All-Time Draft Rematch

**leecemark** · 01-10-2008, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by The Splendid Splinter

well i hope none of the 14 guys are gonna quit or be gone for a long period of time... cuz the NL draft last time took like several months too long. since we're going with 14 teams draft now, should we actually start the clock now? or just wait til we get the first round done and then start it?

also how are we rating defense, if we're doing that?

--I assumed the clock had been running since the first pick. Rate it however you want. This is a sujective exercise.

**Wade8813** · 01-10-2008, 01:27 PM

BTW, the list on the first page of people picking that he sent me was slightly inaccurate, so that's why this has stalled.

**ChrisLDuncan** · 01-10-2008, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Wee Willie

Yeah, let's just continue. Yanks is up.

Actually Minstrel has taken Yanks' place, can someone send him a PM?

**Wade8813** · 01-10-2008, 05:28 PM

This thread has become too cluttered with discussion, so a second thread has been created.

**brett** · 01-10-2008, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Wade8813

This thread has become too cluttered with discussion, so a second thread has been created.

When you start a new thread will you post a link?

**The Splendid Splinter** · 01-10-2008, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by brett

When you start a new thread will you post a link?

CLD created... the title is All Time Draft Round Two DRAFT PAGE....

**Wade8813** · 01-10-2008, 05:48 PM

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=72479

**ElHalo** · 01-10-2008, 06:44 PM

As to discussing the actual draft...

I think the pickup of Ty Cobb at number 10 was absolutely fantastic. Tremendous player to get that late in the draft; I could see somebody picking him first overall.

I'm very happy with Pedro Martinez at 9. I know people will knock the pick because he only started 18 games one year, but he did put up the greatest stretch of dominance in baseball history the rest of the time. I probably would have taken him over Johnson. His stretch includes three of the top twenty ERA+ seasons of all time, three of the top 13 K rate seasons of all time, the best WHIP season ever (including the deadball era), and a .750 W%. It also, for the "five inning pitcher" crowd, contains a CG title and two other top 4 finishes, and he never finished lower than 8th in IP except for the injury year. Even in the injury year, he had a 189 ERA+ and an 0.934 WHIP (incidentally, the second highest whip of the stretch). Very pleased.

**Erik Bedard** · 01-10-2008, 06:51 PM

I was debating between Pedro and Maddux, and ended up going with Maddux for durability and workhorseness reasons.

**ElHalo** · 01-10-2008, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Erik Bedard

I was debating between Pedro and Maddux, and ended up going with Maddux for durability and workhorseness reasons.

Certainly a legitimate choice; not quite as dominant as Pedro, but certainly more innings.

**Wee Willie** · 01-10-2008, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by ElHalo

I'm very happy with Pedro Martinez at 9. I know people will knock the pick because he only started 18 games one year, but he did put up the greatest stretch of dominance in baseball history the rest of the time. I probably would have taken him over Johnson. His stretch includes three of the top twenty ERA+ seasons of all time, three of the top 13 K rate seasons of all time, the best WHIP season ever (including the deadball era), and a .750 W%. It also, for the "five inning pitcher" crowd, contains a CG title and two other top 4 finishes, and he never finished lower than 8th in IP except for the injury year. Even in the injury year, he had a 189 ERA+ and an 0.934 WHIP (incidentally, the second highest whip of the stretch). Very pleased.

While Pedro had a great peak, I think picking him over Johnson would've been a mistake had you done that. Sure, Pedro's rate stats are a little better (219 ERA+ in his 5-year stretch to Johnson's 206), but Johnson threw 349 innings from 1911-15 to Pedro's 204 from 1997-2001. Even if you adjust the innings to a neutral era, Johnsons still comes out with a much higher workload, which makes his stretch seem more dominant to me than Pedro's. However, Pedro would certainly be a very good ace for any of our teams.

**brett** · 01-10-2008, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by ElHalo

Certainly a legitimate choice; not quite as dominant as Pedro, but certainly more innings.

And I think innings are less important on a team full of good pitchers. As I mentioned before, if one guy, say Pedro has a rate value of say 100 for 200 innings, and a guy like Johnson is a 95 for 350 innings, your next starter after Pedro only needs to be like an 88 for the balance of the innings for you to end up ahead. Rate of production per inning or game is important on a great team because a guy with a ton of innings is only going to take those innings from another good pitcher, not an average one.

Still, I think that after Johnson, the next 8-12 pitchers are pretty close together in value.

