***OFFICIAL*** FFA MLB Draft (3 Viewers)

[Not Nipsey's Alias]

We're drafting for the sim, no?  

Yes and no, the way I'm looking at it.The way I see it, the parameters and specifics of the WIS sim do not necessarily have to dominate the drafting strategy just because we happen to be using that sim. Influence the drafting strategy? Yes, indeed. But not dominate.

To limit the sim's influence over drafting strategy, we can bring in some extra parameters (e.g. minimum career standards).

I simply disagree. You can't have it both ways. Either we're doing a sim or we aren't. That's what got us into trouble for this draft. Some simfished, while others drafted a team for a vote. If we're doing this for another sim, why be on the fence about the reason to draft a player? If you want to pick guys because they reflect your beliefs on what an "all-time great" should be, that's fine. Just don't expect to win and don't penalize other owners who don't share the same beliefs you do.

Two ships passing in the night....What Doug is saying is draft for the sim, but the guy drafted has to meet some minimum threshold.

I know exactly what he's saying, I just don't know why he's saying it.

He's just saying he wants name players in the sim not a team of Wakefield's and Quantrill's...if you disagree with that we may never be able to share a hooker.

Then why doesn't he just draft everyone's team for them?

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

lol..that's pretty realistic. Ask Minaya what he thinks of Chuck LaMar right now. NY papers were shredding Chucky for taking a hard-line stance on some deals they were working on.

Might as well. Worked pretty well for him in the Kazmir deal.

 

[Doug B]

I know exactly what he's saying, I just don't know why he's saying it.

Only because I personally can get behind an All-Time MLB draft more than I can get behind an All-WIS draft.

 

[Capella]

lol..that's pretty realistic. Ask Minaya what he thinks of Chuck LaMar right now. NY papers were shredding Chucky for taking a hard-line stance on some deals they were working on.

Might as well. Worked pretty well for him in the Kazmir deal.

Looked good yesterday.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

496

 

[Kraft...]

I'm in the Doug camp on this one, I would like to keep the all time aspect in tact as much as possible.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Looked good yesterday.

 

[Capella]

496

 

[Not Nipsey's Alias]

Any limiting factors just tilt the edge back to the people that used limiting factors to their advantage before.

I don't agree. Everyone goes into the next draft aware of all the limiting factors will be.In the recently-passed draft, some drafters knew to sim-fish from the get-go, some didn't. In addition, the goal of the draft was muddled at the beginning -- first it was a vote, then a vote and a sim, then finally the sim. It wasn't like the people who sim-fished are smarter or better drafters than other folks.

So if we're doing this one specifically and only for a single season sim....why are we worrying about whether or not a player is an all time great? If we're not having a vote, who cares about player perception?

 

[Doug B]

He's just saying he wants name players in the sim not a team of Wakefield's and Quantrill's...if you disagree with that we may never be able to share a hooker.

Then why doesn't he just draft everyone's team for them?

I don't think Sammy quite expressed my opinion there, though I appreciate the backup.Here's what I think in a nutshell:

All-Time MLB league:

All-WIS league:

 

[10993]

Any limiting factors just tilt the edge back to the people that used limiting factors to their advantage before.

I don't agree. Everyone goes into the next draft aware of all the limiting factors will be.In the recently-passed draft, some drafters knew to sim-fish from the get-go, some didn't. In addition, the goal of the draft was muddled at the beginning -- first it was a vote, then a vote and a sim, then finally the sim. It wasn't like the people who sim-fished are smarter or better drafters than other folks.

That's fine, but there were a lot of people who tried to "sim-fish" in various ways in the first draft. Some ways and methods worked better than others, mostly due to people's understanding of the limiting factors. What I'm saying is, if you add any limiting factors at all, especially the highly complex and numerous ones that you've proposed, it will be those people who best manipulate and understand those limiting factors who will succeed, when really it should just be the people who have the best understanding of great baseball players' seasons and the best way to formulate a team who succeed.I think I stand to benefit from every single limitation you add--and you've proposed 14. I suggest that we instead have none.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

496

Maybe my brain is still in a fog from failing the driving exam but I don't know what the 496 is in reference to.

 

[Doug B]

So if we're doing this one specifically and only for a single season sim....why are we worrying about whether or not a player is an all time great?

More fun? More interest?It's not for everyone, I understand.

 

[Capella]

496

Maybe my brain is still in a fog from failing the driving exam but I don't know what the 496 is in reference to.

I'm surprised you were even able to read the exam.

