BASEBALL ALL-TIME DRAFT: Discussion Thread (PLEASE LOCK)

[Dexter Morgan]

You know what I think would be better/more fair?

We get through the draft with the picks the way they are, and then, once it's over, people can add/drop.

that's fine.

And also we have some sort of "Rule 5" draft with the players from the defunct teams.

forget about those players.

[KDubK414]

You know what I think would be better/more fair?

We get through the draft with the picks the way they are, and then, once it's over, people can add/drop.

that's fine.

And also we have some sort of "Rule 5" draft with the players from the defunct teams.

forget about those players.

Alright. It was just a thought that I had and wanted to share.

[oddball]

I have an idea. How about we turn to the CCSLC to vote on who has the best team. We keep that poll open for however we want and the results determines the draft order from the defunct teams. Just and idea.

I've said it all along, why doesn't someone put these into a game such as MLB 11 the show or whatever and sim out 10 seasons so we find out who's the best? Why let random people choose who the best is? Let's settle it with our teams playing each other! Or are you too scared that my team will finish ahead of your team?

[Jahgee]

I have an idea. How about we turn to the CCSLC to vote on who has the best team. We keep that poll open for however we want and the results determines the draft order from the defunct teams. Just and idea.

I've said it all along, why doesn't someone put these into a game such as MLB 11 the show or whatever and sim out 10 seasons so we find out who's the best? Why let random people choose who the best is? Let's settle it with our teams playing each other! Or are you too scared that my team will finish ahead of your team?

If you can make 312 realistic unbiased CAPS, go right ahead, and here are some tools to help you

RATINGS Calculator for Field Players

[pmoehrin]

I have an idea. How about we turn to the CCSLC to vote on who has the best team. We keep that poll open for however we want and the results determines the draft order from the defunct teams. Just and idea.

I've said it all along, why doesn't someone put these into a game such as MLB 11 the show or whatever and sim out 10 seasons so we find out who's the best? Why let random people choose who the best is? Let's settle it with our teams playing each other! Or are you too scared that my team will finish ahead of your team?

Ok, who does the ratings? No neutral party is taking the time to do this.

I'd also have alot of the same questions with the WhatIf thing as I would with that mainly how do you fairly account for guys that put up their numbers through a large 15+ year body of work in which they were very good, versus somebody who put up six or seven great seasons and then feel off?

I don't think you can properly account for a whole career of work by rating him in the way video games do. Someone like Juan Marichal was a dominating pitcher for his career, but his career is also only effectively 12 years long. Compare that to someone like Tom Glavine who I don't think was ever a truly dominanting pitcher save for maybe his '91 season, but played for 22 years being for the most part in that tier right below the dominanting starting pitchers in the game.

I view both guys as having roughly equal careers in terms of overall quality (I'll give the slight edge to Glavine but its very close), even though Marichal without question was the more dominanting pitcher on average for his career. How do you account for that in a video game? I'm not sure if you can. And if you do then you have to be consistent across the board. If we just a straight up Marichal is better because he was the more dominanting pitcher then Dizzy Trout would become a very viable option to have under the same criteria. If Dizzy Trout isn't then whoever's doing the ratings I feel is contradicting themselves.

[Jahgee]

Good Pick tNak, was going to pick him next round

[oddball]

I have an idea. How about we turn to the CCSLC to vote on who has the best team. We keep that poll open for however we want and the results determines the draft order from the defunct teams. Just and idea.

I've said it all along, why doesn't someone put these into a game such as MLB 11 the show or whatever and sim out 10 seasons so we find out who's the best? Why let random people choose who the best is? Let's settle it with our teams playing each other! Or are you too scared that my team will finish ahead of your team?

Ok, who does the ratings? No neutral party is taking the time to do this.

I'd also have alot of the same questions with the WhatIf thing as I would with that mainly how do you fairly account for guys that put up their numbers through a large 15+ year body of work in which they were very good, versus somebody who put up six or seven great seasons and then feel off?

I don't think you can properly account for a whole career of work by rating him in the way video games do. Someone like Juan Marichal was a dominating pitcher for his career, but his career is also only effectively 12 years long. Compare that to someone like Tom Glavine who I don't think was ever a truly dominanting pitcher save for maybe his '91 season, but played for 22 years being for the most part in that tier right below the dominanting starting pitchers in the game.

I view both guys as having roughly equal careers in terms of overall quality (I'll give the slight edge to Glavine but its very close), even though Marichal without question was the more dominanting pitcher on average for his career. How do you account for that in a video game? I'm not sure if you can. And if you do then you have to be consistent across the board. If we just a straight up Marichal is better because he was the more dominanting pitcher then Dizzy Trout would become a very viable option to have under the same criteria. If Dizzy Trout isn't then whoever's doing the ratings I feel is contradicting themselves.

I would do it, but #1 the only game I have is High Heat... whatever year... I think 2003. *lol* Throw in the fact that I have various other projects that I prefer doing (painting up my favorite paint schemes over the years for the current Cup mod in Nascar Racing 2003, starting to do research on my Ultimate Hockey League with friends so that it doesn't take 3 weeks to do, and other projects and things). If I was younger and had no life, I'd do it. I just have a life now. Whichever way you rate people, no one will be happy. You could take their best years and give that a value, take their longevity and give that a value, and work it from there. The whole point of doing this is not to see players over their entire career, but in their best years. That's what we're really picking, the best years. It's not like anyone when drafting Randy Johnson they are drafting his first few wild years or his last few injury-plagued years, you're drafting him in his prime. To me you take the prime years and use those as a basis. We're drafting ball players in their prime. If you were drafting longevity, then Jim Kaat would've been one of the first pitchers taken.

[pmoehrin]

I have an idea. How about we turn to the CCSLC to vote on who has the best team. We keep that poll open for however we want and the results determines the draft order from the defunct teams. Just and idea.

I've said it all along, why doesn't someone put these into a game such as MLB 11 the show or whatever and sim out 10 seasons so we find out who's the best? Why let random people choose who the best is? Let's settle it with our teams playing each other! Or are you too scared that my team will finish ahead of your team?

Ok, who does the ratings? No neutral party is taking the time to do this.

I'd also have alot of the same questions with the WhatIf thing as I would with that mainly how do you fairly account for guys that put up their numbers through a large 15+ year body of work in which they were very good, versus somebody who put up six or seven great seasons and then feel off?

I don't think you can properly account for a whole career of work by rating him in the way video games do. Someone like Juan Marichal was a dominating pitcher for his career, but his career is also only effectively 12 years long. Compare that to someone like Tom Glavine who I don't think was ever a truly dominanting pitcher save for maybe his '91 season, but played for 22 years being for the most part in that tier right below the dominanting starting pitchers in the game.

I view both guys as having roughly equal careers in terms of overall quality (I'll give the slight edge to Glavine but its very close), even though Marichal without question was the more dominanting pitcher on average for his career. How do you account for that in a video game? I'm not sure if you can. And if you do then you have to be consistent across the board. If we just a straight up Marichal is better because he was the more dominanting pitcher then Dizzy Trout would become a very viable option to have under the same criteria. If Dizzy Trout isn't then whoever's doing the ratings I feel is contradicting themselves.

I would do it, but #1 the only game I have is High Heat... whatever year... I think 2003. *lol* Throw in the fact that I have various other projects that I prefer doing (painting up my favorite paint schemes over the years for the current Cup mod in Nascar Racing 2003, starting to do research on my Ultimate Hockey League with friends so that it doesn't take 3 weeks to do, and other projects and things). If I was younger and had no life, I'd do it. I just have a life now. Whichever way you rate people, no one will be happy. You could take their best years and give that a value, take their longevity and give that a value, and work it from there. The whole point of doing this is not to see players over their entire career, but in their best years. That's what we're really picking, the best years. It's not like anyone when drafting Randy Johnson they are drafting his first few wild years or his last few injury-plagued years, you're drafting him in his prime. To me you take the prime years and use those as a basis. We're drafting ball players in their prime. If you were drafting longevity, then Jim Kaat would've been one of the first pitchers taken.

I think the best way to be fair is to look at both sides. The career and the yearly dominance factor. If you look only at one you'll miss the other. I think a video game only looks at the dominance factor and it doesen't account for career value which has to be taken into consideration when rating guys all-time.

J.R. Richard has to be considered one of the most dominating pitchers of all-time at his peak. I don't think anyone thinks he's a better pitcher all-time then Tom Glavine. Yet if you have to decide between J.R. Richard or Tom Glavine both guys at their peak and its a one game scenairo, most people would want Richard on their team.

If you want to do a video game best guys then, its no longer an all-time draft, its almost an all-time single season draft which isn't the same and I wouldn't approach the draft same way if it was because now we're almost throwing out career numbers completely and we have something totally different now. Guys like Chuck Klein explode in value. Others like Carlton Fisk lose nearly all value. I think Carlton Fisk is a HOF, but right off the top of my head I can name 20 guys who were way more dominanting at their peak then Carlton Fisk. Bench, Berra, Campanella, Dickey, Torre, Mauer, Cochrane, Johnny Kline, Ivan Rodriguez, Chief Meyers, Piazza, Hartnett, Elston Howard, Walker Cooper, Bill Freehan, Gary Carter, Javy Lopez, Paul LoDuca, Ted Simmons, Darren Daulton.

Do I think all of these guys are better then Fisk, certainly not. Guys like LoDuca, Daulton, Johnny Kline I don't think are really even close. But if were just looking at what they did at their peaks, yes these guys are better. And that's my point about dialing in on only one side of the equation. You can miss out on someone that was a damn good catcher for 24 years.

You need the other side as well though. Just because someone played 20+ years doesen't make him a HOFer. Guys like Tim Wakefield and Jaime Moyer shouldn't be in the Hall. I don't think Jim Kaat should be in either. I also would not have taken someone like Bob Lemon if years pitched was all I cared about.

