***OFFICIAL*** FFA MLB Draft (2 Viewers)

[Bogart]

Schizophrenia is good shtick.

I like it.

 

[This could be Nipsey too]

Great....now this could be nipsey too is posting in the "Jewish Food" thread started by Joe.....nice work. See you guys in a month.

Wasn't me.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

so, how long until Nipsey's alias gets banned???I mean, the mods aren't that dumb...right?

let's find out:fuckI say they don't come in here.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

so, how long until Nipsey's alias gets banned???I mean, the mods aren't that dumb...right?

let's find out:fuckI say they don't come in here.

How in the #### did you do that?

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

so, how long until Nipsey's alias gets banned???I mean, the mods aren't that dumb...right?

let's find out:fuckI say they don't come in here.

How in the #### did you do that?

Nevermind, saw it in the quote box. Nice circumvention.

 

[Doug B]

so, how long until Nipsey's alias gets banned???I mean, the mods aren't that dumb...right?

let's find out:fuckI say they don't come in here.

Problem is, the aliases show up on the "Last Post" entry on the FFA's mainn page. Nobody has to dig deep into a thread to see those posts.

 

[Koya]

We might have 1/2 the league by proxy at this rate.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

so, how long until Nipsey's alias gets banned???I mean, the mods aren't that dumb...right?

let's find out:fuckI say they don't come in here.

Problem is, the aliases show up on the "Last Post" entry on the FFA's mainn page. Nobody has to dig deep into a thread to see those posts.

I'm probing much deeper questions here.ho####er

 

[Funkley]

Cool. I feel like I just watched a friend throw an apple at a car.

 

[Koya]

so, who is up to try to keep this on track while the worlds around us crumble.

 

[10993]

I was choosing between Bancroft and another MI....good pick! I'll take him. I need one more pitcher in case I go back in the hole.....

Before that happens, what the hell did you do? PM is fine if need be.

Someone had posted a thread on how to make the best steak and he started the thread out with, "I can't believe that some of you are morons when it comes to cooking steaks", or something like that. Anywho, Joe deleted the post and when said poster asked for clarification in a another thread, Joe replied, "When you start a thread calling people morons, I'll delete it every time. That won't fly here guy...."Then Zartan posted: "####ing PM's down?" Joe put a laughing emoticon for that post. That's when I got involved and asked: "You have a problem when certain posters use the word "moron", but you laugh when certain posters say "####ing"?

Joe replied to me and said, "You're right, I should be more careful. I fixed it for you."

I replied, "No need to be condescending, just pointing out the hypocrisy." <<----this was probably the magic sentence

Then I responded in that thread to a few other people prefacing a word in each sentence with "####ing" ("That's ####ing sweet!" and "That'd be ####ing crazy!"). Apparently, the power that is had enough.

They deleted my Chase Stuart Muscle and Fitness gem from that thread, too.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Cool. I feel like I just watched a friend throw an apple at a car.

I used to do this. Adrenaline rush.

 

[Nipsey]

This could be Nipsey has been banned until Oct. 2007 :rotflmao: . Any word from this could be Nipsey too?

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Well, that's pretty funny. Ditkaless Wonders posted the transcript from that Pulp Fiction scene in the Jewish Food thread with about 25 mother####ers in it.

 

[Capella]

This could be Nipsey has been banned until Oct. 2007 :rotflmao: . Any word from this could be Nipsey too?

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

This could be Nipsey has been banned until Oct. 2007 :rotflmao: . Any word from this could be Nipsey too?

He just sent me a PM:This suspension is due to end on Oct 11 2007, 01:03 PM

 

[Kraft...]

lastresort ON THE CLOCK

Spock On Deck

pumpnick In the Hole for Two(Will be the first one with a complete team)

 

[Funkley]

Cool. I feel like I just watched a friend throw an apple at a car.

I used to do this. Adrenaline rush.

"No not this one.....it's a Camero with teenage guys.....PLUNK!!!!" I ran faster than my friends.

