All-Time Draft Rematch

[Wade8813]

Don't post your picks here.

(See the 'DRAFT PAGE' for the picks taken)
_______________________________________________

Since I'm first, I'll take Babe Ruth (1920-1924)

33926

[The Splendid Splinter]

Wade... just so you know... you probably might want to say the years also... and put the draft order in your first post...

as for me with the 2nd pick... while i don't like him as a person, but i can't deny what he did on the field... even if he had help.


I'll take Barry Bonds (2000-2004)...

[ChrisLDuncan]

Deleted post.

[ElHalo]

Ugh. Ninth overall pick isn't going to get me one of the top guys. Strangely, I've always had luck with these drafts as far as getting one of the top picks go, never drafting lower than fourth.

[AstrosFan]

Quick question: How many players will we be drafting?

[Erik Bedard]

25 .

[Westlake]

http://baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=23869&d=1178763360

2B Rogers Hornsby

1921-1925

[Wee Willie]

Honus Wagner, 1905-1909

[brett]

Can people post a running list?
1) Ruth
2) Bonds
3) Hornsby
4) Wagner

[Wade8813]

I guess I can make one in my initial post.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

-----Walter Johnson-----
33956
(1911-1915)

[Westlake]

Honus Wagner, 1905-1909

It was a tough decision for me between Wagner and Hornsby, I pretty much flipped a coin in my head.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

It was a tough decision for me between Wagner and Hornsby, I pretty much flipped a coin in my head.

Really, you couldn't go wrong with either. Both would have been tremendous picks.

[Wee Willie]

It was a tough decision for me between Wagner and Hornsby, I pretty much flipped a coin in my head.

I initially was leaning Walter, but like you, I just couldn't pass on a marquee middle infielder.

[Wee Willie]

Really, you couldn't go wrong with either. Both would have been tremendous picks.

You can't go wrong with Walter at #5, either. His 5 year peak just dwarfs all other pitchers.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

You can't go wrong with Walter at #5, either. His 5 year peak just dwarfs all other pitchers.

I actually wanted Hornsby to still be around for me to pick him. I was so dissapointed when I saw was taken. His five year peak is by far and away better than every other 2nd baseman.
But yeah, Walter ain't no slouch either.

[philkid3]

AstrosFan was just posting! Why didn't he pick? :laugh

[AstrosFan]

Ted Williams 1941-48

[Wade8813]

IMPORTANT - CLD changed his mind. This entire post was a waste. Ignore it. :rofl:

[Minstrel]

IMPORTANT - We will be splitting into two leagues soon, since we have so many people. Either Erik Bedard or PhilKid3 will have the last pick in this league, so any picks after them may not count.

So then...should we halt selections until that is resolved?

[Wade8813]

Erik can make a pick. And PhilKid probably could too, although there's a 50% chance that PhilKid's pick won't count, and instead PhilKid will have the first pick in the other draft. Everyone else's picks don't matter, since they'll be dropped.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Is everybody okay with two seven team leagues?

[Erik Bedard]

Cool with me. I'll take Greg Maddux (1994-98). Should I make another pick?

[Wade8813]

No, not yet. We don't know if we're going to have 7 or 8 teams per league. You might not have the last pick.

[leecemark]

--Does 2 leagues mean 2 drafts? We'll be picking from the same pool of players, just breaking into 2 pieces to compete. If we run separate drafts I'd bet that things get confused and players end up getting drafted by teams in both. I'd say we just keep going. Of course, as a last minute addition to the process I'll go along with whatever way you want to do it.

[leecemark]

No, not yet. We don't know if we're going to have 7 or 8 teams per league. You might not have the last pick.

---16 participants would be better than 14, but we'd probably need to find
the other 2 people quickly before we start the second round.

[Wade8813]

CLD has already PMed two people, and has given them a deadline to respond, so this should be finalized fairly quickly.

Also, I'm not sure, but I think the two drafts will actually be two separate drafts, much like our AL/NL before (although I think they'll both be using AL rules, to make it easier for them to be compared to each other).

[Minstrel]

I'm fine with two 7 or 8 team leagues. One bigger league makes it more of a challenge to find great players. Two smaller leagues allows people to have more glittering all-timers, which is sort of the "spirit" of such a draft, in some sense.

So I see either one as good.

[Wee Willie]

I'd prefer two 7 or 8 team leagues. The draft should run a bit faster that way, as people would be less likely to forget it's their pick.

[The Splendid Splinter]

I'd prefer two 7 or 8 team leagues. The draft should run a bit faster that way, as people would be less likely to forget it's their pick.

yeah we should go with 2 leagues and probably should have 2 threads for each league so it wont be confusing in here and saying "i already got him a round earlier"...

[brett]

Three questions:

1) Does a team have to field a centerfielder who played 162 games there in 5 years, or are all outfielders considered equal?

2) Are 19th century seasons in play

3) How is Bob Feller's '45 season to be considered. He only played the last moth and a half because of military time.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Three questions:

1) Does a team have to field a centerfielder who played 162 games there in 5 years, or are all outfielders considered equal?

2) Are 19th century seasons in play

3) How is Bob Feller's '45 season to be considered. He only played the last moth and a half because of military time.

1) i think CLD meant he had to play there 162 games in his career... but he might meant in the 5 year peak only

2) i imagine so, but i would be leery about them cuz most of the guys here take them down a notch due to LQ quality and their rules

3) '45 will not count as it is an exception due to war

[ChrisLDuncan]

Three questions:

1) Does a team have to field a centerfielder who played 162 games there in 5 years, or are all outfielders considered equal?

2) Are 19th century seasons in play

3) How is Bob Feller's '45 season to be considered. He only played the last moth and a half because of military time.

1.) Any one who has 162 career games in CF is game to play CF.
2.) Since we only have 7 people in each leage, possibly eight, I'm leaning no.
3.) Skipped. That doesn't count in his five year stretch.

[philkid3]

So I should go ahead and pick, yes?

William Howard Mays Jr. (1954-58)
http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/07/13/mays/mays.jpg

[Wade8813]

You can pick, just realize that we'll be split into two leagues, and there's a decent chance that you'll have the first pick in the other league, instead of the 8th pick in this league.

[The Splendid Splinter]

So I should go ahead and pick, yes?

William Howard Mays Jr. (1954-58)
http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/07/13/mays/mays.jpg

i wouldnt pick if i was you... cuz you got a good chance to be number one pick in the other league.

so how many teams do we actually have now?

[ElHalo]

He was injured one of these five years, and I'm still taking him:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/6f/PedroNearPerfecto.gif

Pedro Martinez, 1997-2001. Of course, if I end up with the first or second pick in the other league, I'll choose differently.

[Wade8813]

I'm pretty sure you're guaranteed to have either the first or 2nd pick in the other draft.

[philkid3]

I passed on Pedro because I thought he'd be there later in the draft.

:(

[Wade8813]

You'll be able to get Pedro - either as your 1st pick in the other draft, or your next pick here, since ElHalo should be in the other draft.

[The Splendid Splinter]

You'll be able to get Pedro - either as your 1st pick in the other draft, or your next pick here, since ElHalo should be in the other draft.

so you know... dont we have 14 players? is leecemark playing? cuz CLD in the other thread said he got leecemark so that would make it 14 teams so 2 leagues with 7 teams each...

[ChrisLDuncan]

I may get two more people. However, it doesn't look all that great.

[The Splendid Splinter]

I may get two more people. However, it doesn't look all that great.

i would say just stop at 14 teams and get the 2 drafts going...

[ChrisLDuncan]

i would say just stop at 14 teams and get the 2 drafts going...

I invited them, I'll give them to 9 CST (if not then whenever I get home) to get back, then we'll just start two seven team leagues. If we get more, I'll cross that bridge when/if I get too it.

[Erik Bedard]

Wait. Are we only going to have one pool of players for both drafts? I'm not sure how well that will work.

[Wee Willie]

I'm sure the other draft will start with a fresh pool of players.

[Erik Bedard]

Then why did Phil and EH pick guys we hadn't? I'm sure that if there was a fresh pool, Ruth would be among the first guys to go, certainly ahead of Mays.

[leecemark]

--I don't think we should be having any players on teams in both leagues. There are more than enough quality players in baseball history to draft 14 great teams without using guys twice. Lets just keep a single draft going. It will be alot simpler.

[brett]

--I don't think we should be having any players on teams in both leagues. There are more than enough quality players in baseball history to draft 14 great teams without using guys twice. Lets just keep a single draft going. It will be alot simpler.


I am going on that assumption.

Is it okay to pick during the down time if I am up?

[brett]

1. Wade - Babe Ruth
2. TSS - Barry Bonds
3. Westlake - Rogers Hornsby
4. Wee Willie - Honus Wagner
5. DMF - Walter Johnson
6. Astros Fan - Ted Williams
7. Erik Bedard - Greg Maddux
8. PhilKid3-Willie Mays
9. El Halo-Pedro Martinez
10. Brett-Ty Cobb
11. Yanks
12. Chris
13. Minstrel

Ty Cobb 1909-1913

5 years
BA: .396
AB: 530
H: 210
2B: 33
3B: 17
HR: 7
Slg:.564
BB: 51
OB%: .455
R: 112
RBI: 95
SB: 67

Concerning Cobb, I would like to mention that he actually ranked second all-time in 5 year WARP I among centerfielders (without dropping any names) by a slim margin of 70.7 to 70.5, but 1) that does not take into accout his extra, unaccounted for bases on the basepaths which are likely to have been the most in history, 20 to perhaps 30 per season based on comparisons to modern players, AND he produced that in 141 games per season, while the #1 guy did it in 151 games, so while his games may seem to be a slight negative, he outdid the #1 guy with .100 warp per game to .936 warp per game and somebody else could slip in and produce in the other games. And again, just 20 extra bases a year on the paths would be another 1.0 warp per 154.

I just want people to realize that speed in picking up additional bases on the hits of other players shows up nowhere in warp values, or any other stat like win shares etc. It can be greatly underappreciated.

[ElHalo]

--I don't think we should be having any players on teams in both leagues. There are more than enough quality players in baseball history to draft 14 great teams without using guys twice. Lets just keep a single draft going. It will be alot simpler.

I agree; I think it's probably more fun to go with a very deep league than a shallower one with seperate drafts.

[brett]

I agree; I think it's probably more fun to go with a very deep league than a shallower one with seperate drafts.

I agree too. It is a lot more interesting going down into the 300s on the all time list than just reeling off the standard top 10 list by position.

[Wee Willie]

I agree too. It is a lot more interesting going down into the 300s on the all time list than just reeling off the standard top 10 list by position.

That's fine with me, as long as we have no more than 14.

[ElHalo]

I agree too. It is a lot more interesting going down into the 300s on the all time list than just reeling off the standard top 10 list by position.

Especially because this type of draft -- featuring players with the best five year peaks -- could otherwise be known as the "ElHalo Special." I've got some doozies to whip out later.

