Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Eephus

*OFFICIAL* Thread: WIS X and the Cluster of Sim

6,070 posts in this topic

I think we should do some more adverstising to get this thing filled a little quicker. We only need what, 8 more? Shouldn't be too hard... I agree with Koya that consecutive seasons offer the best challenge as well as the most realism. Rather than having a starting lineup with everyone having HOF seasons, you take a risk on a player like Nomar or McGwire, where they could have one of their great seasons or a season that is merely average. Just like real life.

The problem w/ consecutive years isn't average seasons, it's short ones. Take the St. Louis McGwire: if you want to roll the dice for his 60+ HR seasons, you have to take your chances with rolling the a 422 or (strike shortened) 172 PA seasons. Nomar is even tougher because he's never had six consecutive high AB seasons; at least the Oakland McGwire provides an alternative, albeit one with a .201 BA season in the mix.Pitchers will probably be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should do some more adverstising to get this thing filled a little quicker. We only need what, 8 more? Shouldn't be too hard... I agree with Koya that consecutive seasons offer the best challenge as well as the most realism. Rather than having a starting lineup with everyone having HOF seasons, you take a risk on a player like Nomar or McGwire, where they could have one of their great seasons or a season that is merely average. Just like real life.

The problem w/ consecutive years isn't average seasons, it's short ones. Take the St. Louis McGwire: if you want to roll the dice for his 60+ HR seasons, you have to take your chances with rolling the a 422 or (strike shortened) 172 PA seasons. Nomar is even tougher because he's never had six consecutive high AB seasons; at least the Oakland McGwire provides an alternative, albeit one with a .201 BA season in the mix.

Pitchers will probably be worse.

Practically you may be right. Unlike a real season we cant pick guys up or bring them up from the minors which is why straight consecutive may be more trouble than its worth - though I love it in theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I already said I was in?

duly noted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think cherry-picking has to be the way to go. Too much additional cluster potential with consecutive seasons.

I guess we have to roll after each round (or at least at some point during the draft). Somebody's probably going to pick A-Rod in the first round and they'll need to know for strategic purposes whether they took a 3B or SS.

What's our current number of seasons to use? Somewhere in the 5-7 range I assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest thing to do would be to take the top six WIS salary years, because no owner input would be required.

But if people want to cherry pick, I propose doing the rolls two rounds at a time. Rounds 1-2 would be rolled at the end of round #3, 2-4 after #5, etc. People can specify their selected years at any time after the pick but if they don't post them by the time of the roll, we'll default to the top years by WIS salary. Skips will roll over to the next dice rolling cycle.

Oh yes, this is going to get messy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest thing to do would be to take the top six WIS salary years, because no owner input would be required.But if people want to cherry pick, I propose doing the rolls two rounds at a time. Rounds 1-2 would be rolled at the end of round #3, 2-4 after #5, etc. People can specify their selected years at any time after the pick but if they don't post them by the time of the roll, we'll default to the top years by WIS salary. Skips will roll over to the next dice rolling cycle. Oh yes, this is going to get messy.

I can't wait to see how this plays out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS IS GONNA BE GREAT!

Did I miss anyone?

For consecutive:

ianfitzy

koya

For cherry picking:

kraft

eephus

LB

spartans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think cherry-picking has to be the way to go. Too much additional cluster potential with consecutive seasons.I guess we have to roll after each round (or at least at some point during the draft). Somebody's probably going to pick A-Rod in the first round and they'll need to know for strategic purposes whether they took a 3B or SS.What's our current number of seasons to use? Somewhere in the 5-7 range I assume.

Current proposal is 5 for hitters, 7 for pitchers.I'd be ok with settling on one number for both pitchers and hitters to ease the roll confusion. 6 or 5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest thing to do would be to take the top six WIS salary years, because no owner input would be required.But if people want to cherry pick, I propose doing the rolls two rounds at a time. Rounds 1-2 would be rolled at the end of round #3, 2-4 after #5, etc. People can specify their selected years at any time after the pick but if they don't post them by the time of the roll, we'll default to the top years by WIS salary. Skips will roll over to the next dice rolling cycle. Oh yes, this is going to get messy.

