Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 375 of 501

Thread: All-Time Draft Rematch

  1. #351
    Wade, when do you think DMF is likey to draft next?

  2. #352
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    5,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Wade8813 View Post
    Then what do you think the rule WAS talking about, if it wasn't talking about voting?
    Drafting. That there is going to be no league established penalty against roiders if you want to take them. I didn't think it was to tell me to look past cheating. If that is indeed the rule, i'll just drop out of the draft.
    Quote Originally Posted by Domenic View Post
    The Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.

  3. #353
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,739
    I think DMF went on a trip to the mountains, but they're supposed to be back soon.
    The Dark Knight is the best movie I've ever seen.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs

  4. #354
    Quote Originally Posted by Wade8813 View Post
    Then what do you think the rule WAS talking about, if it wasn't talking about voting?
    I think the rule was not completely clear. We originally talked about using WARPI scores, and then about looking at their "stats" for a 5 year peak. So I think we agreed not to give them an arbitrary 10% cut in WARP for suspected steroid users etc.

  5. #355
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,739
    Drafting. That there is going to be no league established penalty against roiders if you want to take them. I didn't think it was to tell me to look past cheating. If that is indeed the rule, i'll just drop out of the draft.
    What's the point of drafting a player if everyone's just going to discredit them? That's nonsense.

    I think the rule was not completely clear. We originally talked about using WARPI scores, and then about looking at their "stats" for a 5 year peak. So I think we agreed not to give them an arbitrary 10% cut in WARP for suspected steroid users etc.
    IIRC, we specifically said we wouldn't use WARP as the main rating system, since everyone was sick of it after Minstrel's draft.

    Chris stated in the rematch thread as commissioner that "we don't KNOW who used and who didn't so their numbers are taken at face value"
    This seems pretty straight forward to me. This means that everyone should take them at face value, not everyone except people who don't want to take them at face value.
    The Dark Knight is the best movie I've ever seen.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs

  6. #356
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    5,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Wade8813 View Post
    What's the point of drafting a player if everyone's just going to discredit them? That's nonsense.

    IIRC, we specifically said we wouldn't use WARP as the main rating system, since everyone was sick of it after Minstrel's draft.

    This seems pretty straight forward to me. This means that everyone should take them at face value, not everyone except people who don't want to take them at face value.
    I'll form my own opinion on players when I vote, and I don't really need you (or anyone else for that matter) telling me what to think. Can I tell you how to vote when it comes to my players? Don't let the modern metrics fool you, Rogers Hornsby was a pretty good fielder. Now vote accordingly, no matter what your opinion on that is.

    I don't have to think Bonds is as good as his numbers, or ANY player for that matter. Good luck telling people in the History forum to vote the way you're trying to tell me -- you'll get laughed at.
    Quote Originally Posted by Domenic View Post
    The Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.

  7. #357
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,739
    I'll form my own opinion on players when I vote, and I don't really need you (or anyone else for that matter) telling me what to think. Can I tell you how to vote when it comes to my players? Don't let the modern metrics fool you, Rogers Hornsby was a pretty good fielder. Now vote accordingly, no matter what your opinion on that is.

    I don't have to think Bonds is as good as his numbers, or ANY player for that matter. Good luck telling people in the History forum to vote the way you're trying to tell me -- you'll get laughed at.
    So, you're saying that you can't set aside your preconceived biases to follow the rules. That's fine.

    If we had a rule stating that we would ignore FRAA/FRAR (I wish), and instead base everyone's fielding off a poll, or even the flip of a coin, I could easily do that. It wouldn't affect my actual opinion of the player, but I could vote accordingly.

