New Draft League Voting and Discussion

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

Take yer pick. For more details on each, see post #88 here

[Wade8813]

Depending on the format, I'm willing to participate

[ian2813]

Wow. So far the Franchise Player Seasons Draft is leading. And here I thought I was the only person who thought it sounded like fun. If we end up doing that one, I might be willing to lead it.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

How many votes should we look for?

[chicagowhitesox1173]

I'm hoping the franchise one wins.

[ian2813]

How many votes should we look for?

Probably as many as the number of participants we think we can reasonably support.

BigRon still hasn't voted, and he expressed interest.

[Wade8813]

So with the franchise draft, every team is all limited to that one franchise? That seems like it would be too limiting. Franchises pretty much always have a handful of stud players that are head and shoulders above the rest.

Using the example of the Yankees, whoever gets the first pick will take Babe Ruth and probably get ~13 WAR*. Whoever has the wheel pick will likely end up with 2 guys who're about 9 WAR each. But whoever has the first pick will then be able to take 2 more guys who are ~8-9 WAR, because there's so many of them. So he'll have a huge advantage

And the same thing happens with other teams.


* I realize WAR isn't a definitive stat, but it does give a good frame of reference for this discussion.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

So with the franchise draft, every team is all limited to that one franchise? That seems like it would be too limiting. Franchises pretty much always have a handful of stud players that are head and shoulders above the rest.

Using the example of the Yankees, whoever gets the first pick will take Babe Ruth and probably get ~13 WAR*. Whoever has the wheel pick will likely end up with 2 guys who're about 9 WAR each. But whoever has the first pick will then be able to take 2 more guys who are ~8-9 WAR, because there's so many of them. So he'll have a huge advantage

And the same thing happens with other teams.


* I realize WAR isn't a definitive stat, but it does give a good frame of reference for this discussion.

That is true I really didn't think about it like that. I would like to change my vote to WS losers draft.

[ian2813]

So with the franchise draft, every team is all limited to that one franchise? That seems like it would be too limiting. Franchises pretty much always have a handful of stud players that are head and shoulders above the rest.

Using the example of the Yankees, whoever gets the first pick will take Babe Ruth and probably get ~13 WAR*. Whoever has the wheel pick will likely end up with 2 guys who're about 9 WAR each. But whoever has the first pick will then be able to take 2 more guys who are ~8-9 WAR, because there's so many of them. So he'll have a huge advantage

And the same thing happens with other teams.


* I realize WAR isn't a definitive stat, but it does give a good frame of reference for this discussion.

A player can only be drafted once, though. Once Babe Ruth is selected, someone else can't select Babe Ruth in a different season. I don't think the Yankees have as many individual players who put up seasons of 8 or 9 WAR as you think. We wouldn't necessarily have to use the Yankees as our franchise either.

The real challenge would be how you build a supporting cast around your stars. After the first several rounds you'll start having to consider positional flexibility and which seasons are off the board. That's the part that interests me most.

[ian2813]

That is true I really didn't think about it like that. I would like to change my vote to WS losers draft.

I guess I don't see the point he's making. You could make the same argument about any draft, that the guy with the "wheel" pick gets better choices. Matthew C. picked last in our last draft and ended up winning, so I don't know why it would be different here. Are we assuming that we'd all just rely on WAR for our choices?

[chicagowhitesox1173]

I guess I don't see the point he's making. You could make the same argument about any draft, that the guy with the "wheel" pick gets better choices. Matthew C. picked last in our last draft and ended up winning, so I don't know why it would be different here. Are we assuming that we'd all just rely on WAR for our choices?

I'll keep my vote the same. For the franchise draft. It does sound kinda fun if you put it that way.

[Wade8813]

A player can only be drafted once, though. Once Babe Ruth is selected, someone else can't select Babe Ruth in a different season. I don't think the Yankees have as many individual players who put up seasons of 8 or 9 WAR as you think. We wouldn't necessarily have to use the Yankees as our franchise either.

The real challenge would be how you build a supporting cast around your stars. After the first several rounds you'll start having to consider positional flexibility and which seasons are off the board. That's the part that interests me most.

