Suburbs of Cooperstown Discussion Thread

[leecemark]

--In this thread we will be conducting a draft of the best players eligible for, but not inducted in, the Hall of Fame. We will be drafting 10 teams, each with 25 man rosters, for a total of 250 players. I doubt many people have 250 eligible players who they would actually want to see in Cooperstown so our 250 should include all the viable candidates. Plus some personal favorites who may fall a little below viability:).
--Our participants are; Classic, J W, Jim Albright, Freakshow, Double X, Paul Wendt, Chickazoola, jjpm74, BaseballPap and myself. I think we've got a pretty good group with diverse areas of interest who should manage to get the best guys right and avoid any significant oversights.
--The draft will commence at midnight EST on the 21st. We will be using a 12 hour clock. The first 20 picks should consist of your starting lineup a backup catcher, 2 backup infielders, two backup outfielders and one utility/PHer (14 position players) plus 5 starting pitchers and your closer/relief ace (you may substitute a 2nd reliever for your 5th starter if you think the next best releiver is better than any SP candidates when your last pitcher pick comes around. After we have picked these 200 players (those qualifying for the Suburbs of Cooperstown for future projects) we'll pick 5 more player to round out the rosters for sim purposes. These should be mostly - or even all - pitchers.
-- Once we've picked our rosters I'll run at least one DiamondMind sim with the teams, but probably more to get a true measure of who came up with the best team. I may run 10 or 20 to come up with career totals. How much simming I do will depend on the level of interest amoung our participants.
--For players who played mostly after 1894 I'll be using the programming from DMB's Alll Time Greatest players program. For earlier players I'll program them myself using 162 game averages. We will be using only MLB stats for this exercise. I do want to emphasize that the sim is not the ojective of the draft though. It is to identify the best players, within the constraints of building a workable roster. If you think guys who left some of their best years in the 1860s or Negro Leagues or minors or whatever then feel free to draft them. We'll work something out for them - probably a most comparable MLB player's numbers.
--I envision a number of other follow on projects using this pool of players. We should have the best 10 candidates at each position in our starting lineups so it wil be easy to put up some threads about the best at each. We will also have 2 teams of the least deserving Hallof Famers to compete with our best out of Cooperstown teams. I think that is an excellent idea. I'd bet against the worst HoF teams winning many pennants.

Round One
1) Jim Albright
2) JJPM74
3) J W
4) Double X
5) Chickalooza
6) Leecemark
7) Paul Wendt
8) Freakshow
9) Classic
10) Baseball PAP
Round Two
11) Baseball PAP
12) Classic
13) Freakshow
14) Paul wendt
15) Leecemark
16) Chickalooza
17) Double X
18) J W
19) JJPM74
20) Jim Albright
Round 3
21) Jim Albright
22) JJPM74
23) J W
24) Double X
25) Chickalooza
26) Leecemark
27) Paul Wendt
28) Freakshow
29) Classic
30) Baseball PAP

[leecemark]

Lineup
C:
1B:
2B:
3B:
SS:
LF:
CF:
Rf:
Rotation
SP1:
SP2:
SP3:
SP4:
SP5:
Bench
C:
IF:
IF:
OF:
OF:
PH/Utl:
Bullpen
CL:
RHSU:
LHSU:
LM:
MU:
SS:
--You will not have to use relievers only for the relief roles. Starters can fill in and do fine in the programing. For purposes of the sim there are more relievers who will excell in short outings than there are excluded starters though. You also don't have to follow this template exactly. You may prefer more position players and fewer pitchers or vice versa.

[leecemark]

--We need to round up one more participant. Also one of our current participants will away from home with limited internet access until the 21st. We'll shoot for that as the kickoff of the draft. Meanwhile we can discuss anything that may need to be ironed out.
--I'd prefer not to use the DH to allow the bench to play a bigger role. If the majority feels otherwise that can change though. There will be no discounting of stats based on league quality or timelining. The only thing the program does is adjust for league context. I'll be doing the same thing with any players left out of the program. I'll use the BBR nuetralize stats feauture and the 162 game average from that.
--There is no adjustment for longevity either, although the decline or startup years are not factored in for long career players (DMB uses their prime years). I would like to make a minor tweek for really short career player for our sim(s). Players below a minimum PT threshold would be rated injury prone if that is agreeable to the majority.
--I'm thinking that would apply to SP below 2,000 IP (not an issue if they are used in relief) and position players below 5,000 PA. If that seems too low then maybe 2500/7500. Suggestions as to how (or if) to implement this and the playing time threshold are welcome.
--Any other issues you may wish to address before we get started are also open for discussion.

[DoubleX]

I'm a little confused as to what the simulation will be based on. It's based on peak? How will peak be defined? Will we end up with a system in which Babe Herman will be on the same level as Dwight Evans? I think most of us would agree that in terms of being qualified or the Hall, Evans is the better player and that has a lot to do with his longevity. But if we remove longevity from the equation and focus on peak, then Herman would arguably be ahead of Evans, and that would seem to skew the objective of this project, which is to identify the best player based on them being outside the Hall. Evans deserves to be in the Hall before Herman, but removing longevity might not reflect that and could result in Herman being the better suited player in the league.

[jjpm74]

Rather than specify RF, CF, LF on the rosters, I'd rather outfielders be kept to OF in general as many outfielders routinely switch fields. I'd also rather players careers be looked at as a whole rather than strictly peak for reasons already alluded to by DoubleX. I'm against the idea of having DHs on the rosters.

[leecemark]

--One other thing we can work out while we're waiting for the draft to get underway are the rosters to the "worst hall of Fame teams". Looking at this I think they may end up with stronger pitching than some (most?) of the non-Hall of Fame teams. You can't really build too staffs without including some solid Hall of Famers. I guess what we'll do is start the worst 10, as well as the worst 2 at each position with better mistakes (or legit, but lower tier HoFers) coming off the bench or working out of the bullpen.
--This is the pool of Hal of Famers left out of either the HalL of Merit or BBF Hall of Fame (both in most cases);
C: Ferrell, Schalk, Lombardi and Bresnahan
1B: Kelly, Bottomley, Cepeda, Chance, Perez and Beckley
2B: Evers, Lazzeri, Mazeroski, Schoendeniest
3B: Kell, Lindstrom, Traynor
Ss: Aparicio, Bancrodt, Jackson, Maranville, Rizzuto, Tinker
LF: Brock, Manush, Hafey
CF: Combs, Duffy, Puckett, Waner, Wilson
RF: McCarthy, Hooper, Rice, Youngs, Cuyler, Klein
SP: Bender, Chesbro, Dean, Gomez, Grimes, Haines, Hoyt, Hunter, Joss, Marquard, Pennock, Welch, Willis
RP: Sutter

--My suggested starters in bold.

[leecemark]

I'm a little confused as to what the simulation will be based on. It's based on peak? How will peak be defined? Will we end up with a system in which Babe Herman will be on the same level as Dwight Evans? I think most of us would agree that in terms of being qualified or the Hall, Evans is the better player and that has a lot to do with his longevity. But if we remove longevity from the equation and focus on peak, then Herman would arguably be ahead of Evans, and that would seem to skew the objective of this project, which is to identify the best player based on them being outside the Hall. Evans deserves to be in the Hall before Herman, but removing longevity might not reflect that and could result in Herman being the better suited player in the league.

--It is prime not peak. If I remember correctly prime was however many consecutive seasons it took a player to get 5,000 PA (the best such seasons). For a shorter career player their lesser season would end up being included to get there, while for a longer career player they would be excluded. The alternative would be using 162 game averages for everyone, which would probably hurt the long career guys more. This still may result in some high peak guys being a little overrated by participants drafting with the sim in mind rather than picking the guys they actually rated the highest. I don;t know any way around that, but suggestions are welcome.
--As for disregarding differences between RF/LF you can do that. The defensive penalty for such a shift is small in this program. If a player actually did switch back and forth to even a modest degree he will be rated at both anyway.

[DoubleX]

--It is prime not peak. If I remember correctly prime was however many consecutive seasons it took a player to get 5,000 PA (the best such seasons). For a shorter career player their lesser season would end up being included to get there, while for a longer career player they would be excluded. The alternative would be using 162 game averages for everyone, which would probably hurt the long career guys more. This still may result in some high peak guys being a little overrated by participants drafting with the sim in mind rather than picking the guys they actually rated the highest. I don;t know any way around that, but suggestions are welcome.

Gotcha, though I do think this could slightly alter strategy with short career/high peak guys like Gavvy Cravath, Charlie Keller, Babe Herman, Al Rosen, Jack Fournier, Ken Williams, Dolph Camilli, and others, jumping ahead in the pecking order.