I'll add though that if there is one pitcher who gives the impression that he could shut down a team of great hitters, it is Pedro.

**The Splendid Splinter** · 01-10-2008, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by brett

And I think innings are less important on a team full of good pitchers. As I mentioned before, if one guy, say Pedro has a rate value of say 100 for 200 innings, and a guy like Johnson is a 95 for 350 innings, your next starter after Pedro only needs to be like an 88 for the balance of the innings for you to end up ahead. Rate of production per inning or game is important on a great team because a guy with a ton of innings is only going to take those innings from another good pitcher, not an average one.

Still, I think that after Johnson, the next 8-12 pitchers are pretty close together in value.

I'll add though that if there is one pitcher who gives the impression that he could shut down a team of great hitters, it is Pedro.

yeah and esp. since you'll have a great bullpen on top of that so your pitcher don't need to go all the way. so in that sense, a lot of the top pitchers will be even better since they can go like 7 innings and not worry going any farther than that. plus the pitchers will all face great hitters so their production wont be as great as it their peaks we picked, but still be very good(so they will bring it down and it evens out maybe).

**Minstrel** · 01-10-2008, 07:50 PM

Sorry, I didn't realize I had yanks' spot.

**The Splendid Splinter** · 01-10-2008, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Minstrel

Sorry, I didn't realize I had yanks' spot.

I'll select:

Mickey Mantle

theres a new thread for the picks now...

look at the posts above yours and you'll see the link to it. post # 82. dont forget which 5 years peak you're using.

**Minstrel** · 01-10-2008, 07:57 PM

Got it, sorry for missing that.

Out of curiosity, what is the time limit on picks?

**The Splendid Splinter** · 01-10-2008, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Minstrel

Got it, sorry for missing that.

Out of curiosity, what is the time limit on picks?

same as the last time... 8 hours with the dead time...

**ElHalo** · 01-10-2008, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Minstrel

Got it, sorry for missing that.

Out of curiosity, what is the time limit on picks?

Eight hours.

Fantastic choice, by the way. Mantle and Martinez were the two players I was agonizing over.

**Minstrel** · 01-10-2008, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by ElHalo

Eight hours.

Fantastic choice, by the way. Mantle and Martinez were the two players I was agonizing over.

Thanks. Five year peaks make Mantle (and Martinez for that matter) very very close to the top in value.

**Wee Willie** · 01-10-2008, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by brett

And I think innings are less important on a team full of good pitchers. As I mentioned before, if one guy, say Pedro has a rate value of say 100 for 200 innings, and a guy like Johnson is a 95 for 350 innings, your next starter after Pedro only needs to be like an 88 for the balance of the innings for you to end up ahead. Rate of production per inning or game is important on a great team because a guy with a ton of innings is only going to take those innings from another good pitcher, not an average one.

Still, I think that after Johnson, the next 8-12 pitchers are pretty close together in value.

I'll add though that if there is one pitcher who gives the impression that he could shut down a team of great hitters, it is Pedro.

Not having to pitch as many innings would make Walter (and some others) even more lethal, though. I still think you've got to take him first among pitchers, but rate of production will matter a little more in this draft than in our general player rankings.

**brett** · 01-10-2008, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by ElHalo

Eight hours.

Fantastic choice, by the way. Mantle and Martinez were the two players I was agonizing over.

I had a hard time between Mantle, Cobb and somebody else. In Mantle's case, I couldn't decide whether to go '56-'60, or '57-'61. I'm not a batting average guy, but his .396 for 5 years, as well as his 5 year .564 dead-ball slugging percentage and 67 steals per, as well as a relative on-base percentage of 140+% of the league average, AND his other probably extra bases that aren't in the stat line (probably 20-30) made a difference, though Mantle might have done those things comparably. Also, after the "next guy" centerfield gets shallow rather fast. (actually there are 2 other centerfielders before it gets shallow).

**ElHalo** · 01-10-2008, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by brett

I had a hard time between Mantle, Cobb and somebody else. In Mantle's case, I couldn't decide whether to go '56-'60, or '57-'61.

This is really silly, but that's the reason I didn't take Mantle. I was spending too much time thinking which set to take, so I just decided to take Pedro instead.

**The Splendid Splinter** · 01-10-2008, 08:45 PM

figured i would tell you guys that i made a roster page for us... heres the link to it... same title as the new draft page but says roster instead of draft

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=72487