i think the reward of picking a good player late in the draft is that your fantasy baseball team will be helped greatly. this is enough of an incentive to do the research and work hard in the later rounds.
i would prefer the draft to be a thing of the past once the season starts, and i think one of the most fun things about our league is the active waiver wire. under the keeper-tied-to-round-drafted system, what would happen if i wanted to keep ryan howard this year? i'm not trying to make an argument against this system, i'm just trying to figure out where i stand based on issues like this one.
right now i'm leaning toward everyone keeping the same number of players and basically starting the draft at round three or four or two or whatever. if someone like andy wants to keep younger guys like liriano that's his perogative. i don't think his team will necessarily be worse off than a team that keeps guys like billy wagner. if you look through last year's first three rounds you'll find what ended up being many medicore players. fantasy performances are not as consistent from year to year as on might think. my first pick last year was carlos beltran who started over 100 games for me last year, completely shit the bed, and i still somehow came in 1st. maybe we could look at last year's draft spreadsheet to see who the consensus top 30 was.
p.s., andy, your three hypothetical keeper picks (liriano, duke, bay) were all on the final roster of the champion chocolate gazongas. those might have to be my first three picks next year.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
[supression of free spreech]
[...]
other things: while it may be nihilistic, my point is that with most keeper leagues the rules setup from the onset are usually set in stone going forward. i was not aware that we had the option for changing rules in the future, because that is a little anachronistic.
[...]
and i still dont really understand blogs. it wouldn't let me compose a mesasge from my apartment without going through hoops so comments was easier.
other things: while it may be nihilistic, my point is that with most keeper leagues the rules setup from the onset are usually set in stone going forward. i was not aware that we had the option for changing rules in the future, because that is a little anachronistic.
[...]
and i still dont really understand blogs. it wouldn't let me compose a mesasge from my apartment without going through hoops so comments was easier.
stop throwing bombs at the czar's carriage
Omar that first part of your post was positively nihilistic. look, if we agree to a ranking system, and then it turns out, in the future, that the people who made the ranking system go crazy and it starts to suck, we can pick a new ranking system the same way we picked the first one. worry less about small hypothetical problems two years in the future. anyway, i think the yahoo ranks just compile the guys in order of how many pts they score in your system, so how could it be wrong?
anyway, i hear what you're saying about losing the first three rounds of the draft completely, and it is a drawback to think that up to 30 of the "big names" will have no potential of moving. that's one thing i don't like about keepers, but at the same time, we could make trades all winter before the draft, using our old rosters (i'm going to say ex cathedra, to head off another crazy tangent debate, that all waiver-wire pickups stop cold with the end of the season, or whenever yahoo stops letting you do them) to get the guys we do want to keep.
the counterexample to your theory of weighted keepers limiting say, my crazy pickup and drops, is that i am still dumb and make crazy moves. and really, i think 90% of my league-leading # of moves involved roster spots #24 and #25 last year. i solemnly swear to continue being a crazed GM if we have keepers.
in re the Adrian Beltre scenario:
I think that's an perfect example of the strategy involved in keepers -- sometimes you just get lucky (for example, that year Javy Lopez hit 45 home runs). you have to decide using your brain whether or not post-tubercular, post-contract year Beltre is worth keeping around. the answer, as our dear commissioner discovered, was no bleeping way.
so, what we do know is that
A) we're having a draft. table all discussions of auctions until next year, when we can vote again
B) we're having some keepers, starting at the 2007 draft.
C) no need to talk about money. i know there is some difference of opinion on the money issue, i think we should just say, for now, that you don't have to pay to play. [...]
anyway, i hear what you're saying about losing the first three rounds of the draft completely, and it is a drawback to think that up to 30 of the "big names" will have no potential of moving. that's one thing i don't like about keepers, but at the same time, we could make trades all winter before the draft, using our old rosters (i'm going to say ex cathedra, to head off another crazy tangent debate, that all waiver-wire pickups stop cold with the end of the season, or whenever yahoo stops letting you do them) to get the guys we do want to keep.
the counterexample to your theory of weighted keepers limiting say, my crazy pickup and drops, is that i am still dumb and make crazy moves. and really, i think 90% of my league-leading # of moves involved roster spots #24 and #25 last year. i solemnly swear to continue being a crazed GM if we have keepers.
in re the Adrian Beltre scenario:
I think that's an perfect example of the strategy involved in keepers -- sometimes you just get lucky (for example, that year Javy Lopez hit 45 home runs). you have to decide using your brain whether or not post-tubercular, post-contract year Beltre is worth keeping around. the answer, as our dear commissioner discovered, was no bleeping way.
so, what we do know is that
A) we're having a draft. table all discussions of auctions until next year, when we can vote again
B) we're having some keepers, starting at the 2007 draft.
C) no need to talk about money. i know there is some difference of opinion on the money issue, i think we should just say, for now, that you don't have to pay to play. [...]
red herring
its not as much a red herring as something of a projected concern. yes, we can decide on the procedure now but in 2 years when we find out how stupid the yahoo/espn rankings are then everyone is going to be pissed. again, my issue is only what ben called "the arms race".