The question is, if there are skips, do we wait for them to catch up before we roll? Another issue, if we roll every other round instead of every round, you have to make you 2nd round pick blindly without knowing what you got in the first round. It might be better to do every round so you know what you're dealing with going into the next pick. There may be strategy in going risk/reward as well as position issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think cherry-picking has to be the way to go. Too much additional cluster potential with consecutive seasons.I guess we have to roll after each round (or at least at some point during the draft). Somebody's probably going to pick A-Rod in the first round and they'll need to know for strategic purposes whether they took a 3B or SS.What's our current number of seasons to use? Somewhere in the 5-7 range I assume.

Current proposal is 5 for hitters, 7 for pitchers.I'd be ok with settling on one number for both pitchers and hitters to ease the roll confusion. 6 or 5?
We should do the same numbers, or I would think 7 for hitters and 5 for pitchers as pitchers usually get hurt with more frequency/have shorter peaks. No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think cherry-picking has to be the way to go. Too much additional cluster potential with consecutive seasons.I guess we have to roll after each round (or at least at some point during the draft). Somebody's probably going to pick A-Rod in the first round and they'll need to know for strategic purposes whether they took a 3B or SS.What's our current number of seasons to use? Somewhere in the 5-7 range I assume.

Current proposal is 5 for hitters, 7 for pitchers.I'd be ok with settling on one number for both pitchers and hitters to ease the roll confusion. 6 or 5?
We should do the same numbers, or I would think 7 for hitters and 5 for pitchers as pitchers usually get hurt with more frequency/have shorter peaks. No?
I'm open here. I think it's just an adjustment of strategy either way. Perhaps we could just settle on 6 for everyone? That way we roll once at that end of the round regardless of the player?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest thing to do would be to take the top six WIS salary years, because no owner input would be required.But if people want to cherry pick, I propose doing the rolls two rounds at a time. Rounds 1-2 would be rolled at the end of round #3, 2-4 after #5, etc. People can specify their selected years at any time after the pick but if they don't post them by the time of the roll, we'll default to the top years by WIS salary. Skips will roll over to the next dice rolling cycle. Oh yes, this is going to get messy.

The question is, if there are skips, do we wait for them to catch up before we roll? Another issue, if we roll every other round instead of every round, you have to make you 2nd round pick blindly without knowing what you got in the first round. It might be better to do every round so you know what you're dealing with going into the next pick. There may be strategy in going risk/reward as well as position issues.
The rolls could be a bigger momentum killer than SCBF. I think we should start with every other round and see how it goes. It's unlikely that a bad roll in round #1 will significantly alter anyone's round #2 strategy. It could be more of an issue deeper in the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The easiest thing to do would be to take the top six WIS salary years, because no owner input would be required.But if people want to cherry pick, I propose doing the rolls two rounds at a time. Rounds 1-2 would be rolled at the end of round #3, 2-4 after #5, etc. People can specify their selected years at any time after the pick but if they don't post them by the time of the roll, we'll default to the top years by WIS salary. Skips will roll over to the next dice rolling cycle. Oh yes, this is going to get messy.

The question is, if there are skips, do we wait for them to catch up before we roll? Another issue, if we roll every other round instead of every round, you have to make you 2nd round pick blindly without knowing what you got in the first round. It might be better to do every round so you know what you're dealing with going into the next pick. There may be strategy in going risk/reward as well as position issues.
The rolls could be a bigger momentum killer than SCBF. I think we should start with every other round and see how it goes. It's unlikely that a bad roll in round #1 will significantly alter anyone's round #2 strategy. It could be more of an issue deeper in the draft.
OKIanfitzy: Update on getting the last 8?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's going on here?...this sounds like a cluster#@#@!#@. :thumbup:

Oh I'll be gone next week at the beach with no innernets access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's going on here?...this sounds like a cluster#@#@!#@. :popcorn:Oh I'll be gone next week at the beach with no innernets access.

I'll take that as an IN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's going on here?...this sounds like a cluster#@#@!#@. :thumbup:Oh I'll be gone next week at the beach with no innernets access.