    And honestly, I don't care if they laugh at me. I care that people at least attempt to follow the rules.
    The Dark Knight is the best movie I've ever seen.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs

  8. #358
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Earl Park, IN
    Posts
    1,958
    the sad part is that... even I dock Barry Bonds a little and I picked him. You should try to take it at face value, but it's voting so it's whatever the person's views are. I don't care if you dock him a little, that's what I'm doing by like 10%. He still has an OPS+ around 220 if I did that, which is probably the highest I go in terms of OPS+ for him. He was still doable to play defense at LF. I think even if I went with early 90's Bonds, I think people still dock him for riods. I know some people just hate him or dock steriods guys and think they did it their whole career. I couldn't ignore what he did during that time still. I don't think it's fair to dock him severly for it though. He is still innocent until proven guilty. Also, this is just a fun game to play in this draft and see what the people think of your team compares to others. I think we should at least mention something about possible steriod users before people get to vote in the other thread. I don't know what to say exactly. I wouldn't expect them to take it at "face value" really... I hope they would, but I'm not mad if they dock him like 10% (even with that, Bonds still a top 5 pick in this draft IMO and I hope people would think that as well), any more than that I think is unfair for me or anyone else who gets a possible steriod user and also the players who actually haven't been found guilty. I view Bonds and Frank Thomas the same way as I know Thomas wouldn't sustain his '94 season if it went a full season so I take it down barely like somewhere in the 190s OPS+. Also he was consistent in those 5 years that you would expect that he would have a career high in OPS+ that year. Schmidt is one I'm having a hard time with his '81 season since it was a huge jump in OPS+ from his whole career that I don't think he would've sustain his production as well as Thomas, but I would dock him like I am with Bonds and Thomas to keep it fair. I hope people will do that. At least try to keep it even and fair when judging players and their stats, it wouldn't be fair not to dock someone and the other you do, but hey it's your opinion and you can think anyway you want. I would like to know what people think of Bonds here as I think the GM voting the most important one of the 3 polls we're having considering we're doing the draft. that's my 2 cents on it...

  9. #359
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    5,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Wade8813 View Post
    So, you're saying that you can't set aside your preconceived biases to follow the rules. That's fine.

    If we had a rule stating that we would ignore FRAA/FRAR (I wish), and instead base everyone's fielding off a poll, or even the flip of a coin, I could easily do that. It wouldn't affect my actual opinion of the player, but I could vote accordingly.

    And honestly, I don't care if they laugh at me. I care that people at least attempt to follow the rules.
    No, i'm saying there no ridiculous rule telling me how to form my opinion. I'll vote whichever way I please. Seriously, if you want to be in a vote where your actual vote is based upon some rule, why even waste your time on voting?

    How about we just go on batting average? The way you should vote is the player with the highest batting average should win. Now go vote. Is that something you'd want to be a part of? Since you HAVE to vote a certain way? Sounds stupid to me.

    Attempt to follow the rules. Hilarious. You wouldn't be wasting time on this if you didn't have a cheater/roider on your team.. so spare me. There is no rule telling me how to vote. If one comes up, then i'll quit, easy as that.

    And my "preconceived bias"? Where is that? I'm pretty outspoken here in the form that people call me a Bonds and steroid "apologist". There goes that. You know what they say about assuming..

    I'm done with this pointless argument. Chris can make a rule where you MUST vote the way he wants you to vote, and if he does, than i'm out. If he doesn't make that rule, then I dont want to hear you telling me how to vote anymore. Good? Good.
    Last edited by Westlake; 01-21-2008 at 02:42 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Domenic View Post
    The Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.

  10. #360
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Through the Fire and Flames
    Posts
    6,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Westlake View Post
    No, there is nothing in the rules that tells me how to form my opinion when I vote. I didn't want Clemens, Bonds, ect. from the outset because of that. You can pick players and pimp their stats at face value if you like... but NOTHING in the rules tells people to vote on a straight line on this.
    http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=68880

    Post number four.

    The thing about steroids I could suspect just about any great player from this era (well aside from a guy like Gwynn or something) I could suspect just about anyone. So unless you're drafting players exclusively from -1970 you're players can be suspects. I mean how are you going to tell me that a guy from the 90s that had a power spike then his ligaments started popping like rubber bands didn't take steroids? There are plenty of players who have demonstrated players that can be thought of as "roid rage" that weren't on the Mitchell "Report" I would strongly encourage you to not take steroids into account. Every era has it's taint.


    A side question, you said you didn't want Clemens because of this, but the period most would take for Clemens was 86-90 do you think he was juicing then?
    Last edited by ChrisLDuncan; 01-21-2008 at 02:43 PM.
    "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

    "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

  11. #361
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    5,282
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisLDuncan View Post
    http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=68880

    Post number four.