[oddball]

Jim Kaat is very comparable to Tom Glavine, just a few less wins. Now if you say that Glavine isn't a Hall of Famer, that's fine. I think both of them are boarderline Hall of Famers. Maybe video games take one season into account over a career, but really if we put it up to a vote, then it's just the same, just leaving it up to people out there to factor in what they think is important and who's got the best team. Either way it's just an opinion. Personally, I'd like to see what Hank Aaron would do against Cy Young in game and not let someone sit there and tell me who's got the best team. If I want to know that I'd just go ask ESPN or Peter Gammons, just another opinion. I like the fun side of it.

[YessSir32]

I would take the time to do it. I have MLB The Show 11 and I would be willing to sim a some seasons. Of course, I don't have wireless internet, but I can always edit the names of current players and change ratings. For deciding the ratings, I say we base it off of their prime during their careers.

[pmoehrin]

Jim Kaat is very comparable to Tom Glavine, just a few less wins.

A few less by a straight compairison, but looking at the era's Tom Glavine won alot more games relative to what Jim Kaat won.

Jim Kaat's top ten in wins seven times, leads the league once. Tom Glavine is top ten 11 times and leads the league in wins four times.

We'll do other stats as well.

Innings pitched Kaat is top ten six times. Glavine is top ten 12 times.

ERA top ten is 8 for Glavine, 3 for Kaat.

Kaat has better control and is a far better fielder then Glavine I'll give him that. But relative to what was going in baseball at the time, Glavine was a better endurance pitcher who gave up less runs.

Glavine's career ERA is also 3.54 Kaat's is 3.45 Glavine is pitching right in the teeth of the steroid era, Kaat is in the golden age of the pitcher.

I think Glavine is a much better pitcher and I don't see it being that close.

[YessSir32]

Was Jose Valverde a good pick? I'm at a loss for relief pitchers, so I went with a closer. He is 30 for 30 this year and has like 40 straight saves, so his upside looks pretty good.

[mania]

https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuvVHGI3EzFmdERqZVN3bWdiOHpkcFhMV1hCaWVyTmc&hl=en_US

Updated.

[KDubK414]

You've got Don Newcombe in my slot on the team page. He should be in the Dexter Yankees one just above me. Honest mistake, just lettin' ya know.

[mania]

That I did... and I accidentally skipped you. So it should be you on the clock, not Scotty. Make a pick before he realizes it

[KDubK414]

Sounds good I am heading to the war room right now.

[Dexter Morgan]

get to make my last pick myself. very nice.

[mania]

Assuming the draft moves forward.

[Dexter Morgan]

My team is finished.

Starters:

C: Bill Dickey (1928-1947, NYY)

1B: Eddie Murray(1977-1997, BAL, LAD, CLE, NYM, ANA)

2B: Bobby Doerr (1937-1951, BOS)

3B: Alex Rodriguez (1994- , SEA, TEX, NYY)

SS: Joe Sewell(1920-1933, CLE, NYY)

OF: Ted Williams (1939-1960, BOS)

CF: Earle Combs (1924-1935, NYY)

OF: Mel Ott (1926-1947, NYG)

DH: Dave Winfield (1973-1995, SDP, NYY, CAL, TOR, MIN, CLE)

Bench:

C: Ernie Lombardi (1914-1932, 1931-1947, BRO, CIN, BSN, SFG)

1B/3B: Don Mattingly (1982-1995, NYY)

SS/2B: Robinson Cano (2005- , NYY)

OF: Harry Heilmann (1914-1932, DET, CIN)

CF: Earl Averill (1929-1941, CLE, DET, BSN)

Rotation:

SP: Grover Cleveland Alexander, RHP (1911-1930, PHI, CHC, STL)

SP: Steve Carlton, LHP (1965-1988, STL, PHI, SFG, CHW, CLE, MIN)

SP: Carl Hubbell, LHP (1928-1943, NYG)

SP: Ron Guidry, LHP (1975-1988, NYY)

SP: Johan Santana, LHP (2000- , MIN, NYM)

SP: Dazzy Vance, RHP (1915-1935, PIT, NYY, BRO, CIN, STL )

Bullpen:

LR- Don Newcombe, RHP (1949-1960, BRO, LAD, CIN, CLE)

MR- Jeff Nelson, RHP (1992-2006, SEA, NYY, TEX, CHW)

SU- Dave Righetti, LHP (1979-1995, NYY, SFG, OAK, TOR, CHW)

SU- Mike Marshall, RHP (1967-1981, DET, SEP, HOU, MON, LAD, ATL, TEX, MIN, NYM)

CL: Sparky Lyle, LHP (1967-1982, BOS, NYY, TEX, PHI, CHW)

[KDubK414]

Phew! My draft has ended. It was quite the experience and I had a whole bunch of fun participating. I hope there is some way to put our squads on some kind of virtual field and see how they all stack up. I am happy about how my team came to be. Tough decisions at times, tough breaks along the way, and trying to outsmart some folks here and there looking for that diamond in the rough. I will have my full line-up, defense, and staff set up in the next few days. That's going to be the hardest part. Thanks to Dexter for creating this and to Bruschimania for taking the helm from time to time!!!!! Guys have a beer on me sometime soon!

To all that drafted too, thanks for a good competitive time.