1901 Player Re-Draft Thread

[catcher24]

Regarding roster sizes...... with rosters set at 30, there will be a total of 11 players not drafted this year. So we can't even do rosters larger than 30 players.

There won't be many extra players this year for sure. Even if you reduced the minimum BF/PA to 50 for a guy to appear all year long, a search at bb-ref shows a total of 258 batters and 115 pitchers meet that criteria - and undoubtedly some of those are duplicates. Reducing it further to 25 BF/PA only produces 284 batters and 126 pitchers. There may come a point during the first couple of seasons where anyone who played at all will have to be allowed to play a series (10 games), even using 130%. Remember, even a guy who played every game of a 140 game season is already down a little over 9% for a 150 game season. Which, as I've mentioned previously, will make it VERY difficult to keep a player who didn't play much or at all. You have to keep a couple of roster spots available for dropping/adding guys to cover usage issues. Dan can testify to my difficulties in the SCML a couple of years ago trying to protect a couple of players with a 32 man roster (we've since expanded to 34, which helps). I ended up trading draft picks and guys I wanted to keep for guys who had sufficient BF/PA to get me through the season.

[scubadan]

Here's a crazy thought. Why couldn't you create X number of batters and pitchers that are below replacement level. Give all of the batters and pitchers the same stats and you could even code the batters by fielding position (although I think they should be coded as lousy fielders). Give these guys enough PA/BF to get us through the season. When a team runs out of a player to use at a position, they would have to drop a guy on their roster and claim Johnny ScrubSS, or Johnny Scrub2B and put him on his roster for the remainder of the season.

This is just a wild thought for discussion purposes. I know at Imagine Sports when we play in a very limited pool league they will sometimes make $500k (cheapest) players from outside the pool definition available to solve this problem. Our created scrubs would be the equivalent.

[BigRon]

I've never played with these specific rules before, so maybe I'm missing something. But- aren't we planning a 160 game season? In 1901 they scheduled 140 games, so that's only a 14% increase. And, we're increasing PAs, and (I believe BFPs) by 30%- more than twice as much. That difference, once the extra games are factored in, should still give teams about an extra 800 PAs per season- the equivalent of nearly 1 1/2 regular players. That's quite a bit.

It just doesn't seem like it should be that big of an issue. I think we all knew the rules going into the draft. I don't want to penalize a team unduly if they run into problems, but I'm sure a number of teams have been drafting with this in mind. I don't think they should be penalized in any way.

Maybe scubadan's idea makes sense- create some below replacement level players- sort of modern day AA regulars?- and have them make up missing PAs/BFPs. That way, teams will be able to play out their schedules and teams which were diligent in their drafting will get some reward.

[Wade8813]

I like the idea of replacement level players, especially since it's simpler.

I agree with Ron's point, but would like to point out that TRYING to draft with play time in mind and SUCCEEDING are two drastically different things, especially for people who have never done anything like this before. In every other draft I've done, bench players were full-time regulars who just weren't as good as starters (in an All-time draft, you only pick the best of all time. None of my Fantasy leagues have been deep enough for playtime to be an issue)

[leecemark]

--Since there actually aren't going to be enough players to allow the 2 free signings, Dan's idea of replacement players seems like a great solution. I'd suggest allowing your first 2 replacements players to be added at no penalty and have unlimited playing time at one position. If you fail to get enough playing time at more than 2 positions then you'd have to start releasing a real player for each additional replacement player. The replacement players would have to be pretty bad to ensure they are worse than any real life regulars though. Probably along the lines of 200/250/250 with FR/150 defense and FR speed for position players and 1.50 WHIP (with bonus EXB) and FR durability/defense/hold ratings for pitchers . We don't want to make punting a position and filling it with one of these generic players an attractive option for anyone.

[leecemark]

I like the idea of replacement level players, especially since it's simpler.

I agree with Ron's point, but would like to point out that TRYING to draft with play time in mind and SUCCEEDING are two drastically different things, especially for people who have never done anything like this before. In every other draft I've done, bench players were full-time regulars who just weren't as good as starters (in an All-time draft, you only pick the best of all time. None of my Fantasy leagues have been deep enough for playtime to be an issue)

--You're going to need about 600 PA per position so if you draft a starter with less you need a backup to fill the gap. There are also injuries so a guy you were counting on for 500 may not get them all. You do have the 30% allowance though so if you have the 600 PA in total you should be fine. You'll need a total of 1350 innings (give or take - thats 9 per 150 anyway, it may end a little less if 8 inning games outnumber extra ining affairs). Again you'll have injuries to contend with and its impossible to optimize everone so you'll need a cushion. However, if you actually sign the 1350 IP worth the 30% extra playing time should again be more than enough cushion.

[scubadan]

However, if you actually sign the 1350 IP worth the 30% extra playing time should again be more than enough cushion.

Another thing to consider when getting your IP covered is that there were a number of starters who had 300+ IP in 1901. For example, Joe McGinnity had 382 IP in 1901. Will his team be allowed to start him 50 times this season and used in relief in between?