[Freakshow]

, but suggestions are welcome.
You need to decide what you're trying to accomplish here. You're aiming for one of these two objectives:

1) We aim to identify the best players that should be elected to Cooperstown. We're using HOF criteria that includes consideration of character, ability, managing and other non-playing contributions .

2) We're aiming to assemble the best teams we can in a competition to win a DiamondMind simulation. We're using DM criteria that emphasizes whatever it takes to win in that particular simulation.

Clearly, these two objectives have irreconcilable differences; we can't do both at once. So, which is it?

My interest is #1. If you later on run simulations based on our "teams" that's fine. But make it clear it's for amusement only, and to learn about how DM criteria defining value differs from Cooperstown's definition of value. IOW, it's not a competition.

[jjpm74]

Just for clarification, are we drafting from all retired players or are players who's names presently appear on the BBWAA ballot and players not yet eligible for Cooperstown excluded? Are we excluding those who were banned from baseball (Rose, J. Jackson, et. al)?

[leecemark]

You need to decide what you're trying to accomplish here. You're aiming for one of these two objectives:

1) We aim to identify the best players that should be elected to Cooperstown. We're using HOF criteria that includes consideration of character, ability, managing and other non-playing contributions .

2) We're aiming to assemble the best teams we can in a competition to win a DiamondMind simulation. We're using DM criteria that emphasizes whatever it takes to win in that particular simulation.

Clearly, these two objectives have irreconcilable differences; we can't do both at once. So, which is it?



My interest is #1. If you later on run simulations based on our "teams" that's fine. But make it clear it's for amusement only, and to learn about how DM criteria defining value differs from Cooperstown's definition of value. IOW, it's not a competition.

--My intention is that the draft identify the best 200 players ouside Cooperstown. The simulation is just intended to be a byproduct of the draft. It is one of several things I'd like to do with this pool of players once we are done, but building the best sim teams should not be the primary objective.
--I do want workable rosters though. If that means you are picking somebody you think is the 220th best instead of 195th best towards the end I think most of us can live with that. The difference in the qualifications of those players will be pretty small anyway.

[leecemark]

Just for clarification, are we drafting from all retired players or are players who's names presently appear on the BBWAA ballot and players not yet eligible for Cooperstown excluded? Are we excluding those who were banned from baseball (Rose, J. Jackson, et. al)?

--Only players currently eligible for the Hall of Fame will be eligible for this draft. Active players, players not yet retired for 5 years and banned players are not eligible.

[jjpm74]

--Only players currently eligible for the Hall of Fame will be eligible for this draft. Active players, players not yet retired for 5 years and banned players are not eligible.

Then Jim Rice, Alan Trammell, Tim Raines, Andre Dawson, Lee Smith, Bert Blyleven, Don Mattingly, Tommy John, Mark McGwire, Dale Murphy, Harold Baines, Dave Parker and Jack Morris are eligible for this draft? That definitely changes some of my choices if true. I was under the impression we were focusing on guys overlooked by the BBWAA and guys who played before the HOF existed. It's pretty likely that Jim Rice will be elected next year and I'd be surprised if Andre Dawson and Bert Blyleven get passed over by the BBWAA for much longer.

[Freakshow]

My recommendation here is to allow draft eligibility for all the 2009 BBWAA candidates except Ricky Henderson. No one disputes he belongs in the Hall; the only thing that could keep him out is a comeback or an 11th hour steroid accusation.

That would allow us to consider rankings for Raines, Rice, Dawson, Blyleven, etc, and new candidates Grace, Cone, Orosco, etc.

[Freakshow]

--My intention is that the draft identify the best 200 players ouside Cooperstown. The simulation is just intended to be a byproduct of the draft. It is one of several things I'd like to do with this pool of players once we are done, but building the best sim teams should not be the primary objective.
Then all this talk of peaks, primes and what works in DM is irrelevant to our task. You should squelch it.

[Paul Wendt]

I understand the primary objective, I think. My interest is in drafting the "positionally balanced 200 outsiders" and seeing what that whole group looks like, so like Freakshow I fit the primary objective well. As I explained to leecemark last week, I'll probably make some simulation-stupid selections. Overrating Deacon White if he has a "card" based on his major league play (1876-1890). But there will be some recent examples too, eg overrating a pitcher who is a reasonable hitter which has little value (because sim rosters are so deep that they do a lot of pinch-hitting) or no value (because there is a DH in the lineup).