If we do the proposal whereas you only lose a player where he was picked, it will really limit the action that happens during the season. i like seeing pete pick up and drop players every morning and i'm worried that this change will stop that. also i still am in favor or some sort of cap. Because (baring injury) who is going to drop any player in the top 3 rounds? what is the first round of the draft going to be then? there will be a defacto skipping of the first three rounds in andy's plan as opposed to the actual skipping of the first three rounds in ben's case. the real difference then is that in ben's place the rest of the draft goes as normal but in andy's there are still keepers in subsequent rounds.
also what about a player who has one great year (that you want to keep) but you don't think his stats the prior year are equal to his supposed value the next year. think beltre from a few years ago. he had great numbers and would probably have been a top 10 stat player but nobody thought he was a top 25 player (how'd that one work out ben?). you would lose a first round pick when nobody would have drafted him until the 3rd-4th round. i know this doesn't happen all the time but these are the types of issues that come up and cause a row.
after crede's 2010 mvp season you are going to be begging to trade for him. just look at that upward swing, its a thing of beauty. that "i want to hit a homerun (fly-out) every time" swing. hes going to be the new tom imanski any time now.
If we do the proposal whereas you only lose a player where he was picked, it will really limit the action that happens during the season. i like seeing pete pick up and drop players every morning and i'm worried that this change will stop that. also i still am in favor or some sort of cap. Because (baring injury) who is going to drop any player in the top 3 rounds? what is the first round of the draft going to be then? there will be a defacto skipping of the first three rounds in andy's plan as opposed to the actual skipping of the first three rounds in ben's case. the real difference then is that in ben's place the rest of the draft goes as normal but in andy's there are still keepers in subsequent rounds.
also what about a player who has one great year (that you want to keep) but you don't think his stats the prior year are equal to his supposed value the next year. think beltre from a few years ago. he had great numbers and would probably have been a top 10 stat player but nobody thought he was a top 25 player (how'd that one work out ben?). you would lose a first round pick when nobody would have drafted him until the 3rd-4th round. i know this doesn't happen all the time but these are the types of issues that come up and cause a row.
after crede's 2010 mvp season you are going to be begging to trade for him. just look at that upward swing, its a thing of beauty. that "i want to hit a homerun (fly-out) every time" swing. hes going to be the new tom imanski any time now.
keepers
i tried to design what i think is essentially a compromise between andy and mo's positions into the voting - keeping a player implies loss of the pick used to draft that player initially. i think this idea, which currently has only my support, is great. it rewards a good draft. it also allows you to keep a young buck and only lose the late round draft pick you used for him - and therefore, the end of the draft actually becomes important, rather than a time for teasing ben about the number of twins and blue jays he drafted.
this is slightly more complicated than simply losing picks beginning in round 1 for each player keep. it also may over-reward a good draft, since you could lock in a good young player for cheap forever. but who cares? if this is seriously a long-term league, everyone will have a good cheap player or two within two seasons - and the first few rounds of the draft will continue to "feel" like they are supposed to, instead of omar leading off the 2011 draft with an aging joe crede.
finally, if the voting on number of keepers and keeper-draft relations do not result in a majority - a real possibility - should we have a run off between the top two? are there any other issues that need to be added?
this is slightly more complicated than simply losing picks beginning in round 1 for each player keep. it also may over-reward a good draft, since you could lock in a good young player for cheap forever. but who cares? if this is seriously a long-term league, everyone will have a good cheap player or two within two seasons - and the first few rounds of the draft will continue to "feel" like they are supposed to, instead of omar leading off the 2011 draft with an aging joe crede.
finally, if the voting on number of keepers and keeper-draft relations do not result in a majority - a real possibility - should we have a run off between the top two? are there any other issues that need to be added?
dudes you'd want to keep
it's not deep AA prospects, it's rookies/guys you think are going to break out. for example: i'd like to keep felix hernandez and john patterson pretty bad, but neither of those guys are early rounders, so that'd be stupid. or i'd really like to keep morneau this year, who is probably going to have a huge season. morcy, i don't follow you on the complexity - we're really only using last year's stats, and yahoo conveniently gives us those at the end of the year...
Monday, January 09, 2006
understand what you are voting for
man, fuck having a job that doesn't let me be on the internet. now everyone's voted.
i love democracy and everything, but i'm worried that people are voting to send the troops into iraq because they attacked us on 9/11. i understand the sexy simplicity of ben's idea, but it simply wouldn't work as advertised.
>Think that Francisco Liriano is the next Santana?
