All Time Draft Thread

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:55 am

Originally posted by :

quote:Originally posted by Nevadaman:

I'm sure there will be enough interest for a repeat! I would suggest cutting the blinds from 4 to 2 and holding them in round 10 and 11. That way, the players selected would be about equal value regardless of one's draft position. Also, we could get it out of the way all at once. (Much easier on the person taking the emails!) I wish there was still interest in the current draft. [/QUOTE]

Likewhat17 · Post by **Likewhat17** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 6:58 am

Originally posted by :

quote:Originally posted by Nevadaman:

I'm sure there will be enough interest for a repeat! I would suggest cutting the blinds from 4 to 2 and holding them in round 10 and 11. That way, the players selected would be about equal value regardless of one's draft position. Also, we could get it out of the way all at once. (Much easier on the person taking the emails!) I wish there was still interest in the current draft. [/QUOTE]Those of us still competing are very interested

GLG20 · Post by **GLG20** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:00 am

Originally posted by Nevadaman:

I'm sure there will be enough interest for a repeat! I would suggest cutting the blinds from 4 to 2 and holding them in round 10 and 11. That way, the players selected would be about equal value regardless of one's draft position. Also, we could get it out of the way all at once. (Much easier on the person taking the emails!) Like the 10/11 blinds idea...

And if it were pretty much the same group of guys, there could be a variation where we use the same player, but can't use the same year. So Ruth would be in play, just not his 1921 season... this would knock down those guys who really only had one good year in their career (while at the same time giving me a chance to finally pick the right year on some of these guys).

Oh and maybe bump the Innings requirement up a shade.

G@mblor · Post by **G@mblor** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:22 am

Originally posted by GLG20:

quote:Originally posted by Nevadaman:

I'm sure there will be enough interest for a repeat! I would suggest cutting the blinds from 4 to 2 and holding them in round 10 and 11. That way, the players selected would be about equal value regardless of one's draft position. Also, we could get it out of the way all at once. (Much easier on the person taking the emails!) Like the 10/11 blinds idea...

And if it were pretty much the same group of guys, there could be a variation where we use the same player, but can't use the same year. So Ruth would be in play, just not his 1921 season... this would knock down those guys who really only had one good year in their career (while at the same time giving me a chance

to finally pick the right year on some of these guys).

Oh and maybe bump the Innings requirement up a shade. [/QUOTE]Does anybody think there would be a problem foregoing the blind rounds next time with this group?

[ November 08, 2011, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: G@mblor ]

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:22 am

Originally posted by GLG20:

quote:Originally posted by Nevadaman:

I'm sure there will be enough interest for a repeat! I would suggest cutting the blinds from 4 to 2 and holding them in round 10 and 11. That way, the players selected would be about equal value regardless of one's draft position. Also, we could get it out of the way all at once. (Much easier on the person taking the emails!) Like the 10/11 blinds idea...

And if it were pretty much the same group of guys, there could be a variation where we use the same player, but can't use the same year. So Ruth would be in play, just not his 1921 season... this would knock down those guys who really only had one good year in their career (while at the same time giving me a chance to finally pick the right year on some of these guys).

Oh and maybe bump the Innings requirement up a shade. [/QUOTE]The Walsh/Mathewson/Johnson/Alexander combo already have a huge impact. It seems to me that adding innings would increase that impact. As it stands now, if you don’t get one of those guys, you still have different options that allow you to accumulate points and still reach the 1500 innings. If it gets bumped up to 1800+, some of your options are reduced.

[ November 08, 2011, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Navel Lint ]

Likewhat17 · Post by **Likewhat17** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:30 am

Mark B. on the clock, then Bruce, John P., and Jon S... let's swing this back around!

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:32 am

this draft turned out a lot different than what i initially thought. couple comments...

*huge advantage to the couple of big SP owners

*the draft is turning into a contest of who the better punter is

all in all, not as much fun as i initially thought. maybe if 3RR was used as well as a stipulation in the rules your are ineligible to earn prize money if you receive 1 point in any category, i'd do another draft

GLG20 · Post by **GLG20** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:36 am

Originally posted by Navel Lint:

quote:Originally posted by GLG20:

quote:Originally posted by Nevadaman:

I'm sure there will be enough interest for a repeat! I would suggest cutting the blinds from 4 to 2 and holding them in round 10 and 11. That way, the players selected would be about equal value regardless of one's draft position. Also, we could get it out of the way all at once. (Much easier on the person taking the emails!) Like the 10/11 blinds idea...

