*OFFICIAL* Thread: WIS X and the Cluster of Sim (2 Viewers)

[Notorious T.R.E.]

I vote for 5-7 consecutive seasons rather than cherry picking the best seasons. I think it will add more excitement to the draft because you have a chance to draft a player who could bust just like real life.

For consecutive:ianfitzykoyaFor cherry picking:

 

[Kraft...]

What if a team gets screwed on the rolling multiple times? Seems like a waste of time if you pick great players and wind up with all sucky seasons and then have no chance to compete

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

This is who eephus has on the first page...plus, I've added names that have expressed interest.Confirmed in:1. Frosticillis2. Marble Rye3. WidBill834. Doctor Detroit5. Greco6. Spartans7. Eephus8. Koya9. Doug B.10. Tremendous Upside11. Super Nintendo Chalmers12. TRE13. ianfitzy14. LB4415. Mr. Phoenix16. The Gator17. KraftPresumed In:SammyShake ZulaWockenfussInterested?Save FerrisHorvyLooks like we need to get about 8 more teams.I think we should start to nail down the rules. It sounds like there are a couple of versions of the dice roll WIS floating about. Input from the veterans committee would be appreciated.

updated to add Kraftmatic Adjustable

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

What if a team gets screwed on the rolling multiple times? Seems like a waste of time if you pick great players and wind up with all sucky seasons and wind up with no chance to compete

Is that a vote for cherry picking, Capt Whinyface?

 

[Kraft...]

What if a team gets screwed on the rolling multiple times? Seems like a waste of time if you pick great players and wind up with all sucky seasons and wind up with no chance to compete

Is that a vote for cherry picking, Capt Whinyface?

I'd prefer not to roll at all but if we do than I'd vote cherry picking.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Oh, we're rolling unless the majority wants to shoot it down. Sounds like most are amenable to it:

For consecutive:

ianfitzy

koya

For cherry picking:

kraft

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

kraft, i'm in chat by myself if you'd like to join...

 

[Koya]

What if a team gets screwed on the rolling multiple times? Seems like a waste of time if you pick great players and wind up with all sucky seasons and wind up with no chance to compete

Is that a vote for cherry picking, Capt Whinyface?

Quitterboy calling out Whinyface.Quinedown!

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

What if a team gets screwed on the rolling multiple times? Seems like a waste of time if you pick great players and wind up with all sucky seasons and wind up with no chance to compete

Is that a vote for cherry picking, Capt Whinyface?

Quitterboy calling out Whinyface.Quinedown!

That draft is a mess. You know it and I know it. Why spend all of this time to say you, Doug and Horvy have the best teams.

 

[Koya]

What if a team gets screwed on the rolling multiple times? Seems like a waste of time if you pick great players and wind up with all sucky seasons and wind up with no chance to compete

Is that a vote for cherry picking, Capt Whinyface?

Quitterboy calling out Whinyface.Quinedown!

That draft is a mess. You know it and I know it. Why spend all of this time to say you, Doug and Horvy have the best teams.

iValidation? Larry Boy shtick?Lots of reasons. Roll with it.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

What if a team gets screwed on the rolling multiple times? Seems like a waste of time if you pick great players and wind up with all sucky seasons and wind up with no chance to compete

Is that a vote for cherry picking, Capt Whinyface?

Quitterboy calling out Whinyface.Quinedown!

That draft is a mess. You know it and I know it. Why spend all of this time to say you, Doug and Horvy have the best teams.

iValidation? Larry Boy shtick?Lots of reasons. Roll with it.

Oh - I'll watch, but I don't need to judge.

 

[Eephus]

What if a team gets screwed on the rolling multiple times? Seems like a waste of time if you pick great players and wind up with all sucky seasons and then have no chance to compete

That's why I proposed running through the entire draft, then have a single dice roll to determine which players on each team would use their best, second best, third best, etc. seasons. This system would incorporate the random element while preventing any team from getting a huge advantage from lucky rolling. Everyone would end up with an equal number of best seasons and worst seasons to work with.I'm concerned that dice rolls could become more important than good drafting using either the cherry picking or consecutive seasons approach. But if it's either or, put me down for cherry picking. Consecutive seasons raises the possibility of getting stuck with a useless low AB or IP season.

 

[Eephus]

I'll update the OP later today

 

[Kraft...]

What if a team gets screwed on the rolling multiple times? Seems like a waste of time if you pick great players and wind up with all sucky seasons and then have no chance to compete

That's why I proposed running through the entire draft, then have a single dice roll to determine which players on each team would use their best, second best, third best, etc. seasons. This system would incorporate the random element while preventing any team from getting a huge advantage from lucky rolling. Everyone would end up with an equal number of best seasons and worst seasons to work with.I'm concerned that dice rolls could become more important than good drafting using either the cherry picking or consecutive seasons approach. But if it's either or, put me down for cherry picking. Consecutive seasons raises the possibility of getting stuck with a useless low AB or IP season.

Ahhhh, someone gets it Why are we so anti salary cap? That seems like a more interesting solution to shake things up a little. We've only done one capped league in the previous nine I believe.

 

[Eephus]

What if a team gets screwed on the rolling multiple times? Seems like a waste of time if you pick great players and wind up with all sucky seasons and then have no chance to compete

That's why I proposed running through the entire draft, then have a single dice roll to determine which players on each team would use their best, second best, third best, etc. seasons. This system would incorporate the random element while preventing any team from getting a huge advantage from lucky rolling. Everyone would end up with an equal number of best seasons and worst seasons to work with.I'm concerned that dice rolls could become more important than good drafting using either the cherry picking or consecutive seasons approach. But if it's either or, put me down for cherry picking. Consecutive seasons raises the possibility of getting stuck with a useless low AB or IP season.