'cept the problem is that no one could ever keep a player like liriano, unless they were seriously uninterested in winning. it works like this:
crafty draft strategist (mike carter) sizes up his team. he gets to keep 3 guys for free. understanding that he's essentially just being asked to draft his #1, #2 and #3 round guy from a smaller pool, he correctly elects to pick the three best guys on his team from last year:
pujols, jake peavy, and billy wagner
guy who likes twins a lot (me or ben) picks his long term dudes:
liriano, zach duke and jason bay
result: mike carter's already sewn up the league, and the season hasn't even started.
bottom line: if the pick compensation system is 'just set them aside and start the draft', you're essentially starting the draft in the 4th round. so the ONLY guys you'd EVER get to keep in ben's world are round 1-3 guys. no one gets to keep any phillies infielders in this universe, at least not if they plan on winning. THAT SUCKS.
use a slightly more advanced pick compensation system (my proposal), and you could elect to keep either studs or mid-range guys. keep studs, you lose stud-round picks. keep mid-rangers, lose mid-range picks. simple as can be.
omar's objection (we'd argue about it too much) is a red herring: that's why we'd settle on a valuation system now. as to "does the universe collapse upon itself if someone tries to keep two guys that end the year valued #3"? i would imagine not. you would either have the person just give up their next highest or lowest pick.
how it would work again: at the end of the year, we'd have yahoo spit out the rank (according to our stats) of all the dudes in our league. divide that number by 10 (for 10 players per round) and you have the pick compensation number. only problem: guys that got hurt or entered mid-year (their stats being artificially low b/c of plate appearances). solution: we'd agree to something like, 'anyone who played in less than 75% of the season is valued according to the espn preseason rankings.'
i'll defer to the majority if that's actually what people want... but understand you voted for a system where you don't get to keep any of the players you like.
i love democracy and everything, but i'm worried that people are voting to send the troops into iraq because they attacked us on 9/11. i understand the sexy simplicity of ben's idea, but it simply wouldn't work as advertised.
>Think that Francisco Liriano is the next Santana?
'cept the problem is that no one could ever keep a player like liriano, unless they were seriously uninterested in winning. it works like this:
crafty draft strategist (mike carter) sizes up his team. he gets to keep 3 guys for free. understanding that he's essentially just being asked to draft his #1, #2 and #3 round guy from a smaller pool, he correctly elects to pick the three best guys on his team from last year:
pujols, jake peavy, and billy wagner
guy who likes twins a lot (me or ben) picks his long term dudes:
liriano, zach duke and jason bay
result: mike carter's already sewn up the league, and the season hasn't even started.
bottom line: if the pick compensation system is 'just set them aside and start the draft', you're essentially starting the draft in the 4th round. so the ONLY guys you'd EVER get to keep in ben's world are round 1-3 guys. no one gets to keep any phillies infielders in this universe, at least not if they plan on winning. THAT SUCKS.
use a slightly more advanced pick compensation system (my proposal), and you could elect to keep either studs or mid-range guys. keep studs, you lose stud-round picks. keep mid-rangers, lose mid-range picks. simple as can be.
omar's objection (we'd argue about it too much) is a red herring: that's why we'd settle on a valuation system now. as to "does the universe collapse upon itself if someone tries to keep two guys that end the year valued #3"? i would imagine not. you would either have the person just give up their next highest or lowest pick.
how it would work again: at the end of the year, we'd have yahoo spit out the rank (according to our stats) of all the dudes in our league. divide that number by 10 (for 10 players per round) and you have the pick compensation number. only problem: guys that got hurt or entered mid-year (their stats being artificially low b/c of plate appearances). solution: we'd agree to something like, 'anyone who played in less than 75% of the season is valued according to the espn preseason rankings.'
i'll defer to the majority if that's actually what people want... but understand you voted for a system where you don't get to keep any of the players you like.
That's what I'm talking about
Nice polls, Carter. I knew you'd come through.
Moacir, they way I see it, allowing an unlimited number of keepers is like a nuclear arms race designed to make life less fun. The more other people keep the more you'd feel compelled to keep until we all are holding on to half our teams. What incentive will people have to dump good players? Why would I risk losing someone who is reasonably good when I could just save them? The fact of the matter is NONE of the top players in the game are going to be available in the draft if we allow unlimited keepers. If we limit the number, strategy becomes more important and it limits people just getting lazy and holding on to half their team. The draft would become one slightly animated waver-wire session and then we'd all go home with blue balls.
Moacir, they way I see it, allowing an unlimited number of keepers is like a nuclear arms race designed to make life less fun. The more other people keep the more you'd feel compelled to keep until we all are holding on to half our teams. What incentive will people have to dump good players? Why would I risk losing someone who is reasonably good when I could just save them? The fact of the matter is NONE of the top players in the game are going to be available in the draft if we allow unlimited keepers. If we limit the number, strategy becomes more important and it limits people just getting lazy and holding on to half their team. The draft would become one slightly animated waver-wire session and then we'd all go home with blue balls.
voting
at the threat of wildly overstepping my authority, here are the issues as i see them... sorry my formatting sucks, if anyone can fix it, please do...
just to make sure the above is clear,
-option 2 implies that keeping three players means that you lose picks in rounds 1-3, 4 keepers = loss of picks 1-4, etc
-option 3 implies that if the keeper is in group 1-10 of yahoo (etc) player rankings, i lose first round pick, if in group 11-20 i lose second rounder, etc
-option 4 implies that if i draft brandon phillips in round 23 and he becomes the next furcal, i can keep phillips and give up my round 23 pick the next year
just to make sure the above is clear,
-option 2 implies that keeping three players means that you lose picks in rounds 1-3, 4 keepers = loss of picks 1-4, etc
-option 3 implies that if the keeper is in group 1-10 of yahoo (etc) player rankings, i lose first round pick, if in group 11-20 i lose second rounder, etc
-option 4 implies that if i draft brandon phillips in round 23 and he becomes the next furcal, i can keep phillips and give up my round 23 pick the next year
Why use comments?