 

[Koya]

Well, the end of that ban should roughly coincide with finishing this draft.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Well, the end of that ban should roughly coincide with finishing this draft.

It's a shame really. Put down before his prime.

 

[Kraft...]

Cool. I feel like I just watched a friend throw an apple at a car.

I used to do this. Adrenaline rush.

"No not this one.....it's a Camero with teenage guys.....PLUNK!!!!" I ran faster than my friends.

Used to have crab apple fights in the woods next to my house as a kid, the occasional car would "accidentally" get hit. Looking back damn were we dumb, lucky none of us lost an eye. :blackeye: Those things hurt, think kids these days could withstand a crab apple off the forehead and keep on fighting? I think not.

 

[Koya]

so.... last resort, eh?

 

[Funkley]

Cool. I feel like I just watched a friend throw an apple at a car.

I used to do this. Adrenaline rush.

"No not this one.....it's a Camero with teenage guys.....PLUNK!!!!" I ran faster than my friends.

Used to have crab apple fights in the woods next to my house as a kid, the occasional car would "accidentally" get hit. Looking back damn were we dumb, lucky none of us lost an eye. :blackeye: Those things hurt, think kids these days could withstand a crab apple off the forehead and keep on fighting? I think not.

Worst I ever got was a clothesline across the forehead running through backyards in the dark. Hit a car and we took off. Next thing I knew I was on the ground and couldn't breathe. Never got hit harder playing football than that damn clothesline did to me.

 

[Funkley]

so.... last resort, eh?

You're trying really hard to keep us focused. Nice work.

 

[Koya]

so.... last resort, eh?

You're trying really hard to keep us focused. Nice work.

Thanks. I can multi task, but I do like the baseball talk. Yesterday was fun in that respect. You can stay on target, stay on target, while fishing a bit as well.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

This could be Nipsey has been banned until Oct. 2007  :rotflmao: .  Any word from this could be Nipsey too?

He just sent me a PM:This suspension is due to end on Oct 11 2007, 01:03 PM

And don't think I won't be marking that date down in my calendar.I'm certain that This could be Nipsey too will make a triumphant return.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Guys, just took a look at the Win Shares per 162 data and it isn't accurate. There was a colunn in the spreadsheet that caused the pitchers games to be counted twice so that was inflating the pitchers' numbers.I removed the extra column and that just made it worse since it is now counting their Win Shares per 162 games pitched which is roughly 5 seasons worth of Win Shares for starting pitchers. Working on a fix now.Unfortunately, this taints all of the Win Shares standings that I published earlier.

 

[Koya]

Guys, just took a look at the Win Shares per 162 data and it isn't accurate. There was a colunn in the spreadsheet that caused the pitchers games to be counted twice so that was inflating the pitchers' numbers.I removed the extra column and that just made it worse since it is now counting their Win Shares per 162 games pitched which is roughly 5 seasons worth of Win Shares for starting pitchers. Working on a fix now.Unfortunately, this taints all of the Win Shares standings that I published earlier.

haha. look forward to the revised list. I definately went strong pitching, so I am sure to drop in the rankings.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Guys, just took a look at the Win Shares per 162 data and it isn't accurate. There was a colunn in the spreadsheet that caused the pitchers games to be counted twice so that was inflating the pitchers' numbers.I removed the extra column and that just made it worse since it is now counting their Win Shares per 162 games pitched which is roughly 5 seasons worth of Win Shares for starting pitchers. Working on a fix now.Unfortunately, this taints all of the Win Shares standings that I published earlier.

haha. look forward to the revised list. I definately went strong pitching, so I am sure to drop in the rankings.

And this after your little "I think WS/162 is the best measure" speach. :rotflmao:

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Guys, just took a look at the Win Shares per 162 data and it isn't accurate. There was a colunn in the spreadsheet that caused the pitchers games to be counted twice so that was inflating the pitchers' numbers.I removed the extra column and that just made it worse since it is now counting their Win Shares per 162 games pitched which is roughly 5 seasons worth of Win Shares for starting pitchers. Working on a fix now.Unfortunately, this taints all of the Win Shares standings that I published earlier.

