All Time Draft Thread

Texas Connection · Post by **Texas Connection** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:22 am

tiebreaker on wagner for me was the triple threat eligibility, never know who might get hurt

I like Zola's idea on the blind picks.....that also might be the easiest on Dan.

Likewhat17 · Post by **Likewhat17** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:25 am

Originally posted by Gekko:

I draft 15 so some of you think I’m at the biggest disadvantage. However, for this to be a “blind” round, no one can know “who picked who”. For instance if Team 2 selects Don Mattingly, but Dan tells him he has already been selected. Team 2 know knows Team 1 took Mattingly. That is NOT a blind pick. Even if the information is given to the whole league that Team 1 took Mattingly, it puts Team 1 ayt a distinct disadvantage. Again, NOT a “blind” pick. No deal from my perspective.

Todd’s suggestion makes perfect sense (and I’m the guy who is theoretically at the biggest disadvantage). Good job Todd. I wasn't suggesting that if team 2 tried to take Mattingly, and he was already taken, that the entire league be informed that team 1 took Mattingly. Just that everyone be informed that team 2 tried to select a player that was already taken. Sure team 2 will still know who team 1's player is, but at least now team 1 will also know that team 2 has that information.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:25 am

Todd's idea works out well for me as well.

I supervise a softball tourney this Saturday. I'll probably be getting home around 7pm, mst.

I can go through the e-mails and let you guys know what has to be done, when getting home.

If you guys do not decide on this course of action, I can borrow a cell phone and can be reached at that number at the ball park.

My e-mail address is botherk AT Yahoo Dot com

I'll be home all day tomorrow should you reach round 5 then.

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:41 am

Personally, I was happy to see the Honus Wagner pick, thus completing the first class of Hall of Famers.

By the way, the pitcher with the most wins never to win a Cy Young Award?

Cy Young

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:48 am

For clarification, "Todd's idea" should be the SECOND idea -- the lather, rinse, repeat one.

I would be against changing the blinds - some may have planned a strategy with the original blinds in mind.

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:05 am

The blinds rounds were put in to prevent the last couple of teams from openly knowing who was going to win or lose based on their last pick.

I don't think knowing a player or two in a blind round is going to make that much of a difference. The end of the draft will be picking last so they will have the least chance of knowing who was picked who in three rounds.

As the draft goes on many of us will be looking in different directions, the starting pitching will naturally overlap.

This should be a very easy process. When Dave makes his pick, Dan can post the next owner is on the clock. I think everyone will pick faster in this round, but you may want more time if a player you wanted was selected.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:06 am

Originally posted by :

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

For clarification, "Todd's idea" should be the SECOND idea -- the lather, rinse, repeat one.

I would be against changing the blinds - some may have planned a strategy with the original blinds in mind. I don't love changing the format we agreed upon either but having someone pick first in three of the blind rounds doesn't seem very balanced. It would actually be Dave and I that would get to pick first three times in these rounds so it would be a benefit to us to keep the current rounds. I just think these rounds are especially important so getting to lead off 3 of the 4 gives a small, unfair advantage. [/QUOTE]My bad, I though it was 5, 10, 15, 20 and 23

Plus, I misread and though it was making both 15 and 16 blind.

That said, I don't see it as an advantage or disadvantage either way. The player is going to have their first pick regardless and at the end, we all know the names, not the owners.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:11 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

The blinds rounds were put in to prevent the last couple of teams from openly knowing who was going to win or lose based on their last pick.

I don't think knowing a player or two in a blind round is going to make that much of a difference. The end of the draft will be picking last so they will have the least chance of knowing who was picked who in three rounds.

As the draft goes on many of us will be looking in different directions, the starting pitching will naturally overlap.

This should be a very easy process. When Dave makes his pick, Dan can post the next owner is on the clock. I think everyone will pick faster in this round, but you may want more time if a player you wanted was selected. Shawn -- it is NOT so easy. Every time a player is picked that is gone, Dan has to e-mail that owner back and ask for another pick or call him, etc. Then we all have to be told that this player was already picked at that point, which defeats the purpose of the blind.

Problem 1 -- we each learn some info about picked players - we learn the possible owners that took them. We all know the info, but still, it defeats the purpose.

Problem 2 - the timing, especially at the end, could be a pain. Imagine the last few owners having to exchange 5,6 7 or even 10+ e-mails with Dan to find a guy available.

These picks will be much slower, not faster. I think, anyway.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:23 am

Originally posted by :

I guess I don't see how sending in a list of players would help too much and sending in one player at a time is what we are already doing, is it not? The list long enough to cover your pick idea has been scrapped.

The everyone sends it in one at a time will save time -- the guys at the end would be exchanging MULTIPLE e-mails with Dan and who knows how long that will take, as well as being a PIA to Dan.

I don't think we can come up with a system where the player picking second would be forced to change his pick and not know that his guy was taking by the drafter ahead of him.

My lather rinse repeat method takes care of this.

We are ALL told to send in another pick. Obviously, Team 1 knows they got their guy, but the rest of us have no idea if they got their first guy or second guy.

I'll do whatever, I just am trying to have us save time and learn as little as possible about the blinds.

Unless I am missing something, I think the lather rinse repeat idea works. Sorry, I am usually not "THAT GUY" - the one that posts, reposts, comes back and explains it again etc.

I have stated my case -- I'll go back to stealth mode now.

[ October 27, 2011, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:28 am

Another tough pick. I have two guys that I would like to get at this spot. One will almost assuredly not get back to me in RD 5, the other one is a wildcard that might go with the next pick or could last several rounds. So the natural inclination would be to go with the guy I know I won’t be able to get later, but that’s not what I’m going to do. I’m going with the wildcard.