(Seriously, this whole blog is one long comments driven conversation. Just log in and post.)
Pete's 100% correct. We need to either place a cap on the number of players each person can keep or come up with some fandangled new way of figuring out which draft picks you lose. Omar made an excellent point, however: if you choose to keep two third round players, then what do you lose? I think we should just cap the number you keep and then draft from there. Simple.
Don't forget, people, drafting is possibly the most fun part of the season. Why would we create a system where we drastically undermine the joy associated with the draft? Do we really want a draft where everyone keeps all the 1-5th rounders and we are only drafting bullshit?
So let's vote:
1. Auction or not? (nay)
2. Cap on the keepers? And if so, how many? (I say only 2 or 3)
We really need some sort of voting software. Can someone find that shit and put it to use here?
Pete's 100% correct. We need to either place a cap on the number of players each person can keep or come up with some fandangled new way of figuring out which draft picks you lose. Omar made an excellent point, however: if you choose to keep two third round players, then what do you lose? I think we should just cap the number you keep and then draft from there. Simple.
Don't forget, people, drafting is possibly the most fun part of the season. Why would we create a system where we drastically undermine the joy associated with the draft? Do we really want a draft where everyone keeps all the 1-5th rounders and we are only drafting bullshit?
So let's vote:
1. Auction or not? (nay)
2. Cap on the keepers? And if so, how many? (I say only 2 or 3)
We really need some sort of voting software. Can someone find that shit and put it to use here?
Do your science on this
Andy (and all),
Will someone please explain to me why the following, simple system (that I have been talking about for months) is a) not workable and b) why were are better served by a system that is much more complicated?
I see things going like this:
1. We draft as normal this year.
2. At some date to be determined (either right at the end of the season or right before the next draft) each GM effectively "holds" three players that will automatically begin on his team the following year. Just like an expansion draft.
3. We take those 30 players out of the draft (last I checked, 3 players x 10 teams = 30) and draft as usual.
4. The following year, we repeat. You can choose any player on your roster at the end of the year.
This would allow a number of different strategies to take place. Think that Francisco Liriano is the next Santana? Draft him higher than you should hoping for potential gains down the line. Think that hot new stud that the Cardinals brought up (hypothetically) at the end of the season is gonna be big? Pick him up down the stretch and hold him for next year, sacrificing one of your more established veterans. Thrilled that you have Vlad this year? You get him next year too! Pissed that Andy has had Manny for two years? Over pay for him in the form of a trade filled with prospects and hope that it works out for you. Really like Jason Bay, beyond any reasonable amount? Choose to keep him rather than risk losing him in a draft. Angry at Omar for only drafting evil players? Well, I guess this doesn't get around that, but you get my drift.
Also, with this system, people would be able to make OFF SEASON trades, adding drama to the time between October and April. Winter meetings, anyone?
I don't buy this argument put forth by Congressman Beatty that allowing GMs to hold on to a player indefinitely is a bad idea. Why not hold on to Pujols until he begins to suck? That's part of the fun, right? Knowing when to hold em and when to fold em, so to speak. Plus, this will only make blockbuster trades that much more enjoyable and important.
Listen, I think the main goal of this draft/league should be to keep all parties interested and competitive throughout the course of the season as well as year to year. Adding preseason rankings would only add fuel to the augments that we're sure to have anyway. And contracts would seriously deminish the likelihood that people make trades since they wouldn't want to take on a good player if he was in the last year of a contract and they knew he was going to reenter the draft in the following year. We already have a league filled with people unwilling to make trades during the year. Why limit this aspect of the game? It would also seriously complicate how the next draft works. If I trade Pete a guy I just got for a guy he drafted two years ago, does that mean that I lose him (and consequentially one of my keepers) at the end of the year? And does he then gain a keeper for a whole year? And if the contract becomes new year time it is traded, then what's the point of having trades. Am I wrong here?
Let's not complicate this more than it has to. Keepers is a fun idea because it rewards long term thinking but it shouldn't totally change the way the league is managed.
Will someone please explain to me why the following, simple system (that I have been talking about for months) is a) not workable and b) why were are better served by a system that is much more complicated?
I see things going like this:
1. We draft as normal this year.
2. At some date to be determined (either right at the end of the season or right before the next draft) each GM effectively "holds" three players that will automatically begin on his team the following year. Just like an expansion draft.