So how do you do that for pitchers? Per 36 starts? What about relievers?Just interested. By no means am I questioning the fountain of knowledge that is GWB.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

So how do you do that for pitchers? Per 36 starts? What about relievers?Just interested. By no means am I questioning the fountain of knowledge that is GWB.

:rotflmao: at me being a fountain of knowledge.I don't know. You can probably do it by 36 starts for starting pitchers but that wouldn't work for relievers. For pitchers, it's probably best to equate it to Win Shares per 9 innings pitched.Any other ideas?

 

[Koya]

Guys, just took a look at the Win Shares per 162 data and it isn't accurate. There was a colunn in the spreadsheet that caused the pitchers games to be counted twice so that was inflating the pitchers' numbers.I removed the extra column and that just made it worse since it is now counting their Win Shares per 162 games pitched which is roughly 5 seasons worth of Win Shares for starting pitchers. Working on a fix now.Unfortunately, this taints all of the Win Shares standings that I published earlier.

haha. look forward to the revised list. I definately went strong pitching, so I am sure to drop in the rankings.

And this after your little "I think WS/162 is the best measure" speach. :rotflmao:

I have always thought that was the best measure. had nothing to do with the rankings. I believe per 162 in most facets of the game tells me a lot more about a player than their career stats. (sorry to disappoint)

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

So how do you do that for pitchers? Per 36 starts? What about relievers?Just interested. By no means am I questioning the fountain of knowledge that is GWB.

:rotflmao: at me being a fountain of knowledge.I don't know. You can probably do it by 36 starts for starting pitchers but that wouldn't work for relievers. For pitchers, it's probably best to equate it to Win Shares per 9 innings pitched.Any other ideas?

Of course, if you do that then you have to do the same thing for hitters since it wouldn't work for the WS/162 measure that we had before.

 

[Doug B]

So how do you do that for pitchers?  Per 36 starts?  What about relievers?Just interested.  By no means am I questioning the fountain of knowledge that is GWB.

:rotflmao: at me being a fountain of knowledge.I don't know. You can probably do it by 36 starts for starting pitchers but that wouldn't work for relievers. For pitchers, it's probably best to equate it to Win Shares per 9 innings pitched.Any other ideas?

Perhaps make the batters' win shares and the pitchers' win shares non-comparable figures. Do the batters per 162, and the pitchers per 9 IP. Then provide two lists.

 

[Koya]

So how do you do that for pitchers? Per 36 starts? What about relievers?Just interested. By no means am I questioning the fountain of knowledge that is GWB.

:rotflmao: at me being a fountain of knowledge.I don't know. You can probably do it by 36 starts for starting pitchers but that wouldn't work for relievers. For pitchers, it's probably best to equate it to Win Shares per 9 innings pitched.Any other ideas?

you could do seperate lists. One for batters, one for pitchers. so hard to "equate" the two, anyways. win shares/162 and then win shares/9 innings, something along those lines?

 

[larry_boy_44]

So how do you do that for pitchers? Per 36 starts? What about relievers?Just interested. By no means am I questioning the fountain of knowledge that is GWB.

:rotflmao: at me being a fountain of knowledge.I don't know. You can probably do it by 36 starts for starting pitchers but that wouldn't work for relievers. For pitchers, it's probably best to equate it to Win Shares per 9 innings pitched.Any other ideas?

do pitchers and hitters seperately...

 

[Doug B]

do pitchers and hitters seperately...

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

So how do you do that for pitchers?  Per 36 starts?  What about relievers?Just interested.  By no means am I questioning the fountain of knowledge that is GWB.

:rotflmao: at me being a fountain of knowledge.I don't know. You can probably do it by 36 starts for starting pitchers but that wouldn't work for relievers. For pitchers, it's probably best to equate it to Win Shares per 9 innings pitched.Any other ideas?

Of course, if you do that then you have to do the same thing for hitters since it wouldn't work for the WS/162 measure that we had before.