I'll take that as an IN
GB SAMMY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in favor of cherry-picking, and of rolling every two rounds.

One thing to add: it might be worth it to give each drafter one or two "adjustments", to be employed after the draft ends. Each "adjustment" would consist of a move of one season up or down for a single player. Maybe just one per team, or perhaps two, or perhaps one for the batters and one for the pitchers.

It would give everyone a way out of the truly abysmal screw-jobs. But, at most, only two slots could be affected -- you certainly couldn't remake your whole team with two adjustments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in favor of cherry-picking, and of rolling every two rounds.One thing to add: it might be worth it to give each drafter one or two "adjustments", to be employed after the draft ends. Each "adjustment" would consist of a move of one season up or down for a single player. Maybe just one per team, or perhaps two, or perhaps one for the batters and one for the pitchers.It would give everyone a way out of the truly abysmal screw-jobs. But, at most, only two slots could be affected -- you certainly couldn't remake your whole team with two adjustments

Another option to throw into the discussion barrel.Change the number of dice sides from six to five (or four) midway through the draft. This would open up the late round draft pool and reduce the probability of a totally wasted pick. If we made the switchover at the start of an even numbered round, this would remove a bit of the advantage gained from drafting early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in favor of cherry-picking, and of rolling every two rounds.One thing to add: it might be worth it to give each drafter one or two "adjustments", to be employed after the draft ends. Each "adjustment" would consist of a move of one season up or down for a single player. Maybe just one per team, or perhaps two, or perhaps one for the batters and one for the pitchers.It would give everyone a way out of the truly abysmal screw-jobs. But, at most, only two slots could be affected -- you certainly couldn't remake your whole team with two adjustments

Another option to throw into the discussion barrel.Change the number of dice sides from six to five (or four) midway through the draft. This would open up the late round draft pool and reduce the probability of a totally wasted pick. If we made the switchover at the start of an even numbered round, this would remove a bit of the advantage gained from drafting early.
I like the idea of getting a couple of "mulligans" as suggested by Doug more than reducing the roll. I know there's a lot of concern that you might get stuck with a bad season, but I think that everyone will get stuck once or twice and will create opportunities for adjustments in strategy. I really don't think we should worry about limiting this too much and we should just embrace it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in favor of cherry-picking, and of rolling every two rounds.One thing to add: it might be worth it to give each drafter one or two "adjustments", to be employed after the draft ends. Each "adjustment" would consist of a move of one season up or down for a single player. Maybe just one per team, or perhaps two, or perhaps one for the batters and one for the pitchers.It would give everyone a way out of the truly abysmal screw-jobs. But, at most, only two slots could be affected -- you certainly couldn't remake your whole team with two adjustments

Another option to throw into the discussion barrel.Change the number of dice sides from six to five (or four) midway through the draft. This would open up the late round draft pool and reduce the probability of a totally wasted pick. If we made the switchover at the start of an even numbered round, this would remove a bit of the advantage gained from drafting early.
I like the idea of getting a couple of "mulligans" as suggested by Doug more than reducing the roll. I know there's a lot of concern that you might get stuck with a bad season, but I think that everyone will get stuck once or twice and will create opportunities for adjustments in strategy. I really don't think we should worry about limiting this too much and we should just embrace it.
English please. So basically all sim :excited: is a no-no.FWIW...I think it may make some sense to lessen the random factor down as the draft goes on. Also the movement should be limited to one salary step (if that makes any sense...ie from salary 4 to salary 3 instead of all the way to salary 1). Also am I correct in assuming that everyone gets the same salary step for each round or does that get randomized too. If its randomized, I think it may make some sense to limit the # of each salary step for each participant. (ie you know you'll end up with 6 #1 salaries, 6 #2 salaries, etc.) so someone doesn't end up with total crap.BTW...I've spent entirely too much time in the past thinking about all these possible scenarios :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also...how are RPs going to be handled since a lot of times you want the higher $/IP as opposed to pure salary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another option we have is, instead of using salary or cherry picking to determine the order of the seasons , we could use the $/IP & $/PA. This will take care of(or at least help with) the RP issue and will also work on guys like Ted Williams where his better seasons are not the ones with the higher PAs and thus higher salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also...how are RPs going to be handled since a lot of times you want the higher $/IP as opposed to pure salary.