Ahhhh, someone gets it Why are we so anti salary cap? That seems like a more interesting solution to shake things up a little. We've only done one capped league in the previous nine I believe.

The capped season had a number of problems: the last third of the draft was choosing cheap low AB/IP guys, the $20K mopup pitchers had a Radatz effect on all league stats, and there was little to no roster flexibility during the season. I don't think it's possible to combine the random rolls with a cap.

 

[Eephus]

I rolled for the ten picks from that other draft starting at #100, and ranked seasons based solely on WIS salary. The dice roll is in parentheses below, along with season and a few stats.

7.04 Ozzie Smith, SS (3) 1985 - 615 PA, 103 OPS+

7.05 Fergie Jenkins, P (3) 1968 - 308 IP, 1.04 WHIP, 113 ERA+

7.06 Nomar Garciaparra, SS (1) 2000 - 599 PA, 130 OPS+

7.07 Pie Traynor, 3B (2), 1925 - 697 PA, 117 OPS+

7.08 Craig Biggio, 2B (5), 1993 - 749 PA, 109 OPS+

7.09 Jim Thome, DH (3), 2001 - 644 PA, 137 OPS+

7.10 Gaylord Perry, P (6), 1970 - 326 IP, 1.14 WHIP, 127 ERA+

7.11 Dazzy Vance, P (5), 1930 - 273 IP, 1.14 WHIP, 190 ERA+

7.12 Catfish Hunter, P (1), 1972 - 309 IP, 0.91 WHIP, 150 ERA+

7.13 Ralph Kiner, LF (4) 1950 - 712 PA, 135 OPS+

Big winners: Nomar, there's a big dropoff from his career year to his sixth best. Hunter's #1 year is OK if you can stand the HRs, if his roll was 4-6, he'd be a mopup quality pitcher.

Big loser: Kiner had three huge seasons, this one is merely large. Perry's value takes a big hit with his dice roll. Vance's season has a .250 OAV although he's probably still useable.

It's too small of a sample to read much into this. This group consists of guys with long successful careers so in most cases, their "worst" year is still useable. The randomization will really hit the value of single freak season guys, which probably isn't a bad thing.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think we should cherry-pick...

doing consecutive seasons screws up another thing we haven't though of either and that's position usage...

What happens if you draft a guy like Robin Yount who played a lot of years at 2 positions and you need him to play a specific one... If you can cherry pick, you can get him there. If you have to use a stretch, it would be harder. (yes, Yount is a bad example because he switched midway through his career, but you all get what I'm getting at)

 

[Koya]

I rolled for the ten picks from that other draft starting at #100, and ranked seasons based solely on WIS salary. The dice roll is in parentheses below, along with season and a few stats.7.04 Ozzie Smith, SS (3) 1985 - 615 PA, 103 OPS+7.05 Fergie Jenkins, P (3) 1968 - 308 IP, 1.04 WHIP, 113 ERA+7.06 Nomar Garciaparra, SS (1) 2000 - 599 PA, 130 OPS+7.07 Pie Traynor, 3B (2), 1925 - 697 PA, 117 OPS+7.08 Craig Biggio, 2B (5), 1993 - 749 PA, 109 OPS+7.09 Jim Thome, DH (3), 2001 - 644 PA, 137 OPS+7.10 Gaylord Perry, P (6), 1970 - 326 IP, 1.14 WHIP, 127 ERA+7.11 Dazzy Vance, P (5), 1930 - 273 IP, 1.14 WHIP, 190 ERA+7.12 Catfish Hunter, P (1), 1972 - 309 IP, 0.91 WHIP, 150 ERA+7.13 Ralph Kiner, LF (4) 1950 - 712 PA, 135 OPS+Big winners: Nomar, there's a big dropoff from his career year to his sixth best. Hunter's #1 year is OK if you can stand the HRs, if his roll was 4-6, he'd be a mopup quality pitcher.Big loser: Kiner had three huge seasons, this one is merely large. Perry's value takes a big hit with his dice roll. Vance's season has a .250 OAV although he's probably still useable.It's too small of a sample to read much into this. This group consists of guys with long successful careers so in most cases, their "worst" year is still useable. The randomization will really hit the value of single freak season guys, which probably isn't a bad thing.

The thing with a pick like Kiner is even though you get an unlucky role, you still have a very viable season. In baseball, some places in the lineup have a guys career year, some have an average year, some below average. In every sim we've done to date, you are mostly talking about a great season at every lineup position. Hardly realistic.

 

[ianfitzy]

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.

 

[Koya]

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.

advertise away.

 

[Eephus]

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.

 

[Koya]

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.

 

[SoCalBroncoFan]

I thought I already said I was in?

 

[Eephus]

I thought I already said I was in?

duly noted

 

[Spartans Rule]

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.

 

[Eephus]

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.

 

[Greco]

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.

 

[MrPhoenix]

I'm so confused.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

THIS IS GONNA BE GREAT!

Did I miss anyone?

For consecutive:

ianfitzy

koya

For cherry picking:

kraft

eephus

LB

spartans

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

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?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

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.

 

[Koya]

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?

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

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?

 

[Eephus]

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.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

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?

 

[Sammy3469]

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

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

 

[Eephus]

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

I'll take that as an IN

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

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

I'll take that as an IN

GB SAMMY

 

[Doug B]

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

 

[Eephus]

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.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

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.

 

[Sammy3469]

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 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

 

[Sammy3469]

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

 

[Super Nintendo Chalmers]

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.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

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!).

 

[Doug B]

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.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

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

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

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?

 

[Eephus]

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.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

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.