All-Time Draft Rematch

[ElHalo]

--I don't think we should be having any players on teams in both leagues. There are more than enough quality players in baseball history to draft 14 great teams without using guys twice. Lets just keep a single draft going. It will be alot simpler.

I agree; I think it's probably more fun to go with a very deep league than a shallower one with seperate drafts.

[brett]

I agree; I think it's probably more fun to go with a very deep league than a shallower one with seperate drafts.

I agree too. It is a lot more interesting going down into the 300s on the all time list than just reeling off the standard top 10 list by position.

[Wee Willie]

I agree too. It is a lot more interesting going down into the 300s on the all time list than just reeling off the standard top 10 list by position.

That's fine with me, as long as we have no more than 14.

[ElHalo]

I agree too. It is a lot more interesting going down into the 300s on the all time list than just reeling off the standard top 10 list by position.

Especially because this type of draft -- featuring players with the best five year peaks -- could otherwise be known as the "ElHalo Special." I've got some doozies to whip out later.

Just a shame we can't use 19th century players. That Ross Barnes - Hughie Jennings middle infield would have been unstoppable in a five year peak format.

[leecemark]

--I was in another all time draft with 16 teams and we weren't exacting getting into lousy or even average players - and we drafted 30 apiece to play a sim with injuries turned on. It makes you think a little more about your bench. Maybe a platoon of the 15th and 18th best 1B is better than the 10th best guy. If we are using 300 (or 350 if we get 16 participants) in is a real exercise in team building.

[leecemark]

Especially because this type of draft -- featuring players with the best five year peaks -- could otherwise be known as the "ElHalo Special." I've got some doozies to whip out later.

Just a shame we can't use 19th century players. That Ross Barnes - Hughie Jennings middle infielde would have been a world beater.

--I thought we could use 19th century guys. Its just a matter of how much they get marked down when the teams get evaluated.

[brett]

Especially because this type of draft -- featuring players with the best five year peaks -- could otherwise be known as the "ElHalo Special." I've got some doozies to whip out later.

Just a shame we can't use 19th century players. That Ross Barnes - Hughie Jennings middle infield would have been unstoppable in a five year peak format.

Or perhaps "GD"

[ChrisLDuncan]

Since there is one 14 player league I'll allow 19th century guys. I was wanting atleast 8 players per league, though ten would have been ideal, because I want good teams...but I don't want teams that are just insane. That feature five or six players that are top three or so at their respective positions.

[Wade8813]

People kept picking because they were confused, not because they were supposed to. If everyone wants to do just one league, that's fine. The main reason for doing two leagues was not because we were worried about running out of players, but because we last time we did this, things took WAY too long (or more specifically, the AL took too long, and the NL took WAY too long...).

I think we should vote on whether we want one or two leagues. There seem to be a lot of people on either side of the issue.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

Since there is one 14 player league I'll allow 19th century guys.

I actually would rather we didn't use players from before 1900. It really seems to make thing a whole lot harder when pre 1900 player are included.

[Wade8813]

I actually would rather we didn't use players from before 1900. It really seems to make thing a whole lot harder when pre 1900 player are included.

It would make a lot more research for me. I know basically nothing about pre-1900 players.

[brett]

I actually would rather we didn't use players from before 1900. It really seems to make thing a whole lot harder when pre 1900 player are included.

But those who pick them will also risk that they will not be given proper credit.

And what about Young? If you use a stretch from the 1800s, he may have good stats, but he may be evaluated lower because of the comp.

And anyway, a pitcher from the 1880s with 475 innings and a warp of like 15 would be a lot less valuable than a guy with 275 innings and a warp of 10 because the 475 inning guy has to pitch 30% of his team's innings to rack up that value. He's basically cutting out the value of the other pitchers on his team. A couple of 1800s guys would have the second and third best 5 year pitching peaks based on warp I but its all because of their huge innings which doesn't maximize value on a team full of good pitchers.

By the way, someone mentioned AL rules. Does that mean that we should plan on having a DH in the lineup?

[leecemark]

--Two leagues (or divisions) will be easier to work with. Splitting the draft into 2 half would also speed things up and I'd be happy with that. The only problem is it would be harder to monitor since we'd have 2 groups picking from the same pool of players. Guys would probably end up getting picked in both drafts and we'd have to sort that out. Not sure the quicker pace would be worth the oversite headaches.

[Wade8813]

I'm fairly sure if we had 2 leagues, it would be 2 separate pools of players.

[leecemark]

--How would they be divided? You'd almost have to start over if you were using two pools.

[ChrisLDuncan]

--How would they be divided? You'd almost have to start over if you were using two pools.

Two seperate pools as in, each league gets every player in history. Like two Ruths, two Bonds', and so on.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I made a poll. You can vote there. Popular opinion rules. I decided to have this be a democracy rather than a dictatorship

[ChrisLDuncan]

But those who pick them will also risk that they will not be given proper credit.

And what about Young? If you use a stretch from the 1800s, he may have good stats, but he may be evaluated lower because of the comp.

And anyway, a pitcher from the 1880s with 475 innings and a warp of like 15 would be a lot less valuable than a guy with 275 innings and a warp of 10 because the 475 inning guy has to pitch 30% of his team's innings to rack up that value. He's basically cutting out the value of the other pitchers on his team. A couple of 1800s guys would have the second and third best 5 year pitching peaks based on warp I but its all because of their huge innings which doesn't maximize value on a team full of good pitchers.

See, this is what sucks about having smart guys in your draft. Not only do they take the good players you want, they also bring up interesting and challenging questions. I guess, that's another caveat. I doubt anyone would really scoff at Cy Young being selected and I'm sure everyone in each poll championships would treat him as a legit ace, I just don't think many would expect him to pitch over 350 innings. So I guess those pitchers are okay, but just don't expect the people voting in the polls to think that they will dominate in a more "modern" context. Does that make any sense?

By the way, someone mentioned AL rules. Does that mean that we should plan on having a DH in the lineup?

Yes. However you can DH anyone, so if you want to DH Honus Wagner, that's cool by me.

[leecemark]

Two seperate pools as in, each league gets every player in history. Like two Ruths, two Bonds', and so on.

--Using everybody twice the one option I wouldn't care to play with. An all time draft with only 7 teams is way too deep and you don't really have any interesting choices to make. If it was split somehow two league's would be fine, but not 2 leagues with both being able to draft anybody.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Cast Your Votes People!

[Wee Willie]

--Using everybody twice the one option I wouldn't care to play with. An all time draft with only 7 teams is way too deep and you don't really have any interesting choices to make. If it was split somehow two league's would be fine, but not 2 leagues with both being able to draft anybody.

I disagree. It's way too complicated, IMO, if we have two leagues and use the same pool. One would constantly have to check the other draft to see who is being picked. There will still be over 100 position players picked with 7 teams, so I think the choices will be interesting enough.

[ElHalo]

I disagree. It's way too complicated, IMO, if we have two leagues and use the same pool. One would constantly have to check the other draft to see who is being picked. There will still be over 100 position players picked with 7 teams, so I think the choices will be interesting enough.

It would be unweildy, which is why we should continue this draft. Who's up next?

[Wee Willie]

It would be unweildy, which is why we should continue this draft. Who's up next?

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

[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?

[Westlake]

It looks like we are keeping one league, which is just fine to me.

Lets get the ball rolling already..