It sounded like we were going to let the owner pick his seasons ("cherry pick"), so salary wouldn't come into play.Chalmers has an interesting suggestion that may work too. I haven't looked at any specific players though and I still like the idea of just picking the years.DougB's proposal was that you get the option to move 1 year better a couple of times during the draft like you said in your previous post.Eephus had a suggestion that the number of seasons we pick be reduced as the draft goes on.Yes, the roll would be for two full rounds at a time. Everyone would get the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. However, that could be random if we do it by cherry picking years and sorting by season (i.e. 1961-1967) or not if we go by salary or chalmers' suggestion (3rd highest salary).I think we either need someone to just decide or vote on these things and get rolling (literally!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the "mulligans" idea is the easiest to employ.

I like SNC's thinking a lot ... you still have to be careful about a raw ranking by $/IP or $/PA, though. You could still end up with super-low IP or PA seasons. However, what SNC is talking about is a great tool to help cherry-pick seasons. Set a baseline number of PAs or IPs ... then just rank the best seasons (by dollars per IP/PA) that meet or exceed the baseline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Confirmed in:

1. Frosticillis

2. Marble Rye

3. WidBill83

4. Doctor Detroit

5. Greco

6. Spartans

7. Eephus

8. Koya

9. Doug B.

10. Tremendous Upside

11. Super Nintendo Chalmers

12. TRE

13. ianfitzy

14. LB44

15. Mr. Phoenix

16. The Gator

17. Kraft

18. SCBF

19. Sammy

Presumed In:

Shake Zula

Wockenfuss

Interested?

Save Ferris

Horvy

Others welcome: no reasonable offer refused

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the "mulligans" idea is the easiest to employ.

I like SNC's thinking a lot ... you still have to be careful about a raw ranking by $/IP or $/PA, though. You could still end up with super-low IP or PA seasons. However, what SNC is talking about is a great tool to help cherry-pick seasons. Set a baseline number of PAs or IPs ... then just rank the best seasons (by dollars per IP/PA) that meet or exceed the baseline.

Let's write this up and go with it. Doug will you take a stab at some official rules here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also...how are RPs going to be handled since a lot of times you want the higher $/IP as opposed to pure salary.

It sounded like we were going to let the owner pick his seasons ("cherry pick"), so salary wouldn't come into play.Chalmers has an interesting suggestion that may work too. I haven't looked at any specific players though and I still like the idea of just picking the years.DougB's proposal was that you get the option to move 1 year better a couple of times during the draft like you said in your previous post.Eephus had a suggestion that the number of seasons we pick be reduced as the draft goes on.Yes, the roll would be for two full rounds at a time. Everyone would get the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. However, that could be random if we do it by cherry picking years and sorting by season (i.e. 1961-1967) or not if we go by salary or chalmers' suggestion (3rd highest salary).I think we either need someone to just decide or vote on these things and get rolling (literally!).
As long as we're allowing cherry picking, we should just give the owners the full latitude to select and rank the years, regardless of absolute or normalized WIS salary.For example,1.01 Phil Roof, C, years 70, 72, 75, 67, 66, 71Also, I envisioned individual dice rolls for each player rather than all players in a round (or pair of rounds) getting the same roll. It's easy enough to have Irony Dice run a whole set of rolls at once. Although it might not matter if we let owners sequence the seasons however they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also...how are RPs going to be handled since a lot of times you want the higher $/IP as opposed to pure salary.