Just a shame we can't use 19th century players. That Ross Barnes - Hughie Jennings middle infield would have been unstoppable in a five year peak format.

[leecemark]

--I was in another all time draft with 16 teams and we weren't exacting getting into lousy or even average players - and we drafted 30 apiece to play a sim with injuries turned on. It makes you think a little more about your bench. Maybe a platoon of the 15th and 18th best 1B is better than the 10th best guy. If we are using 300 (or 350 if we get 16 participants) in is a real exercise in team building.

[leecemark]

Especially because this type of draft -- featuring players with the best five year peaks -- could otherwise be known as the "ElHalo Special." I've got some doozies to whip out later.

Just a shame we can't use 19th century players. That Ross Barnes - Hughie Jennings middle infielde would have been a world beater.

--I thought we could use 19th century guys. Its just a matter of how much they get marked down when the teams get evaluated.

[brett]

Especially because this type of draft -- featuring players with the best five year peaks -- could otherwise be known as the "ElHalo Special." I've got some doozies to whip out later.

Just a shame we can't use 19th century players. That Ross Barnes - Hughie Jennings middle infield would have been unstoppable in a five year peak format.

Or perhaps "GD"

[ChrisLDuncan]

Since there is one 14 player league I'll allow 19th century guys. I was wanting atleast 8 players per league, though ten would have been ideal, because I want good teams...but I don't want teams that are just insane. That feature five or six players that are top three or so at their respective positions.

[Wade8813]

People kept picking because they were confused, not because they were supposed to. If everyone wants to do just one league, that's fine. The main reason for doing two leagues was not because we were worried about running out of players, but because we last time we did this, things took WAY too long (or more specifically, the AL took too long, and the NL took WAY too long...).

I think we should vote on whether we want one or two leagues. There seem to be a lot of people on either side of the issue.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

Since there is one 14 player league I'll allow 19th century guys.

I actually would rather we didn't use players from before 1900. It really seems to make thing a whole lot harder when pre 1900 player are included.

[Wade8813]

I actually would rather we didn't use players from before 1900. It really seems to make thing a whole lot harder when pre 1900 player are included.

It would make a lot more research for me. I know basically nothing about pre-1900 players.

[brett]

I actually would rather we didn't use players from before 1900. It really seems to make thing a whole lot harder when pre 1900 player are included.

But those who pick them will also risk that they will not be given proper credit.

And what about Young? If you use a stretch from the 1800s, he may have good stats, but he may be evaluated lower because of the comp.

And anyway, a pitcher from the 1880s with 475 innings and a warp of like 15 would be a lot less valuable than a guy with 275 innings and a warp of 10 because the 475 inning guy has to pitch 30% of his team's innings to rack up that value. He's basically cutting out the value of the other pitchers on his team. A couple of 1800s guys would have the second and third best 5 year pitching peaks based on warp I but its all because of their huge innings which doesn't maximize value on a team full of good pitchers.

By the way, someone mentioned AL rules. Does that mean that we should plan on having a DH in the lineup?

[leecemark]

--Two leagues (or divisions) will be easier to work with. Splitting the draft into 2 half would also speed things up and I'd be happy with that. The only problem is it would be harder to monitor since we'd have 2 groups picking from the same pool of players. Guys would probably end up getting picked in both drafts and we'd have to sort that out. Not sure the quicker pace would be worth the oversite headaches.

[Wade8813]

I'm fairly sure if we had 2 leagues, it would be 2 separate pools of players.

[leecemark]

--How would they be divided? You'd almost have to start over if you were using two pools.

[ChrisLDuncan]

--How would they be divided? You'd almost have to start over if you were using two pools.

Two seperate pools as in, each league gets every player in history. Like two Ruths, two Bonds', and so on.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I made a poll. You can vote there. Popular opinion rules. I decided to have this be a democracy rather than a dictatorship :D

[ChrisLDuncan]

But those who pick them will also risk that they will not be given proper credit.

And what about Young? If you use a stretch from the 1800s, he may have good stats, but he may be evaluated lower because of the comp.

And anyway, a pitcher from the 1880s with 475 innings and a warp of like 15 would be a lot less valuable than a guy with 275 innings and a warp of 10 because the 475 inning guy has to pitch 30% of his team's innings to rack up that value. He's basically cutting out the value of the other pitchers on his team. A couple of 1800s guys would have the second and third best 5 year pitching peaks based on warp I but its all because of their huge innings which doesn't maximize value on a team full of good pitchers.


See, this is what sucks about having smart guys in your draft. Not only do they take the good players you want, they also bring up interesting and challenging questions. ;) I guess, that's another caveat. I doubt anyone would really scoff at Cy Young being selected and I'm sure everyone in each poll championships would treat him as a legit ace, I just don't think many would expect him to pitch over 350 innings. So I guess those pitchers are okay, but just don't expect the people voting in the polls to think that they will dominate in a more "modern" context. Does that make any sense?


By the way, someone mentioned AL rules. Does that mean that we should plan on having a DH in the lineup?

Yes. However you can DH anyone, so if you want to DH Honus Wagner, that's cool by me.

[leecemark]

Two seperate pools as in, each league gets every player in history. Like two Ruths, two Bonds', and so on.


--Using everybody twice the one option I wouldn't care to play with. An all time draft with only 7 teams is way too deep and you don't really have any interesting choices to make. If it was split somehow two league's would be fine, but not 2 leagues with both being able to draft anybody.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Cast Your Votes People!

[Wee Willie]

--Using everybody twice the one option I wouldn't care to play with. An all time draft with only 7 teams is way too deep and you don't really have any interesting choices to make. If it was split somehow two league's would be fine, but not 2 leagues with both being able to draft anybody.

I disagree. It's way too complicated, IMO, if we have two leagues and use the same pool. One would constantly have to check the other draft to see who is being picked. There will still be over 100 position players picked with 7 teams, so I think the choices will be interesting enough.

[ElHalo]

I disagree. It's way too complicated, IMO, if we have two leagues and use the same pool. One would constantly have to check the other draft to see who is being picked. There will still be over 100 position players picked with 7 teams, so I think the choices will be interesting enough.

It would be unweildy, which is why we should continue this draft. Who's up next?

[Wee Willie]

It would be unweildy, which is why we should continue this draft. Who's up next?

Yeah, let's just continue. Yanks is up.

[The Splendid Splinter]

well i hope none of the 14 guys are gonna quit or be gone for a long period of time... cuz the NL draft last time took like several months too long. since we're going with 14 teams draft now, should we actually start the clock now? or just wait til we get the first round done and then start it?

also how are we rating defense, if we're doing that?

[Westlake]

It looks like we are keeping one league, which is just fine to me.

Lets get the ball rolling already..

[leecemark]

well i hope none of the 14 guys are gonna quit or be gone for a long period of time... cuz the NL draft last time took like several months too long. since we're going with 14 teams draft now, should we actually start the clock now? or just wait til we get the first round done and then start it?

also how are we rating defense, if we're doing that?


--I assumed the clock had been running since the first pick. Rate it however you want. This is a sujective exercise.

[Wade8813]

BTW, the list on the first page of people picking that he sent me was slightly inaccurate, so that's why this has stalled.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Yeah, let's just continue. Yanks is up.

Actually Minstrel has taken Yanks' place, can someone send him a PM?

[Wade8813]

This thread has become too cluttered with discussion, so a second thread has been created.

[brett]

This thread has become too cluttered with discussion, so a second thread has been created.

When you start a new thread will you post a link?

[The Splendid Splinter]

When you start a new thread will you post a link?

CLD created... the title is All Time Draft Round Two DRAFT PAGE....

[Wade8813]

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=72479

[ElHalo]

As to discussing the actual draft...

I think the pickup of Ty Cobb at number 10 was absolutely fantastic. Tremendous player to get that late in the draft; I could see somebody picking him first overall.

I'm very happy with Pedro Martinez at 9. I know people will knock the pick because he only started 18 games one year, but he did put up the greatest stretch of dominance in baseball history the rest of the time. I probably would have taken him over Johnson. His stretch includes three of the top twenty ERA+ seasons of all time, three of the top 13 K rate seasons of all time, the best WHIP season ever (including the deadball era), and a .750 W%. It also, for the "five inning pitcher" crowd, contains a CG title and two other top 4 finishes, and he never finished lower than 8th in IP except for the injury year. Even in the injury year, he had a 189 ERA+ and an 0.934 WHIP (incidentally, the second highest whip of the stretch). Very pleased.

[Erik Bedard]

I was debating between Pedro and Maddux, and ended up going with Maddux for durability and workhorseness reasons.

[ElHalo]

I was debating between Pedro and Maddux, and ended up going with Maddux for durability and workhorseness reasons.

Certainly a legitimate choice; not quite as dominant as Pedro, but certainly more innings.

[Wee Willie]

I'm very happy with Pedro Martinez at 9. I know people will knock the pick because he only started 18 games one year, but he did put up the greatest stretch of dominance in baseball history the rest of the time. I probably would have taken him over Johnson. His stretch includes three of the top twenty ERA+ seasons of all time, three of the top 13 K rate seasons of all time, the best WHIP season ever (including the deadball era), and a .750 W%. It also, for the "five inning pitcher" crowd, contains a CG title and two other top 4 finishes, and he never finished lower than 8th in IP except for the injury year. Even in the injury year, he had a 189 ERA+ and an 0.934 WHIP (incidentally, the second highest whip of the stretch). Very pleased.

While Pedro had a great peak, I think picking him over Johnson would've been a mistake had you done that. Sure, Pedro's rate stats are a little better (219 ERA+ in his 5-year stretch to Johnson's 206), but Johnson threw 349 innings from 1911-15 to Pedro's 204 from 1997-2001. Even if you adjust the innings to a neutral era, Johnsons still comes out with a much higher workload, which makes his stretch seem more dominant to me than Pedro's. However, Pedro would certainly be a very good ace for any of our teams.

[brett]

Certainly a legitimate choice; not quite as dominant as Pedro, but certainly more innings.


And I think innings are less important on a team full of good pitchers. As I mentioned before, if one guy, say Pedro has a rate value of say 100 for 200 innings, and a guy like Johnson is a 95 for 350 innings, your next starter after Pedro only needs to be like an 88 for the balance of the innings for you to end up ahead. Rate of production per inning or game is important on a great team because a guy with a ton of innings is only going to take those innings from another good pitcher, not an average one.

Still, I think that after Johnson, the next 8-12 pitchers are pretty close together in value.

I'll add though that if there is one pitcher who gives the impression that he could shut down a team of great hitters, it is Pedro.

[The Splendid Splinter]

And I think innings are less important on a team full of good pitchers. As I mentioned before, if one guy, say Pedro has a rate value of say 100 for 200 innings, and a guy like Johnson is a 95 for 350 innings, your next starter after Pedro only needs to be like an 88 for the balance of the innings for you to end up ahead. Rate of production per inning or game is important on a great team because a guy with a ton of innings is only going to take those innings from another good pitcher, not an average one.

