How many games should the 69 expansion teams win?

[Brad K]

OOTP doesn't duplicate the conditions of the draft by the 69 expansion teams and plus I'm using free agency. So I've ran a test of 61 to 68, held the draft with different settings, looked at predicted wins, and then simmed 69 for simulation wins.

Historical 69 expansion teams won 237 games (average 59.25). I'd like them to win more than that. I've tried to expansion settings which resulted in predicted/simulation wins of 255/247 (average 63.75/61.75) and 275/273 (average 68.75/68.25). Do either of those outcomes strike anyone as a good one?

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

OOTP doesn't duplicate the conditions of the draft by the 69 expansion teams and plus I'm using free agency. So I've ran a test of 61 to 68, held the draft with different settings, looked at predicted wins, and then simmed 69 for simulation wins.

Historical 69 expansion teams won 237 games (average 59.25). I'd like them to win more than that. I've tried to expansion settings which resulted in predicted/simulation wins of 255/247 (average 63.75/61.75) and 275/273 (average 68.75/68.25). Do either of those outcomes strike anyone as a good one?

One thing you can do, which is what I do now for expansion drafts, is just go into commissioner mode and replicate the real-world picks so that the OOTP teams start off as closely to the real teams as possible. It's a little tedious, but it only has to be done once and is the best solution imo

Would be nice of OOTP had an option to replicate real transactions for the historical drafts. It would fix a lot of problems with it.

Here are the 1969 expansion picks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_M...xpansion_draft

60 wins sounds reasonable for an expansion team. You want to avoid the sub-50 seasons, though. That's a sign that something needs to be tweaked.

[uruguru]

Also, one thing I like to do for OOTP sims without minor leagues is what I call "Rule 6 Free Agency". In this scenario, when the preseason starts and all of the draft picks are signed, I set the Reserve Roster size to its minimum (5 players), which forces a lot of players into the FA pool, and then set it back to its normal size the next day. This is a second chance for expansion and other weak teams to bolster their ranks and also serves as a replacement for the Rule 5 draft which is not possible without minor leagues.

If you have minor leagues, another thing you can do to increase player mobility is to schedule multiple Rule 5 drafts in the offseason by going to the league settings and changing the date of the draft after it has occurred. yes, this works, and is a neat tool to experiment with.

[Pelican]

I have scrapped the default expansion process, in favor of rules and settings to make the teams more competitive. There is no earthly reason the expansion teams have to be awful. And instead of letting them “earn” high draft picks with lousy seasons. Just let them pick first for a year or two (or three) before they start.

So, I only let established teams protect twelve guys. Remember, guys with less than three years service are exempt, so most of a roster can still be protected. One new protected player for each one lost in the draft. Note that this approach promotes league parity, since the “deep” teams are hurt the most.

Prior to expansion, I have the expansion teams participating in the amateur draft, picking first and second. [Warning that the game will fight you on this, and on setting up a minor league organization for teams that do not exist yet on the MLB level. The minor league teams are unaffiliated, and you need to block established teams from poaching the players.]. Three years out, the new franchises have a developmental league team (for the draft picks). Two years out, low-A and high-A teams, for the draft picks and minor league free agents. One year out, add a AA team. The AAA teams starts when the MLB franchise does. This creates an organization of a hundred players before the first year. It gives the fans players to watch. It makes the expansion draft something more than “best player available”. The teams are filling holes and needs, in light of their organization strengths and weaknesses.

I also give the expansion teams a player salary budget similar to the established teams, so that they can sign free agents.

In OOTP this approach yields teams that are competitive, if not yet contending for the post-season. Done right, they will approach .500, rather than lose 100 games. The established teams will do some wheeling and dealing in the days prior to the expansion draft, worried over losing players and who to protect. Again, this tends to make the best teams less dominant.

It’s still a challenge to build a team from scratch.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I have scrapped the default expansion process, in favor of rules and settings to make the teams more competitive.

There is something else you could do that doesn't involve the draft: use a special schedule.

The NFL for some of its expansions had the expansion teams playing a balanced schedule, that is, playing all the other teams in the conference or league equally while the other clubs played their usual type of schedule.

For the 1969 MLB expansion, instead of having the expansion teams playing the same schedule format as the other teams (18 games against each divisional teams, and 12 games against each of the teams in the other division), you could do something like having the expansion teams play 15 games against each of the existing ten clubs and 12 games against the other expansion team. This sort of schedule format spreads out the weakness of the expansion teams across the league and gives the existing teams equal access to the easier games against the incoming new clubs.

This sort of format could be done for 1969 only, or for 1969 and 1970 if you wanted to be more generous.

