Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All-Time Draft Rematch

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by ChrisLDuncan View Post
    Well we'll have three polls, one in the Stat forum (I will STRONGLY encourage them to take the numbers for what they are, i.e. no steroid discount), one in the History forum (roids may hurt you here), and a player's choice poll. I think everyone here has a player that's been "suspected" or doesn't care about Steroids.

    I think the stat guys can ignore steroids and work in a vacuum. They are good at that. I think its fair for the history guys to look at what they want-chemistry, vigor, excitement etc. But are we going to ask them "what is the best team" or "which team would most likely win against the others?"

    How is the player's choice poll working?

    Personally, I'm going to rate each team by position: 5 starters, 9 man lineup, bench and bullpen. I will probably weight bullpen x 2 and might rate #1, #2, #3 starters higher because of the post season. A team might also have a platoon situation.
    Last edited by brett; 01-21-2008, 01:12 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wade8813 View Post
      The rules are the rules. We're not supposed to dock anyone for steroids.
      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.

      Originally posted by leecemark View Post
      How other people choose to evaluate these things is, of course, up to them.
      Originally posted by leecemark View Post
      --Actually I thought we agreed the evaluation would be subjective and we (and anybody we ask to vote on the teams) could choose whatever method they want? When you draft Barry Bonds early you have to KNOW that many people steeply discount the BALCO years. It should be part of your planning when you pick him heading into a subjective review.
      Bingo. How people choose to vote is up to them, not up to a league rule that was not even talking about voting, as far as I know. Wade, you should have known people will evaluate subjectively..... not the way that you want them to.
      Last edited by Westlake; 01-21-2008, 01:14 PM.
      Originally posted by Domenic
      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.

      Comment


      • he probably never broke baseball rules
        I think this is a key point. I think I'd be more apt to punish a confessed spitballer (who wasn't grandfathered in) than someone who may or may not have broken any rules.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wade8813 View Post
          I think this is a key point. I think I'd be more apt to punish a confessed spitballer (who wasn't grandfathered in) than someone who may or may not have broken any rules.

          Well if we also get the best umpires, that guy would have to live on his real stuff, or get taken to the shed.

          Comment


          • Bingo. How people choose to vote is up to them, not up to a league rule that was not even talking voting, as far as I know.
            Then what do you think the rule WAS talking about, if it wasn't talking about voting?

            Well if we also get the best umpires, that guy would have to live on his real stuff, or get taken to the shed.
            I dunno about that - if someone went an entire career without anything more than suspicions, I'm not sure he'd be caught even if we had the best umps in history
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs

            Comment


            • Wade, when do you think DMF is likey to draft next?

              Comment


              • 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.
                Originally posted by Domenic
                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.

                Comment


                • I think DMF went on a trip to the mountains, but they're supposed to be back soon.
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


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

                      Comment


                      • 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.
                        Originally posted by Domenic
                        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.

                        Comment


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

                          Comment


                          • 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...
                            "Back before I injured my hip, I thought going to the gym was for wimps."
                            Bo Jackson

                            Actually, I think they were about the same because I lettered in all sports, and I was a two-time state decathlon champion.
                            Bo Jackson

                            My sophomore year I placed 2nd, and my junior and senior year - I got smart and piled up enough points between myself and second place where I didn't have to run the mile.
                            Bo Jackson

                            Comment


                            • 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, 02:42 PM.
                              Originally posted by Domenic
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • 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, 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

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X