And if it were pretty much the same group of guys, there could be a variation where we use the same player, but can't use the same year. So Ruth would be in play, just not his 1921 season... this would knock down those guys who really only had one good year in their career (while at the same time giving me a chance to finally pick the right year on some of these guys).

Oh and maybe bump the Innings requirement up a shade. [/QUOTE]The Walsh/Mathewson/Johnson/Alexander combo already have a huge impact. It seems to me that adding innings would increase that impact. As it stands now, if you don’t get one of those guys, you still have different options that allow you to accumulate points and still reach the 1500 innings. If it gets bumped up to 1800+, some of your options are reduced. [/QUOTE]Good point... I'm probably just speaking the point of view of someone who wishes he wouldn't have spent (at least) 3 of the first 4 picks on starting pitchers... and, yes, one of those being Johnson. I'm sure I'd be singin a different tune if I were toward the back of the draft.

Suburban Strugglers · Post by **Suburban Strugglers** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:37 am

I personally would like the 10th and 11th rounds blind and that is it, although with no blinds I would play as well, but would prefer the two blind rounds right after one another in the middle of the draft.

Also I would like the innings the same as I agree making it more innings hurts the guys who do not get some of those big name pitchers even more.

I understand the not allowing you to pick the years we used before but I am not for it. I kind of like the guys who had one good year and I think that is kind of what makes it interesting. Also I kind of want to see how it turns out doing it again with the same years and players. See how people change strategy and who maybe gets passed on this time around. Just my opinion.

mbendar16 · Post by **mbendar16** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:39 am

With our next pick

Fred Lynn 1979

AVG .333

R 116

HR 39

RBI 122

SB 2

Suburban Strugglers · Post by **Suburban Strugglers** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:40 am

I think third round reversal if fair and would be for that as well, good point gekko.

Likewhat17 · Post by **Likewhat17** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:41 am

Originally posted by Gekko:

all in all, not as much fun as i initially thought. maybe if 3RR was used as well as a stipulation in the rules your are ineligible to earn prize money if you receive 1 point in any category, i'd do another draft I think that most of us knew coming into this, that a majority of teams would be punting somewhere. With the categories so tightly bunched everywhere, and the winner likely only needing to gain around 100 league points it was an obvious play.

To completely avoid that next time, rather than having someone be ineligible if they receive a 1 in any category, I'd like to see that as high as a 4 or 5.

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:43 am

Originally posted by Likewhat17:

To completely avoid that next time, rather than having someone be ineligible if they receive a 1 in any category, I'd like to see that as high as a 4 or 5. 4 or 5 is a bit extreme. i'd compromise for 2 or 3

Suburban Strugglers · Post by **Suburban Strugglers** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:44 am

I also like the idea of Gekkos that if you have one point in a category you can not win. That would make things very interesting as well. I am not at all for having it as high as 4 or 5 but I really like the idea that if you have a 1 in a category you can not win.

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:47 am

Originally posted by Likewhat17:

quote:Originally posted by Gekko:

all in all, not as much fun as i initially thought. maybe if 3RR was used as well as a stipulation in the rules your are ineligible to earn prize money if you receive 1 point in any category, i'd do another draft I think that most of us knew coming into this, that a majority of teams would be punting somewhere. With the categories so tightly bunched everywhere, and the winner likely only needing to gain around 100 league points it was an obvious play.

To completely avoid that next time, rather than having someone be ineligible if they receive a 1 in any category, I'd like to see that as high as a 4 or 5. [/QUOTE]I'm only going to get 1-3 points in ERA.......And I wasn't planning on punting ERA

When I took Koufax in Rd 1 with a 2.04 era, I really thought that at least half the teams would finish the draft above the 2.00 mark........I guess I was wrong

Gekko · Post by **Gekko** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:48 am

Originally posted by Navel Lint:

When I took Koufax in Rd 1 with a 2.04 era, I really thought that at least half the teams would finish the draft above the 2.00 mark........I guess I was wrong

there's still a lot of pitchers to be taken. i'm guessing there will be a wins and K's run b4 it's over

DOUGHBOYS · Post by **DOUGHBOYS** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:49 am

Take the dead ball era away and start with 1919 to alleviate pitcher dominance.