Originally Posted by Pelican

There is no earthly reason the expansion teams have to be awful. And instead of letting them “earn” high draft picks with lousy seasons. Just let them pick first for a year or two (or three) before they start.

That has been done in real life.

The four 1969 expansion clubs got to make choices in the 1968 June draft, although they did not start making picks until the 4th round. The four clubs were assigned the last four slots in each round. The two 1977 expansion teams did not get to make picks in the 1976 June draft; they only got to make picks starting with 1977 January draft (back then, the draft had separate June and January phases).

The two 1993 expansion teams made selections starting with the 1992 June draft; the two 1998 expansion teams made selections starting with the 1996 June draft, and also made picks in the 1997 June draft.

Originally Posted by Pelican

Two years out, low-A and high-A teams, for the draft picks and minor league free agents. One year out, add a AA team. The AAA teams starts when the MLB franchise does.

MLB started a more systematic approach to expansion team farm clubs with the 1993 expansion; prior to then it was more haphazard. Kansas City and Seattle operated a couple of minor league affiliates in 1968 while Montreal and San Diego did not; neither Toronto nor Seattle operated farm teams in 1976.

The number of minor league affiliates by class for the year(s) prior to the expansion team inaugural season and over its first five seasons. Note that affiliates in the foreign leagues (Dominican Summer League and Venezuelan Summer League) are not included.


1969

Kansas City Royals

      AAA   AA   A-H  A-L  A-S  R-A   R     Total
--------------------------------------------------
1968    -    -   -     1    1    -    -       2
--------------------------------------------------
1969    1    -    1    1    2    1    -       6
1970    1    -    1    1    -    2    -       5
1971    1    1    1    1    -    2    1       7
1972    1    1    1    1    -    2    1       7
1973    1    1    1    1    -    2    1       7

Seattle Pilots / Milwaukee Brewers

      AAA   AA   A-H  A-L  A-S  R-A   R     Total
--------------------------------------------------
1968    -    -    -    -    1    -    -       1
--------------------------------------------------
1969    -    -    -    1    1    1    -       3
1970    1    -    -    1    1    -    -       3
1971    1    -    -    1    1    -    -       3
1972    1    1    -    1    1    -    -       4
1973    1    1    -    1    1    -    -       4


Montreal Expos

      AAA   AA   A-H  A-L  A-S  R-A   R     Total
--------------------------------------------------
1968    -    -    -    -    -    -    -       -
--------------------------------------------------
1969    -    -    1    -    -    -    1       2
1970    1    -    1    -    1    -    1       4
1971    1    1    1    -    2    -    -       5
1972    1    1    1    -    1    -    -       4
1973    1    1    1    -    1    -    -       4


San Diego Padres

      AAA   AA   A-H  A-L  A-S  R-A   R     Total
--------------------------------------------------
1968    -    -    -    -    -    -    -       -
--------------------------------------------------
1969    -    -    -    -    -    1    -       1
1970    1    -    1    -    1    -    -       3
1971    1    -    1    -    1    -    -       3
1972    1    1    -    -    2    -    -       4
1973    1    1    -    -    1    -    -       3

1977

Toronto Blue Jays

      AAA   AA   A-H  A-L  A-S  R-A   R     Total
--------------------------------------------------
1976    -    -    -    -    -    -    -       -
--------------------------------------------------
1977    -    -    -    -    1    -    -       1
1978    1    -    1    -    1    1    -       4
1979    1    -    2    -    1    1    -       5
1980    1    1    1    -    1    1    -       5
1981    1    1    1    1    -    1    1       6


Seattle Mariners

      AAA   AA   A-H  A-L  A-S  R-A   R     Total
--------------------------------------------------
1976    -    -    -    -    -    -    -       -
--------------------------------------------------
1977    -    -    -    -    1    -    -       1
1978    1    -    1    -    1    -    -       3
1979    1    -    2    -    1    -    -       4
1980    1    1    1    -    1    -    -       4
1981    1    1    -    1    1    -    -       4

1993

Colorado Rockies

      AAA   AA   A-H  A-L  A-S  R-A   R     Total
--------------------------------------------------
1992    -    -    -    -    1    -    1       2
--------------------------------------------------
1993    1    -    1    -    1    -    1       4
1994    1    1    1    1    1    -    1       6
1995    1    1    1    1    1    -    1       6
1996    1    1    1    1    1    -    1       6
1997    1    1    1    1    1    -    1       6