--Only players currently eligible for the Hall of Fame will be eligible for this draft. Active players, players not yet retired for 5 years and banned players are not eligible.

But I understand we mean to include those who did not play ten seasons in the major leagues who are not presently eligible. That covers Socks Seybold (look him up) but in practice the main point is that it covers Ross Barnes & Co. (before 1876 but not long after) and Grant Johnson & Co. (behind the color line).

[jalbright]

Is this only for players who at least played some in the majors? Also, what are you doing (if anything) for guys like Ross Barnes? How you handle that makes a big difference on where he goes. Also, are the stats adjusted for park and era? If not, deadball guys would be screwed.

[leecemark]

--Okay guys lets not worry about the sim for now. Sorry I made it so prominent in the opening. I won't be posting any DMB stats or anything so unless you have the program you won't really be able to gear your draft strategy towards who looks the best in the DMB profile. Draft the guys you think are most deserving or who you like are deserving and happen to like or want to push forward.
--Which is not to say that looking at peak vs prime vs career or not valid and interesting things to discuss in deciding who are the most deserving Hall of Famers. One man's #1 one may be anothers #51 (or even further apart) depending on whether you lean more heavily towards peak/prime levels or career totals.

[leecemark]

My recommendation here is to allow draft eligibility for all the 2009 BBWAA candidates except Ricky Henderson. No one disputes he belongs in the Hall; the only thing that could keep him out is a comeback or an 11th hour steroid accusation.

That would allow us to consider rankings for Raines, Rice, Dawson, Blyleven, etc, and new candidates Grace, Cone, Orosco, etc.

--I would be okay with that. Henderson is a no brainer for the Hall and has no business in a project focussed on the borderliners. The rest are the kind of players who fit in well with overlooked players from the past. How does everyone else feel about that?

[jjpm74]

I'd rather not include anyone currently on the next BBWAA ballot, including guys who are there because they received more than 5% of the total votes on the previous ballot, but will go along with the overall consensus on that point.

If someone wants to make a case for any Negro league players that were somehow overlooked by the previous HOF elections, or players who's career was centered before 1871, I don't see any harm in that either.

I know that your roster suggestion is just a suggested template, but I doubt there are 16 catchers out there worthy of the HOF. We'll probably have to stretch pretty far down the totem pole to get to 8 at the catcher position as it is. I'm not sure if there are 88 worthy pitchers out there either.

[Paul Wendt]

1.
character and non-playing roles
FS wrote: "<i>1) We aim to identify the best players that should be elected to Cooperstown. We're using HOF criteria that includes consideration of character, ability, managing and other non-playing contributions.</i>"
I can go either way.

2.
how many pitchers?
You will not have to use relievers only for the relief roles. Starters can fill in and do fine in the programing. For purposes of the sim there are more relievers who will excell in short outings than there are excluded starters though. You also don't have to follow this template exactly. You may prefer more position players and fewer pitchers or vice versa.

We can't make baseball history fit the 14:11 ratio. Even at 16:9, I suspect that the pitchers will be relatively weak as Coop candy-dates. But you can pitch the result that way, representing roughly the top 80 pitchers and 120 non-pitchers rather than the 200 best players.
So I can go either way although I prefer an agreed size of pitching staff.

In the simulation, will Tony Mullane and Bert Blyleven get equally tired pitching every third day? If so, then yes it's only fair to Tony that he keeps his own raw stats. Maybe he hits Biggio twice a game and strikes him out twice. :-)

3.
On the other hand, I don't believe it is possible to compromise and fit both objectives on other points. For example, pitcher's batting pertains to suitability for Cooperstown honor but it has no value in a simulation league with the DH reduced value in a sim league with rosters of this depth.

[leecemark]

But I understand we mean to include those who did not play ten seasons in the major leagues who are not presently eligible. That covers Socks Seybold (look him up) but in practice the main point is that it covers Ross Barnes & Co. (before 1876 but not long after) and Grant Johnson & Co. (behind the color line).