Still, I think that after Johnson, the next 8-12 pitchers are pretty close together in value.

I'll add though that if there is one pitcher who gives the impression that he could shut down a team of great hitters, it is Pedro.

yeah and esp. since you'll have a great bullpen on top of that so your pitcher don't need to go all the way. so in that sense, a lot of the top pitchers will be even better since they can go like 7 innings and not worry going any farther than that. plus the pitchers will all face great hitters so their production wont be as great as it their peaks we picked, but still be very good(so they will bring it down and it evens out maybe).

[Minstrel]

Sorry, I didn't realize I had yanks' spot.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Sorry, I didn't realize I had yanks' spot.

I'll select:

Mickey Mantle

theres a new thread for the picks now...

look at the posts above yours and you'll see the link to it. post # 82. dont forget which 5 years peak you're using.

[Minstrel]

Got it, sorry for missing that.

Out of curiosity, what is the time limit on picks?

[The Splendid Splinter]

Got it, sorry for missing that.

Out of curiosity, what is the time limit on picks?

same as the last time... 8 hours with the dead time...

[ElHalo]

Got it, sorry for missing that.

Out of curiosity, what is the time limit on picks?

Eight hours.

Fantastic choice, by the way. Mantle and Martinez were the two players I was agonizing over.

[Minstrel]

Eight hours.

Fantastic choice, by the way. Mantle and Martinez were the two players I was agonizing over.

Thanks. Five year peaks make Mantle (and Martinez for that matter) very very close to the top in value.

[Wee Willie]

And I think innings are less important on a team full of good pitchers. As I mentioned before, if one guy, say Pedro has a rate value of say 100 for 200 innings, and a guy like Johnson is a 95 for 350 innings, your next starter after Pedro only needs to be like an 88 for the balance of the innings for you to end up ahead. Rate of production per inning or game is important on a great team because a guy with a ton of innings is only going to take those innings from another good pitcher, not an average one.

Still, I think that after Johnson, the next 8-12 pitchers are pretty close together in value.

I'll add though that if there is one pitcher who gives the impression that he could shut down a team of great hitters, it is Pedro.


Not having to pitch as many innings would make Walter (and some others) even more lethal, though. I still think you've got to take him first among pitchers, but rate of production will matter a little more in this draft than in our general player rankings.

[brett]

Eight hours.

Fantastic choice, by the way. Mantle and Martinez were the two players I was agonizing over.

I had a hard time between Mantle, Cobb and somebody else. In Mantle's case, I couldn't decide whether to go '56-'60, or '57-'61. I'm not a batting average guy, but his .396 for 5 years, as well as his 5 year .564 dead-ball slugging percentage and 67 steals per, as well as a relative on-base percentage of 140+% of the league average, AND his other probably extra bases that aren't in the stat line (probably 20-30) made a difference, though Mantle might have done those things comparably. Also, after the "next guy" centerfield gets shallow rather fast. (actually there are 2 other centerfielders before it gets shallow).

[ElHalo]

I had a hard time between Mantle, Cobb and somebody else. In Mantle's case, I couldn't decide whether to go '56-'60, or '57-'61.

This is really silly, but that's the reason I didn't take Mantle. I was spending too much time thinking which set to take, so I just decided to take Pedro instead.

[The Splendid Splinter]

figured i would tell you guys that i made a roster page for us... heres the link to it... same title as the new draft page but says roster instead of draft

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=72487

[SamtheBravesFan]

here we go...

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1812/wjem5.jpg

Walter Johnson, 1911-15

[brett]

here we go...

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1812/wjem5.jpg

Walter Johnson, 1911-15


Already taken. Go to the draft page listed earlier on this thread.

[brett]

I'd appreciate it if you guys would list your all time top 20 on this thread.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=72334

I will rank players using a point system this time. Some players will be placed, and others will move to the second round depending on point totals and how many ballots they are listed on.

[ChrisLDuncan]

here we go...

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1812/wjem5.jpg

Walter Johnson, 1911-15

The Draft is in a different thread too, in the DRAFT thread.

[leecemark]

--I undid all the stickies from the old project so the current thread scould rise to the top. Hope that is okay with everyone. I think it will make it easier to keep up with whats going on.

[Wade8813]

I'm glad you did.

Do we even need this thread any more?

[The Splendid Splinter]

I'm glad you did.

Do we even need this thread any more?

yeah we need a discussion, draft, and roster thread. we got all three right now.

[ChrisLDuncan]

The discussion was in "Anyone Interested in a Rematch" thread...we could merge the two?

[brett]

I liked the pick of Speaker at spot 13. Centerfielders are running out!

There are 2 other BIG name, all time national leaguers out there, but I'm not sure I would take either one if they are there for my next pick.

[Minstrel]

Love the pick of Alex Rodriguez. He was definitely next on my list, so ouch.

[ChrisLDuncan]

What about the pick of Alexander? I was teeteing between him and others, I figured I need an ace and over the five year peak I selected he had a WARP3 in the 60s so I figured he'd probably be the best selection. Although he's very underrated.

[Wee Willie]

Pete was a definitely a good pick. His run in that stretch is quite impressive.

[brett]

Love the pick of Alex Rodriguez. He was definitely next on my list, so ouch.

For clarification, am I right that A-Rod does not qualify to play at third base based on those season selected? I think it was stated that they needed 162 at a position during the 5 year stretch.

I know that WARP is not the end-all, but I think A-Rod only has the 4th or 5th best 5 year WARP for a shortstop. If he could have played third, he would have been maybe #5 or #6 in 5 year WARP there too, giving some flexibility. On the other hand, its nice to be able to plug in a SS with 50 home runs in the cleanup spot. And with Schmidt, you don't need A-Rod to play 3B.

Schmidt is a great choice, though interestignly because of a livelier ball introduced starting in '77, his best relative years may have been '74-'78. They may not be perceived as such though, but third base drops off real quickly at certain points.

[ChrisLDuncan]

For clarification, am I right that A-Rod does not qualify to play at third base based on those season selected? I think it was stated that they needed 162 at a position during the 5 year stretch.


Since he has enough games at third, if Mark wanted to pick A-Rod from 1996-2000 he could play third. They just need 162 games career to be eligible to play a certain position.

[brett]

What about the pick of Alexander? I was teeteing between him and others, I figured I need an ace and over the five year peak I selected he had a WARP3 in the 60s so I figured he'd probably be the best selection. Although he's very underrated.

Was the other choice you wrestled with a pitcher as well?

I think that if you have to choose between a pitcher with 350 innings and one with 270 who have fairly close WARP scores, the lower inning guy is going to give you more concentrated value on a great team. Still, Pete could "cut back" to 270 and throw more of his best stuff.

Just remember that there are a lot more pitchers who had dominant short stretches, but who didn't have hall of fame careers out there. Something like 20 of the top 100 pitching seasons in history probably were produced by non hall of famers while only maybe 5 of the top 100 hitting seasons did.

I will just say that pitchers are very very hard for me to place in this draft after Walter Johnson, but Alexander was, at the moment, #1 on my list of pitchers based on stamina, having real live ball stuff, having consistency from year to year. He may have been the MVP in the major leagues during that stretch.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Pete was a definitely a good pick. His run in that stretch is quite impressive.

There were just so many aces to chose from. So I decided flip a coin.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Was the other choice you wrestled with a pitcher as well?


Yes...and I doubt he'll still be there.



I think that if you have to choose between a pitcher with 350 innings and one with 270 who have fairly close WARP scores, the lower inning guy is going to give you more concentrated value on a great team. Still, Pete could "cut back" to 270 and throw more of his best stuff.


That's the way I was thinking too...however, after watching a bullpen blow games over the past few seasons I'm taking the horse


Just remember that there are a lot more pitchers who had dominant short stretches, but who didn't have hall of fame careers out there. Something like 20 of the top 100 pitching seasons in history probably were produced by non hall of famers while only maybe 5 of the top 100 hitting seasons did.


Yeah I wanted it to take peak into account, but not let guys who had lucky BABIP seasons be better than Hall of Famers. So I figure a five year stretch should be long enough to cut the riff raff.


I will just say that pitchers are very very hard for me to place in this draft after Walter Johnson, but Alexander was, at the moment, #1 on my list of pitchers based on stamina, having real live ball stuff, having consistency from year to year. He may have been the MVP in the major leagues during that stretch.

Yeah, that's the way I was thinking too. Hopefully no one takes the other guy I wanted, but I doubt it...:ughh:sigh:

[brett]

Since he has enough games at third, if Mark wanted to pick A-Rod from 1996-2000 he could play third. They just need 162 games career to be eligible to play a certain position.

So Bonds can play centerfield but get credit for his 2000-2004 hitting numbers. I'll keep the rule in mind, but I think someone should have to have played there at least some during the 5 years, say 50 games. If not, that's fine though.

[Wade8813]

Well, it seems to me that the way things are right now, he can play CF, but you still have his stats as a poor fielding corner outfielder. You're still using his stats from those 5 years, so he'd be a really crappy fielder.

[brett]

When you use a simulator, does it adjust for the offensive environment that the player played in or do anything for league quality?

[Erik Bedard]

The DB I use does. Not sure about Lahman, which is the more mainstream version.

[Erik Bedard]

There were just so many aces to chose from. So I decided flip a coin.

That's basically what I did when I was deciding between Maddux and Pedro. Except I didn't actually flip the coin. I basically went with Maddux because some voters might take off too much credit for Pedro missing half a season.

[ElHalo]

Sam ready to draft? Minstrel? When do the windows expire? I have a laser beam site on one player, and I don't really know what I'll do if he isn't there.

[Wade8813]

Well then, instead of being so impatient, you should figure out a backup plan... ;)

[brett]

Sam ready to draft? Minstrel? When do the windows expire? I have a laser beam site on one player, and I don't really know what I'll do if he isn't there.


I PMed him right after the last vote, but he has until 1 pm central time tomorrow, technically, to make a pick.

[ElHalo]

I PMed him right after the last vote, but he has until 1 pm central time tomorrow, technically, to make a pick.

How? Doesn't his clock expire the second the overnight tolling period ends?

[leecemark]

So Bonds can play centerfield but get credit for his 2000-2004 hitting numbers. I'll keep the rule in mind, but I think someone should have to have played there at least some during the 5 years, say 50 games. If not, that's fine though.


--My thinking is that since we are specifying a 5 year period the player ought to qualify there during that period. I'd prefer the full 162 game requirement (adjusted if the 5 year period was one of shorter seasons).
--As for A-Rod, I'd be wasting alot of his value by using him at 3B. Being as I drafted Schmidt immediately ahead of him I think his position on my ballclub is obviously going to be SS anyway.

[ElHalo]

--My thinking is that since we are specifying a 5 year period the player ought to qualify there during that period. I'd prefer the full 162 game requirement (adjusted if the 5 year period was one of shorter seasons).
--As for A-Rod, I'd be wasting alot of his value by using him at 3B. Being as I drafted Schmidt immediately ahead of him I think his position on my ballclub is obviously going to be SS anyway.