382 IP * 130% = 496+ IP.

If you're counting on maxing Joe at 130% to cover part of your IP for the season he'd have to have 50 starts (est 7 IP per start = 350 IP) plus 146 IP in relief in between. Or you could set him up to never get pulled from a start and 50 starts * 9 IP/GS = 450 IP. You could still use him for 46 innings of relief. Or, could he start every other day and get 75 starts? If he averaged 6 2/3 IP per start he'd cover his IP * 130%. (Not picking on Joe or his team, just using him as an example).

I'm not sure what the DMB model will allow us to do and I'm also not certain if fatigue would factor in like it would with a modern era pitcher.

[leecemark]

--I used a 3 man rotation at times in PAP 1901 and it worked fine for some pitchers (I had Cy Young in that league). The difficulty would be coming up with 3 guys who could handle that workload. If you only had one you'd have to rotate through the other 2 spots with 4 or 5 pitchers to have them fresh for each start.
--I expect to use 6-7 pitchers, but how I'll deploy them remains to be seen. I'll have to to sim some different scenarios and see what works best. 4 man and allow for some regular relief work or 5 man and expect mostly complete games and whether starters can be effective relieving between starts. The 4 pitchers I already have could theoretically handle all my innings this season, but I'm pretty sure that expecting the 4 of them to do so wouldn't work out very well.

[Erik Bedard]

I've gone with effectively a seven-man staff before in the CKL. It didn't work too well for the pitchers (except Tug McGraw), but I did cover the season using only ten pitchers total, which allowed me to effectively cobble together a right fielder and DH out of seven part-timers. And I ended up winning the championship. I wouldn't recommend it though, because most teams won't have Mickey Lolich and Steve Carlton.

[rmadachik]

you can roll with a 3 man rotation in this league with no problem. Pitch counts are set up to mirror actual 1901 results ao your inning eaters will do just that. a 3 man rotation where each pitcher pitches over 300 innings will take you very far towards covering your innings pitched.

[Windy City Fan]

Well, I double checked and did a search on this thread, so I think these guys are undrafted. Billy Lush and Davy Jones.

[leecemark]

Both good picks

[Wade8813]

One thing I'm concerned about is if a pitcher does worse just through random variance, you may have significantly more batters faced in the same number of innings compared to what you expected.

Well, I double checked and did a search on this thread, so I think these guys are undrafted. Billy Lush and Davy Jones.

Both are (were) available, but it seems a bit risky with neither providing much 1901 PAs. Up to you though.

[Wade8813]

BBRef doesn't seem to list Batters Faced for pitchers. Is it listed somewhere else? (I tried looking on the info rmadachik posted, but I couldn't find it. Could we have a post list all the links/resources, and make it easy to find?)

[Erik Bedard]

BBRef doesn't seem to list Batters Faced for pitchers. Is it listed somewhere else? (I tried looking on the info rmadachik posted, but I couldn't find it. Could we have a post list all the links/resources, and make it easy to find?)

Directly to the left of ERA+.

[scubadan]

I am still interested in acquiring a pick early in the 10th round and will trade a #2 in 1902 plus a pick in this draft. PM me if interested.

[leecemark]

I am still interested in acquiring a pick early in the 10th round and will trade a #2 in 1902 plus a pick in this draft. PM me if interested.

--I am also still interested in such a deal. You can PM me to negotiate if you wish, but if your pick is before mine you can just post here to claim my 1902 2nd and 26th pick in this draft. If you find yourself on the clock and don't have an obvious choice I am your go to guy .

[leecemark]

--A little less than 5 hours on the Bums clock. Kumquats on deck.

[BigRon]

Okay, I feel pulled in about 5 different directions- I suppose most of us feel that way. However, the guy I'm taking will give me the other half of a middle infield which will be tough to beat defensively.

The Lighthouse Point Bums select Hobe Ferris for 5 years. And, every team from this era should have at least one player born in England!

It's now 8:44 AM EDT.
The Kalamazoo Kumquats are up.

[catcher24]

A quick note to Rich. I noticed some time ago that the Kumquats are listed as the Kimquats in the Organizer under team nickname. You might want to correct that. I intended to mention this quite some time ago but just kept forgetting. Ron's post noting that the Kumquats are up next reminded me.

[rmadachik]

Craig - I need contract lengths for your last 4 picks

[rmadachik]

A quick note to Rich. I noticed some time ago that the Kumquats are listed as the Kimquats in the Organizer under team nickname. You might want to correct that. I intended to mention this quite some time ago but just kept forgetting. Ron's post noting that the Kumquats are up next reminded me.

Thanks Lew . . . it's fixed now

[rmadachik]

I don't want to make it easier for teams to not address roster needs especially this early in the draft. I still think that each team can put together a roster that will cover all their positions and pitching needs.

[dust bunnies]

The Kalamazoo Kumquats select Casey Patten and sign him to a five year contract.

[catcher24]

The Kalamazoo Kumquats select Casey Patten and sign him to a five year contract.

LOTS of innings and not a whole lot more, but those IP/BF will stand you in good stead. Too bad his finest season is right after you lose him to free agency. I suspect he'll bring big $$$ in 1906.