 

[Kraft...]

Any limiting factors just tilt the edge back to the people that used limiting factors to their advantage before.

I don't agree. Everyone goes into the next draft aware of all the limiting factors will be.In the recently-passed draft, some drafters knew to sim-fish from the get-go, some didn't. In addition, the goal of the draft was muddled at the beginning -- first it was a vote, then a vote and a sim, then finally the sim. It wasn't like the people who sim-fished are smarter or better drafters than other folks.

So if we're doing this one specifically and only for a single season sim....why are we worrying about whether or not a player is an all time great? If we're not having a vote, who cares about player perception?

Why can't we do both Sim and Vote?

 

[Capella]

Any limiting factors just tilt the edge back to the people that used limiting factors to their advantage before.

I don't agree. Everyone goes into the next draft aware of all the limiting factors will be.In the recently-passed draft, some drafters knew to sim-fish from the get-go, some didn't. In addition, the goal of the draft was muddled at the beginning -- first it was a vote, then a vote and a sim, then finally the sim. It wasn't like the people who sim-fished are smarter or better drafters than other folks.

So if we're doing this one specifically and only for a single season sim....why are we worrying about whether or not a player is an all time great? If we're not having a vote, who cares about player perception?

Why can't we do both Sim and Vote?

We can.Hell, we can still put this one up to vote if we want.

 

[Sammy3469]

BTW I think this is really an argument over a few secondary pitchers. I think the hitters sort themselves out fairly easily.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

I'm surprised you were even able to read the exam.

It was on a computer. No problems there.Are you not going to tell me what the 496 was for?

 

[Capella]

I'm surprised you were even able to read the exam.

It was on a computer. No problems there.Are you not going to tell me what the 496 was for?

No, I think this is funnier.

 

[Doug B]

I think I stand to benefit from every single limitation you add--and you've proposed 14. I suggest that we instead have none.

There are seven (proposed) ways to qualify for batter or pitcher eligibility -- and each player needs only one. There's no complexity to this at all.

 

[10993]

I'm in the Doug camp on this one, I would like to keep the all time aspect in tact as much as possible.

It is still all-time, it's just all-time best seasons rather than all-time best careers. And I think that's very interesting--in fact, more interesting, because I don't think that a baseball draft that excludes The Bird is as fun.Moreover, since we are able to evaluate the greatness of one season far better than the greatness of a career (because people really disagree about how many great years must be achieved, and whether players should be judged on their best 5 or best 15 years, and whether their end-of-career down years should be considered), it's better to emphasize all-time best seasons. Also, it dovetails nicely with the sim which we have available, one which simulates seasons and not full careers.

 

[Capella]

Badger:

hint: We're closing in on 497

 

[10993]

I think I stand to benefit from every single limitation you add--and you've proposed 14. I suggest that we instead have none.

There are seven (proposed) ways to qualify for batter or pitcher eligibility -- and each player needs only one. There's no complexity to this at all.

There's 7 for batters and 7 for pitchers--so a total of 14 criteria on which players can be evaluated.Yes, it's complex.

 

[10993]

Any limiting factors just tilt the edge back to the people that used limiting factors to their advantage before.

I don't agree. Everyone goes into the next draft aware of all the limiting factors will be.In the recently-passed draft, some drafters knew to sim-fish from the get-go, some didn't. In addition, the goal of the draft was muddled at the beginning -- first it was a vote, then a vote and a sim, then finally the sim. It wasn't like the people who sim-fished are smarter or better drafters than other folks.

So if we're doing this one specifically and only for a single season sim....why are we worrying about whether or not a player is an all time great? If we're not having a vote, who cares about player perception?

Why can't we do both Sim and Vote?

We can.Hell, we can still put this one up to vote if we want.

That's fine--it should be seeded by overall record. I'll still lose in the first round (and I'm not worried about that for me personally), but overall that's a far more objective, less arbitrary and capricious way to do the seeding.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Badger:

hint: We're closing in on 497

JEEBUS ####### CHRIST I'M A ####### MORON.

 

[Pumpnick]

I'm in the Doug camp on this one, I would like to keep the all time aspect in tact as much as possible.

It is still all-time, it's just all-time best seasons rather than all-time best careers. And I think that's very interesting--in fact, more interesting, because I don't think that a baseball draft that excludes The Bird is as fun.Moreover, since we are able to evaluate the greatness of one season far better than the greatness of a career (because people really disagree about how many great years must be achieved, and whether players should be judged on their best 5 or best 15 years, and whether their end-of-career down years should be considered), it's better to emphasize all-time best seasons. Also, it dovetails nicely with the sim which we have available, one which simulates seasons and not full careers.