Here's the thing about ARod: your window is going to be very difficult to choose. You probably took the best window, getting all of the Texas years, but you missed both of his best seasons (1996 and 2007).

[Westlake]

So Bonds can play centerfield but get credit for his 2000-2004 hitting numbers. I'll keep the rule in mind, but I think someone should have to have played there at least some during the 5 years, say 50 games. If not, that's fine though.

I dont agree with this at all. If so, I can put Hornsby at SS right? Seems kind of unfair...

[brett]

--My thinking is that since we are specifying a 5 year period the player ought to qualify there during that period. I'd prefer the full 162 game requirement (adjusted if the 5 year period was one of shorter seasons).
--As for A-Rod, I'd be wasting alot of his value by using him at 3B. Being as I drafted Schmidt immediately ahead of him I think his position on my ballclub is obviously going to be SS anyway.

At any rate, I want to make sure that I could play Cobb at right field if I happened to pick up another centerfielder (soon). I think Cobb was probably an all time great defensive right fielder and he did play over 162 even during the stretch that I chose '09-'13.

By the way, he had a 198 OPS+ and averaged 67 steals a year during that stretch-plus all of his other non-WARP bases. Even if he is more like a 180 OPS+ in an integrated league, has anyone else had a similar combo of OPS+ and stolen bases over a 5 year period. Just wondering who might be close.

[ElHalo]

Just remember that there are a lot more pitchers who had dominant short stretches, but who didn't have hall of fame careers out there. Something like 20 of the top 100 pitching seasons in history probably were produced by non hall of famers while only maybe 5 of the top 100 hitting seasons did.


I completely disagree with you here. I can think of a lot of position players people don't really think of as all timers having five straight 140+ OPS+ seasons. There aren't even that many all time pitchers who have those kind of ERA+ numbers... and, remember, you need five of them.

In all liklihood, this guy isn't going to get taken, because he's not one of the top 14 1Bmen:

5 year averages:
BA: .315
OBP: .373
SLG: .560
OPS+: 134
2B: 40
3B: 9
HR: 31
R: 108
RBI: 131

Could imagine a pitcher with equivalent five year stats not getting taken? I can't. There are going to be 70 starting pitchers taken. You really think the seventieth best starting pitcher is going to give even remotely close to the kind of production Hal Trosky won't be giving anybody in this league?

[Wade8813]

At any rate, I want to make sure that I could play Cobb at right field if I happened to pick up another centerfielder (soon). I think Cobb was probably an all time great defensive right fielder and he did play over 162 even during the stretch that I chose '09-'13.

IIRC, all CFers can play the corner OF.

Interesting strategy, BTW. I'd just be careful when hate drafting, though. You taking a 2nd CFer means that one other team will be stuck with a worse CFer, but it means you aren't picking a player at other positions that might not be very deep either.

[brett]

I dont agree with this at all. If so, I can put Hornsby at SS right? Seems kind of unfair...

So do you agree that they should have played a certain number of games there during the 5 year stretch chosen?

[brett]

I completely disagree with you here. I can think of a lot of position players people don't really think of as all timers having five straight 140+ OPS+ seasons. There aren't even that many all time pitchers who have those kind of ERA+ numbers... and, remember, you need five of them.

In all liklihood, this guy isn't going to get taken, because he's not one of the top 14 1Bmen:

5 year averages:
BA: .315
OBP: .373
SLG: .560
OPS+: 134
2B: 40
3B: 9
HR: 31
R: 108
RBI: 131

Could imagine a pitcher with equivalent five year stats not getting taken? I can't. There are going to be 70 starting pitchers taken. You really think the seventieth best starting pitcher is going to give even remotely close to the kind of production Hal Trosky won't be giving anybody in this league?

Your probably right. While there are non-hof pitchers who had a spectacular season, or even 2, there aren't many who had great 5 year stretches.


I'd take Kevin Brown '96-'00 over Trosky though, but your right, there are even some real good career pitchers who didn't have great 5 year stretches. Blylevin and Perry for example are in most people's top 50 but didn't have a fantastic 5 year stretch.

By the way, are you interested in switching draft spots in this round, and then again in the next? You move up 1 in this round and I move up 1 in the next round?

[brett]

IIRC, all CFers can play the corner OF.

Interesting strategy, BTW. I'd just be careful when hate drafting, though. You taking a 2nd CFer means that one other team will be stuck with a worse CFer, but it means you aren't picking a player at other positions that might not be very deep either.


What does IIRC mean? Just curious what is meant by "hate drafting". I think that CF drops off the fastest after the next pick, and Cobb is still a better right fielder than Aaron for peak 5 in my view. Aaron never had a 5 year OPS+ over 170 (compared to 198 for Cobb) and never stole the bases and I think that in right, he was probably even a better fielder than Aaron who may be going soon so I could have a right fielder better than the next guy, and a centerfielder MUCH better than the next guy, and the other positions do not drop off that fast yet. I'm just considering the possibilities though.

[brett]

How? Doesn't his clock expire the second the overnight tolling period ends?

The way I read it was that there is an 8 hour clock and the clock stops during the down time. I understand it, because you don't want to wake up the next morning and find that 5 people drafted late, and you missed your pick, but it would be nice if people anticipated checking in and keeping the draft moving.

[Wade8813]

IIRC = If I Remember Correctly.

Hate drafting is when you make a pick that may be a little bit worse for you, because it hurts the other drafters. In this case, taking CFers because you think that will make all of the other teams be stuck with worse CFers.

And, yes, there's some drop off in CF, but I don't think it's as much as you're saying. But even if it is, so what? You already have a CFer. You taking one more CFer means that ONE of the other teams has a much worse CFer, but all of the other teams are unaffected. And so what if Cobb is much better than Aaron? You don't need to compare Cobb to Aaron, since you already have Cobb. You need to compare the CFer you're considering picking to Aaron.

[Wee Willie]

So do you agree that they should have played a certain number of games there during the 5 year stretch chosen?

I think so. It just doesn't sound fair to have the best of both worlds if a player didn't really play a particular position in his peak window, yet played it some other time. I would think such a player would have to play the equivalent of one full season at that position during that time (say, 150 games).

[Minstrel]

I think so. It just doesn't sound fair to have the best of both worlds if a player didn't really play a particular position in his peak window, yet played it some other time. I would think such a player would have to play the equivalent of one full season at that position during that time (say, 150 games).

Agreed. I could even see it being knocked down to 100 games, since we're only looking at a five-year slice. But there should be some evidence the player could handle the position during the stretch in which he culled the production that the drafter wants to use.

[Westlake]

So do you agree that they should have played a certain number of games there during the 5 year stretch chosen?

Absolutely. At least half I'd say.

[brett]

Absolutely. At least half I'd say.

Is that a joke?

Then a player could not possibly qualify for more than one spot, and might not even qualify for 1.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I dont agree with this at all. If so, I can put Hornsby at SS right? Seems kind of unfair...

IIRC, last time you could switch middle infielders, so I suppose you could still.

[Wade8813]

I never really had a problem with that rule, but letting Hornsby play SS seems broken.

Also, I'd be ok with modifying it so that the player had to play 100 games at that position during the 5 year period.

[brett]

IIRC, last time you could switch middle infielders, so I suppose you could still.

I'm not sure Hornsby would be better at short than second (in his time). He comes out as at least somewhat below average at SS even in the season he played there, and second base was a little more cushy position back then. I would consider that the pounding of playing SS would hurt his hitting. I guess you could move somebody around, but the voters would not like the idea of forcing a guy out of position, both defensively AND offensively.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I'm not sure Hornsby would be better at short than second (in his time). He comes out as at least somewhat below average at SS even in the season he played there, and second base was a little more cushy position back then. I would consider that the pounding of playing SS would hurt his hitting. I guess you could move somebody around, but the voters would not like the idea of forcing a guy out of position.

I like that approach.

[Wade8813]

I guess that might work.

[brett]

STBF is on the board with Hank Aaron.

Minstrel's up next I believe.

[ElHalo]

By the way, are you interested in switching draft spots in this round, and then again in the next? You move up 1 in this round and I move up 1 in the next round?

I'm not a big fan of trading draft picks in this type of one-time snake draft league; it doesn't quite seem purposeful to me.

[brett]

would either PhilKid3 or Erik Bedard be interested in trading their spot in round 3 to move into my spot in round 2? For Philkid3 it would mean moving up 2 spots in this round and down 2 spots in the next. For Eric Bedard it would mean moving up 3 in this round and down 3 in the next? I'm not saying its a done deal. I may not check in again until tomorrow. You can PM me.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Deleted Post.

[ElHalo]

Ah, I got my guy, good. Don't know what I would have done if Randy Johnson hadn't been available; my whole draft strategy rested on having the best inning-for-inning right handed and left handed starters.

For a quick recap of Johnson's peak:

He had the mediocre half-season with the Mariners in the beginning of 1998, which wasn't great, but wasn't terrible (213 K's in 160 IP is nothing to sneeze at, and at least his ERA was above average). But the rest of the time, he was godlike. His 116 K in 84 1/3 IP is phenomenal, and his 1.28 ERA was enough to place him seventh in the CY Young voting even though he only started 11 games.

The next four years, of course, were legendary. He won the CY every year, never finishing with an ERA+ lower than 181, or fewer than 334 K's. He had two firsts, a second, and a third in IP. He won the K title every year, won three ERA titles with a second place finish, never finished lower than third in WHIP, led in CG's three of four years, All five of his seasons are in the top ten in K rate all time (along with Pedro, that gives me seven of the top ten K rate seasons of all time... and two others were from Randy Johnson outside the five year peak. Good luck to whoever takes Kerry Wood).

I'm very, very pleased. Like I said earlier, it's much easier to pick up a random position player with a nice five year peak than do the same for a pitcher.

[ElHalo]

I'd take Kevin Brown '96-'00 over Trosky though, but your right, there are even some real good career pitchers who didn't have great 5 year stretches. Blylevin and Perry for example are in most people's top 50 but didn't have a fantastic 5 year stretch.

Well, Kevin Brown is setting the bar a little high; I'd expect Kevin Brown to be one of the top ten pitchers taken (I probably would have taken him over Pete Alexander). Trosky isn't anywhere remotely close to being one of the top hundred position players.

[Wade8813]

Ah, I got my guy, good. Don't know what I would have done if Randy Johnson hadn't been available; my whole draft strategy rested on having the best inning-for-inning right handed and left handed starters. Certainly not a bad strategy, but I don't think it would have been the end of the world for you if you'd had to "settle" for the 2nd best righty or lefty ;) .

Although I'm not completely sure Randy's the best lefty. He's definitely among the best, but I'm not sure I can say he's the best (then again, I also can't say he isn't the best...)


I'm very, very pleased. Like I said earlier, it's much easier to pick up a random position player with a nice five year peak than do the same for a pitcher. I'm not disagreeing, but I think your statement needs a caveat - it's much easier to get a random position player at many of the positions. Some of the positions? Not so much.