--I think we can waive the 10 year requirement for players who started before the majors were established, but who do have some MLB history to look at. Barnes, Start, Pearce, etc are not a class I mean to exclude. As for Negro Leaguers I think the last large addition skimed most, if not all, the most qualified. Do we want to include those who still haven't made the cut?
--As for players who simply didn't get their 10 years in for reasons ouside a start in the 1860s or the color line - I don't think there are any I'd put in my top 200 excluded, but if you do then I guess you can pick them. The VC has made at least one exception to the 10 year rule (Addie Joss) so it is not out of the question that it could happen again. Again, I don't see anybody for whom that is a likley scenario but I don't want to deprive any of our group from picking those whom they see as most deserving.
--As the Hall of Fame has not and shows no inclination to consider non-US players I would like to exclude that talent pool from this project.
--We've got a little over a week to hammer out the details so keep the suggestions coming.

[jjpm74]

Maybe instead of a 25 man roster, we can do something like this?

C
1B
2B
SS
3B
P
P
P
P
P or RP (drafter's choice)
OF
OF
OF
OF
+5-6 additional players of our choice

I know it's not a 25 man roster. Maybe we could just focus on starters then put together a pool of remaining players generated by the 8 of us to see who's left after the starting positions are filled?

[leecemark]

1.
character and non-playing roles
FS wrote: "<i>1) We aim to identify the best players that should be elected to Cooperstown. We're using HOF criteria that includes consideration of character, ability, managing and other non-playing contributions.</i>"
I can go either way.

--Character and non-playing roles are mostly the icing on the cake for me. If someone is not VERY close to worthy as a player only then their extra credit items are going to get them over the hump for me. Your milage may vary though and you can consider whatever you wish. If someone is already in Cooperstown as a manager or pioneer or whatever though they are not going to have a secondary eligibility as a player (John McGraw for example).2.
how many pitchers?


We can't make baseball history fit the 14:11 ratio. Even at 16:9, I suspect that the pitchers will be relatively weak as Coop candy-dates. But you can pitch the result that way, representing roughly the top 80 pitchers and 120 non-pitchers rather than the 200 best players.
So I can go either way although I prefer an agreed size of pitching staff.

In the simulation, will Tony Mullane and Bert Blyleven get equally tired pitching every third day? If so, then yes it's only fair to Tony that he keeps his own raw stats. Maybe he hits Biggio twice a game and strikes him out twice. :-)

--You could get by with a 9 man pitching staff with you don't have any (or few anyway) low IP types. I agree that making workable rosters and getting exactly the best 200 are probably not mutally achievable. I hope we get maybe the best 150 out of this with the other 50 being good players who just happen to work for your roster. Unless you have 200+ guys who you think really deserve consideration that shouldn't be too tough to work with.


3.
On the other hand, I don't believe it is possible to compromise and fit both objectives on other points. For example, pitcher's batting pertains to suitability for Cooperstown honor but it has no value in a simulation league with the DH reduced value in a sim league with rosters of this depth.

--We won't use the DH so pitcher batting will have at least some value. Of course there really aren't any pitchers you probably wouldn't want to PH for at a key situation with this kind of depth. In any case, we've agreed that sim concerns will be secondary (or even thirdly:)) so give what credit you think is merited for a good hitting pitcher.

[Paul Wendt]

I'd rather not include anyone currently on the next BBWAA ballot, including guys who are there because they received more than 5% of the total votes on the previous ballot, but will go along with the overall consensus on that point.
I agree with jjpm on the first point: prefer to exclude everyone on the 2009 BBWAA ballot but will go either way.

If someone wants to make a case for any Negro league players that were somehow overlooked by the previous HOF elections, or players who's career was centered before 1871, I don't see any harm in that either.
Of course I see no harm. I think the issue pertains to anyone whose prime years begin before 1871 or 1876.

I know that your roster suggestion is just a suggested template, but I doubt there are 16 catchers out there worthy of the HOF. We'll probably have to stretch pretty far down the totem pole to get to 8 at the catcher position as it is. I'm not sure if there are 88 worthy pitchers out there either.
The 200 can be described as 88 pitchers, 16 catchers, and 96 others.
The same can be done with 72, 16, and 112.

--
Regarding the 2000/5000, I suggest number of full seasons equivalent games rather than plate appearances.
For 1893 and later (not 1894), the distortion is not great. For the 1893-1903 career (fewest games played) in contrast to the 1961-71 or 1982-92 career (most games played), the 11-season difference in number of games is about 240 games or 1.5 modern seasons. In contrast to the 1904-1961 careers that do not overlap WWI, the difference is about 150 games or one 154-game seasons. Thanks to the short seasons of 1981 and 1994/95, for most pairs of players a 5000 PA standard will amount to a threshold that is practically different by one season or less.

For players active in the mid-1880s or earlier, on the other hand, it is crucial to count shares of full seasons rather than plate appearances. Fred Dunlap never gets to 5000 PA but his roughly 340 games played for Cleveland 1880-83 is essentially every day play, comparable to about 2600 PA today. (He missed numerous games beginning 1884.)

[leecemark]

Maybe instead of a 25 man roster, we can do something like this?

C
1B
2B
SS
3B
P
P
P
P
P or RP (drafter's choice)
OF
OF
OF
OF
+5-6 additional players of our choice

I know it's not a 25 man roster. Maybe we could just focus on starters then put together a pool of remaining players generated by the 8 of us to see who's left after the starting positions are filled?

--Do you really think there would be 32 extra outfielders more qualified than potential backup infielders? We are not trying to pick the best hitters outside Cooperstown. We are trying to identify the best players. Really picking by position is the whole point of this exercise. With the exception of the sim, the follow on projects I am interested would focus on the starters though. That should give us the 8 best 1B or Cf or whatever to discuss. Amoung pitchers we'd be talking about our #1 SP or our closer if it were focussed on potential Cooperstown relievers. Who is the 15th or 16th best firstbaseman or 25th (or 45th) best starting pitcher outside of the Hall of Fame is not quite as compelling a discussion.

[Paul Wendt]

We've got a little over a week to hammer out the details so keep the suggestions coming.
That's what I'm doing, with lots of overlap in the mail during the last hour.

Re the black players, you know the strongest outside candidates from the BBFever HOF project. Dick Redding, Grant Johnson, Dobie Moore, Alejandro Oms. Is Redding the only Cooperstown outsider elected before this winter, Johnson and Moore?

[leecemark]

Paul, I don't want to make this too complicated so figuring percents of games played would not be the way I'd want to go. I would be receptive to a lower threshold for position players who careers ended prior to say 1900 though (and I'd be willing to bump that date back some if we go with a higher threshold than 5,000 PA). For pitchers not so much. With guys able to do 400-500 IP in a season the 2,000 IP mark is only 4-5 years of regular duty. Whatever playing time threshold we use will only matter for the sim anyway. It shouldn't be a drafting factor.

[jjpm74]

--Do you really think there would be 32 extra outfielders more qualified than potential backup infielders? We are not trying to pick the best hitters outside Cooperstown. We are trying to identify the best players. Really picking by position is the whole point of this exercise. With the exception of the sim, the follow on projects I am interested would focus on the starters though. That should give us the 8 best 1B or Cf or whatever to discuss. Amoung pitchers we'd be talking about our #1 SP or our closer if it were focussed on potential Cooperstown relievers. Who is the 15th or 16th best firstbaseman or 25th (or 45th) best starting pitcher outside of the Hall of Fame is not quite as compelling a discussion.

Probably not which is where the 5 or 6 floaters would come into play. I don't think any of us will have a hard time finding 1 catcher 4 infielders and 3 outfielders and I'm sure there will still be solid candidates left after all the starters have been picked in most of those positions. I'm not as confident about the starting pitchers, though I do understand that most of the discussions these rosters would be used for would limit the number of pitchers to 8-16.

[DoubleX]

I agree with jjpm on the first point: prefer to exclude everyone on the 2009 BBWAA ballot but will go either way.

I'd actually prefer to include all currently eligible players not in the Hall, so that would include any playeres that would carry over to the 2009 ballot via the 5% rule, but would not include any players that would be new on the 2009 ballot. This would also mean that Rose, Jackson, Cicotte and all other ineligible players would be out (don't know if that would impact anyone else - Hal Chase maybe? Heinie Zimmerman?). I'd also say that with Major League players, the 10 year rule would apply to be eligible, just as it does in reality (with exceptions for players in the early days of the NL, such as Ross Barnes).

[Paul Wendt]

Paul, I don't want to make this too complicated so figuring percents of games played would not be the way I'd want to go. I would be receptive to a lower threshold for position players who careers ended prior to say 1900 though (and I'd be willing to bump that date back some if we go with a higher threshold than 5,000 PA). For pitchers not so much. With guys able to do 400-500 IP in a season the 2,000 IP mark is only 4-5 years of regular duty. Whatever playing time threshold we use will only matter for the sim anyway. It shouldn't be a drafting factor.