Of course, you can't do that for hitters because you don't know exactly how many innings they played (for defensive Win Share purposes) so we're back to square one.Probably the easiest solution is to do the pitchers by getting an average Win Shares per season. It isn't perfect but it's probably close enough. Guys that had injury shortened or fewer great seasons will be negatively affected but I don't see another way around it.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

So how do you do that for pitchers?  Per 36 starts?  What about relievers?Just interested.  By no means am I questioning the fountain of knowledge that is GWB.

:rotflmao: at me being a fountain of knowledge.I don't know. You can probably do it by 36 starts for starting pitchers but that wouldn't work for relievers. For pitchers, it's probably best to equate it to Win Shares per 9 innings pitched.Any other ideas?

do pitchers and hitters seperately...

Okay, easy enough. Two lists it is.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

So how do you do that for pitchers?  Per 36 starts?  What about relievers?Just interested.  By no means am I questioning the fountain of knowledge that is GWB.

:rotflmao: at me being a fountain of knowledge.I don't know. You can probably do it by 36 starts for starting pitchers but that wouldn't work for relievers. For pitchers, it's probably best to equate it to Win Shares per 9 innings pitched.Any other ideas?

Of course, if you do that then you have to do the same thing for hitters since it wouldn't work for the WS/162 measure that we had before.

I wonder how James does it for a full season for pitchers? Just looked at Eckersly and his best two seasons WS-wise where in '78 and '79 by a healthy margin over his 1990 season as a closer. Seems like relievers will get a tough shake no matter what.eckerde01 1975 20 16.6eckerde01 1976 21 11.4eckerde01 1977 22 17.7eckerde01 1978 23 23.7eckerde01 1979 24 23.5eckerde01 1980 25 10.4eckerde01 1981 26 6.4eckerde01 1982 27 16.6eckerde01 1983 28 3.2eckerde01 1984 29 15.6eckerde01 1985 30 14.8eckerde01 1986 31 7.9eckerde01 1987 32 13.4eckerde01 1988 33 14.9eckerde01 1989 34 14.0eckerde01 1990 35 19.3eckerde01 1991 36 13.4eckerde01 1992 37 17.7

 

[Mr. Pickles]

It's difficult to equate pitchers to hitters in the win shares system, but you could possibly use a normalization based on a complete season for each, i.e., 162 games for hitters, 250 innings for starting pitchers, and 85 innings for relievers. I'm not sure if that will work well offhand, but it's a thought. If the win shares per inning are way off for certain players, this normalization system won't work very well, especially if they're extremely productive over short stretches and the data needs to be extrapolated.

 

[Doug B]

Nipsey, are you sticking with Bancroft as you Rd 24 pick?

Looked up his stats ... not bad at all. Switch-hitter, to boot.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

It's difficult to equate pitchers to hitters in the win shares system, but you could possibly use a normalization based on a complete season for each, i.e., 162 games for hitters, 250 innings for starting pitchers, and 85 innings for relievers. I'm not sure if that will work well offhand, but it's a thought. If the win shares per inning are way off for certain players, this normalization system won't work very well, especially if they're extremely productive over short stretches and the data needs to be extrapolated.

I'm probably not going to be able to do anything for pitchers unless I find a database that lists their career stats in one Excel row.As it is now, each season is listed on a separate row and I just don't have the time to get the career IP for every pitcher drafted manually and I don't have the Excel knowledge to create a formula to add them for me. I suspect that a variation of the formula bagger posted earlier (with the Brooks Bolinger example) would work but I don't have the time to fool with it.I'll look around for a database with a better format.

 

[Doug B]

It's difficult to equate pitchers to hitters in the win shares system, but you could possibly use a normalization based on a complete season for each, i.e., 162 games for hitters, 250 innings for starting pitchers, and 85 innings for relievers. I'm not sure if that will work well offhand, but it's a thought. If the win shares per inning are way off for certain players, this normalization system won't work very well, especially if they're extremely productive over short stretches and the data needs to be extrapolated.