It sounded like we were going to let the owner pick his seasons ("cherry pick"), so salary wouldn't come into play.Chalmers has an interesting suggestion that may work too. I haven't looked at any specific players though and I still like the idea of just picking the years.DougB's proposal was that you get the option to move 1 year better a couple of times during the draft like you said in your previous post.Eephus had a suggestion that the number of seasons we pick be reduced as the draft goes on.Yes, the roll would be for two full rounds at a time. Everyone would get the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. However, that could be random if we do it by cherry picking years and sorting by season (i.e. 1961-1967) or not if we go by salary or chalmers' suggestion (3rd highest salary).I think we either need someone to just decide or vote on these things and get rolling (literally!).
As long as we're allowing cherry picking, we should just give the owners the full latitude to select and rank the years, regardless of absolute or normalized WIS salary.For example,1.01 Phil Roof, C, years 70, 72, 75, 67, 66, 71Also, I envisioned individual dice rolls for each player rather than all players in a round (or pair of rounds) getting the same roll. It's easy enough to have Irony Dice run a whole set of rolls at once. Although it might not matter if we let owners sequence the seasons however they want.
Why do it every two rounds then? Why not just roll for each player, each round for ultimate confusion!!!! I'd enjoy that greatly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also...how are RPs going to be handled since a lot of times you want the higher $/IP as opposed to pure salary.

It sounded like we were going to let the owner pick his seasons ("cherry pick"), so salary wouldn't come into play.Chalmers has an interesting suggestion that may work too. I haven't looked at any specific players though and I still like the idea of just picking the years.DougB's proposal was that you get the option to move 1 year better a couple of times during the draft like you said in your previous post.Eephus had a suggestion that the number of seasons we pick be reduced as the draft goes on.Yes, the roll would be for two full rounds at a time. Everyone would get the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. However, that could be random if we do it by cherry picking years and sorting by season (i.e. 1961-1967) or not if we go by salary or chalmers' suggestion (3rd highest salary).I think we either need someone to just decide or vote on these things and get rolling (literally!).
As long as we're allowing cherry picking, we should just give the owners the full latitude to select and rank the years, regardless of absolute or normalized WIS salary.For example,1.01 Phil Roof, C, years 70, 72, 75, 67, 66, 71Also, I envisioned individual dice rolls for each player rather than all players in a round (or pair of rounds) getting the same roll. It's easy enough to have Irony Dice run a whole set of rolls at once. Although it might not matter if we let owners sequence the seasons however they want.
Question: Under this scenario one person could get all their #1 seasons while another could get all their #6 seasons, correct?If so, I'm not sure I particularly like that. I think I would like it better if everyone got the same season in each round or if everyone got the same number of #1, 2, 3, etc. seasons otherwise I think you have the possibility that someone gets lucky and completely dominates this thing after getting #1 seasons in the first 4 rounds (and while that may be far fetched its fairly likely someone would get #1 in each of the first two rounds while someone else will get #6 in each of the first two rounds) and then taking so-so players the rest of the way with no vol in their six year performance. Contrast that with someone who get #6 and #6 in the first two rounds. You're basically behind the 8-ball at that point and basically have to start taking high vol guys until you hit upon a couple of #1s. In sum, whoever rolls best first will end up with a huge advantage in drafting even before sim performance gets taken into account. And yeah, I know that's part of the fun, but if someone takes the Babe and rolls a 1 while you take someone else and roll a 6, well there isn't any real way you're going to be competitive. At least if every pick in a round gets the same "season", you eliminate some of that uneven-ness. I guess its a matter of degree, but eephus's way may yield some "dead" teams (for lack of a better word).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess its a matter of degree, but eephus's way may yield some "dead" teams (for lack of a better word).

The only way to combat this is to randomize the seasons you cherry-pick. :)

I kind of like the idea of the same roll covering a full round, though (as opposed to two rounds).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont we just have everyone draft 25 players. Then we take the 25 and we put an order for each of them.

Example:

Player 1 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78

Player 2 ............

Player 3 ............

Then you roll your 25 numbers, say you get 4 1's, 3 2's, 5 3's, 6 4's, 4 5's and 4 6's. You pick which player you use your 1's on and they are eliminated, then you pick which player's are going to be your 2's, and so on....

By doing it this way people get to cherry pick and there is some luck involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess its a matter of degree, but eephus's way may yield some "dead" teams (for lack of a better word).

The only way to combat this is to randomize the seasons you cherry-pick. :lmao:

I kind of like the idea of the same roll covering a full round, though (as opposed to two rounds).

That's fine but as long as we allow owners to rank their seasons 1-6 by whatever criteria they see fit, it won't have a significant effect on competitive balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess its a matter of degree, but eephus's way may yield some "dead" teams (for lack of a better word).

