Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: All-Time Draft Thread: Player per team

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,293
    If someone played a lot of games for both a defunct franchise and a modern franchise, can we use that player for either?

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad Harris View Post
    1. Does this mean 300 games total between all defunct teams the player played for or 300 games with one specific defunct team?

    2. How does this square with the 400 game minimum at a given position. Can the "defunct team player" be any position? Is there a lower min. games threshold for this player to qualify for a specific position?

    3. How many minimum games are required if the "defunct team player" is a pitcher?

    4. Must relievers be represented? May relievers be represented? There was some differing points of view on this in the last draft. Are there minimum eligibility requirements for reliever roles?
    Not to usurp Tyrus' position, but here's how I see these questions based on the discussions we've had:

    1. In the first post it says "at least 300 games for a team non-existent with the 24 ones in 1969," so I take that to mean the answer is one specific defunct team.

    2. I think the purpose of the 25th roster spot is to include 19th-Century stars who bounced around a lot due to the instability of the era. Since the best players managed to have lengthy careers despite their teams folding, I'd say the 400 game positional minimum should still apply.

    3. Since pitchers had larger workloads in the 19th Century, I think 300 games is still a good cutoff.

    4. Tyrus said in post #31 that he wants to keep things flexible, so I'm guessing you could choose a staff of all starters if you wanted.

    If I'm wrong on any of these, feel free to correct me, Ty.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by ian2813 View Post
    3. Since pitchers had larger workloads in the 19th Century, I think 300 games is still a good cutoff.
    Except that pitchers have a 200 game cutoff, right?
    "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
    "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
    "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
    "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by ian2813 View Post
    Not to usurp Tyrus' position, but here's how I see these questions based on the discussions we've had:

    1. In the first post it says "at least 300 games for a team non-existent with the 24 ones in 1969," so I take that to mean the answer is one specific defunct team.

    2. I think the purpose of the 25th roster spot is to include 19th-Century stars who bounced around a lot due to the instability of the era. Since the best players managed to have lengthy careers despite their teams folding, I'd say the 400 game positional minimum should still apply.

    3. Since pitchers had larger workloads in the 19th Century, I think 300 games is still a good cutoff.

    4. Tyrus said in post #31 that he wants to keep things flexible, so I'm guessing you could choose a staff of all starters if you wanted.

    If I'm wrong on any of these, feel free to correct me, Ty.
    Hey, I ought to let you run things

    Put let's keep it 200 games for 19th century pitchers.
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  5. #45
    I think there was one part of the original question that went unanswered- how can do we handle guys who played enough games PRIOR to 1900 and also qualify with a post-1900 "modern day" franchise?

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by No Roids View Post
    I think there was one part of the original question that went unanswered- how can do we handle guys who played enough games PRIOR to 1900 and also qualify with a post-1900 "modern day" franchise?
    I would assume they could be drafted under either franchise. Tyrus?

  7. #47
    I don't see any rule to the contrary. So long as a player meets both eligibility requirements, why not?
    "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
    "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
    "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
    "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,667
    Quote Originally Posted by No Roids View Post
    I think there was one part of the original question that went unanswered- how can do we handle guys who played enough games PRIOR to 1900 and also qualify with a post-1900 "modern day" franchise?
    They can be picked as either your wild card or under the modern franchise.
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •