***OFFICIAL*** FFA MLB Draft (1 Viewer)

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Question for you math guys, if there are any hereoes it make sense to normalize ALL players to today's standards including those that already play in today's environment? That's what was done in the Normalized Database I'm using and it seems odd to me.Seems like current players are getting penalized when their stats should stay the same.Thoughts?

Badger -- is that database trying to normalize to the early 90s, or something?If it's trying to normalize to now, then current players should absolutely not be penalized.

As I understand it, the databased normalizes all stats for all players to today's standards. I don't exactly know the methodology behind it or what was applied to the stats to "normalize" them but it was applied to all players, including the current ones.For example, in Bonds' record breaking year it has him with 71 HR instead of 73. Not a huge difference but it is a penalty and this was done to everyone. Seems to me that any players after a certain year should be left alone. Granted, I don't know where or how you draw that line.An example of the affect it has on older players: Sam Crawford had 16 HR in 1901. In this database, he has 49 for that season.

 

[oso diablo]

Oso can vote for UCONN.

i'll abstain from voting, as i have no $ invested in the sim portion.as an outside observer, my 2cents: presumed this draft was going to be about building the best all-time team among players who met the eligibility requirements. If it's going to be about who had the best 3rd year, then it's not really that interesting.

 

[Koya]

I can not believe in an online "for fun" draft people are so unwilling to let another owner do something that is completely within the spirit of the draft.It really confounds me, this stubborness.Ok... lets stick by an arbitrary rule that ruins the fun for many teams, because...um, because why? Rules are rules? This isnt some official league, it is an exercise in fun.In the future, Id hope people can be a bit more open to REASONABLE changes that add more fun while not making it unfair.Anyhoo, I have brought up my objections to the third year rule since day one. Whatever is decided I will go along with. It will also be a clear mental note those who, in their effort for "fairness" will prefer a rigid system that outright screws other owners.If anything should not have been about "winning" it would be this type of draft. The ONLY reason I see wanting to "stick with the rules" when they obviously suck (not anyones fault, we were going into this blind, and who would have thought some would be so stubborn as to not be willing to give ANY, even if it screws everything up) is because someone SO wants to "win" and is using that poorly constructed rule to their advantage.Once again, whatever is decided is decide. But the stubborness and unwillingness of some to compromise a little when it is in the "leagues" interest to do so, is pathetic.

 

[10993]

(writing from the dallas airport terminal, making a connection)i vote no. this is r*tarded for everyone to continually be trying to make changes to the rules when they see a benefit for themselves in it.

damn harrier, I was 2 mins south of the airport having lunch today. We could have had lunch and debated our favorite deadball era players. Maybe next time.

hey man, i'm still there. will be back on tuesday for a couple hour connection, too

 

[larry_boy_44]

Question for you math guys, if there are any hereoes it make sense to normalize ALL players to today's standards including those that already play in today's environment? That's what was done in the Normalized Database I'm using and it seems odd to me.Seems like current players are getting penalized when their stats should stay the same.Thoughts?

Badger -- is that database trying to normalize to the early 90s, or something?If it's trying to normalize to now, then current players should absolutely not be penalized.

As I understand it, the databased normalizes all stats for all players to today's standards. I don't exactly know the methodology behind it or what was applied to the stats to "normalize" them but it was applied to all players, including the current ones.For example, in Bonds' record breaking year it has him with 71 HR instead of 73. Not a huge difference but it is a penalty and this was done to everyone. Seems to me that any players after a certain year should be left alone. Granted, I don't know where or how you draw that line.An example of the affect it has on older players: Sam Crawford had 16 HR in 1901. In this database, he has 49 for that season.

they probably normalized for leagues, too, since AL/NL are considered different stat-wise...So they normalized all stats to AL or NL of this year...also, they might have some kind of thing for stadiums, too, and penalized for the hitter-friendly stadiums or if they are too-hitter friendly or something...

 

[Nipsey]

I can not believe in an online "for fun" draft people are so unwilling to let another owner do something that is completely within the spirit of the draft.It really confounds me, this stubborness.Ok... lets stick by an arbitrary rule that ruins the fun for many teams, because...um, because why? Rules are rules? This isnt some official league, it is an exercise in fun.In the future, Id hope people can be a bit more open to REASONABLE changes that add more fun while not making it unfair.Anyhoo, I have brought up my objections to the third year rule since day one. Whatever is decided I will go along with. It will also be a clear mental note those who, in their effort for "fairness" will prefer a rigid system that outright screws other owners.If anything should not have been about "winning" it would be this type of draft. The ONLY reason I see wanting to "stick with the rules" when they obviously suck (not anyones fault, we were going into this blind, and who would have thought some would be so stubborn as to not be willing to give ANY, even if it screws everything up) is because someone SO wants to "win" and is using that poorly constructed rule to their advantage.Once again, whatever is decided is decide. But the stubborness and unwillingness of some to compromise a little when it is in the "leagues" interest to do so, is pathetic.

Koya, I completely ####### agree with you, but where the #### were two weeks ago when this should have been dealt with?

 

[10993]

Suddenly, after we actually complete most of the draft, everyone wants to change the rule? Where were you (Spock) two weeks ago?

Nipsey -- there's no "suddenly" about it. I think everyone's opinion is the same as it was two weeks ago (except maybe yours? It looked like you wrote that you were arguing for this two weeks ago).Re: Koya's separate thread -- nothing at all got decided there. The current proposal I have before the owners was the last post in that thread. I felt like it was a good enough idea to at least go through the trouble of gathering everyone's opinions.

I was for it, absolutely. But I brought it up when I first realized it could be a problem and was told a rule change wasn't going to happen. Hell, UConn almost made me quit because of it! I'm just saying why didn't anyone speak up when i brought it up two weeks ago? Where were you then? I've been drafting guys in certain slots because I was told we were using the third best year and only the third best year. Capella will agree with me. To change it now because you finally see the light is unfair.

No kidding.

 

[Doug B]

I don't think we can change the rules now, even if it seems right in hindsight.

Ponder: was the purpose of the rule to:a) eliminate the two best seasons of a players career?orb) to isolate a single season out of a player's record?

 

[10993]

I'm not voting yet, I want to see how it all shakes out first.Oso can vote for UCONN.

WTF? Don't make me go back and quote some of the posts you made on page 50ish. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH LONG AGO. TO CHANGE THE RULE NOW IS UNFAIR TO THOSE OF US WHO HAVE DRAFTED ACCORDINGLY.

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: I don't think we can change the rules now, even if it seems right in hindsight.

Thank you.

 

[Kraft...]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing here, Nipper wanted to change Ryan's year because of a stats issue, The poll is for players with position issues. I drafted not looking at whatif sports at all, now I realize Maurey Wills is a 3B his #3 year in Whatifsports, all I want to do is go to his next LOWEST year where he is eligible at SS. I' don't want to do it to get better stats only so I can play a guy at SS(the position I drafted him to fill).Correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Doug B]

For example, in Bonds' record breaking year it has him with 71 HR instead of 73. Not a huge difference but it is a penalty and this was done to everyone. Seems to me that any players after a certain year should be left alone. Granted, I don't know where or how you draw that line.

Maybe they are not only normalizing the era, but also normalizing the parks (i.e. every player's stats are normalized for an ideal, neutral park).Are all current players, or are some guys (maybe Dodgers, Tigers, or Mets) getting bumped up?

 

[10993]

I can not believe in an online "for fun" draft people are so unwilling to let another owner do something that is completely within the spirit of the draft.

It really confounds me, this stubborness.

Ok... lets stick by an arbitrary rule that ruins the fun for many teams, because...

um, because why? Rules are rules? This isnt some official league, it is an exercise in fun.

In the future, Id hope people can be a bit more open to REASONABLE changes that add more fun while not making it unfair.

Anyhoo, I have brought up my objections to the third year rule since day one. Whatever is decided I will go along with. It will also be a clear mental note those who, in their effort for "fairness" will prefer a rigid system that outright screws other owners.

If anything should not have been about "winning" it would be this type of draft. The ONLY reason I see wanting to "stick with the rules" when they obviously suck (not anyones fault, we were going into this blind, and who would have thought some would be so stubborn as to not be willing to give ANY, even if it screws everything up) is because someone SO wants to "win" and is using that poorly constructed rule to their advantage.

Once again, whatever is decided is decide. But the stubborness and unwillingness of some to compromise a little when it is in the "leagues" interest to do so, is pathetic.

I've said probably 12 or 13 times in this thread that I agree entirely with your line of reasoning, but once people have drafted with other rules in mind you cannot change the rules for the benefit of people that want to see an improvement from their team as it stands this late in the draft.Whether there's a majority of people that want to improve their teams in this post facto manner or not, the rules should not be changed.

 

[Koya]

(writing from the dallas airport terminal, making a connection)i vote no.  this is r*tarded for everyone to continually be trying to make changes to the rules when they see a benefit for themselves in it.

damn harrier, I was 2 mins south of the airport having lunch today. We could have had lunch and debated our favorite deadball era players. Maybe next time.

hey man, i'm still there. will be back on tuesday for a couple hour connection, too

I see a benefit for others far more than a benefit to me. What I do not understand is the reason to not change an arbitrary rule in a non money league to make this AFTERTHOUGHT of a sim more true to life.But hey, why would we want to simulate reality in a simulation, when people can go third year fishing instead.How stupid. I will say this, if anyone gets screwed because of the sim and a rule we made without knowing the details of the sim (because it was to be an AFTERTHOUGHT), if they either dont pony up the money, or decide to take the high road and pony the money up but not bother putting in any lineups, I couldnt blame them at all.

 

[Sammy3469]

OF Bob Johnson

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Question for you math guys, if there are any hereoes it make sense to normalize ALL players to today's standards including those that already play in today's environment? That's what was done in the Normalized Database I'm using and it seems odd to me.Seems like current players are getting penalized when their stats should stay the same.Thoughts?

Badger -- is that database trying to normalize to the early 90s, or something?If it's trying to normalize to now, then current players should absolutely not be penalized.

As I understand it, the databased normalizes all stats for all players to today's standards. I don't exactly know the methodology behind it or what was applied to the stats to "normalize" them but it was applied to all players, including the current ones.For example, in Bonds' record breaking year it has him with 71 HR instead of 73. Not a huge difference but it is a penalty and this was done to everyone. Seems to me that any players after a certain year should be left alone. Granted, I don't know where or how you draw that line.An example of the affect it has on older players: Sam Crawford had 16 HR in 1901. In this database, he has 49 for that season.

they probably normalized for leagues, too, since AL/NL are considered different stat-wise...So they normalized all stats to AL or NL of this year...also, they might have some kind of thing for stadiums, too, and penalized for the hitter-friendly stadiums or if they are too-hitter friendly or something...

That would have taken too much work. From what I can gather, he just took a period of time like 1997-2002 (that's when the db ends) and normalized the stats to that period by applying a simple formula to increase or decrease certain stats.The problem I have is that players that played during that period (1997-2002 or whatever he used) should have stayed the same. At least, that's what seems logical to a simpleton like myself.

 

[Bogart]

(writing from the dallas airport terminal, making a connection)i vote no. this is r*tarded for everyone to continually be trying to make changes to the rules when they see a benefit for themselves in it.

damn harrier, I was 2 mins south of the airport having lunch today. We could have had lunch and debated our favorite deadball era players. Maybe next time.

hey man, i'm still there. will be back on tuesday for a couple hour connection, too

DFW or Lovefield??

 

[Nipsey]

I don't think we can change the rules now, even if it seems right in hindsight.

Ponder: was the purpose of the rule to:a) eliminate the two best seasons of a players career?orb) to isolate a single season out of a player's record?

It was because WIS doesn't have a "career" year for a player. You must choose one season, and some guys had 1 or 2 great seasons, but not great careers. So the choice using the third season seemed logical. It's completely arbitrary, that's why it was chosen to be that way. You guys that want to use different seasons are only doing it to gain an "advantage". So Koya, enough with saying people that drafted accordingly after the rule was issued are somehow taking advantage of a poorly constructed rule because in wanting to change the rule, you're doing just that.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

For example, in Bonds' record breaking year it has him with 71 HR instead of 73. Not a huge difference but it is a penalty and this was done to everyone. Seems to me that any players after a certain year should be left alone. Granted, I don't know where or how you draw that line.

Maybe they are not only normalizing the era, but also normalizing the parks (i.e. every player's stats are normalized for an ideal, neutral park).Are all current players, or are some guys (maybe Dodgers, Tigers, or Mets) getting bumped up?

That's a possibility but I think that would have taken too much work. I'll check that now.

 

[10993]

(writing from the dallas airport terminal, making a connection)i vote no. this is r*tarded for everyone to continually be trying to make changes to the rules when they see a benefit for themselves in it.

damn harrier, I was 2 mins south of the airport having lunch today. We could have had lunch and debated our favorite deadball era players. Maybe next time.

hey man, i'm still there. will be back on tuesday for a couple hour connection, too

DFW or Lovefield??

DFW. sitting at the gate hoping AA gets their f**king act together. i do love these t-mobile hotspots though.

 

[Koya]

I don't think we can change the rules now, even if it seems right in hindsight.

Ponder: was the purpose of the rule to:a) eliminate the two best seasons of a players career?orb) to isolate a single season out of a player's record?

It was because WIS doesn't have a "career" year for a player. You must choose one season, and some guys had 1 or 2 great seasons, but not great careers. So the choice using the third season seemed logical. It's completely arbitrary, that's why it was chosen to be that way. You guys that want to use different seasons are only doing it to gain an "advantage". So Koya, enough with saying people that drafted accordingly after the rule was issued are somehow taking advantage of a poorly constructed rule because in wanting to change the rule, you're doing just that.

huh? i am trying to make this as fair and fun for all.some people are more concerned about "winning" - even if what they win is rendered meaningless because a SS has to play 1B.sometimes you need to give a little. Im willing to because ive committed my $$ even if this assinine third year only rule holds. But it is just that.assinine.

 

[10993]

I don't think we can change the rules now, even if it seems right in hindsight.

Ponder: was the purpose of the rule to:a) eliminate the two best seasons of a players career?orb) to isolate a single season out of a player's record?

It was because WIS doesn't have a "career" year for a player. You must choose one season, and some guys had 1 or 2 great seasons, but not great careers. So the choice using the third season seemed logical. It's completely arbitrary, that's why it was chosen to be that way. You guys that want to use different seasons are only doing it to gain an "advantage". So Koya, enough with saying people that drafted accordingly after the rule was issued are somehow taking advantage of a poorly constructed rule because in wanting to change the rule, you're doing just that.

 

[Kraft...]

I don't think we can change the rules now, even if it seems right in hindsight.

Ponder: was the purpose of the rule to:a) eliminate the two best seasons of a players career?orb) to isolate a single season out of a player's record?

It was because WIS doesn't have a "career" year for a player. You must choose one season, and some guys had 1 or 2 great seasons, but not great careers. So the choice using the third season seemed logical. It's completely arbitrary, that's why it was chosen to be that way. You guys that want to use different seasons are only doing it to gain an "advantage". So Koya, enough with saying people that drafted accordingly after the rule was issued are somehow taking advantage of a poorly constructed rule because in wanting to change the rule, you're doing just that.

(See below) Form my post above, I don't want an advantage just want to play a guy at the position I drafted him in.I don't think we are talking about the same thing here, Nipper wanted to change Ryan's year because of a stats issue, The poll is for players with position issues. I drafted not looking at whatif sports at all, now I realize Maurey Wills is a 3B his #3 year in Whatifsports, all I want to do is go to his next LOWEST year where he is eligible at SS. I' don't want to do it to get better stats only so I can play a guy at SS(the position I drafted him to fill).Correct me if I'm wrong

 

[Sammy3469]

Someone needs to call the PicklePhone

 

[Doug B]

You guys that want to use different seasons are only doing it to gain an "advantage".

Not so -- everyone will get an advantage. It's not as if half the league can do it and half can't.

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't think we can change the rules now, even if it seems right in hindsight.

Ponder: was the purpose of the rule to:a) eliminate the two best seasons of a players career?orb) to isolate a single season out of a player's record?

It was because WIS doesn't have a "career" year for a player. You must choose one season, and some guys had 1 or 2 great seasons, but not great careers. So the choice using the third season seemed logical. It's completely arbitrary, that's why it was chosen to be that way. You guys that want to use different seasons are only doing it to gain an "advantage". So Koya, enough with saying people that drafted accordingly after the rule was issued are somehow taking advantage of a poorly constructed rule because in wanting to change the rule, you're doing just that.

This is exactly why I don't care either way. Both sides of the argument are have something to gain/lose.

 

[Bogart]

(writing from the dallas airport terminal, making a connection)i vote no. this is r*tarded for everyone to continually be trying to make changes to the rules when they see a benefit for themselves in it.

damn harrier, I was 2 mins south of the airport having lunch today. We could have had lunch and debated our favorite deadball era players. Maybe next time.

hey man, i'm still there. will be back on tuesday for a couple hour connection, too

DFW or Lovefield??

DFW. sitting at the gate hoping AA gets their f**king act together. i do love these t-mobile hotspots though.

cool. I tied up for the rest of the day today, but maybe I can catch you on that Tuesday connection.Ohh, and I wouldn't count on AA getting their act together. They think they own that airport and it shows in their crummy service.

 

[Kraft...]

Someone needs to call the PicklePhone

 

[larry_boy_44]

I don't think we can change the rules now, even if it seems right in hindsight.

Ponder: was the purpose of the rule to:a) eliminate the two best seasons of a players career?orb) to isolate a single season out of a player's record?

It was because WIS doesn't have a "career" year for a player. You must choose one season, and some guys had 1 or 2 great seasons, but not great careers. So the choice using the third season seemed logical. It's completely arbitrary, that's why it was chosen to be that way. You guys that want to use different seasons are only doing it to gain an "advantage". So Koya, enough with saying people that drafted accordingly after the rule was issued are somehow taking advantage of a poorly constructed rule because in wanting to change the rule, you're doing just that.

(See below) Form my post above, I don't want an advantage just want to play a guy at the position I drafted him in.I don't think we are talking about the same thing here, Nipper wanted to change Ryan's year because of a stats issue, The poll is for players with position issues. I drafted not looking at whatif sports at all, now I realize Maurey Wills is a 3B his #3 year in Whatifsports, all I want to do is go to his next LOWEST year where he is eligible at SS. I' don't want to do it to get better stats only so I can play a guy at SS(the position I drafted him to fill).Correct me if I'm wrong

what about injury issues, though?I mean, having a guy who WIS won't let play more than 1/2 the games due to injuries (there has to be other players who this happened to, too) hurts a team just as much as an out-of-position player does...The intent of the third-year rule was so Brady Anderson wasn't a good pick in the first 10 rounds 'cuz he had one great year...Using a year that is not as good as the third year is still within the intent of the third-year rule...

 

[Capella]

Pickles takes John Olerud

I know he already has a 1B surplus, but it's the only other name left. \

He should be back tonight.

 

[Doug B]

LATEST TWO ROUNDS:

20 305 Larryboy 1B Roger Connor

20 306 Spartans RP Jeff Montgomery

20 307 UCONN OF Sam Thompson

20 308 Kraft SP Frank Viola

20 309 funkley 2B Willie Randolph

20 310 Koya 2B Billy Herman

20 311 bogart OF Max Carey

20 312 Doug B 3B Toby Harrah

20 313 Harrier SP Red Munger

20 314 Pickles SP Urban Shocker

20 315 Sammy3469 SP Bobby Shantz

20 316 Nipsey OF Enos Slaughter

20 317 Capella OF Bobby Bonds

20 318 lastresort RP Jesse Orosco

20 319 Spock 1B Hall Trosky

20 320 pumpnick RP Stu Miller

21 321 pumpnick SP Ray Kremer

21 322 Spock OF Shawn Green

21 323 lastresort OF Luis Gonzales

21 324 Capella RP Rick Aguilera

21 325 Nipsey OF Stan Hack

21 326 Sammy3469 OF Bob Johnson

21 327 Pickles 1B John Olerud

21 328 Harrier on the clock

21 329 Doug B on deck

21 330 bogart in the hole

21 331 Koya

21 332 funkley

21 333 Kraft

21 334 UCONN

21 335 Spartans

21 336 Larryboy

 

[Nipsey]

I don't think we can change the rules now, even if it seems right in hindsight.

Ponder: was the purpose of the rule to:a) eliminate the two best seasons of a players career?orb) to isolate a single season out of a player's record?

It was because WIS doesn't have a "career" year for a player. You must choose one season, and some guys had 1 or 2 great seasons, but not great careers. So the choice using the third season seemed logical. It's completely arbitrary, that's why it was chosen to be that way. You guys that want to use different seasons are only doing it to gain an "advantage". So Koya, enough with saying people that drafted accordingly after the rule was issued are somehow taking advantage of a poorly constructed rule because in wanting to change the rule, you're doing just that.

huh? i am trying to make this as fair and fun for all.some people are more concerned about "winning" - even if what they win is rendered meaningless because a SS has to play 1B.sometimes you need to give a little. Im willing to because ive committed my $$ even if this assinine third year only rule holds. But it is just that.assinine.

I'd have some respect for your position if you said ANYTHING to back me up two weeks ago. To bring it up now in the name of "fairness", just stinks on your part.

 

[Nipsey]

You guys that want to use different seasons are only doing it to gain an "advantage".

Not so -- everyone will get an advantage. It's not as if half the league can do it and half can't.

I drafted accordingly, I have nothing to gain.

 

[Funkley]

I can not believe in an online "for fun" draft people are so unwilling to let another owner do something that is completely within the spirit of the draft.It really confounds me, this stubborness.Ok... lets stick by an arbitrary rule that ruins the fun for many teams, because...um, because why? Rules are rules? This isnt some official league, it is an exercise in fun.In the future, Id hope people can be a bit more open to REASONABLE changes that add more fun while not making it unfair.Anyhoo, I have brought up my objections to the third year rule since day one. Whatever is decided I will go along with. It will also be a clear mental note those who, in their effort for "fairness" will prefer a rigid system that outright screws other owners.If anything should not have been about "winning" it would be this type of draft. The ONLY reason I see wanting to "stick with the rules" when they obviously suck (not anyones fault, we were going into this blind, and who would have thought some would be so stubborn as to not be willing to give ANY, even if it screws everything up) is because someone SO wants to "win" and is using that poorly constructed rule to their advantage.Once again, whatever is decided is decide. But the stubborness and unwillingness of some to compromise a little when it is in the "leagues" interest to do so, is pathetic.

Koya, I completely ####### agree with you, but where the #### were two weeks ago when this should have been dealt with?

Correct. We've had this argument. Cap and others started to feel like so much focus on the sim that it was f'ing up the draft and he made it clear then that there would be no rule changing. That was good enough for me. If you go back and look at when this first came up I was in agreement with Doug, Koya, etc but I thought this was put to rest?!?!? No rule changes. Cannot see why we should now and I cannot believe how the worm has turned on this in two weeks.

 

[Politician Spock]

Just found this Strategic Baseball Simulator on download.com. Planning on checking it out tonight. Anyone ever tried it.

I used to be hooked on Microleague Baseball as a kid, and this looks like it might be similar.

 

[Kraft...]

Where did Harrier go?

 

[10993]

SP/RP Ed Reulbach

Three time league W/L% leader.

#16 all-time ERA

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Just found this Strategic Baseball Simulator on download.com. Planning on checking it out tonight. Anyone ever tried it.I used to be hooked on Microleague Baseball as a kid, and this looks like it might be similar.

I looked at it a couple of weeks ago. Not very pretty or user friendly. Didn't keep it for long.

 

[10993]

SP/RP Ed Reulbach

Three time league W/L% leader.

#16 all-time ERA

And Nipsey, can you please cross the pitcher on the top of my list off the list? HC?

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

For example, in Bonds' record breaking year it has him with 71 HR instead of 73. Not a huge difference but it is a penalty and this was done to everyone. Seems to me that any players after a certain year should be left alone. Granted, I don't know where or how you draw that line.

Maybe they are not only normalizing the era, but also normalizing the parks (i.e. every player's stats are normalized for an ideal, neutral park).Are all current players, or are some guys (maybe Dodgers, Tigers, or Mets) getting bumped up?

Nope. I looked at Piazza's HR totals from 99-2002 and he had fewer HR than in reality in all but one year (2002) where he had one extra. Granted, in all cases he only "lost" one or two HR but this doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Nipsey]

SP/RP Ed Reulbach

Three time league W/L% leader.

#16 all-time ERA

And Nipsey, can you please cross the pitcher on the top of my list off the list? HC?

yes, got it.

 

[Kraft...]