3. We take those 30 players out of the draft (last I checked, 3 players x 10 teams = 30) and draft as usual.
4. The following year, we repeat. You can choose any player on your roster at the end of the year.
This would allow a number of different strategies to take place. Think that Francisco Liriano is the next Santana? Draft him higher than you should hoping for potential gains down the line. Think that hot new stud that the Cardinals brought up (hypothetically) at the end of the season is gonna be big? Pick him up down the stretch and hold him for next year, sacrificing one of your more established veterans. Thrilled that you have Vlad this year? You get him next year too! Pissed that Andy has had Manny for two years? Over pay for him in the form of a trade filled with prospects and hope that it works out for you. Really like Jason Bay, beyond any reasonable amount? Choose to keep him rather than risk losing him in a draft. Angry at Omar for only drafting evil players? Well, I guess this doesn't get around that, but you get my drift.
Also, with this system, people would be able to make OFF SEASON trades, adding drama to the time between October and April. Winter meetings, anyone?
I don't buy this argument put forth by Congressman Beatty that allowing GMs to hold on to a player indefinitely is a bad idea. Why not hold on to Pujols until he begins to suck? That's part of the fun, right? Knowing when to hold em and when to fold em, so to speak. Plus, this will only make blockbuster trades that much more enjoyable and important.
Listen, I think the main goal of this draft/league should be to keep all parties interested and competitive throughout the course of the season as well as year to year. Adding preseason rankings would only add fuel to the augments that we're sure to have anyway. And contracts would seriously deminish the likelihood that people make trades since they wouldn't want to take on a good player if he was in the last year of a contract and they knew he was going to reenter the draft in the following year. We already have a league filled with people unwilling to make trades during the year. Why limit this aspect of the game? It would also seriously complicate how the next draft works. If I trade Pete a guy I just got for a guy he drafted two years ago, does that mean that I lose him (and consequentially one of my keepers) at the end of the year? And does he then gain a keeper for a whole year? And if the contract becomes new year time it is traded, then what's the point of having trades. Am I wrong here?
Let's not complicate this more than it has to. Keepers is a fun idea because it rewards long term thinking but it shouldn't totally change the way the league is managed.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
rules for keepers?
i think we almost had a quorum at moacir's place on saturday to make some fantasy decisions, but in light of all the drinking perhaps the blog is the way to go.
everyone seems down with the idea of keepers. the only questions seems to be how to balance b/t rewarding smart pickups and not destroying the fantasy economy.
suggestion: everyone gets a certain number of contracts (3? 2 1 years, and a 2 year?). you put your dudes under contract at the end of the season (or immediately before the draft, for maximum drama...). at the end of a contract period, the player has to go back into the general draft pool (meaning that no one can sit on grady sizemore for the next 6 years)
pick compensation would work like this: you could exercise your contracts on any of your players. you'd sacrifice one pick for each contract. value (round) of the pick would be judged by the value of the player. personally i'd suggest one of two ways: first (and i think best?), we'd print out a list of the value of all the true value of guys at the end of the season according to all our stats (through yahoo) and then divide that into rounds (1-10 first round, 11-20 second, etc.) if the guy you contracted was the overall 43rd best player, you lose your 4th round pick. advantages: rewards research/baseball prospectus science about breakout seasons, but doesn't lock mr sizemore as a 17th rounder in perpetuity (which would fuck everything up 4 years from now.) disadvantages (i'd argue these are minor): rookies who only played half a season (they'd be valued low) and guys that got hurt during the year (same).
or we could use one of the preseason rankings (ESPN?). disadvantage would be that it wouldn't reward you quite as much for picking up ryan howard a year before everyone realized he'd be good. thoughts?
everyone seems down with the idea of keepers. the only questions seems to be how to balance b/t rewarding smart pickups and not destroying the fantasy economy.
suggestion: everyone gets a certain number of contracts (3? 2 1 years, and a 2 year?). you put your dudes under contract at the end of the season (or immediately before the draft, for maximum drama...). at the end of a contract period, the player has to go back into the general draft pool (meaning that no one can sit on grady sizemore for the next 6 years)
pick compensation would work like this: you could exercise your contracts on any of your players. you'd sacrifice one pick for each contract. value (round) of the pick would be judged by the value of the player. personally i'd suggest one of two ways: first (and i think best?), we'd print out a list of the value of all the true value of guys at the end of the season according to all our stats (through yahoo) and then divide that into rounds (1-10 first round, 11-20 second, etc.) if the guy you contracted was the overall 43rd best player, you lose your 4th round pick. advantages: rewards research/baseball prospectus science about breakout seasons, but doesn't lock mr sizemore as a 17th rounder in perpetuity (which would fuck everything up 4 years from now.) disadvantages (i'd argue these are minor): rookies who only played half a season (they'd be valued low) and guys that got hurt during the year (same).
or we could use one of the preseason rankings (ESPN?). disadvantage would be that it wouldn't reward you quite as much for picking up ryan howard a year before everyone realized he'd be good. thoughts?
Saturday, January 07, 2006
auction
okay, i think you have explained how trades would work with an auction, but what about free agent/waiver pickups? how much does the hot july rookie cost? zero? how would that work for the subsequent year?
Friday, January 06, 2006
No keeping this year
I'll weigh in more later, but just so we're clear, we are NOT keeping players from last year's team this year. 1) That would be really unfair to someone who traded away stars at the end of the season and 2) we need a 10th man for this league.