[ElHalo]

Although I'm not completely sure Randy's the best lefty. He's definitely among the best, but I'm not sure I can say he's the best (then again, I also can't say he isn't the best...)

Like I said, other than his half season with the Mariners, the lowest ERA+ he put up was 181. There's only three other lefties in history with more than a single season with an ERA+ over 180; the best any of them can give you in a five year stretch is two such seasons. I feel very confident saying he's the best five year lefty of all time.

I'm not disagreeing, but I think your statement needs a caveat - it's much easier to get a random position player at many of the positions. Some of the positions? Not so much.

I completely agree with this. It's very possible that my first position player pick will be somebody whose stats don't look that tremendous, but who far outstips the third tier options at his position.

[Wade8813]

Like I said, other than his half season with the Mariners, the lowest ERA+ he put up was 181. There's only three other lefties in history with more than a single season with an ERA+ over 180; the best any of them can give you in a five year stretch is two such seasons. I feel very confident saying he's the best five year lefty of all time. I agree ERA+ is important, but there are other factors.

[ElHalo]

I agree ERA+ is important, but there are other factors.

True, of course. I think this discussion will have to be reserved until after he's chosen, but I'm not very high on the guy I believe you're thinking of. Either way, happy with my draft so far.

[philkid3]

Wow, from the moment El Halo picked Pedro I was eyeing Grove. I never thought he'd still be there.

hard to pick a 5-year stretch for him, though. Especially becaus 1933-34 screw things up.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Wow, from the moment El Halo picked Pedro I was eyeing Grove. I never thought he'd still be there.

hard to pick a 5-year stretch for him, though. Especially becaus 1933-34 screw things up.

I was teetering on Grove and Petey.

[ElHalo]

Wow, from the moment El Halo picked Pedro I was eyeing Grove. I never thought he'd still be there.

hard to pick a 5-year stretch for him, though. Especially becaus 1933-34 screw things up.

That's the thing with Grove. If you could take 30-32 and 35-36, he'd be an absolute God. But in this format you can't. Still a great guy to have, though.

[leecemark]

--Yeah its a shame he got stuck with those 1928-29 seasons to start off the 5 years. That slacker barely cracked a 150 ERA+ those years. Why in 1929 he fell off to only 3rd in the league in ERA:D. Of course he did lead in ERA the other 4 - several by almost unbelieveable margins. And he did lead in strikeouts every year. Even in those two "warm up" seasons he went 44-14 and was the best pitcher in baseball . I guess he'll do as a consolation prize.

[brett]

Grove still has a 5 year ERA+ of 174 and Johnson just 177 and Grove pitched 10% more innings per season in a season with 5% fewer games so he has about 15% more "stamina" with his 2% "suckier" ERA+. Also Grove trails only 3 guys in 1900's 5 year WARP I, and 2 have been selected AND his WARP gets knocked down by 5 for that period because of his hitting, which should not factor in with the use of the DH. He has more WARP per inning than any of the other 3.

Johnson by the way appears to have pitched for defenses in the 5 year span that hurt his ERA+ (poor defenses) by about 10 ops+ points. Also, with K Kings of Pedro and Randy you don't have to worry as much about getting good fielders.

By the way, why would it be important to get a lefty AND a righty starter? I understand relievers, but is it important to have mixed handed starters?

I was sure that one of the two would fall through if I moved down-and I missed out. Well at least I moved up 3 spots in the 5th round. There are still 10 1900s pitchers who's 5 year WARP scores are on average equal to Grove's and Martinez' though. Still, on both counts, great picks.

I also think we see the fast drop in centerfield after DiMaggio. Almost everyone has the same top 5 in center, and everyone else. The history people will also consider field generalship.

As for pitchers and position players in general, if pitchers get hard to find, they certainly have a premium-there are fewer awesome 5 year peaks out there, however, a pitcher on a staff like this who gets say 220 innings, is only pitching about 1/7 of his teams innings, and defense probably is about 20% of the run prevention factor, so they are doing about 1/8 of a team's run prevention which is dead even to the relative responsibility of an everyday position player who does 1/9 of the hitting and 3% of the run prevention. A good fielding and running player with a 180 OPS+ is still producing as much total value as a pitcher with a 180 ERA+. In post season consideration, the pitcher moves up of course.

I have one last back-up plan for this round however and since I'm up, it's Eddie Collins. mmmboy I need some pitchers now.

[leecemark]

--In CF, I see the Big 5 (or should it be big 4 plus DiMaggio - Joe missed alot of time even in his prime seasons), then the NEXT 2, then everybody else. If I fall to the 8th best CFer I would porbaly let that position slide for awhile, because I don't see that much difference between 8 and 14.
--Pitching could be a problem for me - at least in terms of an ace. With 14th pick once I took 2 position players in the first and 2nd rounds (14/15) I don't pick again until number 42. I'm likely to have a matchup problem with alot of teams in game one in a postseason series. Games 1 and 2 against temas that look pitching first.

[brett]

So I took Collins who I would have taken had I drafted earlier yesterday before I fixed on Grove.

Collins suprisingly has the 4th highest 5 year WARP in history at 77.5, third among position players, and has all of that extra baserunning that doesn't go into WARP as well. Grove's 5 year WARP excluding hitting is about 63 and Johnson's is only 49.

'09 to '13 were clearly his best all around relative seasons, as league averages were very low in '09 and '10 and he was a gold glove level fielder during that stretch as well, and with those young legs, he would have picked up the most bases that don't show up anywhere during that stretch.

He hit .345 and stole an average of 61 bases during that stretch and had a .424 on base percentage in a league that produced just .329.

So I guess I'll have to settle for a centerfielder and second baseman near the top of my lineup with a combined .370 batting average, 135 combined relative on base percentage and 128 steals per.

The negative is that I had several good late round second base choices. I think that second is very deep and doesn't have many sudden drops. I count at least 9 1900's second basemen who had 45+ over 5 years.

And it's fun. It's fun to imagine Collins and Cobb scrapping hits off of Johnson and Pedro's strikeout stuff and driving the pitcher's a little crazy.

[ChrisLDuncan]

That was an amazing pick. I would have taken Collins if the CFs didn't dry up so quickly.

[Wade8813]

I also think we see the fast drop in centerfield after DiMaggio. Almost everyone has the same top 5 in center, and everyone else. The history people will also consider field generalship.Hank Aaron qualifies at CF, so there's been 6 taken. And while there's a drop, I don't think it's as big as you indicate.

--Pitching could be a problem for me - at least in terms of an ace. With 14th pick once I took 2 position players in the first and 2nd rounds (14/15) I don't pick again until number 42. I'm likely to have a matchup problem with alot of teams in game one in a postseason series. Games 1 and 2 against temas that look pitching first. Is that even a consideration for us? Does it matter if our team would do better in a postseason environment? Or just a regular season?

[brett]

Hank Aaron qualifies at CF, so there's been 6 taken. And while there's a drop, I don't think it's as big as you indicate.

Aaron actually was probably at least a slightly above average centerfielder for over 180 games during that period, so good call.

And you may be right about the next guys as far as 5 year peak. A few other centerfielders may have had good enough 5 year stretches to make the close to the top guys.

[philkid3]

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. . . can I ask where you get a list of 5-year WARPs from? Is there a BP sortable I've never discovered?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Please Do Not Talk About Players Who Have Not Been Picked Yet

[Wade8813]

Of course, people without CFers still have to worry about someone who has a CFer taking another one, and putting one of them in LF or RF.

[brett]

Please Do Not Talk About Players Who Have Not Been Picked Yet


Deleted it.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Thanks, however I really don't think that guy was a sleeper :eek: However in speaking of players who are eligible for multiple positions. Mickey Mantle can play first base and every where in the OF. However, it'd be a bad idea to put him anywhere than center.

[brett]

Baseball prospectus has WARP scores. Warp I does not assume league quality differences. Warp III attempts to quantify league quality increases over time.

Warp sets the baseline way too low so its not totally accurate. It sets a replacement player as one who is only about a 70 ops+ AND a replacement level defensive player. A true replacement player would not be that bad in both areas. As a result, guys get credit just for showing up.

It doesn't give credit for taking extra bases on the hits of others due to speed, which may account for 1 warp per year for a great top runner in his prime, 1/2 for a very good one, and also a comparable deduction for a slow baserunner.


They also have "translated batting stats" which are one way of trying to say how one player would produce in a different time and place. Wagner, in '08 for example translates to a .371 average, 54 doubles and 57 home runs! Of course, league quality is not in effect there. Ruth's translated home runs are about 1070!

You also can see players defensive trends with FRAA. Cobb, for example was probably a near gold glove level centerfielder during the 5 years I got him, but a little below average later on.

Ted Williams was actually an above average left fielder overall through about 1951 though '41 was a bad year.

[brett]

That was an amazing pick. I would have taken Collins if the CFs didn't dry up so quickly.


Thanks. Where do you think I should put them in the order?

[Wade8813]

You also can see players defensive trends with FRAA. Cobb, for example was probably a near gold glove level centerfielder during the 5 years I got him, but a little below average later on. I wouldn't use FRAA for anything more than a vague guideline, and maybe not even for that. I've seen too many things that it rates FAR differently than what almost everyone agrees should be correct.

Thanks. Where do you think I should put them in the order? I'd put Cobb as your leadoff, but for Collins, it probably depends on who else you end up getting...

[ChrisLDuncan]

Thanks. Where do you think I should put them in the order?

Ahead of Cobb, Cobb has more power and should hit with Collins on base.

[Wade8813]

Deleted post

[brett]

Philkid3, you're up.

DMF is up. PhilKid took Grove to go with Maddux.

[brett]

AstroFan, I am proud of that pick man.

Morgan's 5 year peak is absolutely top, and he gets big plusses for his additional baserunning.

You've got Williams with about a .500 on base percentage for his prime and now Morgan with about .430 in "that" era when the league was under .330. It also is nice to get a .500 slugging percentage from your second baseman.

[Wade8813]

Yeah, I goofed - I don't know how I thought PhilKid was up

[ChrisLDuncan]

WOW, I immediately regret asking AF to join this draft ;) I thought Morgan would slip and I could get a crack at him. Not cool man, not cool :mad: I considered taking him with my first pick, he had a brilliant five year peak. Great pick.


Looks like we'll have a solid draft.

[ChrisLDuncan]

AstroFan, I am proud of that pick man.

Morgan's 5 year peak is absolutely top, and he gets big plusses for his additional baserunning.

You've got Williams with about a .500 on base percentage for his prime and now Morgan with about .430 in "that" era when the league was under .330. It also is nice to get a .500 slugging percentage from your second baseman.

Oh yeah, imagine Morgan hitting ahead of Williams. Morgan had a 69.4 WARP through that stretch, a second basemen who was the savant at getting on base, hit for great power, and played gold glove defense? Hell, looking through this again I may have to move Morgan up on my rankings.

[Wade8813]

Morgan's really good, but I wouldn't say he's quite as amazing as you guys are saying. First round pick? That seems extreme.