We have numbers here gentlemen, we can make a Run up to Spartans. Check that he's here we might have numbers for a full round revolution

 

[10993]

For example, in Bonds' record breaking year it has him with 71 HR instead of 73. Not a huge difference but it is a penalty and this was done to everyone. Seems to me that any players after a certain year should be left alone. Granted, I don't know where or how you draw that line.

Maybe they are not only normalizing the era, but also normalizing the parks (i.e. every player's stats are normalized for an ideal, neutral park).Are all current players, or are some guys (maybe Dodgers, Tigers, or Mets) getting bumped up?

Nope. I looked at Piazza's HR totals from 99-2002 and he had fewer HR than in reality in all but one year (2002) where he had one extra. Granted, in all cases he only "lost" one or two HR but this doesn't make sense to me.

You take away Piazza's home runs, and I might have to send my guys Bruno and Carl to have a little chat with you.Comprende?

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

For example, in Bonds' record breaking year it has him with 71 HR instead of 73. Not a huge difference but it is a penalty and this was done to everyone. Seems to me that any players after a certain year should be left alone. Granted, I don't know where or how you draw that line.

Maybe they are not only normalizing the era, but also normalizing the parks (i.e. every player's stats are normalized for an ideal, neutral park).Are all current players, or are some guys (maybe Dodgers, Tigers, or Mets) getting bumped up?

Nope. I looked at Piazza's HR totals from 99-2002 and he had fewer HR than in reality in all but one year (2002) where he had one extra. Granted, in all cases he only "lost" one or two HR but this doesn't make sense to me.

You take away Piazza's home runs, and I might have to send my guys Bruno and Carl to have a little chat with you.Comprende?

Easy there, fella. I'm not taking anything from anyone. I'm just trying to understand how this db is normalizing the stats and why it is normalizing guys that played in the environment it is normalizing everyone to.Comprende?

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Oh, and I have rosters/season information from everyone but....

CAPELLA!!!!!!

 

[10993]

For example, in Bonds' record breaking year it has him with 71 HR instead of 73. Not a huge difference but it is a penalty and this was done to everyone. Seems to me that any players after a certain year should be left alone. Granted, I don't know where or how you draw that line.

Maybe they are not only normalizing the era, but also normalizing the parks (i.e. every player's stats are normalized for an ideal, neutral park).Are all current players, or are some guys (maybe Dodgers, Tigers, or Mets) getting bumped up?

Nope. I looked at Piazza's HR totals from 99-2002 and he had fewer HR than in reality in all but one year (2002) where he had one extra. Granted, in all cases he only "lost" one or two HR but this doesn't make sense to me.

You take away Piazza's home runs, and I might have to send my guys Bruno and Carl to have a little chat with you.Comprende?

Easy there, fella. I'm not taking anything from anyone. I'm just trying to understand how this db is normalizing the stats and why it is normalizing guys that played in the environment it is normalizing everyone to.Comprende?

Sounds like somebody's kneecaps are about to get a little de-normalized.Comprende?

 

[Nipsey]

Who's up?

 

[Kraft...]

Doug you're up

 

[Capella]

Oh, and I have rosters/season information from everyone but....

CAPELLA!!!!!!

tonight...seriously

 

[Koya]

I'd have some respect for your position if you said ANYTHING to back me up two weeks ago. To bring it up now in the name of "fairness", just stinks on your part.

Nipsey, what are you talking about?I have been against the 3rd year rule since the start. So much so, I risked getting the ire of half the league by bringing the whole thing up after it was "decided" - in the rules thread.I have supported you then and I do now. Im not sure where you are coming from on this one, maybe you have my position mistaken for someone elses'?

 

[Nipsey]

I'd have some respect for your position if you said ANYTHING to back me up two weeks ago. To bring it up now in the name of "fairness", just stinks on your part.

Nipsey, what are you talking about?I have been against the 3rd year rule since the start. So much so, I risked getting the ire of half the league by bringing the whole thing up after it was "decided" - in the rules thread.I have supported you then and I do now. Im not sure where you are coming from on this one, maybe you have my position mistaken for someone elses'?

If you were for it, why didn't you stand up when we had this discussion two weeks back? It seems the only reason you do it now is because you realize you have players that will benefit from a rule change at this late juncture. This is almost as bad as the LeBron pick on your end.