That is all.
That is all.
comedy jokes
i like how all three Mike C's just identified themselves as "Mike." in this case i can tell it's carter (or is czaplicki) writing in the last post, but anyway, about what he says:
1. Auctions. There is a simple way to alleviate how auctions (and the subsequent 'salary cap') suffocate trades during the season: don't use the auction price for in-season transactions. so, even if someone paid $70 for jamie moyer, it doesn't matter until the next year when they try to keep jamie moyer, and then they lose $70 going into the auction -- this is one way of doing it. another way is to say auction values are only relevant during the specific auction. so even if you overpaid once for jamie moyer, you could bring him back next year. by the way, if we do the kind of keeper system being proposed (just keep a guy forever with no penalties) and an auction (with no ramificatiosn for the next season's auction), next year's auction is going to be ($&@#(&ing crucial to every subsequent year of fantasy baseball. like whoever gets pujols, a-rod, santana, etc, is going to have them FOREVER at no additional cost. so there is a serious incentive to just waste all your money on four studs, fill out the rest of your team with $1 players, and then just wait for the next year when you have pujols, a-rod, and santana plus a full budget to play with. which seems unfair, because that advantage would never go away. basically, auctions do make shit complicated. but there is a way to not have them crush trading activity during the season, which is to not make salary a consideration in trading (but it necessarily has to be if we do a keeper system). drafting would obliterate all need to worry abotu this because your value is just implicitly "where you get drafted.' like if you draft pujols and keep him, you lose your first round pick from last year. this is the kind of thing that could really reward someone for getting a sleeper. for instance, if you drafted david wright in the 10th round last year, you can keep him and just lose your 10th pick. (again, this is why it's important to keep only drafted [by someone, not necessarily you] players -- otherwise shit gets weird when someone gets to keep jhonny peralta but give up no picks as a result -- that person will then have gotten ahead of everone else, picked their full team before everyone else. it also solves the problem of superstars getting locked up forever. you can have pujols for his whole career, but you're never going to have a first round pick that isn't him. make sense? of course, if we do an auction, all that goes out the window and pujols' value becomes whatever ~$70 someone paid for him.
1. Auctions. There is a simple way to alleviate how auctions (and the subsequent 'salary cap') suffocate trades during the season: don't use the auction price for in-season transactions. so, even if someone paid $70 for jamie moyer, it doesn't matter until the next year when they try to keep jamie moyer, and then they lose $70 going into the auction -- this is one way of doing it. another way is to say auction values are only relevant during the specific auction. so even if you overpaid once for jamie moyer, you could bring him back next year. by the way, if we do the kind of keeper system being proposed (just keep a guy forever with no penalties) and an auction (with no ramificatiosn for the next season's auction), next year's auction is going to be ($&@#(&ing crucial to every subsequent year of fantasy baseball. like whoever gets pujols, a-rod, santana, etc, is going to have them FOREVER at no additional cost. so there is a serious incentive to just waste all your money on four studs, fill out the rest of your team with $1 players, and then just wait for the next year when you have pujols, a-rod, and santana plus a full budget to play with. which seems unfair, because that advantage would never go away. basically, auctions do make shit complicated. but there is a way to not have them crush trading activity during the season, which is to not make salary a consideration in trading (but it necessarily has to be if we do a keeper system). drafting would obliterate all need to worry abotu this because your value is just implicitly "where you get drafted.' like if you draft pujols and keep him, you lose your first round pick from last year. this is the kind of thing that could really reward someone for getting a sleeper. for instance, if you drafted david wright in the 10th round last year, you can keep him and just lose your 10th pick. (again, this is why it's important to keep only drafted [by someone, not necessarily you] players -- otherwise shit gets weird when someone gets to keep jhonny peralta but give up no picks as a result -- that person will then have gotten ahead of everone else, picked their full team before everyone else. it also solves the problem of superstars getting locked up forever. you can have pujols for his whole career, but you're never going to have a first round pick that isn't him. make sense? of course, if we do an auction, all that goes out the window and pujols' value becomes whatever ~$70 someone paid for him.
i have returned
without class, the internet loses all appeal. that said, classes are starting back up, and i think this blog is great.
if we are going to have keepers, do we get to keep anyone from last season? if so, i have heard of leagues in which keeping player X costs a team a draft pick in a certain round, while player Y (less than X) costs a draft pick in a later round. i am interested in this if anyone can explain it to me.
similarly, i did an auction draft once and it was fantastic. but, we had no player transactions during the season because they were too complicated. is there anyway around that problem? if not, i'd rather have a normal draft with in-season activity than an auction.
for stats, my platform remains unchanged. baseball prospectus and hardball times may explain how to win games in real life, but fantasy stats should be set up to allow different teams to win in different ways. if ben wants to win with speed, more power to him. i realize i am entering the game late, but here is my ideal 5X5...
hitting:
on base%
slugging%
home runs
steals
runs or hits
pitching:
Ks
era/ra
whip
wins
saves
i do not like negative stats at all. lets set up a voting system...