Before then, pitchers pitched every other day with a ball that was softened and discolored. Heck, the cork centered ball didn't appear on the scene till around 1910. Even after the advent of these balls, the same ball would be kept in play as long as possible, giving emery, spitball, and the like pitchers a huge advantage.

Baseball historians use 1900- as a basis for records because of the nice number and it was close to leagues forming and the World Series beginning. For your purposes, maybe different years are needed.

It was a different game till 1919. Or 1920 if round numbers are a must.

vpokrnut · Post by **vpokrnut** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:52 am

team 12 pick is in 1953 Eddie Mathews UTL Hate to go utility at this point but the stats are starting to get watered down a little.

Likewhat17 · Post by **Likewhat17** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 7:57 am

Originally posted by :

The idea of penalizing a team for punting was suggested in before this draft and given little credence.

http://nfbcboards.stats.com/cgi-bin/ult ... 007970;p=7 That's because many teams had already formulated their strategies and planned on punting

G@mblor · Post by **G@mblor** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:03 am

A couple of points...

There has been a lot of talk about what we would change in the future and about how the top 4 or 5 picks may have an advantage over those picking later. We need to wait and see how this thing plays out. If Its not broke we shouldn't "fix" it and until we have the results we won't know. I realize I am speaking as someone who was fortunate enough to pick at the top of this draft, but even if I picked at the end I would still want to wait for the final standings.

It has been stated that this has become a punting contest and that this is taking some of the enjoyment out of the draft. I agree. In my opinion, the blind rounds are to blame. Without knowing where you stand in relation to your opponents it is difficult to adjust as we move through the draft. A balanced approach is harder to pull off with incomplete information and it's one of the reasons so many teams are punting.

Certainly there may need to be adjustments made to the format if we are gonna give it another go. However, I think we need to wait for the conclusion, especially if the topic is how this draft may be a bit unfair depending on draftslot. Plenty of time for all of that after we have crowned a winner.

[ November 08, 2011, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: G@mblor ]

Suburban Strugglers · Post by **Suburban Strugglers** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:11 am

I think that it is a thought if we made the rule that if you finish with 1 point or even 2 points in a category that you could not win, then I do think you would have to get rid of the blind rounds.

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:12 am

Originally posted by vpokrnut:

team 12 pick is in 1953 Eddie Mathews UTL Hate to go utility at this point but the stats are starting to get watered down a little. Mathews and Aaron. They hit 1,154

HR's as teammates. I'm not sure if that is the record, but that is a lot of dingers from your 3-4 hitters in the lineup over 15 years

Navel Lint · Post by **Navel Lint** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:16 am

Originally posted by G@mblor:

A couple of points...

There has been a lot of talk about what we would change in the future and about how the top 4 or 5 picks may have an advantage over those picking later. We need to wait and see how this thing plays out. If Its not broke we shouldn't "fix" it and until we have the results we won't know. I realize I am speaking as someone who was fortunate enough to pick at the top of this draft, but even if I picked at the end I would still want to wait for the final standings.

I agree with this comment and had said something similar about 50 pages ago.

Of course, since I'm in last place after having drafted 12th, maybe I should change my mind..........It's the draft that's wrong, not me

G@mblor · Post by **G@mblor** » Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:19 am

Originally posted by Suburban Strugglers:

I think that it is a thought if we made the rule that if you finish with 1 point or even 2 points in a category that you could not win, then I do think you would have to get rid of the blind rounds. If you did this its likely that at least 6 or 7 teams would be "eliminated" and if you included a team scoring only 2 points then the majority of teams would not have a chance. Those picking in the last couple of rounds could effectively eliminate other teams. Team A leads with 105 points but is 3rd from last in Hr. Team B picks last and passes him in homeruns, rendering his whole draft meaningless. I am not in favor of this.