Florida Marlins

      AAA   AA   A-H  A-L  A-S  R-A   R     Total
--------------------------------------------------
1992    -    -    -    -    1    -    1       2
--------------------------------------------------
1993    1    -    1    1    1    -    1       5
1994    1    1    1    1    1    -    1       6
1995    1    1    1    1    1    -    1       6
1996    1    1    1    1    1    -    1       6
1997    1    1    1    1    1    -    1       6

1998

Arizona Diamondbacks

      AAA   AA   A-H  A-L  A-S  R-A   R     Total
--------------------------------------------------
1996    -    -    -    -    -    1    1       2
1997    -    -    1    1    -    1    1       4
--------------------------------------------------
1998    1    -    1    1    -    1    1       5
1999    1    1    1    1    -    1    1       6
2000    1    1    1    1    -    1    1       6
2001    1    1    1    1    1    1    -       6
2002    1    1    1    1    1    1    -       6


Tampa Bay Devil Rays

      AAA   AA   A-H  A-L  A-S  R-A   R     Total
--------------------------------------------------
1996    -    -    -    -    -    1    1       2
1997    -    -    1    1    1    1    1       5
--------------------------------------------------
1998    1    -    1    1    1    1    1       6
1999    1    1    1    1    1    1    -       6
2000    1    1    1    1    1    1    -       6
2001    1    1    1    1    1    1    -       6
2002    1    1    1    1    1    1    -       6

[Brad K]

Has anyone noticed the protect less than three years professional service feature protects players with 3 years 175 days service? This is with a full minors setup.

There sure are a lot of different ways of running the draft! What is your target for expansion team strength (predicted wins is a good measure). I've done some additional testing since the original post. I have a method that gives an average of 273.67 predicted wins and another method at 264.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Has anyone noticed the protect less than three years professional service feature protects players with 3 years 175 days service? This is with a full minors setup.

There sure are a lot of different ways of running the draft! What is your target for expansion team strength (predicted wins is a good measure). I've done some additional testing since the original post. I have a method that gives an average of 273.67 predicted wins and another method at 264.

If you have full minors setup, then a lot of the issues with expansions go away. Most notably, teams with minors have more access to pitchers with enough stamina to start reliably.

My target for expansion teams in the reserve era is last place or very close to it, about 60-70 wins. In the era of free agency then its anyone's guess how well an expansion team will do.

The problem (imo) with making a .500 record too achievable with expansion teams (from the draft alone) is that it's sort of a sucker punch to half the league that could also benefit from an expansion draft.

The best luck I've had when using the OOTP expansion rules (with no minors) is something the lines of a 24-man protection list with NO protection for young players. The idea there was to force teams to risk exposing prospects if they want their 24-man roster to remain intact. Then throw in a Rule 6 Free Agency period and they did pretty well. There is still a mad scramble for starting pitchers so it's not optimal.

And of course one big problem is the protection list AI isn't that great. That's why, after lots of fiddling, I just threw it all out and went with replicating historical drafts. I think the final straw was when the AI left the eventual Cy Young winner unprotected and so I started going over every team's protected list. At that point, I asked "wth am I doing?" and just switched to historical drafts.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

My target for expansion teams in the reserve era is last place or very close to it, about 60-70 wins. In the era of free agency then its anyone's guess how well an expansion team will do.

Thank you for putting some numbers on it. My testing has resulted in numbers at the high end of that range. The win numbers I posted previously are with free agency. I don't see that FA makes performance of expansion teams unpredictable.

The expansion teams don't have access to top players anyway. They can't afford them in free agency and without free agency they'd be protected from the draft.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Thank you for putting some numbers on it. My testing has resulted in numbers at the high end of that range. The win numbers I posted previously are with free agency. I don't see that FA makes performance of expansion teams unpredictable.

The expansion teams don't have access to top players anyway. They can't afford them in free agency and without free agency they'd be protected from the draft.

I think that's generally true but then as the counterpoint we had the Diamondbacks spend their way to the World Series within 3 years.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

I think that's generally true but then as the counterpoint we had the Diamondbacks spend their way to the World Series within 3 years.

I could give one of the expansion teams a big budget!

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by uruguru

I think that's generally true but then as the counterpoint we had the Diamondbacks spend their way to the World Series within 3 years.

The then-Florida Marlins won the World Series in 1997, four years after entering the NL.

[Pelican]

No question expansion teams can improve fast, with high draft picks, free agents, no long-term [bad] contracts to constrain them.

My goal is for them to hit the ground running, with an organization and money, in that first expansion year.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Pelican

My goal is for them to hit the ground running, with an organization and money, in that first expansion year.

Well,there is one way to guarantee an expansion team making the finals: follow the expansion method the NHL used in 1967-68 and add a division containing all the expansion teams!