I’ve used the word wildcard to describe this pick for two reasons. (1) I think his draft “ADP” could be anywhere, and (2) because picking him gives me a wildcard stat line that that may provide me with better options in the end game.

I’m taking the 1964 American League leader in saves, Dick Radatz

Standing at 6’6” and weighing 230lbs, Dick “the monster” Radatz was one of the most intimidating “closers” of his time. Of course what we think of as a closer now and what they were in 1964 are two different things.

Radatz pitched in anywhere from the fifth inning right thru to the end of games. He pitched on Zero or one days rest 45 times and accumulated 157 innings during the season. And as I said, he led the league in saves………… with 29.

But what makes him a wildcard is his strikeout and win totals.

As the first of my two required relievers, Radatz was a 16 game winner with 181 strikeouts.

1964 Dick Radatz

IP-157

W-16

S-29

ERA-2.29

Whip-1.025

K-181

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:33 am

Well, Hell yeah he's huge!

The Green monster tops out at his waist!

Great picture!

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:35 am

I like Todd’s Rinse/Repeat method. It’s probably the best option. I could also agree with changing blind round 15 to round 16 just so we have two odd and even blind rounds.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:43 am

Originally posted by :

Maybe I'm the one missing something:). If I took Don Mattingly and pick 2 also wanted Mattingly a conflict would be announced, right? Pick 2 would know, in your format or any other, that Mattingly was not on his team so he could safely assume the player at Pick 1 took him, correct? We all send in a pick. Maybe if I go through the process, it may be more clear. I am only going to use 5 teams to make it easier, but you get the idea

We all send in picks

1 RED

2 RED

3 GREEN

4 RED

5 BLUE

Dan gives RED to Team 1 and asks EVERYONE for another choice. Team 1 knows they don't have to send one in.

2 BLUE

3 YELLOW

4 GREEN

5 RED

Team 2 gets BLUE.

Team 3 gets GREEN because that was the player listed on their first list

so..

1 RED

2 BLUE

3 GREEN

We now have another conflict so Dan asks everyone to send in a pick. TEAMS 1 and 2 know they got one of their first two choices but they don't know anything more, because they don't know the exact spot of the conflicts.

3,4 and 5 send in

3 RED

4 YELLOW

5 PURPLE

4 gets YELLOW, 5 gets PURPLE and we are done.

Dan keeps going back to the earlier lists as priority (see 3 getting GREEN)

This example has 3 exchanges of e-mails.

Doing it one at a time, team 4 alone would have 3 exchanges.

[ October 27, 2011, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:47 am

todd - if team 2 doesn't get "RED", he KNOWS team 1 did

Likewhat17 · Post by **Likewhat17** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:48 am

This surely saves time, and I do like the idea. I think what Dan was trying to say though, is that in this format and any other, team 2 would still know that team 1 was awarded red, thus giving them extra information

[ October 27, 2011, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Likewhat17 ]

CC's Desperados · Post by **CC's Desperados** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:51 am

Todd - you are making this harder than it should be and you could have just as many E-mail exchanges.

In your plan, players won't know who is being picked, but they may change their pick each time trying to solve a conflict. Team 15 is going to send in 15 E-mails. He can't have a player until team 14 has selected.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:53 am

Originally posted by Gekko:

todd - if team 2 doesn't get "RED", he KNOWS team 1 did Duh, yes, they can go back and reconstruct it. They would not know right then and there, but after he picks are announced, they can figure it out.

There is no way around this other than blindly jumbling the order of the blind rounds, but the problem there is some of you guys may have made certain picks at the wheel knowing your next one is right around the corner.

My idea still saves time, but the common info would have to be announced to everyone at the end.

And we hope 1 and 2 pick different players

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:55 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

Todd - you are making this harder than it should be and you could have just as many E-mail exchanges.

In your plan, players won't know who is being picked, but they may change their pick each time trying to solve a conflict. Team 15 is going to send in 15 E-mails. He can't have a player until team 14 has selected. Yeah, I just thought the same thing.

If I'm pick 9, I don't want to send in my second choice when the real "conflict" is at pick 5 with a player that I did'n't pick

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:57 am

Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

Todd - you are making this harder than it should be and you could have just as many E-mail exchanges.

In your plan, players won't know who is being picked, but they may change their pick each time trying to solve a conflict. Team 15 is going to send in 15 E-mails. He can't have a player until team 14 has selected. They change their pick, but Dan uses the earliest list with the available player.

My point with number of e-mails is at the end, those guys are going to be each asking for a player MULTIPLE times - or they could be anyway.

We are guaranteed 15 individual exchanges with Dan. If everyone gets their top choice, this would have been accomplished with 1 simultaneous e-mail exchange.

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:58 am

And ...

You are up Todd.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:00 am

Originally posted by Navel Lint:

quote:Originally posted by CC's Desperados:

Todd - you are making this harder than it should be and you could have just as many E-mail exchanges.

In your plan, players won't know who is being picked, but they may change their pick each time trying to solve a conflict. Team 15 is going to send in 15 E-mails. He can't have a player until team 14 has selected. Yeah, I just thought the same thing.

If I'm pick 9, I don't want to send in my second choice when the real "conflict" is at pick 5 with a player that I did'n't pick [/QUOTE]See the example I used, team 3 still got their top choice.

At this point, all my idea does is save time (I think). Let's do it the original way and if I am wrong, it would not be the first time.

But if I am right, we can think about it for round 10.