The only way to combat this is to randomize the seasons you cherry-pick. :lmao:

I kind of like the idea of the same roll covering a full round, though (as opposed to two rounds).

That's fine but as long as we allow owners to rank their seasons 1-6 by whatever criteria they see fit, it won't have a significant effect on competitive balance.
Wouldn't ranking the 6 seasons from earliest year to latest year accomplish that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont we just have everyone draft 25 players. Then we take the 25 and we put an order for each of them.Example:Player 1 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78Player 2 ............Player 3 ............Then you roll your 25 numbers, say you get 4 1's, 3 2's, 5 3's, 6 4's, 4 5's and 4 6's. You pick which player you use your 1's on and they are eliminated, then you pick which player's are going to be your 2's, and so on....By doing it this way people get to cherry pick and there is some luck involved.

I like this idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont we just have everyone draft 25 players. Then we take the 25 and we put an order for each of them.Example:Player 1 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78Player 2 ............Player 3 ............Then you roll your 25 numbers, say you get 4 1's, 3 2's, 5 3's, 6 4's, 4 5's and 4 6's. You pick which player you use your 1's on and they are eliminated, then you pick which player's are going to be your 2's, and so on....By doing it this way people get to cherry pick and there is some luck involved.

The problem with this is that it will hinder the whole goal of drafting all-time great players rather than sim-fishing.You can still draft a super fish like Dutch Leonard in the 2nd or 3rd round and know you're going to budget one of the 1's you roll for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why dont we just have everyone draft 25 players. Then we take the 25 and we put an order for each of them.Example:Player 1 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78Player 2 ............Player 3 ............Then you roll your 25 numbers, say you get 4 1's, 3 2's, 5 3's, 6 4's, 4 5's and 4 6's. You pick which player you use your 1's on and they are eliminated, then you pick which player's are going to be your 2's, and so on....By doing it this way people get to cherry pick and there is some luck involved.

The problem with this is that it will hinder the whole goal of drafting all-time great players rather than sim-fishing.You can still draft a super fish like Dutch Leonard in the 2nd or 3rd round and know you're going to budget one of the 1's you roll for him.
Agree. The other problem with deferring all dice rolls to the end of the draft is the natural dynamic of the late rounds. By the time round #25 rolls around, everybody is itching to enter their teams and start simming. Rolling 600 dice at the end would be as chaotic and prone to corruption as a Zimbabwean election. I have the same basic problem with DougB's mulligan idea, unless we use them as we go.It'll be a big mistake if we don't keep up with dice rolls and declaring player seasons as we go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree.

The other problem with deferring all dice rolls to the end of the draft is the natural dynamic of the late rounds. By the time round #25 rolls around, everybody is itching to enter their teams and start simming. Rolling 600 dice at the end would be as chaotic and prone to corruption as a Zimbabwean election. I have the same basic problem with DougB's mulligan idea, unless we use them as we go.

It'll be a big mistake if we don't keep up with dice rolls and declaring player seasons as we go.

:shrug:

Maybe declare all mulligans by the 20th round? Or something like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree.

The other problem with deferring all dice rolls to the end of the draft is the natural dynamic of the late rounds. By the time round #25 rolls around, everybody is itching to enter their teams and start simming. Rolling 600 dice at the end would be as chaotic and prone to corruption as a Zimbabwean election. I have the same basic problem with DougB's mulligan idea, unless we use them as we go.

It'll be a big mistake if we don't keep up with dice rolls and declaring player seasons as we go.

:hey:

Maybe declare all mulligans by the 20th round? Or something like that?

The only way I see mulligans as being practical is if we can agree on a quantitative way of ranking possible player seasons (e.g. WIS salary, salary/PA). Otherwise, we'll have no way to determine what year they get when someone upgrades from their player's sixth best season. Although it's a well intentioned rule, I think it'll be more trouble than it's worth in practice.

An all-time draft pool is deep enough to allow recovery from a couple of bad rolls. Everybody wanted randomization in this format but the more we debate it, the more hedging that goes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.