All-Time Draft Thread: Player per team

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I still have some questions:

1. Is there a requirement for the way we distribute the players at each position? Do we have to have a certain number of pitchers or bench players?

2. When you say a player has to have 400 games at a position to qualify there, does it have to be 400 games for the team he's drafted under, or just 400 games in his entire career?

3. Can the DH play any position, or does he have to have 400 games played at DH?

1. Nope. Your team, your rules.

2. 400 games his entire career.

3. DH can be any position.

Looks like everyone's still in, but I've yet to hear back from RuthMayBond and Buzzaldrin. I'll wait a bit longer but I really want to start.

[BigRon]

1. Nope. Your team, your rules.

2. 400 games his entire career.

3. DH can be any position.

Looks like everyone's still in, but I've yet to hear back from RuthMayBond and Buzzaldrin. I'll wait a bit longer but I really want to start.

Tyrus, it's your draft and you should make the rules. However, in a number of drafts I've been in in the past we've set a 9 pitcher minimum. That ensures that no one will do something really ridiculous like draft 4 pitchers- it also allows some flexibility. If a guy wants 11 pitchers, that's his call. What do you think?

[Wade8813]

It's really not going to matter. It's a horrible idea to have way too few pitchers, so nobody's going to do it.

[ian2813]

I have another clarification question. You said:

For those who played a majority of games from unmentioned teams, our 25th roster slot could be a wild card that goes to any player who qualifies with at least 300 games for another team (Dan Brouthers with the Buffalo Bisons; 439 games).

Are you saying that only players who played a majority of their career games for an unmentioned team qualify for the 25th spot? Also, does that count teams added after 1969, or are we only talking about defunct 19th-Century teams?

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Are you saying that only players who played a majority of their career games for an unmentioned team qualify for the 25th spot? Also, does that count teams added after 1969, or are we only talking about defunct 19th-Century teams?[/QUOTE]

A majority for a defunct team. This way it keeps us pre-1970 and includes more players. Our 25th slot will only be 300 as opposed to the 700 I mentioned because less games were played when Dan Brouthers or Tim Keefe toed the line.

I'm sure more scenarios will pop up, so feel free to ask anything. In the end, we're all sensible gentlemen (and ladies?) who can devise something to meet everyone's needs. If our Founding Fathers could draft a constitution, we can work out a simple draft. My biggest fear is some controversy midway through the draft that will slow progress.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Tyrus, it's your draft and you should make the rules. However, in a number of drafts I've been in in the past we've set a 9 pitcher minimum. That ensures that no one will do something really ridiculous like draft 4 pitchers- it also allows some flexibility. If a guy wants 11 pitchers, that's his call. What do you think?

I want to keep these teams as flexible as possible. In reality, an owner could build his team around a two-man pitching staff if he so chose. The playoffs will involve subjective judging (by us) of our final teams. I doubt someone who stocks up 10 relievers and two starters will go far.

[Wade8813]

What do we do about players who weren't with one team long enough? Do they not qualify at all? (Like Teixeira, who's about 7 games short of being a Ranger )

[ian2813]

What do we do about players who weren't with one team long enough? Do they not qualify at all? (Like Teixeira, who's about 7 games short of being a Ranger )

I presume they just don't qualify. It's all part of the challenge. There are several big-name players who won't be eligible because they either didn't spend 700 games with any one franchise (e.g. Gary Sheffield) or they spent the majority of their career with post-1969 expansion teams (e.g. Randy Johnson).

[BigRon]

What do we do about players who weren't with one team long enough? Do they not qualify at all? (Like Teixeira, who's about 7 games short of being a Ranger )

Isn't that why there are cutoffs? Every number is arbitrary in a way, but if we start sliding a little, where do we place the boundary? If Teixeira, perhaps someone will find someone who was 16 games short of 700, or 12 games short of 400 at a position. Ty should tell us, but I think a cutoff should be a cutoff.

[No Roids]

Isn't that why there are cutoffs? Every number is arbitrary in a way, but if we start sliding a little, where do we place the boundary? If Teixeira, perhaps someone will find someone who was 16 games short of 700, or 12 games short of 400 at a position. Ty should tell us, but I think a cutoff should be a cutoff.

+1 for me here.
If guys dont qualify, they dont qualify, plain and simple!
The idea here is to create a challenge and limit the player pool. Otherwise, every draft is the same using the same player pool-everyone who's ever played MLB level baseball

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

+1 for me here.
If guys dont qualify, they dont qualify, plain and simple!
The idea here is to create a challenge and limit the player pool. Otherwise, every draft is the same using the same player pool-everyone who's ever played MLB level baseball

Bingo. As BigRon said, a cutoff is a cutoff. Some players just won't make it.

The good news: RuthMayBond and Buzzaldrin contacted me. RuthMayBond will be participating, meaning we can start! I will PM everyone to get us ready. I plan on starting tomorrow, Thursday, Feb 24th. The rest will be summed up in the message.

[Wade8813]

We should allow people to start picking now - just don't start anybody's clock until tomorrow.

[Wade8813]

Another question - I know LF/RFers are interchangeable. Can CFers also play corner OF?

Do we give credit for time in the NeL for players that played there and for MLB?

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Another question - I know LF/RFers are interchangeable. Can CFers also play corner OF?

Do we give credit for time in the NeL for players that played there and for MLB?

MLB stats only. Sure, CF can play anywhere in OF.

[Brad Harris]

8) Out 25th roster slot is a wild card that goes to any player who qualifies with at least 300 games for a team non-existent with the 24 ones in 1969. (Dan Brouthers with the Buffalo Bisons; 439 games).

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?

[Wade8813]

If someone played a lot of games for both a defunct franchise and a modern franchise, can we use that player for either?

[ian2813]

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.

[Brad Harris]

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?

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

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.

[No Roids]

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?

[ian2813]

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?

[Brad Harris]

I don't see any rule to the contrary. So long as a player meets both eligibility requirements, why not?

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

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.