    The thing about steroids I could suspect just about any great player from this era (well aside from a guy like Gwynn or something) I could suspect just about anyone. So unless you're drafting players exclusively from -1970 you're players can be suspects. I mean how are you going to tell me that a guy from the 90s that had a power spike then his ligaments started popping like rubber bands didn't take steroids? There are plenty of players who have demonstrated players that can be thought of as "roid rage" that weren't on the Mitchell "Report" I would strongly encourage you to not take steroids into account. Every era has it's taint.
    Like I said above, I get accused of being an apologist for Bonds all the time. I don't care about steroids anymore. But i'm not stupid enough to believe they didn't help him... I think that much is obvious. You're living in a fantasy land if you don't think they did in some way. Therefore, I will NOT take his numbers at face value. They happened, but doesn't mean they happened legitimately.

    Re: Clemens...

    I don't know, really. Probably not. I just don't really want anyone associated with steroids one way or another.
    Quote Originally Posted by Domenic View Post
    The Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.

  12. #362
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Through the Fire and Flames
    Posts
    6,749
    Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
    How is the player's choice poll working?
    Exactly that, the players choice. You can't vote for your own team, vote on who drafted the best (e.g. got the best late round talent, did the best job of drafting value players), who assembled the best team, etc.
    "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

    "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

  13. #363
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Earl Park, IN
    Posts
    1,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Westlake View Post
    Therefore, I will NOT take his numbers at face value. They happened, but doesn't mean they happened legitimately.
    I agree with you Evan and I got Bonds. That's fine by me. All I would want is that he wouldn't be punished to the point where it's not worth a top 5 pick or first round since early 90's Bonds probably would've been drafted towards the end of the first round.

    It'll be hard considering we can suspect anyone of roids or HGH that it's gonna take the fun out of this draft and voting.

  14. #364
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,640
    Evan, what if the idea is that we are drafting the players as they were?

    So, if they took steroids, that's the player you have. What, then, would be the justification for docking for steroids? If you have a 2000-2004 Barry Bonds, you have him with steroids in his body since that's how he played the game.

    That makes it different from adjusting for era or defense. Doing that still involves evaluating the player who played the games...you aren't changing him to something else, as you would be in trying to evaluate a player "minus steroids."

    This isn't trying to objectively judge the true talent level of players (at least, so far as I see it). That's for player rankings in the History forum, or Statistics forum. This is taking the actual players (loaded with alcohol, greenies or steroids as they may be) and dropping them into a league to compete against each other.
    "In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last." --Sandy Koufax

  15. #365
    And I don't think that Wade is going to be worse off for taking McGwire anyway. Others may have passed on him, and Clemens because of the Steroid label, and so they came in a little lower, but many will rate them without a cut, or severe one.

    And by the way, I'd rather see Bonds from '92-'96. He would be able to start 150 games a year instead of 135 (plus pinch hitting) and still had a 190 OPS+, and probably 15 points worth of OPS+ with his legs, and better fielding-I think he could actually be a backup centerfielder when your CF is off and right now you will need somebody who can physically play backup there on occasion. He also doesn't have the steroid issues, and he actually was probably hurt in relative rates, and star-class by the use of others (ie Caminiti in '95). Right now, you will need a serviceable backup centerfielder, and plan to have someone fill Bonds' spot in the starting lineup 25 times. Or if he plays DH he might be able to go every day.

  16. #366
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    5,282
    Quote Originally Posted by The Splendid Splinter View Post
    I agree with you Evan and I got Bonds. That's fine by me. All I would want is that he wouldn't be punished to the point where it's not worth a top 5 pick or first round since early 90's Bonds probably would've been drafted towards the end of the first round.

    It'll be hard considering we can suspect anyone of roids or HGH that it's gonna take the fun out of this draft and voting.
    I wont, as I said when this was brought up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Domenic View Post
    The Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.