Can't we just ask John to make a new sim for us ? Look how many times he has posted in here..he has the time.

 

[Bogart]

496

Maybe my brain is still in a fog from failing the driving exam but I don't know what the 496 is in reference to.

pages

 

[Capella]

Any limiting factors just tilt the edge back to the people that used limiting factors to their advantage before.

I don't agree. Everyone goes into the next draft aware of all the limiting factors will be.In the recently-passed draft, some drafters knew to sim-fish from the get-go, some didn't. In addition, the goal of the draft was muddled at the beginning -- first it was a vote, then a vote and a sim, then finally the sim. It wasn't like the people who sim-fished are smarter or better drafters than other folks.

So if we're doing this one specifically and only for a single season sim....why are we worrying about whether or not a player is an all time great? If we're not having a vote, who cares about player perception?

Why can't we do both Sim and Vote?

We can.Hell, we can still put this one up to vote if we want.

That's fine--it should be seeded by overall record. I'll still lose in the first round (and I'm not worried about that for me personally), but overall that's a far more objective, less arbitrary and capricious way to do the seeding.

no, not really. I enjoyed the sim, but when measuring a team in the all-time standard, it holds no weight.

 

[Doug B]

That's fine, but there were a lot of people who tried to "sim-fish" in various ways in the first draft. Some ways and methods worked better than others, mostly due to people's understanding of the limiting factors.

Limiting factors? Those that knew ahead of time what WIS's engine rewarded, and sim-fished accordingly, are the ones who most succeeded.

 

[Capella]

Badger:

hint: We're closing in on 497 

JEEBUS ####### CHRIST I'M A ####### MORON.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

pages

Thanks, Bogey. Never would have figured it out without you, GB

 

[10993]

That's fine, but there were a lot of people who tried to "sim-fish" in various ways in the first draft. Some ways and methods worked better than others, mostly due to people's understanding of the limiting factors.

Limiting factors? Those that knew ahead of time what WIS's engine rewarded, and sim-fished accordingly, are the ones who most succeeded.

The third-year requirement was a limiting factor.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

Badger:

hint: We're closing in on 497 

JEEBUS ####### CHRIST I'M A ####### MORON.

Smartest one all day. Some might argue that it's my best ever and they'd probably be right.

 

[Not Nipsey's Alias]

Any limiting factors just tilt the edge back to the people that used limiting factors to their advantage before.

I don't agree. Everyone goes into the next draft aware of all the limiting factors will be.In the recently-passed draft, some drafters knew to sim-fish from the get-go, some didn't. In addition, the goal of the draft was muddled at the beginning -- first it was a vote, then a vote and a sim, then finally the sim. It wasn't like the people who sim-fished are smarter or better drafters than other folks.

So if we're doing this one specifically and only for a single season sim....why are we worrying about whether or not a player is an all time great? If we're not having a vote, who cares about player perception?

Why can't we do both Sim and Vote?

An FFA vote is a waste of time. The whole thing is a popularity contest and most of the people voting (all nine of them), are doing so because they know one of the participants. Big waste of time.

 

[10993]

Any limiting factors just tilt the edge back to the people that used limiting factors to their advantage before.

I don't agree. Everyone goes into the next draft aware of all the limiting factors will be.In the recently-passed draft, some drafters knew to sim-fish from the get-go, some didn't. In addition, the goal of the draft was muddled at the beginning -- first it was a vote, then a vote and a sim, then finally the sim. It wasn't like the people who sim-fished are smarter or better drafters than other folks.

So if we're doing this one specifically and only for a single season sim....why are we worrying about whether or not a player is an all time great? If we're not having a vote, who cares about player perception?

Why can't we do both Sim and Vote?

We can.Hell, we can still put this one up to vote if we want.

That's fine--it should be seeded by overall record. I'll still lose in the first round (and I'm not worried about that for me personally), but overall that's a far more objective, less arbitrary and capricious way to do the seeding.

no, not really. I enjoyed the sim, but when measuring a team in the all-time standard, it holds no weight.

"no, not really" what?It's not really more objective than one person's opinion? Less arbitrary? Less capricious?

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

497

 

[Caution]

500 what..

 

[10993]

Any limiting factors just tilt the edge back to the people that used limiting factors to their advantage before.

