All Time Draft Thread

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:01 am

Steve Carlton, 1972

Likewhat17 · Post by **Likewhat17** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:02 am

Maybe Todd's first suggestion here is the best way to go. Where each team submits a list of enough players to cover their pick? It would be tougher for teams at the back end, but seems like it would be the quickest way to do things.

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:03 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

quote: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. [/QUOTE]I see that now.....

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:10 am

Back to the draft...

I think the Radatz pick is the PERFECT example of how a player can have a certain "value in a vacuum", but have an enormous INTRINSIC value to your team, exceeding that of the static, relative ranking.

[ October 27, 2011, 11:11 AM: Message edited by: ToddZ ]

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:12 am

Don't let the thought of me being inconvenienced be hindrance for you guys.

I'm here to serve.

Now, a thought that I've brought up to Shawn and Rick Thomas....

I like the concept of this draft, but don't think it goes far enough. The one hit wonders or one year wonders (of which my favorite has not been selected as yet) grate on me for some reason.

My idea is to have the same rules and draft, only eliminate years.

Draft players for their career numbers.

At bats and innings would be at a premium and it would put a twist on this draft.

It would change drafting styles completely from this draft and take it to a new level.

Just thoughts.

Carry on

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:16 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Don't let the thought of me being inconvenienced be hindrance for you guys.

I'm here to serve.

Now, a thought that I've brought up to Shawn and Rick Thomas....

I like the concept of this draft, but don't think it goes far enough. The one hit wonders or one year wonders (of which my favorite has not been selected as yet) grate on me for some reason.

My idea is to have the same rules and draft, only eliminate years.

Draft players for their career numbers.

At bats and innings would be at a premium and it would put a twist on this draft.

It would change drafting styles completely from this draft and take it to a new level.

Just thoughts.

Carry on There are TONS of variations. My friends at Rotojunkies have suggested a few.

Career totals was one.

Forcing to pick x amount of players from certain eras is another.

One of their favorites was forcing you to pick a player whose first (or last) name begins with a different letter.

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:18 am

Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:

Don't let the thought of me being inconvenienced be hindrance for you guys.

I'm here to serve.

That's what happens when you are the guy everybody trusts

Thanks

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:22 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

One of their favorites was forcing you to pick a player whose first (or last) name begins with a different letter. Ugueth Urbina's Mom would be so happy.

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:23 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

Back to the draft...

I think the Radatz pick is the PERFECT example of how a player can have a certain "value in a vacuum", but have an enormous INTRINSIC value to your team, exceeding that of the static, relative ranking. If I knew what this meant

, I would know how to respond.

I'll just assume that you think this was the best pick of the draft

Thanks

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

Maybe my suggestion about career stats was ass backwards!

A draft of non-Hall of Famers, hmmmm

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:28 am

Pete Rose Mom would be so happy!

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:39 am

Originally posted by Navel Lint:

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

Back to the draft...

I think the Radatz pick is the PERFECT example of how a player can have a certain "value in a vacuum", but have an enormous INTRINSIC value to your team, exceeding that of the static, relative ranking. If I knew what this meant

, I would know how to respond.

I'll just assume that you think this was the best pick of the draft

Thanks

[/QUOTE]I think you even alluded to this in your analysis, it gives you tremendous flexibility, opens up several different paths to go down without sacrificing too much in any one area.

In a vacuum, the "wins" are worth "X", the saves are worth "Y", the strikeouts are worth "Z". But the ability to construct your roster in different directions is worth more than that "raw value."

Nevadaman · Post by **Nevadaman** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:40 am

I love the list idea as it will save a HUGE AMOUNT of time and be the most fair - if the goal is to be as blind as possible. I would have preferred to do away with these blind rounds altogether, but we're stuck with them now. Emailing one at a time is going to be a nightmare. Imagine someone who can only check their computer a few times a day, but it takes them 6 or 7 emails to get a pick. Dan may be available a lot, but there has to be some lag time there as well since he will be living his life and not sending emails 24-7. Can you see the problem? One person could literally take DAYS to make a single pick. Multiply that by 15 and then by 4 rounds. Please, let's do the list!

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:43 am

Originally posted by Nevadaman:

I love the list idea as it will save a HUGE AMOUNT of time and be the most fair - if the goal is to be as blind as possible. I would have preferred to do away with these blind rounds altogether, but we're stuck with them now. Emailing one at a time is going to be a nightmare. Imagine someone who can only check their computer a few times a day, but it takes them 6 or 7 emails to get a pick. Dan may be available a lot, but there has to be some lag time there as well since he will be living his life and not sending emails 24-7. Can you see the problem? One person could literally take DAYS to make a single pick. Multiply that by 15 and then by 4 rounds. Please, let's do the list! I'll be home all day tomorrow. It can be devoted to you fellas, if the 5th round is here.

No problem.

[ October 27, 2011, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: DOUGHBOYS ]

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:46 am

Originally posted by ToddZ:

quote:Originally posted by Navel Lint:

quote:Originally posted by ToddZ:

Back to the draft...

I think the Radatz pick is the PERFECT example of how a player can have a certain "value in a vacuum", but have an enormous INTRINSIC value to your team, exceeding that of the static, relative ranking. If I knew what this meant

, I would know how to respond.

I'll just assume that you think this was the best pick of the draft

Thanks

[/QUOTE]I think you even alluded to this in your analysis, it gives you tremendous flexibility, opens up several different paths to go down without sacrificing too much in any one area.

In a vacuum, the "wins" are worth "X", the saves are worth "Y", the strikeouts are worth "Z". But the ability to construct your roster in different directions is worth more than that "raw value." [/QUOTE]That's what I thought you said

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:47 am

Originally posted by Likewhat17:

Maybe Todd's first suggestion here is the best way to go. Where each team submits a list of enough players to cover their pick? It would be tougher for teams at the back end, but seems like it would be the quickest way to do things. yes, this is the best option. and no, it won't be tough to submit 15 names

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:48 am

Originally posted by :

same. Everyone will have players valued differently depending on their overall strategy and their categorical needs. This is what I mean by INTRINSIC value, which, to be fair, is a term I am borrowing from KJ Duke, but describes what I mean perfectly.

ToddZ · Post by **ToddZ** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:53 am

Through 4.08

Dub · Post by **Dub** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:54 am

What made that Steve Carlton Season so amazing was that the Phils only won 59 games that year. Just ridiculous.