  17. #367
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Earl Park, IN
    Posts
    1,958
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisLDuncan View Post
    Exactly that, the players choice. You can't vote for your own team, vote on who drafted the best (e.g. got the best late round talent, did the best job of drafting value players), who assembled the best team, etc.
    also I think you should have a long summary as to why you pick that team, explain your reasoning, and do a summary on your team and why you think they are the best team and your reasoning. I think that should be a requirement for our voting poll. The history and stats polls doesn't have to do that, but that would be nice as well.

  18. #368
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Through the Fire and Flames
    Posts
    6,749
    Quote Originally Posted by Westlake View Post
    Like I said above, I get accused of being an apologist for Bonds all the time. I don't care about steroids anymore. But i'm not stupid enough to believe they didn't help him... I think that much is obvious. You're living in a fantasy land if you don't think they did in some way. Therefore, I will NOT take his numbers at face value. They happened, but doesn't mean they happened legitimately.

    Re: Clemens...

    I don't know, really. Probably not. I just don't really want anyone associated with steroids one way or another.
    So far your team is fine, but then again you haven't taken a player that played past the 80s (Seaver doesn't count one good year, past the 80s) but you're opening up a can of worms, if some players like Bagwell or Pujols that have had whispers around them. That could be conceived as they were just more careful about their roiding. Whereas, the only reason why Clemens was caught is because his trainer got pinched. It can get ugly. However, it's your opinion and you are entilted to it. I'm pretty sure you won't think Roger Clemens would pitch like Kyle Loshe and Barry Bonds will hit like Tony Womack. Remember guys, it's stuff that everyone will have to weigh on their own. LQ, steroids, missed war seasons, everything.
    "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

    "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

  19. #369
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    5,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Minstrel View Post
    Evan, what if the idea is that we are drafting the players as they were?

    So, if they took steroids, that's the player you have. What, then, would be the justification for docking for steroids? If you have a 2000-2004 Barry Bonds, you have him with steroids in his body since that's how he played the game.

    That makes it different from adjusting for era or defense. Doing that still involves evaluating the player who played the games...you aren't changing him to something else, as you would be in trying to evaluate a player "minus steroids."

    This isn't trying to objectively judge the true talent level of players (at least, so far as I see it). That's for player rankings in the History forum, or Statistics forum. This is taking the actual players (loaded with alcohol, greenies or steroids as they may be) and dropping them into a league to compete against each other.
    Are we trying to say that said league we are in allows players to take performance enhancing drugs? I do think, to a point, I am evaluating the true talent of the player in that 5 year span. I don't think I should look at one player with a 155 OPS+ and automatically think he is better than the guy with the 152. That seems kind of boring to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
    And I don't think that Wade is going to be worse off for taking McGwire anyway. Others may have passed on him, and Clemens because of the Steroid label, and so they came in a little lower, but many will rate them without a cut, or severe one.

    And by the way, I'd rather see Bonds from '92-'96. He would be able to start 150 games a year instead of 135 (plus pinch hitting) and still had a 190 OPS+, and probably 15 points worth of OPS+ with his legs, and better fielding-I think he could actually be a backup centerfielder when your CF is off and right now you will need somebody who can physically play backup there on occasion. He also doesn't have the steroid issues, and he actually was probably hurt in relative rates, and star-class by the use of others (ie Caminiti in '95). Right now, you will need a serviceable backup centerfielder, and plan to have someone fill Bonds' spot in the starting lineup 25 times. Or if he plays DH he might be able to go every day.
    I agree, in the scheme of things, it doesnt hurt his team, because McGwire was THAT much better than the next guy he could have taken. Therefore, even with a small discount, it's really no big deal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Domenic View Post
    The Yankees should see if Yogi Berra can still get behind the plate - he has ten World Series rings... he must be worth forty or fifty million a season.

  20. #370
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Through the Fire and Flames
    Posts
    6,749
    Quote Originally Posted by The Splendid Splinter View Post
    also I think you should have a long summary as to why you pick that team, explain your reasoning, and do a summary on your team and why you think they are the best team and your reasoning. I think that should be a requirement for our voting poll. The history and stats polls doesn't have to do that, but that would be nice as well.
    I would like an analysis of each team actually
    "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

    "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

  21. #371
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Through the Fire and Flames
    Posts
    6,749
    Another thing, I think we need to all relax. I'm pretty sure a bigger problem will be how will the dead ball era pitchers fair in the live ball, how will pitchers of the four man do in a five man era. How much emphasis should we put on blank. We will work out all the kinks in the debate forum. As for now, draft the team you think is the best. Evan, like the rest of you is entitled to his opinion. What if someone has an opinion contrary to the board? What if someone thinks Hornsby was the third best second basemen ever? Should the guy who has Hornsby complain about that? Or what if someone doesn't think Morgan is a historically great second basemen? Should the guy who has Morgan complain about that? We can do our debates about this in the debate forum, AFTER the draft. Lets try to have fun for now.
    "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

    "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

  22. #372
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Earl Park, IN
    Posts
    1,958
    Quote Originally Posted by brett View Post
    And by the way, I'd rather see Bonds from '92-'96. He would be able to start 150 games a year instead of 135 (plus pinch hitting) and still had a 190 OPS+, and probably 15 points worth of OPS+ with his legs, and better fielding-I think he could actually be a backup centerfielder when your CF is off and right now you will need somebody who can physically play backup there on occasion. He also doesn't have the steroid issues, and he actually was probably hurt in relative rates, and star-class by the use of others (ie Caminiti in '95). Right now, you will need a serviceable backup centerfielder, and plan to have someone fill Bonds' spot in the starting lineup 25 times. Or if he plays DH he might be able to go every day.
    Maybe so... I plan to move my guys around so they play more games. Like Greenberg can play LF (although not well, but he could play there like 10-20 games if needed) Bonds to DH or can't play and Thomas to 1B for those games. As far as backup CF, i have a couple in mind that I'm looking way later in the draft. It will work out in the end. I can always change my mind and make it those years but he would get a deduction in '94 to me. Also i rather have his 220+ OPS+ in 143 games than his 190 OPS+ in 150. Also Bonds was still good enough to play LF from '00-'04 with 2 of those years where he was above average. As for speed, I wouldn't really looking at that as much.

  23. #373
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,640
    Quote Originally Posted by Westlake View Post
    Are we trying to say that said league we are in allows players to take performance enhancing drugs?
    Well, it's only an abstract league, not a real one with it's own rules and policies and such. I just mean that we could consider that the players we draft, we are drafting as they were and dropping them into direct competition with players from other times.

    I do think, to a point, I am evaluating the true talent of the player in that 5 year span. I don't think I should look at one player with a 155 OPS+ and automatically think he is better than the guy with the 152. That seems kind of boring to me.
    I wasn't suggesting that it should be "Player A has a higher score than Player B, so Player A was conclusively better." I just meant that we should evaluate based on the actual impact they had, as opposed to the impact they should have had minus any "artificial" factors.

    Because it seems to me that docking certain players gets us no closer to the "truth"...if you dock Bonds and McGwire, but you don't dock the hundreds of other players who used steroids that you don't know about, you still don't have an accurate portrayal of the players...after all, Bonds' and McGwire's OPS+ are relative to a league in which steroids was rampant...that boosts the average OPS, which hurts their OPS+. If you just dock them, but not all the other players in their leagues, their OPS+ (or any other relative measures) are still off.

    If we're going to have inaccurate representations of true talent anyway, it seems like it is easier to just take the numbers at face value, rather than do an "adjustment" that throws it off in a different way.
    "In the end it all comes down to talent. You can talk all you want about intangibles, I just don't know what that means. Talent makes winners, not intangibles. Can nice guys win? Sure, nice guys can win - if they're nice guys with a lot of talent. Nice guys with a little talent finish fourth and nice guys with no talent finish last." --Sandy Koufax

  24. #374
    Quote Originally Posted by The Splendid Splinter View Post
    As for speed, I wouldn't really looking at that as much.
    A "very good" baserunner will go from first to third or second to home around 12 more times a season than an average one. A great one +20. Also a very good baserunner will save about 5 double plays a season over an average one and a great one around 10.

  25. #375
    Quote Originally Posted by Westlake View Post
    Are we trying to say that said league we are in allows players to take performance enhancing drugs?
    Well, we don't allow racial segregation but nobody is going to think they can take Satchel Paige from '35-'39 (are they?).

Page 15 of 21 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •