up again.

It would be interesting if they ever divulged the formulae they use. But I am sure it is some convoluted thing.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crazysilver03]

But. There is a big difference in the probability from 85 wins to 96? No one has presented that to me. Is it like the NBA ping pong ball thing?

The higher your winning percentage from the year before, the lower your percentage of getting a pick.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MurphDogg]

What is the difference in probability between the Orioles and the number 10 placed team?

I don't know. As far as I know it isn't published. And I screwed up, it is twelve teams that get picks and the remainder do not. In 2014 that remainder was 3 teams and in 2013 that remainder was 2 teams.

And there is only a two year track record. Last season the Royals, Rays, and Pirates did not receive comp picks despite being eligible. They won 86, 92 and 94 games. The teams that did get picks were the Marlins, Rockies, Cardinals, Brewers, Padres, Indians, Reds, A's, Mariners, Twins, Orioles and Diamondbacks. They won 62, 74, 97, 74, 76, 92, 90, 96, 71, 66, 85 and 81 games.

So there were 15 teams eligible. The teams with the 9 worst records all got picks. The team with the 3rd, 4th (tied) and 6th best records didn't get picks. So the 1st, 2nd and 4th (tied) best records did get picks.

For 2014 there were 14 teams eligible. The Rockies, O's, Indians, Marlins, Royals, Brewers, Padres, D'Backs, Cardinals, Rays, Pirates and Mariners all got picks. They won 64, 93, 68, 69, 72, 83, 76, 81, 88, 90, 79 and 75 games. The A's and Reds were also eligible and didn't get picks. They won 94 and 97 games. So in this case the twelve worst teams ALL got picks and neither of the two best teams got picks.

Sources: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/07/2015-competitive-balance-lottery-results.html & http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/07/2014-competitive-balance-lottery-results.html

[Crazysilver03]

I don't know. As far as I know it isn't published. And I screwed up, it is twelve teams that get picks and the remainder do not. In 2014 that remainder was 3 teams and in 2013 that remainder was 2 teams.

And there is only a two year track record. Last season the Royals, Rays, and Pirates did not receive comp picks despite being eligible. They won 86, 92 and 94 games. The teams that did get picks were the Marlins, Rockies, Cardinals, Brewers, Padres, Indians, Reds, A's, Mariners, Twins, Orioles and Diamondbacks. They won 62, 74, 97, 74, 76, 92, 90, 96, 71, 66, 85 and 81 games.

So there were 15 teams eligible. The teams with the 9 worst records all got picks. The team with the 3rd, 4th (tied) and 6th best records didn't get picks. So the 1st, 2nd and 4th (tied) best records did get picks.

For 2014 there were 14 teams eligible. The Rockies, O's, Indians, Marlins, Royals, Brewers, Padres, D'Backs, Cardinals, Rays, Pirates and Mariners all got picks. They won 64, 93, 68, 69, 72, 83, 76, 81, 88, 90, 79 and 75 games. The A's and Reds were also eligible and didn't get picks. They won 94 and 97 games. So in this case the twelve worst teams ALL got picks and neither of the two best teams got picks.

Sources: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/07/2015-competitive-balance-lottery-results.html & http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/07/2014-competitive-balance-lottery-results.html

This is an absolutely fantastic post.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MurphDogg]

This is an absolutely fantastic post.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks. I meant to write it last time this came up but that thread died before I got a chance. Fortunately, I am sitting with the girlfriend "watching" The Bachelor tonight, so I had no distractions!

[Crazysilver03]

Thanks. I meant to write it last time this came up but that thread died before I got a chance. Fortunately, I am sitting with the girlfriend "watching" The Bachelor tonight, so I had no distractions!

Hah very nice. If we take it a step further, I believe the Os have the highest win percentage of all eligible teams so the odds do not favor the Os.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MurphDogg]

Hah very nice. If we take it a step further, I believe the Os have the highest win percentage of all eligible teams so the odds do not favor the Os.

I agree they don't favor the Orioles, although my guess is that it is more a ranking of eligible teams with odds weighted differently as opposed to being based on real win/loss percentage, otherwise the numbers couldn't add up exactly the same every year. Unfortunately, we don't know exactly how the odds work and how slanted they are against teams with the highest record. It is amazing (and a little infuriating) that with all of the national baseball writers there are, that nobody has bother tracking this information down. I can't imagine MLB is actively trying to keep it a secret.

[Can_of_corn]

Hah very nice. If we take it a step further, I believe the Os have the highest win percentage of all eligible teams so the odds do not favor the Os.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The top two teams got picks one year and didn't the next.

That isn't enough information to draw conclusions more refined then "The other teams have better odds.". Almost all the teams participating do get picks when it is all said and done.

[byrdz]

By adding 13 top 100 draft picks in the next 18 months?

" I prefer more tender and youthful vegetables, steamed and not boiled soft. I'd eat them."

Exactly, just give us the entire draft class please!

Plus, it frees up cash to spend on some Cuban players.

[JayThomas]

Machado, Jones, Schoop, Hardy, Tillman, Gausman, Bundy, Gonzalez, Britton, maybe Harvey. Still an excellent core for 2016. And we know DD will make necessary additions (if he's still here).

I'm sorry to be repetitive, but I think that if Travis Snider shows us a sign, DD will extend him a la JJ Hardy and we will not miss the future Chris Davis. [sic clearly I am talking through orange-colored glasses and I really do want us to resign CD at a reasonable cost. I just don't see that happening, and I do think that Snider will be locked up and be a really significant addition to that core above.]

[Crazysilver03]

I'm sorry to be repetitive, but I think that if Travis Snider shows us a sign, DD will extend him a la JJ Hardy and we will not miss the future Chris Davis. [sic clearly I am talking through orange-colored glasses and I really do want us to resign CD at a reasonable cost. I just don't see that happening, and I do think that Snider will be locked up and be a really significant addition to that core above.]

Snider is still under team control in 2016.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JayThomas]

Snider is still under team control in 2016.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, and I'm talking about DD extending him beyond his current team control - like giving him a 4 year deal for 2016-2019.

[Ohfan67]

Right, and I'm talking about DD extending him beyond his current team control - like giving him a 4 year deal for 2016-2019.

Travis Snider? The guy with a career OPS+ of 95? Who has barely played a single full year in the ML's? No way do the O's sign him to a four year deal after this season. No way. This is DD you are talking about. Maybe they resign him after 2016, but no way before.