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

1901 Off Season Thread

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by buppers View Post
    You are right about randomness but I would like to point out that all 12 teams can name a franchise player.
    A quick check shows 41 batters who played in 1901 had 2000+ PA's and an OPS+ > 100, 22 pitchers with 2000+ BF's and ERA+ > 100. Those numbers only include PA's and BF's from 1901 forward. Also, only include players who played after 1907 - when the Franchise tag would go into effect. That totals 63 players minimum that could easily qualify as above average players who could reasonably be Franchise players. That means less than 20% of these players would be franchise players. And if you are not happy with your 1st round pick you could wait for a future draft to name a franchise player.

    The initial draft is from every player in MLB not just debuting in one year, which means you will get a huge advantage getting a franchise player from that draft. It wouldn't be fair to those who picked late.

    Comment


    • #92
      It's no more of an advantage than later. What are odds of team drafting 12th in 1901 getting a franchise player with their 1st round pick? (Approx. 100% - See above) What are odds of a team picking 12th in 1902 and later? I don't think there will be 63 above average players with similar stats in any year after 1901. And, again, if you don't like your 1st rounder you can wait.
      There are 10 kinds of people. Those who get binary and those who don't.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by buppers View Post
        It's no more of an advantage than later. What are odds of team drafting 12th in 1901 getting a franchise player with their 1st round pick? (Approx. 100% - See above) What are odds of a team picking 12th in 1902 and later? I don't think there will be 63 above average players with similar stats in any year after 1901. And, again, if you don't like your 1st rounder you can wait.
        The difference is the 1-3 picks in 1901 will be much better than any season in the future on average and it was totally random which makes it unfair.

        Comment


        • #94
          I didn't mean to create a big problem. The procedure of keeping the first player drafted at their draft salary for as long as you want was what we did when the CKL was created. The first three teams got Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson, with a sizable drop off after that. And I will admit that those three teams did very well in the early going of the CKL. However, that also means they never got a very high draft pick in the rookie draft, so after a couple of years things even out. And they had absolutely no chance at guys like Joe Morgan, Tom Seaver, Fergie Jenkins, etc. The same thing would happen here - whoever gets the top three guys will likely have a decent team for the first few years, meaning they will not get any high draft picks. They can absolutely forget about Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Tris Speaker and that level of player. Also, when those guys hit the rookie draft, the worst four teams go into a lottery for them, so that will be randomly decided too, albeit to a lesser degree.

          All that being said, at this point I would support Ed's alternative suggestion. Or just say the heck with it and go with Rich's original plan.
          You see, you spend a good deal of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it turns out that it was the other way around all the time. J. Bouton

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by catcher24 View Post
            I didn't mean to create a big problem. The procedure of keeping the first player drafted at their draft salary for as long as you want was what we did when the CKL was created. The first three teams got Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and Frank Robinson, with a sizable drop off after that. And I will admit that those three teams did very well in the early going of the CKL. However, that also means they never got a very high draft pick in the rookie draft, so after a couple of years things even out. And they had absolutely no chance at guys like Joe Morgan, Tom Seaver, Fergie Jenkins, etc. The same thing would happen here - whoever gets the top three guys will likely have a decent team for the first few years, meaning they will not get any high draft picks. They can absolutely forget about Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Tris Speaker and that level of player. Also, when those guys hit the rookie draft, the worst four teams go into a lottery for them, so that will be randomly decided too, albeit to a lesser degree.

            All that being said, at this point I would support Ed's alternative suggestion. Or just say the heck with it and go with Rich's original plan.
            I hate the franchise player idea period honestly. The difference between the 1st round pick in various years is far to great. I have ran the Iron for over 10 years now in the CKL and the best option I have ever gotten for a FP is Pedro Guerrero. That is why I have decided to totally tank 1980 to perhaps get a difference maker for a change.

            Comment


            • #96
              Ed and Lew make excellent points, and I agree with them. But even if we don't allow 1901 drafted players to be franchised, I'm strongly in favor of them being RFAs if they're still with their original team at the end of their first (max 7 year) contract. It's an advantage for some of the people drafting early, sure, but not nearly as much of one as the franchise player, plus it promotes some level of continuity.

