Announcement

Collapse

Updated Baseball Fever Policy

Baseball Fever Policy

I. Purpose of this announcement:

This announcement describes the policies pertaining to the operation of Baseball Fever.

Baseball Fever is a moderated baseball message board which encourages and facilitates research and information exchange among fans of our national pastime. The intent of the Baseball Fever Policy is to ensure that Baseball Fever remains an extremely high quality, extremely low "noise" environment.

Baseball Fever is administrated by three principal administrators:
webmaster - Baseball Fever Owner
The Commissioner - Baseball Fever Administrator
Macker - Baseball Fever Administrator

And a group of forum specific super moderators. The role of the moderator is to keep Baseball Fever smoothly and to screen posts for compliance with our policy. The moderators are ALL volunteer positions, so please be patient and understanding of any delays you might experience in correspondence.

II. Comments about our policy:

Any suggestions on this policy may be made directly to the webmaster.

III. Acknowledgments:

This document was based on a similar policy used by SABR.

IV. Requirements for participation on Baseball Fever:

Participation on Baseball Fever is available to all baseball fans with a valid email address, as verified by the forum's automated system, which then in turn creates a single validated account. Multiple accounts by a single user are prohibited.

By registering, you agree to adhere to the policies outlined in this document and to conduct yourself accordingly. Abuse of the forum, by repeated failure to abide by these policies, will result in your access being blocked to the forum entirely.

V. Baseball Fever Netiquette:

Participants at Baseball Fever are required to adhere to these principles, which are outlined in this section.
a. All posts to Baseball Fever should be written in clear, concise English, with proper grammar and accurate spelling. The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum; when abbreviation is necessary, they should be either well-known (such as etc.), or explained on their first use in your post.

b. Conciseness is a key attribute of a good post.

c. Quote only the portion of a post to which you are responding.

d. Standard capitalization and punctuation make a large difference in the readability of a post. TYPING IN ALL CAPITALS is considered to be "shouting"; it is a good practice to limit use of all capitals to words which you wish to emphasize.

e. It is our policy NOT to transmit any defamatory or illegal materials.

f. Personal attacks of any type against Baseball Fever readers will not be tolerated. In these instances the post will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the personal attack via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue personal attacks will be banned from the site.

g. It is important to remember that many contextual clues available in face-to-face discussion, such as tone of voice and facial expression, are lost in the electronic forum. As a poster, try to be alert for phrasing that might be misinterpreted by your audience to be offensive; as a reader, remember to give the benefit of the doubt and not to take umbrage too easily. There are many instances in which a particular choice of words or phrasing can come across as being a personal attack where none was intended.

h. The netiquette described above (a-g) often uses the term "posts", but applies equally to Private Messages.

VI. Baseball Fever User Signature Policy

A signature is a piece of text that some members may care to have inserted at the end of ALL of their posts, a little like the closing of a letter. You can set and / or change your signature by editing your profile in the UserCP. Since it is visible on ALL your posts, the following policy must be adhered to:

Signature Composition
Font size limit: No larger than size 2 (This policy is a size 2)
Style: Bold and italics are permissible
Character limit: No more than 500 total characters
Lines: No more than 4 lines
Colors: Most colors are permissible, but those which are hard to discern against the gray background (yellow, white, pale gray) should be avoided
Images/Graphics: Allowed, but nothing larger than 20k and Content rules must be followed

Signature Content
No advertising is permitted
Nothing political or religious
Nothing obscene, vulgar, defamatory or derogatory
Links to personal blogs/websites are permissible - with the webmaster's written consent
A Link to your Baseball Fever Blog does not require written consent and is recommended
Quotes must be attributed. Non-baseball quotes are permissible as long as they are not religious or political

Please adhere to these rules when you create your signature. Failure to do so will result in a request to comply by a moderator. If you do not comply within a reasonable amount of time, the signature will be removed and / or edited by an Administrator. Baseball Fever reserves the right to edit and / or remove any or all of your signature line at any time without contacting the account holder.

VII. Appropriate and inappropriate topics for Baseball Fever:

Most concisely, the test for whether a post is appropriate for Baseball Fever is: "Does this message discuss our national pastime in an interesting manner?" This post can be direct or indirect: posing a question, asking for assistance, providing raw data or citations, or discussing and constructively critiquing existing posts. In general, a broad interpretation of "baseball related" is used.

Baseball Fever is not a promotional environment. Advertising of products, web sites, etc., whether for profit or not-for-profit, is not permitted. At the webmaster's discretion, brief one-time announcements for products or services of legitimate baseball interest and usefulness may be allowed. If advertising is posted to the site it will be copied by a moderator and/or administrator, deleted from the site, then sent to the member who made the post via a Private Message (PM) along with a single warning. Members who choose to not listen and continue advertising will be banned from the site. If the advertising is spam-related, pornography-based, or a "visit-my-site" type post / private message, no warning at all will be provided, and the member will be banned immediately without a warning.

It is considered appropriate to post a URL to a page which specifically and directly answers a question posted on the list (for example, it would be permissible to post a link to a page containing home-road splits, even on a site which has advertising or other commercial content; however, it would not be appropriate to post the URL of the main page of the site). The site reserves the right to limit the frequency of such announcements by any individual or group.

In keeping with our test for a proper topic, posting to Baseball Fever should be treated as if you truly do care. This includes posting information that is, to the best of your knowledge, complete and accurate at the time you post. Any errors or ambiguities you catch later should be acknowledged and corrected in the thread, since Baseball Fever is sometimes considered to be a valuable reference for research information.

VIII. Role of the moderator:

When a post is submitted to Baseball Fever, it is forwarded by the server automatically and seen immediately. The moderator may:
a. Leave the thread exactly like it was submitted. This is the case 95% of the time.

b. Immediately delete the thread as inappropriate for Baseball Fever. Examples include advertising, personal attacks, or spam. This is the case 1% of the time.

c. Move the thread. If a member makes a post about the Marlins in the Yankees forum it will be moved to the appropriate forum. This is the case 3% of the time.

d. Edit the message due to an inappropriate item. This is the case 1% of the time. There have been new users who will make a wonderful post, then add to their signature line (where your name / handle appears) a tagline that is a pure advertisement. This tagline will be removed, a note will be left in the message so he/she is aware of the edit, and personal contact will be made to the poster telling them what has been edited and what actions need to be taken to prevent further edits.

The moderators perform no checks on posts to verify factual or logical accuracy. While he/she may point out gross errors in factual data in replies to the thread, the moderator does not act as an "accuracy" editor. Also moderation is not a vehicle for censorship of individuals and/or opinions, and the moderator's decisions should not be taken personally.

IX. Legal aspects of participation in Baseball Fever:

By submitting a post to Baseball Fever, you grant Baseball Fever permission to distribute your message to the forum. Other rights pertaining to the post remain with the ORIGINAL author, and you may not redistribute or retransmit any posts by any others, in whole or in part, without the express consent of the original author.

The messages appearing on Baseball Fever contain the opinions and views of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of Baseball Fever, or of the Baseball Almanac family of sites.

Sincerely,

Sean Holtz, Webmaster of Baseball Almanac & Baseball Fever
www.baseball-almanac.com | www.baseball-fever.com
"Baseball Almanac: Sharing Baseball. Sharing History."
See more
See less

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
    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.
    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 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

      Comment


      • 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.
        "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


        • 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

          Comment


          • 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.

            Comment


            • 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.
              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 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.
                "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 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

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    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.
                    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 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

                      Comment


                      • 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

                        Comment


                        • 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.
                          "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 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

                            Comment


                            • 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.

                              Comment


                              • 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?).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X