I don't agree. Everyone goes into the next draft aware of all the limiting factors will be.In the recently-passed draft, some drafters knew to sim-fish from the get-go, some didn't. In addition, the goal of the draft was muddled at the beginning -- first it was a vote, then a vote and a sim, then finally the sim. It wasn't like the people who sim-fished are smarter or better drafters than other folks.

So if we're doing this one specifically and only for a single season sim....why are we worrying about whether or not a player is an all time great? If we're not having a vote, who cares about player perception?

Why can't we do both Sim and Vote?

An FFA vote is a waste of time. The whole thing is a popularity contest and most of the people voting (all nine of them), are doing so because they know one of the participants. Big waste of time.

 

[Doug B]

There's 7 for batters and 7 for pitchers--so a total of 14 criteria on which players can be evaluated.

Yes, it's complex.

I can check any one player's eligibility by a glance at their baseball-reference.com entry. How is that complex?

 

[Bogart]

Question:

If we did an All-Time MLB draft (which is much better than an All-WIS draft), could we come up with another way to grade the teams other than a FFA vote? Keep the votes to the other owners? Some other way?

 

[Capella]

Any limiting factors just tilt the edge back to the people that used limiting factors to their advantage before.

I don't agree. Everyone goes into the next draft aware of all the limiting factors will be.In the recently-passed draft, some drafters knew to sim-fish from the get-go, some didn't. In addition, the goal of the draft was muddled at the beginning -- first it was a vote, then a vote and a sim, then finally the sim. It wasn't like the people who sim-fished are smarter or better drafters than other folks.

So if we're doing this one specifically and only for a single season sim....why are we worrying about whether or not a player is an all time great? If we're not having a vote, who cares about player perception?

Why can't we do both Sim and Vote?

We can.Hell, we can still put this one up to vote if we want.

That's fine--it should be seeded by overall record. I'll still lose in the first round (and I'm not worried about that for me personally), but overall that's a far more objective, less arbitrary and capricious way to do the seeding.

no, not really. I enjoyed the sim, but when measuring a team in the all-time standard, it holds no weight.

"no, not really" what?It's not really more objective than one person's opinion? Less arbitrary? Less capricious?

In a career context, the WIS sim holds absolutely no weight. So yes, I'd value the opinion of a well-respected poster over that, when judging careers.

 

[Doug B]

That's fine, but there were a lot of people who tried to "sim-fish" in various ways in the first draft.  Some ways and methods worked better than others, mostly due to people's understanding of the limiting factors.

Limiting factors? Those that knew ahead of time what WIS's engine rewarded, and sim-fished accordingly, are the ones who most succeeded.

The third-year requirement was a limiting factor.

Did you know that not all the drafters going in knew that they could check third seasons on WIS.com? That was information every drafter should have had up front.

 

[Not Nipsey's Alias]

He's just saying he wants name players in the sim not a team of Wakefield's and Quantrill's...if you disagree with that we may never be able to share a hooker. 

Then why doesn't he just draft everyone's team for them?

I don't think Sammy quite expressed my opinion there, though I appreciate the backup.Here's what I think in a nutshell:

All-Time MLB league:

All-WIS league:

More like All-time MLB league WIS sim (We've proven that this is not possible).

 

[Bogart]

Question:

If we did an All-Time MLB draft (which is much better than an All-WIS draft), could we come up with another way to grade the teams other than a FFA vote? Keep the votes to the other owners? Some other way?

sorry, question was a bit late.

 

[Doug B]

(We've proven that this is not possible).

Hardly.

 

[Capella]

so anyways, what are we going to do about larry?

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

so anyways, what are we going to do about larry?

Pray for him?

 

[10993]

That's fine, but there were a lot of people who tried to "sim-fish" in various ways in the first draft. Some ways and methods worked better than others, mostly due to people's understanding of the limiting factors.

Limiting factors? Those that knew ahead of time what WIS's engine rewarded, and sim-fished accordingly, are the ones who most succeeded.

The third-year requirement was a limiting factor.

Did you know that not all the drafters going in knew that they could check third seasons on WIS.com?

I figured most would be intelligent enough to figure this relatively simple thing out. It wasn't a secret, but rather something which took time to research.

 

[10993]

so anyways, what are we going to do about larry?

Pray for him?

He's out.There was a motion to dismiss him. It passed.

 

[Doug B]

so anyways, what are we going to do about larry?

I'm over it. I'm fine with him participating in MLB II. However, I'm prepared to be outvoted.