              Comment


              • #97
                --I'd be in favor of allowing the startup draft players (or just the first pick or first 2 picks or whatever) to be eligible for RFA, especially with Rich's suggestion of them having fewer locked up in exchange for it. I wouldn't complain if 1901 draftees were eligible for beig franchise players either, although with RFA I'd be fine with doing away with the franchise player concept altogethertoo.

                Comment


                • #98
                  There will definately not be any franchise players from the 1901 redraft.

                  I suggested reducing the number of seasons to 5 before having 1901 players eligible for RFA in order to create more of a risk/reward for making that decision. The way I set up the original rule, all players in round 1-3 would be inrestricted free agents after a max of 8 years. I felt like it was reasonable for owners to want those players to be RFA but i feel like there should be a tradeoff for that. and that tradeoff is that owners risk losing those players earlier or at worst having their payroll go way up to keep them.

                  That makes the descision on whether to make a player an RFA in the hands of the owner, and they have to risk a little more in order to reap the added benefit of 5 additional seasons

                  For example - a first round pick can be signed for up to 8 seasons for 15M. You are guaranteed his service for only 8 years. if you declare him to be RFA eligible you are guaranteed 5 years and guaranteed salary matching rights for his career. A second round pick is an even easier choice. They are already only guaranteed 6 seasons. The risk is that you will have to deal with escalating salaries sooner, and that risk balances the reward of lifetime RFA rights.

                  Also, i would make it at least the first 2 rounds in order to even out a little of the benefit to teams that draft later in round 1
                  Last edited by rmadachik; 02-13-2012, 12:16 AM.
                  Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    In light of this debate, and in looking at the reality of how the RFA Label helps retain players I think we should put up to a vote whether we keep the franchise player rule in place as written or get rid of the franchise player entirely. We will go with majority rule on this one.
                    Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah

                    Comment


                    • I want to make sure I understand the difference between a RFA and a FA. I have observed an old CKL FA thread and that's pretty straightforward; bidding continues until high bidder wins. But if I understand the RFA process correctly, there is only one round of blind bids. Once the high bid is revealed, the existing owner can match to keep the player. Is that right?

                      If I do understand the difference correctly, the RFA rule is a great way to retain a great player but doesn't give an owner any financial motivation to do so. If after X years Honus Wagner is a RFA, his owner may have to pay 20-25M to keep him.

                      I guess if we are going to keep the FP rule, I would think it should apply to the 1901 draftees as well as future draftees. Sure, someone else lucked into Honus Wagner in this draft but in the future someone else will luck into Johnson or Cobb. If the FP rule won't apply to 1901 draftees, it might as well not be there in future years either. One might argue that the 1st round pick this year was unlucky compared to the owner who has Johnson or Cobb fall in his lap. We've already heard one owner state that contract lengths and restrictions might change who the top ranked players are in this draft and that just doesn't seem right. The best players should be the first ones drafted. I think we've created a situation similar to the old MLB first year player draft where the best players (over their career) may not be drafted early due to contract concerns.

                      That being said, I think the FP rule might be a little too sweet. I think 15M per year might be more fair. If you assume a premier player to be worth something around 20M per year, this would be a 25% discount from market value compared the 40% discount that 12M respresents. Another owner mentioned tanking a season in the CKL to get a shot at a FP. I could see this happening in years when superstars are rookies and I don't think any rule should create such an advantage as to tank a season to get it.
                      Last edited by scubadan; 02-13-2012, 04:41 AM.
                      Dan
                      CKL - Maloy Boys
                      P2PKL - Detroit Tigers

                      Comment


                      • My last post prompted another question about the RFA bid process. First I will assume any player with RFA status is worthy of a hefty contract. Because I have a limited salary cap, I can't bid on all of the RFA's. In fact, in reality I can probably only bid on one or two. The same will be true of all owners. I don't know how many RFA's we might have in a season, but if there are more than a half dozen or so, you run the risk of a RFA not getting a bid. That lucky owner will get to sign his star player to a minimum contract and that just doesn't seem right.

                        If I understand this correctly, I would like to see a modification to the process. All owners would submit blind bids as in the rules but would not be limited on the number of bids they can place. The first player "signed" under the RFA process would be the player with the highest bid received. Then the next highest bid is revealed but if it belongs to a team that previously signed a RFA, the owner would have a chance to withdraw his bid and the next highest bid would be in place.

                        I think this clarification of the process would assure a couple of things. First, I think all RFA's would receive competitive bids and no RFA would get signed for a minimum contract. Second, owners could manage their payroll rather than ending up with more than 1 RFA that they can't afford. It strikes a balance between the two extremes.
                        Dan
                        CKL - Maloy Boys
                        P2PKL - Detroit Tigers

                        Comment


                        • The other Dan's suggestion is excellent and I'm in favor of it, as it eliminates a major problem with the RFA system (i.e. winding up with more players than you can afford). It shouldn't come into play too often, but it's necessary to have it for sure.

                          Comment


                          • --I think a couple rules could help avoid Dan's concerns from ever being a problem. One, there would be multiple rounds of bidding and you would only be stuck with the player you bid highest on. If you land plan a and b (and perhaps c and d) at a position, you keep the one you made your highest bid on and the other(s) go on to the next round (or not if you like them both at the price). Two, if a RFA does not receive a bid then the original owner has the option of resigning him at the previous years salary (not minium wage). If that is more than you are willing to pay then they go back to the next round for another try at it. If they still get no bids then you can resign them at half the previous years salary. If thats still too much then they would become unrestricted FA in round 3, but any tie in sealed high bid would still keep them home.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by buppers View Post
                              You are right about randomness but I would like to point out that all 12 teams can name a franchise player.
                              A quick check shows 41 batters who played in 1901 had 2000+ PA's and an OPS+ > 100, 22 pitchers with 2000+ BF's and ERA+ > 100. Those numbers only include PA's and BF's from 1901 forward. Also, only include players who played after 1907 - when the Franchise tag would go into effect. That totals 63 players minimum that could easily qualify as above average players who could reasonably be Franchise players. That means less than 20% of these players would be franchise players. And if you are not happy with your 1st round pick you could wait for a future draft to name a franchise player.
                              Having 2000 PA and OPS+ over 100 is nowhere close to being the minimum to be considered for the Franchise tag. When you're restricted to one Franchise player per decade (plus you have to pay them 10-15 mil per season), you have to be getting All-Star level performance at the least - probably HoF level.

                              Originally posted by scubadan View Post
                              I guess if we are going to keep the FP rule, I would think it should apply to the 1901 draftees as well as future draftees. Sure, someone else lucked into Honus Wagner in this draft but in the future someone else will luck into Johnson or Cobb. If the FP rule won't apply to 1901 draftees, it might as well not be there in future years either. One might argue that the 1st round pick this year was unlucky compared to the owner who has Johnson or Cobb fall in his lap. We've already heard one owner state that contract lengths and restrictions might change who the top ranked players are in this draft and that just doesn't seem right. The best players should be the first ones drafted. I think we've created a situation similar to the old MLB first year player draft where the best players (over their career) may not be drafted early due to contract concerns.
                              You're right - sticking a franchise tag on a player from 1901 means that they get players from before 1901, but those players still aren't as good as some future season's players.

                              The players we draft are supposed to be best within the first X years of the career. That IS right. If this were modern players, someone wouldn't first pick Jose Bautista knowing they'd have to sit on multiple mediocre years. You have to take them based on how good they'll be out of the gate.

                              That being said, I think the FP rule might be a little too sweet. I think 15M per year might be more fair. If you assume a premier player to be worth something around 20M per year, this would be a 25% discount from market value compared the 40% discount that 12M respresents. Another owner mentioned tanking a season in the CKL to get a shot at a FP. I could see this happening in years when superstars are rookies and I don't think any rule should create such an advantage as to tank a season to get it.
                              The only way to make it so you don't want to tank a season is to make it so all teams are equally likely to get the first pick - which makes it too luck based.

                              Even if we had no Franchise Players and no RFAs, being able to have Ty Cobb for the first 7 seasons of his career is very strong incentive to tank a season that's already unwinnable.

                              Originally posted by scubadan View Post
                              My last post prompted another question about the RFA bid process. First I will assume any player with RFA status is worthy of a hefty contract. Because I have a limited salary cap, I can't bid on all of the RFA's. In fact, in reality I can probably only bid on one or two. The same will be true of all owners. I don't know how many RFA's we might have in a season, but if there are more than a half dozen or so, you run the risk of a RFA not getting a bid. That lucky owner will get to sign his star player to a minimum contract and that just doesn't seem right.
                              All Free Agents who aren't Franchise become RFAs (with the exception of the 1901 players)
                              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs

                              Comment


                              • I thought it was just players who hadn't been traded.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X