if we are going to have keepers, do we get to keep anyone from last season? if so, i have heard of leagues in which keeping player X costs a team a draft pick in a certain round, while player Y (less than X) costs a draft pick in a later round. i am interested in this if anyone can explain it to me.
similarly, i did an auction draft once and it was fantastic. but, we had no player transactions during the season because they were too complicated. is there anyway around that problem? if not, i'd rather have a normal draft with in-season activity than an auction.
for stats, my platform remains unchanged. baseball prospectus and hardball times may explain how to win games in real life, but fantasy stats should be set up to allow different teams to win in different ways. if ben wants to win with speed, more power to him. i realize i am entering the game late, but here is my ideal 5X5...
hitting:
on base%
slugging%
home runs
steals
runs or hits
pitching:
Ks
era/ra
whip
wins
saves
i do not like negative stats at all. lets set up a voting system...
Stats Redux
I'm just gonna go ahead and build off of Pete's post again:
"we will have pretty much the same league, except i will suck less because i will pay attention and prepare and not have two drafts on one day."
This seems like it might be on the whole good for the league but not so good for me trying to not finish in last again.
"can we just not do the classic 5x5? some kind of modified 5x5. we should at least use this system for voting or something."
This seems to be something everyone is in favor of. Or, at least I am. But can I make a plea to used a modification without "stupid" stats? I guess this doesn't get us anywhere at all. I like Omar's idea of having some sort of voting booth on this site. Everyone votes for their top 5 stats and then we work from there. Someone get on that.
"keepers/contracts, with caveats. i think contracts makes more sense than keepers, unless we do a ceiling on how many years you can "keep" the same guy. like, for instance, i don't want whoever drafts Felix Hernandez this year to just have him for his entire career. that sort of defeats fantasy baseball, or at least makes it more like real, reserve-clause era baseball."
Although isn't that part of the fun of having a keeper league? Getting rookies and then watching them produce for you year after year, tank occasionally and make you consider trading them? I'd much rather that this resembled the gave before free agents, when owners could buy and sell players like cattle. I mean, isn't that the whole idea of fantasy baseball anyway? I would be in favor of entertaining the possibility that players kept must a) be drafted or b) be traded. Although that sort of limits the fun of a Ryan Howard style pickup. Not to sound all fantasy-baseball-libertarian here, but shouldn't we allow people to construct their teams as they choose? It seems to me that if we place a limit on the number of players chosen to be kept, things will work out fine.
"also, if we have keepers, we should probably stop having a random draft order and just have it go in reverse order of finish. we can't do that this year, since there are not keepers yet, but you see what i mean."
Yeah, beginning next year let's draft in reverse order to the winning season (if we don't do an auction).
"this all ties into another hobby horse of mine, which is an auction. an auction will take at least four hours from start to finish, though, which might disqualify it automatically."
I'd be willing to give this a try, although I have a feeling some people (namely me) are going to get completely fucked over. But that's part of the game too, I suppose.
What do other people think? Carter? Moacir? What the hell have you been doing that's so important that you can't jump into the fray?
"we will have pretty much the same league, except i will suck less because i will pay attention and prepare and not have two drafts on one day."
This seems like it might be on the whole good for the league but not so good for me trying to not finish in last again.
"can we just not do the classic 5x5? some kind of modified 5x5. we should at least use this system for voting or something."
This seems to be something everyone is in favor of. Or, at least I am. But can I make a plea to used a modification without "stupid" stats? I guess this doesn't get us anywhere at all. I like Omar's idea of having some sort of voting booth on this site. Everyone votes for their top 5 stats and then we work from there. Someone get on that.
"keepers/contracts, with caveats. i think contracts makes more sense than keepers, unless we do a ceiling on how many years you can "keep" the same guy. like, for instance, i don't want whoever drafts Felix Hernandez this year to just have him for his entire career. that sort of defeats fantasy baseball, or at least makes it more like real, reserve-clause era baseball."
Although isn't that part of the fun of having a keeper league? Getting rookies and then watching them produce for you year after year, tank occasionally and make you consider trading them? I'd much rather that this resembled the gave before free agents, when owners could buy and sell players like cattle. I mean, isn't that the whole idea of fantasy baseball anyway? I would be in favor of entertaining the possibility that players kept must a) be drafted or b) be traded. Although that sort of limits the fun of a Ryan Howard style pickup. Not to sound all fantasy-baseball-libertarian here, but shouldn't we allow people to construct their teams as they choose? It seems to me that if we place a limit on the number of players chosen to be kept, things will work out fine.
"also, if we have keepers, we should probably stop having a random draft order and just have it go in reverse order of finish. we can't do that this year, since there are not keepers yet, but you see what i mean."
Yeah, beginning next year let's draft in reverse order to the winning season (if we don't do an auction).
"this all ties into another hobby horse of mine, which is an auction. an auction will take at least four hours from start to finish, though, which might disqualify it automatically."
I'd be willing to give this a try, although I have a feeling some people (namely me) are going to get completely fucked over. But that's part of the game too, I suppose.