I understand that you can only have 1 Babe Ruth.

Basically, my point is that the #1 pick and the #20 pick is far better than the #10 and #11 pick. And that's true with many teams, because they have a few elite players, and then several very good players. Only the first few picks will be elite, but the next several picks will all be very good.

Maybe if we're careful about which team we pick, we can find one that works. The Yankees don't work.

[ian2813]

I understand that you can only have 1 Babe Ruth.

Basically, my point is that the #1 pick and the #20 pick is far better than the #10 and #11 pick. And that's true with many teams, because they have a few elite players, and then several very good players. Only the first few picks will be elite, but the next several picks will all be very good.

Maybe if we're careful about which team we pick, we can find one that works. The Yankees don't work.

I looked at the Yankees' top WAR seasons, and I think the difference between 1-20 and 10-11 would be about 4 or 5 WAR (assuming, of course, that we all just used WAR to make our selections). That might be significant in the short term, but how often do you see the entire draft decided by the first two rounds? Things like depth and balance come into play as well. Over the course of the draft it might even out somewhat if a particular drafter is shrewd enough to spot hidden gems and think strategically.

Of course, if we have fewer than ten participants, the gap between first and last drafter narrows. I was actually thinking that if we picked an American League franchise, it might be best to limit the draft to eight participants. We'd have 112 seasons to choose from, and with 200 roster spots to fill, we could make a two-pick per season limit to maximize the challenge. Personally, that would be my optimal draft scenario.

Like I said, I don't think we necessarily have to do the Yankees, either. I'd be fine with almost any of the original 16 modern era franchises, though I'd prefer not to do one that has a fairly thin history, like Senators/Twins or Browns/Orioles. Maybe if this concept proves to be a hit we could do another one down the road with one of those teams, but for the first one we should use a top- or middle-tier franchise.

[Wade8813]

Obviously, nobody's going to be voting just off WAR. I merely used it to illustrate my point. The fact is, Babe Ruth's value in voting likely surpasses the 4 WAR he provides. I actually have seen drafts decided in the first couple rounds. Or more specifically, they were as long as that team didn't screw up. Admittedly, sometimes that team did screw up, and sometimes the draft ended with that team winning. But it's still a crazy huge advantage.

Having less participants often doesn't lower the gap, because after the first few picks, there's only a slight difference in them. With 8 participants, whoever has 8th pick gets somewhat better players, but the team that picked first will get better 2nd and 3rd round picks, and it will be about the same. The value provided is fairly linear in how it declines after the first few players.

Limiting the seasons that we pick might mitigate how unfair it is, but it also might just make things too difficult. In fact - that might be what makes it balanced - it's so challenging it's more likely that the team with Babe Ruth will mess up.

[ian2813]

Obviously, nobody's going to be voting just off WAR. I merely used it to illustrate my point. The fact is, Babe Ruth's value in voting likely surpasses the 4 WAR he provides. I actually have seen drafts decided in the first couple rounds. Or more specifically, they were as long as that team didn't screw up. Admittedly, sometimes that team did screw up, and sometimes the draft ended with that team winning. But it's still a crazy huge advantage.

Having less participants often doesn't lower the gap, because after the first few picks, there's only a slight difference in them. With 8 participants, whoever has 8th pick gets somewhat better players, but the team that picked first will get better 2nd and 3rd round picks, and it will be about the same. The value provided is fairly linear in how it declines after the first few players.

You keep bringing it back to Babe Ruth, so it seems that your main concern is how large a shadow he casts over his competition. Is there any other franchise whose greatest player season is so far ahead of the rest? If there isn't, then the simple solution is not to use the Yankees.

Limiting the seasons that we pick might mitigate how unfair it is, but it also might just make things too difficult. In fact - that might be what makes it balanced - it's so challenging it's more likely that the team with Babe Ruth will mess up.

After thinking about it, drafters might really have to be on their toes if we allowed only two picks per season. For instance, if we had an AL franchise there'd be only 40 seasons with a DH available, so we'd all have to bear that in mind when making picks. I suppose it might be enough of a challenge if three picks per season were allowed instead of only two.