I'm probably not going to be able to do anything for pitchers unless I find a database that lists their career stats in one Excel row.As it is now, each season is listed on a separate row and I just don't have the time to get the career IP for every pitcher drafted manually and I don't have the Excel knowledge to create a formula to add them for me. I suspect that a variation of the formula bagger posted earlier (with the Brooks Bolinger example) would work but I don't have the time to fool with it.I'll look around for a database with a better format.

Do you have MS Access? A short SQL script can create a new table which sums up the data for each individual pitcher.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

It's difficult to equate pitchers to hitters in the win shares system, but you could possibly use a normalization based on a complete season for each, i.e., 162 games for hitters, 250 innings for starting pitchers, and 85 innings for relievers.  I'm not sure if that will work well offhand, but it's a thought.  If the win shares per inning are way off for certain players, this normalization system won't work very well, especially if they're extremely productive over short stretches and the data needs to be extrapolated.

I'm probably not going to be able to do anything for pitchers unless I find a database that lists their career stats in one Excel row.As it is now, each season is listed on a separate row and I just don't have the time to get the career IP for every pitcher drafted manually and I don't have the Excel knowledge to create a formula to add them for me. I suspect that a variation of the formula bagger posted earlier (with the Brooks Bolinger example) would work but I don't have the time to fool with it.I'll look around for a database with a better format.

Do you have MS Access? A short SQL script can create a new table which sums up the data for each individual pitcher.

 

[larry_boy_44]

It's difficult to equate pitchers to hitters in the win shares system, but you could possibly use a normalization based on a complete season for each, i.e., 162 games for hitters, 250 innings for starting pitchers, and 85 innings for relievers. I'm not sure if that will work well offhand, but it's a thought. If the win shares per inning are way off for certain players, this normalization system won't work very well, especially if they're extremely productive over short stretches and the data needs to be extrapolated.

I'm probably not going to be able to do anything for pitchers unless I find a database that lists their career stats in one Excel row.As it is now, each season is listed on a separate row and I just don't have the time to get the career IP for every pitcher drafted manually and I don't have the Excel knowledge to create a formula to add them for me. I suspect that a variation of the formula bagger posted earlier (with the Brooks Bolinger example) would work but I don't have the time to fool with it.I'll look around for a database with a better format.

just do the inflated number of win shares for the pitchers and do pitchers and hitters seperately...

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

It's difficult to equate pitchers to hitters in the win shares system, but you could possibly use a normalization based on a complete season for each, i.e., 162 games for hitters, 250 innings for starting pitchers, and 85 innings for relievers.  I'm not sure if that will work well offhand, but it's a thought.  If the win shares per inning are way off for certain players, this normalization system won't work very well, especially if they're extremely productive over short stretches and the data needs to be extrapolated.

I'm probably not going to be able to do anything for pitchers unless I find a database that lists their career stats in one Excel row.As it is now, each season is listed on a separate row and I just don't have the time to get the career IP for every pitcher drafted manually and I don't have the Excel knowledge to create a formula to add them for me. I suspect that a variation of the formula bagger posted earlier (with the Brooks Bolinger example) would work but I don't have the time to fool with it.I'll look around for a database with a better format.

Do you have MS Access? A short SQL script can create a new table which sums up the data for each individual pitcher.

Yep, I have it but I haven't used Access much since college and that was like 8 years ago. I have Access XP now but haven't ever used it.Well, I use it at work to query reports but that's about it.

 

[Koya]

Larry Boy, you gave up on your chances here already! (sig)

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Koya just reminded me that I have a link in my bookmarks that ALREADY has the Win Shares per IP for all pitchers with at least 2,000 career IP.That'll work for most of the starters in this draft. Still, we'll have to find a way to get the rest.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Larry Boy, you gave up on your chances here already! (sig)

nope, I just am a HUGE wrestling freak...that and the sig for this is like 30 lines long and I don't have like 4 guys on it... (I think... maybe only 2 not on it)...