What do other people think? Carter? Moacir? What the hell have you been doing that's so important that you can't jump into the fray?
in my lonely room
So, we never really got anywhere with figuring anything out here.
some general predictions:
we will have pretty much the same league, except i will suck less because i will pay attention and prepare and not have two drafts on one day.
can we just not do the classic 5x5? some kind of modified 5x5. we should at least use this system for voting or something.
things i am in favor of:
1. keepers/contracts, with caveats. i think contracts makes more sense than keepers, unless we do a ceiling on how many years you can "keep" the same guy. like, for instance, i don't want whoever drafts Felix Hernandez this year to just have him for his entire career. that sort of defeats fantasy baseball, or at least makes it more like real, reserve-clause era baseball.
some possibilities: every team gets n number of contracts, say 3 or 4. maybe give them a two-year contract and two one-year contracts, or whatever combination. there's no point having three year contracts, because well, see my note on 1. you can trade guys, and the attached contracts, for people without contracts, in a given year. although this is an incitement to tank in certain situations (trade all your good players for three or four good young guys that people contracted). the way to deal with this is that maybe last place loses a contract. also, if we have keepers, we should probably stop having a random draft order and just have it go in reverse order of finish. we can't do that this year, since there are not keepers yet, but you see what i mean.
or, conversely, you can just keep three guys but you can only keep a certain guy two years (for a total of three years consecutive on your team). i also think you should only be able to "keep" guys you drafted, since otherwise people get rewarded in excess for just being waiver wire hawks, although hard work is a talent too.
what i am going to say about everything is that i am in favor of finding the exact point at which fantasy baseball becomes so complicated that it starts to resemble work, and have the league exist in and around that point.
this all ties into another hobby horse of mine, which is an auction. an auction will take at least four hours from start to finish, though, which might disqualify it automatically.
predictions for 2006, not specifically related to fantasy sports:
1. kanye west will run for congress
2. pittsburgh pirates make surprising run for pennant in tribute to the '97 pirates, joe randa may not live to see it
3. blue jays win the world series with 18 third baseman on their roster
some general predictions:
we will have pretty much the same league, except i will suck less because i will pay attention and prepare and not have two drafts on one day.
can we just not do the classic 5x5? some kind of modified 5x5. we should at least use this system for voting or something.
things i am in favor of:
1. keepers/contracts, with caveats. i think contracts makes more sense than keepers, unless we do a ceiling on how many years you can "keep" the same guy. like, for instance, i don't want whoever drafts Felix Hernandez this year to just have him for his entire career. that sort of defeats fantasy baseball, or at least makes it more like real, reserve-clause era baseball.
some possibilities: every team gets n number of contracts, say 3 or 4. maybe give them a two-year contract and two one-year contracts, or whatever combination. there's no point having three year contracts, because well, see my note on 1. you can trade guys, and the attached contracts, for people without contracts, in a given year. although this is an incitement to tank in certain situations (trade all your good players for three or four good young guys that people contracted). the way to deal with this is that maybe last place loses a contract. also, if we have keepers, we should probably stop having a random draft order and just have it go in reverse order of finish. we can't do that this year, since there are not keepers yet, but you see what i mean.
or, conversely, you can just keep three guys but you can only keep a certain guy two years (for a total of three years consecutive on your team). i also think you should only be able to "keep" guys you drafted, since otherwise people get rewarded in excess for just being waiver wire hawks, although hard work is a talent too.
what i am going to say about everything is that i am in favor of finding the exact point at which fantasy baseball becomes so complicated that it starts to resemble work, and have the league exist in and around that point.
this all ties into another hobby horse of mine, which is an auction. an auction will take at least four hours from start to finish, though, which might disqualify it automatically.
predictions for 2006, not specifically related to fantasy sports:
1. kanye west will run for congress
2. pittsburgh pirates make surprising run for pennant in tribute to the '97 pirates, joe randa may not live to see it
3. blue jays win the world series with 18 third baseman on their roster
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
end times
summary: write a summary about the story.
I thiNk The Story is about a whales That Have NO Theeth.
did you like the book? why or why not?
I DO Not like The Book Because it is to long.
main characters:
1. whales
2.
3.
4.
tommy byrne '49 no hit pete in my final game. he was one walk shy of a perfect game. strong finish for the newark peppers.
i'm willing to chip in my $13 for fantasy fantasy baseball. do we have enough?
I thiNk The Story is about a whales That Have NO Theeth.
did you like the book? why or why not?
I DO Not like The Book Because it is to long.
main characters:
1. whales
2.
3.
4.
tommy byrne '49 no hit pete in my final game. he was one walk shy of a perfect game. strong finish for the newark peppers.
i'm willing to chip in my $13 for fantasy fantasy baseball. do we have enough?
Monday, January 02, 2006
Other Fools?
Have Carter, Czap and Moacir not been invited to this blog? It was my understanding that this would be used to set up next year's fantasy league, not just for the whatif leauge. I miss Moacir's rants already.
Holy fuck, it's hailing like a bitch outside. Do not go outside.
Holy fuck, it's hailing like a bitch outside. Do not go outside.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)