[Wee Willie]

Morgan was indeed a great pickup. His 5-year peak was certainly the best of all remaining position players.

[ChrisLDuncan]

How many players have scored higher WARPs than Morgan in a five year peak?

[Wade8813]

WARP is not the be-all end-all.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I know it isn't, I was just wondering.

[leecemark]

--Morgan was on my short list for last pick of the first round/1st of the second. Tris Speaker was also on that list, but went one pick ahead of mine. I took Schmidt and Rodriguez. I actually think Morgan had a better peak than A-Rod - and possibly Schmidt, but this is going to a vote and Morgan is underrated by many. One other player on that short list remains undrafted. Doybt he'll get back to me, but he shall remain nameless untill picked.

[Wade8813]

I can see Morgan over A-Rod (I'm not sure), but the only way I'd take him over Schmidt is if you give him more positional adjustment then I think he deserves.

[leecemark]

--Schmidt is a better hitter over their best 5 years, but Morgan makes some of that up with his legs. Schmidt is the better fielder too, but Morgan makes some of that up with positional adjustments. What puts Schmidt ahead for me is he was more durable. Morgan was a guy who needed to be rested with some frequency, so you'd need a better backup for him than you would Schmidt. Probably the bigger advantage though is almost everyone (your objection noted in advance ElHalo:happy:) ranks Schmidt at the top of his position, while only a fairly small minority ranks Morgan at the top of his.

[Wade8813]

Yeah, where people ranks everyone shifts how good everyone is.

Anyone who ranks Morgan as the best 2nd baseman when using 5 year peaks is loopy. The best argument against Hornsby is that he didn't have as many years of dominance, but when you use a 5 year peak, he owns 2B. By a lot. But I say Hornsby is much better even for career.

[brett]

I can see Morgan over A-Rod (I'm not sure), but the only way I'd take him over Schmidt is if you give him more positional adjustment then I think he deserves.


I would DEFINITELY put Morgan's 5 year peak ahead of Schmidt's if you were just going to add them to an average team. Morgan had a .430 on base% and .500 slugging percentage for those years, and stole 62 bases a year at over an 80% clip and even batted .302.

And the biggest plus is all the extra bases that a great runner takes on the hits of others. This is totally disregarded in any warp or win share ranking. Again, a great baserunner can produce 8 runs in a prime season with his legs IN ADDITION to those that show up in other stats like steals etc.

The only knock's on Morgan are that he dropped off defensively starting in '76. He was in the top 3-4 from '72-'75. Also, I have come to view the 70s as not as high of in league quality as some systems. I have begun to think that there was very little difference in LQ between about 1905 and 1991 or so and that it has come up in the last 15 years. Some factors made it stronger and others weaker. I also think that Collins may have been the top fielder of his time, and while Morgan was good, he was a little overrated defensively.


And also, I am not going to worry about perceptions of "voters." I just think its fun to craft a team.

Morgan had the best 5 year WARP I score in the last 90 years. I think that of 5 year periods past 1900, Hornsby, Walter Johnson, Wagner, Collins and one other player were higher. His peak 5 top Mantle and Williams, and the may even top Ruth. I'll check.

And again, great baserunners will gain another .5-1.0 warp a year throughout their prime.

[leecemark]

--Well I really don't care to discuss those 2 players much more. If you do a search for past Hornsby-Morgan discussions you'll find hundreds of lengthy posts - too many of them mine:blush:.
--Morgan's peak is not so far off Hornsby's though. Hornsby was the better hitter, but league quality adjustments narrow that somewhat. Morgan has a huge edge as a baserunner and a significant one as a defensive player. Depending on how much you might bump up Morgan for his clubhouse presence and/or downgrade Hornsby for his the total package could tilt Morgan's way. Thankfully I don't have a dog in this fight though, so I'll end my participation in Morgan-Hornsby IX at one post.

[leecemark]

--Brett, I am mostly interested in building what I think is the best team too. If its close between too players though and one of them is an easier sell to the crowd...well marketing is part of team building too;)

[Wade8813]

I would DEFINITELY put Morgan's 5 year peak ahead of Schmidt's if you were just going to add them to an average team. Morgan had a .430 on base% and .500 slugging percentage for those years, and stole 62 bases a year at over an 80% clip and even batted .302. Schmidt had about .030 less OB, but .080 more SLG. That's a large chunk. And while SB can make up for that, SLG will advance other runners more, and isn't impeded by having a runner ahead of you who isn't as fast.

[brett]

Schmidt had about .030 less OB, but .080 more SLG. That's a large chunk. And while SB can make up for that, SLG will advance other runners more, and isn't impeded by having a runner ahead of you who isn't as fast.

I do think Schmidt was the best defensive third baseman and Morgan maybe upper third for those stretches, but second sackers average about 80-05 OPS+ and third basemen around 95-98. Plus again, Morgan may have picked up 15-20 extra bases, and Schmidt some as well (probably 8-10) on an average base runner.

Schmidt's prime was a lot longer, really '74 to '86 or '87. Warp-wise, '74-'78 was actually his peak. There was a modest boost to offense starting in '77 probably due to a livelier ball.

[Erik Bedard]

DMF is up. PhilKid took Grove to go with Maddux.

Small correction: I have Maddux.

Morgan's really good, but I wouldn't say he's quite as amazing as you guys are saying. First round pick? That seems extreme.

I was actually looking at Morgan for my first-round pick, but decided against taking him because I figured he'd drop another round. Then when all the CFs started going off, I figured I needed DiMaggio or I'd have to settle for a less attractive option.

[ElHalo]

--In CF, I see the Big 5 (or should it be big 4 plus DiMaggio - Joe missed alot of time even in his prime seasons), then the NEXT 2, then everybody else. If I fall to the 8th best CFer I would porbaly let that position slide for awhile, because I don't see that much difference between 8 and 14.

Again, here's the thing: It's a much different horse in a five year peak league than an overall league. I've got a guy who's not a top 20 CF... but since we're just going on five year peaks, he's probably 90% the player DiMaggio is, and is arguably just as good when you consider DiMaggio's games played in his peak seasons. There's a really good chance he'll still be around in the tenth round, so I don't see the need to go crazy worrying about such things at the moment.

[leecemark]

--If your guy is not a top 20 CFer then I doubt he is 90% of DiMaggio. Joltin Joe was an amazing hitter and outstanding defender. Anybody who came close to him for 5 years in both areas is going to be top 20 - and probably top 10 - at the position even if he didn't do much outside those 5 years.

[Wade8813]

Not necessarily. Someone like Hank Aaron qualifies as a CFer in this thing, but no one rates him there for career.

But I'd guess that anyone who's about as good as DiMaggio won't last until the 10th round - that's a long time.

[leecemark]

--Hank has already been picked and I expect anybody else who is 90% of Dimaggio will be long before the 10th round. We'll be at 116 players through 9.

[ElHalo]

--If your guy is not a top 20 CFer then I doubt he is 90% of DiMaggio. Joltin Joe was an amazing hitter and outstanding defender. Anybody who came close to him for 5 years in both areas is going to be top 20 - and probably top 10 - at the position even if he didn't do much outside those 5 years.

I won't delve into any more specifics, but I'll tell you you'll be surprised when the time comes.

There's a prohibition on talking about undrafted players, but, as an example, if you look back a few pages, you'll find a discussion between Brett and I about a particular pitcher most people wouldn't have ranked in their top 50 all time. I mentioned then that I probably would have taken him ahead of Pete Alexander; after crunching the numbers, I can tell you that I most assuredly would have taken him against Pete Alexander... but he's got not a whiff of the Hall of Fame, and his name certainly never gets brought up in the discussion of greatest pitchers of all time. These things happen when you go with this format.

[Wade8813]

I know Hank has been picked - that's why I mentioned him. CDL doesn't want us talking about players who haven't been picked yet, so I chose one who has been picked for my example. There are probably others in a similar situation.

But yeah, so many players are going to be gone, I kinda doubt the person he wants will last that long.

[leecemark]

--I don't know. If he would have taken a guy not even close to the Hall of Fame ahead of Pete Alexander maybe the guy he thinks is 90% of Joe DiMaggio will be available in the 10th round.
--You do always bring a unique perspective to player evaluation, Jim.

[Wade8813]

Or maybe the part about how close he is to the HoF is off. Or both...

Hu nose?

[brett]

I won't delve into any more specifics, but I'll tell you you'll be surprised when the time comes.

There's a prohibition on talking about undrafted players, but, as an example, if you look back a few pages, you'll find a discussion between Brett and I about a particular pitcher most people wouldn't have ranked in their top 50 all time. I mentioned then that I probably would have taken him ahead of Pete Alexander; after crunching the numbers, I can tell you that I most assuredly would have taken him against Pete Alexander... but he's got not a whiff of the Hall of Fame, and his name certainly never gets brought up in the discussion of greatest pitchers of all time. These things happen when you go with this format.


But with a guy like Alexander, you have to consider that at his actual rates, he's going to eat up 25% of your innings in a season. You only need 4 guys like that to fill out your team. Or you can consider that he probably would have been 10-15% better in his rates if he came down to 220 innings.

With a guy who only pitched 220, you need 6 pitchers with those innings to eat up all of your IP. We at least can consider that Alexander COULD have thrown 380 innings while Pedro for example never even threw 60% of that many innings even in a 5% (or more) longer season. Taking a couple of guys with awesome rates and 220 innings is a good strategy in my view, expecially considering post season, but Alexander almost gives you as many innings as BOTH of them combined and you either have to figure what he could have done on 4 days rest, and throwing his best stuff to everyone, or you have to figure that he could go 380 and literally save you the value of another entire pick.

If you want to compare rates, straight up, you have to figure that your rates for say #1) Pedro and #2) RJ AND your #3) pitcher going for 200 innings will still be better than Alexander and that teams #2 man alone. In other words, you have to make one more pick than the guy who took Alexander. But they probably will because Alexander has that 1918 season cutting his great years apart. If he could ahve used '15-'17 and '19-'20 it would be a different story though.

Actually, Chris, this needs to be corrected because 1918 was lost to WWI so it is excluded. He also lost part of 1919 which should be factored into consideration.

If you use '15, '16, '17, '19 and '20 he has about a 180 ERA+ and with war credit for time in '19 about 375 innings per season. That's a better ERA+ than Randy Johnson who went about 175 with what? 240 per season. You get 1.5 RJ's in one Pete.

Also, the last poster needs to pick the years for Lajoie. That may be tough.

By the way Lajoie is tied with Collins for the 4th highest 5 year WARP ever (though Collins was a more modern second baseman and had more to offer on the basepaths). I think Lajoie is a little overrated defensively because of the role of second base in his time.

Alexander then, with '18 removed has the second highest pitcher warp ever over 5 "years", and that is without consideration for missing a third of 1919.

By the way, what is the official rule about seasons that were cut short to the war. Did we say that if a player missed more than half due to the war, that season could be excluded? What about Greenberg '45? Can that season be skipped over as he missed about half? I know I asked about a player who played less than 2 months in '45 and was told that that season was excluded.

