Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All-Time Draft Rematch

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

  • #46
    I'm sure the other draft will start with a fresh pool of players.

    Comment


    • #47
      Then why did Phil and EH pick guys we hadn't? I'm sure that if there was a fresh pool, Ruth would be among the first guys to go, certainly ahead of Mays.

      Comment


      • #48
        --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.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by leecemark View Post
          --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 am going on that assumption.

          Is it okay to pick during the down time if I am up?

          Comment


          • #50
            1. Wade - Babe Ruth
            2. TSS - Barry Bonds
            3. Westlake - Rogers Hornsby
            4. Wee Willie - Honus Wagner
            5. DMF - Walter Johnson
            6. Astros Fan - Ted Williams
            7. Erik Bedard - Greg Maddux
            8. PhilKid3-Willie Mays
            9. El Halo-Pedro Martinez
            10. Brett-Ty Cobb
            11. Yanks
            12. Chris
            13. Minstrel

            Ty Cobb 1909-1913

            5 years
            BA: .396
            AB: 530
            H: 210
            2B: 33
            3B: 17
            HR: 7
            Slg:.564
            BB: 51
            OB%: .455
            R: 112
            RBI: 95
            SB: 67

            Concerning Cobb, I would like to mention that he actually ranked second all-time in 5 year WARP I among centerfielders (without dropping any names) by a slim margin of 70.7 to 70.5, but 1) that does not take into accout his extra, unaccounted for bases on the basepaths which are likely to have been the most in history, 20 to perhaps 30 per season based on comparisons to modern players, AND he produced that in 141 games per season, while the #1 guy did it in 151 games, so while his games may seem to be a slight negative, he outdid the #1 guy with .100 warp per game to .936 warp per game and somebody else could slip in and produce in the other games. And again, just 20 extra bases a year on the paths would be another 1.0 warp per 154.

            I just want people to realize that speed in picking up additional bases on the hits of other players shows up nowhere in warp values, or any other stat like win shares etc. It can be greatly underappreciated.
            Attached Files
            Last edited by brett; 01-10-2008, 05:27 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by leecemark View Post
              --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.
              "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

              Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by ElHalo View Post
                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.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by brett View Post
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by brett View Post
                    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.
                    Last edited by ElHalo; 01-09-2008, 08:19 PM.
                    "Simply put, the passion, interest and tradition surrounding baseball in New York is unmatched."

                    Sean McAdam, ESPN.com

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      --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.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by ElHalo View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by ElHalo View Post
                          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"

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            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.
                            "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


                            • #59
                              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.
                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by ChrisLDuncan View Post
                                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.
                                Here's to baseball... The best sport made.

                                "There are two theories on hitting a knuckleball. Unfortunately, neither of them works." ― Charlie Lau

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X