[brett]

Also, I think you guys are overstating Dimaggio's down-time. He averaged 137.4 out of 153 team games those 5 years or 89.8%. That would be like someone playing 145 today. I noted that Cobb only played 141 a season during my stretch but he still trailed only Ruth and Speaker (by 0.2 total in 5 seasons in Speaker's case) in WARP I. If I have another guy pick up the 10 game difference in games played, he only has to have a rate of .5 warp per 162 games to put me ahead on balance.

[Wade8813]

I'm not sure if playing innings translates like that. I'm assuming most of the reason he didn't play more was because he needed a break. Playing a longer season quite possibly means your rate will go down.

[leecemark]

--Collins and Lajoie had quite a bit of career overlap. In fact, Lajoie was still active for allof the period you are using Collins. The argument that 2B was more important in Collins time than Lajoie's isn't going to get you very far. Now if you're talking about Morgan - or even a 1930s 2B then the positional value is much different. I'm not sure either Lajoie or Collins can be consider a great defensive 2B in an all time sense due to the shift in responsibilities for the position.
-- Also, while Collins was definately faster than Lajoie how effective a baserunner he was is open to question. For the years we have data he was not a high percentage base stealer. I had him on an all time team using DiamondMind to sim the season. By a couple weeks into the season I completely stopped letting him run because he was making too many outs for me (he was still a good leadoff man even without the steals though).
--Projecting them both into a modern setting I think Lajoe would be the better hitter. He had considerably more power, much of which went to waste in the deadball era while Collins speed was maximized. OTOH Collins probably would have stuck at 2B, while Lajoie is more comparable to a modern 3B.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Actually, Chris, this needs to be corrected because 1918 was lost to WWI so it is excluded. He also lost part of 1919 which should be factored into consideration.

By the way, what is the official rule about seasons that were cut short to the war. .

Duly noted


If a player missed ANYTIME due to war the season is skipped. So to answer you question: yes. If you have ANY questions about eligibility please send me a PM, email, or message via AIM. I dunno I just consider it bush to discuss players who haven't been drafted...if it's okay with you guys though it's okay with me.

[Wade8813]

I agree, we should generally avoid discussing them, although sometimes they come up in the course of discussion.

I think Lajoie is a little overrated defensively because of the role of second base in his time. I've heard that often enough, but what does it mean? Was the ball hit to the 2nd baseman less frequently or something?

[ElHalo]

But with a guy like Alexander, you have to consider that at his actual rates, he's going to eat up 25% of your innings in a season. You only need 4 guys like that to fill out your team. Or you can consider that he probably would have been 10-15% better in his rates if he came down to 220 innings.

Yeah, I don't really consider either one. To use the name of a guy who won't ever be drafted, I think it's silly to say you can take two Will Whites and fill out your entire rotation... the game was such a different world that it's impossible to take a guy from a time when people threw that many innings and assume he'd throw as many in a rotation with Pedro Martinez. And I also think it's silly to assume that he'd do better with less innings... while pitchers generally tend to have higher rates in fewer innings, I don't quite buy the concept that Walter Johnson would have put up an 0.20 ERA if his innings got cut in half. I tend to look at IP in the context of the league they're playing in... i.e., a guy who threw 350 innings in 1906 is roughly equivalent to a guy who threw 250 innings in 2006, and the rates are roughly comparable (less a league quality adjustment).

[Wade8813]

Neither approach sounds at all right to me. NO ONE has enough endurane that you could even consider having them pitch 1/4 of a season.

On the flip side, it seems really unlikely that it translates the to be equivilant like you say, ElHalo.

[brett]

-- Also, while Collins was definately faster than Lajoie how effective a baserunner he was is open to question. For the years we have data he was not a high percentage base stealer. I had him on an all time team using DiamondMind to sim the season. By a couple weeks into the season I completely stopped letting him run because he was making too many outs for me (he was still a good leadoff man even without the steals though).



I have heard claims that roughly 40% of times recorded as caught stealing prior to the mid 20's were actually times guys got hung out of failed sacrifice attempts. This would bring Collin's steal rate at least up to the upper 70s. This would take a year like 1914 where he went 58-30 in steal attempts and change it effectively to 58-18 which is pretty good (76%), real good for that run environment.

Defensively, I think that the shift began in the 20s, and Collins has 11 seasons from 1920 on. Double plays started to rise. Some of that was because the live ball got to the fielders more quickly. Even though I didn't take Collins from that period, his rates went right up with the league in the 20s showing that he would have had no trouble making adjustments. There's also the suggestion that Lajoie's defensive stats were boosted by him taking all of the elective plays from the shortstop.

And I also like the fact that Collins kept on hitting right through the 20s. He had 5 years with at least a 134 OPS+ from 1920 on and even went 5th, 2nd and 2nd in the MVP voting after that.

I'll agree, I see Lajoie as a guys who would have become a power hitter, like Joe Jackson, or Wagner could have, or Hornsby did, but he was not a guy who drew walks. Guys who didn't work walks in the '10's didn't suddenly start drawing walks in the '20s so he might have been a good average power hitter who had mediocre on-base percentages.

Also, his last good year was 1913, and Collins played 17 years after that. Its not really the amount of overlap, but that Collins proved himself in the new age, and Lajoie raises doubts.

[brett]

Neither approach sounds at all right to me. NO ONE has enough endurane that you could even consider having them pitch 1/4 of a season.

On the flip side, it seems really unlikely that it translates the to be equivilant like you say, ElHalo.


I just know that for Alexander and Young, it has been claimed that they got to the 370 and beyond level because they would take something off of their pitches with no one on base, because no one could beat you with one hit back then when there were 20 home runs per team per season. Then if someone got on they would turn to their A stuff. The same seemed to happen after the 30s when innings rose again, but some pitchers stayed in the low to mid 200 range and seemed to have better rates. You have a period of time when some guys were going 340 innings with "good" era+ scores, and other guys were going 230 innings with "great" era+ scores. It's hard to sort out who might have been the "cy young" winner from those eras.

So that whole theory requires the conclusion that dead ball pitchers could have improved their rates a little bit if they had taken it easy, but the THE WHOLE LEAGUE would have done the same thing and the ERA+ scores might not have changed that much.

Pedro proves he could pitch 240 innings in '97, and had 13 complete games, and he actually ranked 4, 6, 8, and 5 in innings from '97-'00.

Alexander led the league every year from '14-'17 and '20 when he wasn't out to war, so he has to rate at least comparable to the absolute top IP guys of the live ball era.

[brett]

Yeah, I don't really consider either one. To use the name of a guy who won't ever be drafted, I think it's silly to say you can take two Will Whites and fill out your entire rotation... the game was such a different world that it's impossible to take a guy from a time when people threw that many innings and assume he'd throw as many in a rotation with Pedro Martinez. And I also think it's silly to assume that he'd do better with less innings... while pitchers generally tend to have higher rates in fewer innings, I don't quite buy the concept that Walter Johnson would have put up an 0.20 ERA if his innings got cut in half. I tend to look at IP in the context of the league they're playing in... i.e., a guy who threw 350 innings in 1906 is roughly equivalent to a guy who threw 250 innings in 2006, and the rates are roughly comparable (less a league quality adjustment).

Where would you rank Alexander with the '18 season eliminated for the war?, using '15-'17 and '19-'20? He lead in IP every year but '19 when he missed about 30% to the war, and had about a 180 ERA+. I didn't calculate it, but it looks like a better ERA+ than Grove or Randy Johnson's 5 years in the mid 170s average.

[brett]

With the pick of Musial I noticed that he played over 250 games in centerfield during that 5 year period, and seems to rate as a solid fielder there.

I don't think his 5 year peak was amazing, because he won 2 of his MVPs in years outside of that period, and during the war, but with the evidence of his ability in centerfield, it looks good.

I wonder where Aaron or Musial would be rank all time if they had been full time centerfielders. Both seemed very competent there at least based on the stats we have "created".

[ElHalo]

Where would you rank Alexander with the '18 season eliminated for the war?, using '15-'17 and '19-'20? He lead in IP every year but '19 when he missed about 30% to the war, and had about a 180 ERA+. I didn't calculate it, but it looks like a better ERA+ than Grove or Randy Johnson's 5 years in the mid 170s average.

The current stretch used for Alexander gives a 159.97 ERA+ in 362.92 innings; using 15-17 and 19-20 gives a 177.23 ERA+ in 350.32 innings. That would rate significantly higher than the stretch currently being used.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I've heard that often enough, but what does it mean? Was the ball hit to the 2nd baseman less frequently or something?

There were more bunts, and more guys try to run, so first and third were more important than second. Also the DP wasn't as big of a part of the game, so second was less important.

[philkid3]

Were 1st and 3rd actually more important than second, or was the importance of first just closer to the importance of second than it is today?

[Wade8813]

There were more bunts, and more guys try to run, so first and third were more important than second. Also the DP wasn't as big of a part of the game, so second was less important. If that's true, why is 2nd the only position mentioned as being worse? Shortstop should have been worse by just as much if those are the only factors. Heck, even the outfield should have been a bit worse, since bunts don't tend to go to the OF.

[Wee Willie]

With the pick of Musial I noticed that he played over 250 games in centerfield during that 5 year period, and seems to rate as a solid fielder there.

I don't think his 5 year peak was amazing, because he won 2 of his MVPs in years outside of that period, and during the war, but with the evidence of his ability in centerfield, it looks good.

I wonder where Aaron or Musial would be rank all time if they had been full time centerfielders. Both seemed very competent there at least based on the stats we have "created".

A big reason I chose Stan was that I could put him at CF, 1B, or corner outfield - depending on who's available later on.

There maybe a few other players left that have had a little bit better 5-year peak, but Stan did put up a WARP3 of over 60 and nearly 200 win shares from '48-'52 - which is pretty strong, and his career value seems to be the best of the remaining players.

I think Aaron and Musial would both have ranked a little higher (1 or 2 spots) among our consensus voters had they spent most of their time in CF. I doubt they would've played as many games in center as Mays or Speaker, but their defensive value would be somewhat higher.

[ChrisLDuncan]

If that's true, why is 2nd the only position mentioned as being worse? Shortstop should have been worse by just as much if those are the only factors. Heck, even the outfield should have been a bit worse, since bunts don't tend to go to the OF.


Short was still important because there were actually still guys who would hit, same goes for the OF. The reason why second is considered so important to day is because of: less bunting, the double play, and the shift of putting guys who can't field at first base. Back in those days first base is where you'd put a great defender, so the second basemen had less of a job.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Were 1st and 3rd actually more important than second, or was the importance of first just closer to the importance of second than it is today?

Yes, the first basemen had to hold the runner more often and field a lot of bunts against lefties, and the third basemen had tons of bunts to field. it was probably:

C
SS
3B
1B
CF
2B
RF
LF

[Wade8813]

Short was still important because there were actually still guys who would hit, same goes for the OF. The reason why second is considered so important to day is because of: less bunting, the double play, and the shift of putting guys who can't field at first base. Back in those days first base is where you'd put a great defender, so the second basemen had less of a job. Putting a great defender at 1B is the only one of those factors that affect 2B and not SS or the OF. It seems kind of dubious to knock 2B that much just because you have a good fielding 1Bman. There have been some good fielding 1st basemen since then, but that's never a knock against 2Bmen. And there were bad fielding 1Bmen back then - should the 2Bmen that played with them get more credit?

Also, why does nobody talk about 1st and 3rd base being more important - they only talk about 2nd being worse?

[ElHalo]

Ok; I have all the player stats updated in the stats thread (with the exception of Nap Lajoie, whose years haven't been chosen yet). Just picked up Excel 2007, and was figuring out some of the vagaries of the internal web browser. It should only take me thirty seconds or so to add stats for new players going forward, so I'll get it up as soon as I see stuff posted.

[Wade8813]

Man, I was hoping to be able to pick hours ago...

[brett]

Putting a great defender at 1B is the only one of those factors that affect 2B and not SS or the OF. It seems kind of dubious to knock 2B that much just because you have a good fielding 1Bman. There have been some good fielding 1st basemen since then, but that's never a knock against 2Bmen. And there were bad fielding 1Bmen back then - should the 2Bmen that played with them get more credit?

Also, why does nobody talk about 1st and 3rd base being more important - they only talk about 2nd being worse?

Defensive third basemen and first basemen from before 1930, and especially 1920 DO tend to be rated more on their defense. Jimmy Collins for example. Kind of like in softball, second base was a position to hide someone. I'd almost say that third, first and second were virtually even in defensive importance prior to 1920. If your third basemen could not handle bunts and throws, a team could literally bunt at will for hits back then and actually direct them at the third baseman. Lajoie was tough to place though because he was statistically a great defensive second baseman for that era. Some have shown that he took an inordinately high percentage of his teams elective plays that either the second baseman OR shortstop could take.

I might even argue that if Lajoie HAD been a third baseman in that era, he would have been higher up on the all time list. Possibly true for Hornsby as well.

[brett]

Ok; I have all the player stats updated in the stats thread (with the exception of Nap Lajoie, whose years haven't been chosen yet). Just picked up Excel 2007, and was figuring out some of the vagaries of the internal web browser. It should only take me thirty seconds or so to add stats for new players going forward, so I'll get it up as soon as I see stuff posted.

Would it be possible to add in games played/season for the first 5-6 guys?

Also, if anyone is interested, I may compile 5 year WARP I and WARP III, and 5 year WARP I and WARP III per 162 games or 260 innings pitched, unless someone would prefer another number of innings.

[brett]

Was the original draft thread deleted?

[Wade8813]

This was the original draft thread.

[ElHalo]

Would it be possible to add in games played/season for the first 5-6 guys?


Not a problem; forgot I hadn't added that in to the spreadsheet until a few guys deep.

Also, if anyone is interested, I may compile 5 year WARP I and WARP III, and 5 year WARP I and WARP III per 162 games or 260 innings pitched, unless someone would prefer another number of innings.

Sounds good to me.

[Wade8813]

Westlake's time is almost up. I hope TSS is ready...

[The Splendid Splinter]

Westlake's time is almost up. I hope TSS is ready...

yeah im here... when does his time run out?

[Wade8813]

It should be in about 3 minutes. His time started 10 am Central, and it's almost 6 pm Central.

[The Splendid Splinter]

It should be in about 3 minutes. His time started 10 am Central, and it's almost 6 pm Central.

should i go now? nvm still some time maybe?

[Wade8813]

The forum clock usually seems to be a bit off - it's your turn. And really, 8 hours should be more than enough time to either make your pick, or ask someone to cover for you...

[brett]

should i go now? nvm still some time maybe?


You can by rule, though you have an 8 hour window now based on my understanding.

What do you guys say?

Anyway, I have an idea about what to do with Hornsby if Westlake drops out. I suggest we be allowed to bargain to drop our future draft picks down by a number of spaces in the draft, starting with our next pick until he is off the draft at position #420, and then moving to our next draft pick. Whomever offers the most draft places gets Hornsby.

For example, my next pick is #38. If I drop him off the draft (spot 421) that would count as a bid of 383 positions. Then I could move to my next guy at #49 and bid to drop him to draft position 300, a drop of 251 for a TOTAL of 634 draft spots. Then someone else can try to bid higher. We should set an 8 hour time limit.

I don't want to see him drop off though.

[brett]

I agree that M Brown is up there for ERA+ but I still see 8 other guys on the board with a higher 5 year peak WARP I among 1900s pitchers. I've got him at 48.4 which is only 18th among pitchers and 14th among top 5 year stretches in the 20th century or beyond.
Considering he had about a 190 ERA+ it doesn't really make sense that he would be so low in WARP though.

[Wade8813]

I think it's still too early to assume Westlake is dropping out, although we probably should think of some sort of plan.

For your idea, you can just shift any of your picks down by any amount, even if it sticks you into some random place later in the draft (for example, I'm on the wheel, but I could stick my next pick in the middle of the 5th round)? Also, I assume we would have to do it at the end of a round or something - it seems kind of unfair if we were to do it right now, when I just picked, and am the only person with any picks this round, when I would want to lower that pick to get Hornsby.

[The Splendid Splinter]

i think if Evan doesnt pick anymore and it's just Hornsby then he should be dropped and nobody can get him... now if Evan had like 5 picks already then dropped out... we would need a backup plan for that. also it is too early to assume that he's not playing.

[The Splendid Splinter]

I agree that M Brown is up there for ERA+ but I still see 8 other guys on the board with a higher 5 year peak WARP I among 1900s pitchers. I've got him at 48.4 which is only 18th among pitchers and 14th among top 5 year stretches in the 20th century or beyond.
Considering he had about a 190 ERA+ it doesn't really make sense that he would be so low in WARP though.

yeah i was surprised at his WARP too... i didnt checked until after i picked him. oh well...

[brett]

I think it's still too early to assume Westlake is dropping out, although we probably should think of some sort of plan.

For your idea, you can just shift any of your picks down by any amount, even if it sticks you into some random place later in the draft (for example, I'm on the wheel, but I could stick my next pick in the middle of the 5th round)? Also, I assume we would have to do it at the end of a round or something - it seems kind of unfair if we were to do it right now, when I just picked, and am the only person with any picks this round, when I would want to lower that pick to get Hornsby.

Yes as far as the new draft spot. As for your case, it shouldn't matter. You have less to wager with your next pick, but also less to lose. Since one would certainly have to drop their next pick completely off of the draft, you would have to drop the NEXT next one 14 spots more than the guy who is up to draft now, but you would lose the same number of total draft spots.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Wade.... yeah I was deciding on Boggs and a SS... i just went with Boggs cuz he would be a great leadoff or 2 hitter on a team like these with his great OBP... plus he would be on base for Bonds almost half of the time haha...

[brett]

yeah i was surprised at his WARP too... i didnt checked until after i picked him. oh well...

I found 2 explanations, one that helps your case and one that doesn't. The one that doesn't is that he has a lower WARP because his defenses rated so good during that period and took some of the value.

The one that helps you is that he was about -6 WARP during that period as a hitter. That means he was about +55 as a pitcher and fielder and we are using a DH.

[Wade8813]

Last time we did this draft, if someone was on skipped, and their turn came up again, they were automatically skipped again. Is that what we're doing here?

Also, I think I like brett's idea for if anyone drops out of the draft.

[brett]

Koufax is right in the mix as the next pitcher for sure, and Vaughn is fantastic. I have him with about 65 WARP and the next SS is quite a bit down. I was hoping to get him later. Boggs 5 year peak also makes him a fine choice, especially with third basemen being a priority.

As far as 5 year value, those picks are right on. I thought that Vaughan and Boggs would both last longer, but they may be the next valuable guys for their positions available.

[ElHalo]

Last time we did this draft, if someone was on skipped, and their turn came up again, they were automatically skipped again. Is that what we're doing here?

Yeah. Westlake's skipped again automatically. Clock's on Willie.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Putting a great defender at 1B is the only one of those factors that affect 2B and not SS or the OF. It seems kind of dubious to knock 2B that much just because you have a good fielding 1Bman. There have been some good fielding 1st basemen since then, but that's never a knock against 2Bmen. And there were bad fielding 1Bmen back then - should the 2Bmen that played with them get more credit?

Also, why does nobody talk about 1st and 3rd base being more important - they only talk about 2nd being worse?

Well it's not so much a 'knock' on second basemen, just that first and third were more important. The third basemen used to play against the bunt a lot more often putting more stress on the short stop. The reason why the DP effects the second basemen "more" than the short stop is right now being able to throw off the pivot is a huge thing, back then not so much. It really wasn't until Lou Gehrig that the kind of "average" too "poor" defenders played first base. It was primarily a defensive position. Which is why I feel that some first basemen back then were underrated.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I think it's still too early to assume Westlake is dropping out, although we probably should think of some sort of plan.

For your idea, you can just shift any of your picks down by any amount, even if it sticks you into some random place later in the draft (for example, I'm on the wheel, but I could stick my next pick in the middle of the 5th round)? Also, I assume we would have to do it at the end of a round or something - it seems kind of unfair if we were to do it right now, when I just picked, and am the only person with any picks this round, when I would want to lower that pick to get Hornsby.

Actually I'm not sure when was the last time he posted on Fever, he hasn't been on AIM lately either...maybe his internet connection got messed up or something.

[brett]

Actually I'm not sure when was the last time he posted on Fever, he hasn't been on AIM lately either...maybe his internet connection got messed up or something.

He last posted on friday when we were discussing playing players at different positions based on games played there.

[ChrisLDuncan]

He last posted on friday when we were discussing playing players at different positions based on games played there.

Probably went on a little weekend vacation, as slow as our last draft went I wouldn't expect ten picks to advance over the weekend.

[brett]

Well, Mathewson, Young and Clemens are the 3 "big name" guys remaining, but statistically they don't stand out from the pack of the next 10 pitchers.

Young and Mathewson had the highest remaining 5 year WARP peaks of the 1900s, but they needed 350+ innings average to do it. Clemens '86-'90 was right behind and did it with about 30% fewer innings so his WARP per inning is higher.

roughly
I have Young at 69,
Mathewson at 66 and
Clemens at 57.

On the other hand, Young and Mathewson would have been down under 50 if they had pitched a modern amount of innings at that rate, and their extra innings are mostly the product of the dead-ball game.

Clemens 5 year stretch was good, but '86-'90 were not even his best 5 year stretch for run prevention evne during his "clean and clear" years. He might have been the best concentrated 5 year WARP on the board, but there are 10 guys within about 5%.

Don't get me wrong. I would have probably taken Mathewson or Clemens if they were here in this round, and would have considered Young, but I am almost glad that someone else took the "big names" when the value is still out there.