OK. If/when the time comes, perhaps when you begin to simulate, I will be happy to give you the entire table: share of team games played by position, player, team, season; compatible with the baseball database if that matters. It is more than 65535 lines, too big for Excel. Or the lifetime total shares for all players. You'll be on your own only when you want to calculate the best run of consecutive seasons that put a player over some threshold playing time.

[jjpm74]

I'd actually prefer to include all currently eligible players not in the Hall, so that would include any playeres that would carry over to the 2009 ballot via the 5% rule, but would not include any players that would be new on the 2009 ballot. This would also mean that Rose, Jackson, Cicotte and all other ineligible players would be out (don't know if that would impact anyone else - Hal Chase maybe? Heinie Zimmerman?). I'd also say that with Major League players, the 10 year rule would apply to be eligible, just as it does in reality (with exceptions for players in the early days of the NL, such as Ross Barnes).

Heinie Zimmerman was never formally banned from baseball from what I've read.

[DoubleX]

Heinie Zimmerman was never formally banned from baseball from what I've read.

This is from baseballlibrary.com: (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Heinie_Zimmerman_1887&page=chronology)

Oct 6, 1920 - Hal Chase and Heinie Zimmerman are indicted on bribery charges as an aftermath of the investigation into the 1919 World Series. John McGraw testified that he dropped the two after the 1919 season for throwing games and trying to entice Fred Toney‚ Rube Benton and Benny Kauff to join them. Zimmerman denies the charges‚ Chase ignores them‚ but the duo will be banned for life from baseball by Judge Landis.

This is from wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinie_Zimmerman)

Zimmerman was suspended from the New York Giants in 1919, along with his friend Hal Chase for allegedly attempting to convince other players to fix games. Based on testimony by Giants manager John McGraw during the Black Sox Scandal hearings, Zimmerman and Chase were both indicted for bribery. Zimmerman denied McGraw's accusations, and neither he nor Chase was ever proven to be directly connected to the Black Sox, but based on a long-term pattern of corruption both were permanently banned from baseball by Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, Commissioner of Baseball.

So I'd say that Zimmerman (and Chase) would be out of this, as well as Rose, Jackson, Cicotte, and the rest of the Black Sox. I don't think it's much of an issue for most of these guys though as I think only Rose, Jackson, and Cicotte would be selected in this project given the number of overall roster spots.

[jjpm74]

From SABR: (http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&pid=15737&bid=917)

No one believed Zimmerman, but what he had confessed to was damning enough. Though never officially banned, he became persona non grata throughout Organized Baseball. Once, when Zimmerman tried to play a semipro game at a park in Harrison, New Jersey, owned by someone who was connected with Organized Baseball, he was asked to leave the grounds before the game even started. "This was a fine deal," Zimmerman glumly told reporters.

I'm not certain which source is the correct one in his case as I've never studied any primary source material related to him. Either way, I wouldn't be picking him.

[Paul Wendt]

Re the black players, you know the strongest outside candidates from the BBFever HOF project. Dick Redding, Grant Johnson, Dobie Moore, Alejandro Oms. Is Redding the only Cooperstown outsider elected before this winter, Johnson and Moore?

correcting myself:
John Beckwith, too, and Perucho Cepeda, who never played in the US

in BBFever HOF: Redding, Beckwith, Cepeda, Johnson, Moore
getting votes: Oms, Dick Lundy, Quincy Trouppe

It's easy to name 16 good shortstops with 3-5 from this group.

[Freakshow]

I would hope that our draft could be used as reference material for actual hall of fame voters. For this reason, I think we do want to include all the players on the 2009 BBWAA ballot.

The electors' goal should always be towards electing the BEST candidates; by including recent players with the pool of all candidates we will aim to prioritize them for the electors. Will we verify that Jim Rice deserves to tbe the next player elected to the Hall? Or will he be somewhat lower in the pecking order?:think:

I would recommend we do not include players whose careers were primarily in the Negro leagues, for the reasons I excluded them from the Ultimate Quest project. The gist of it is that we can't really serve these players well; the few we would pick would be mostly random, since a full numerical study of the issue doesn't exist. The HOF has always elected them separately, for good reasons, IMO. It's a quagmire that I don't think we're equipped to tackle.

[Paul Wendt]

--Once the project gets rolling we'll be drafting on a 8 hour clock. That will get the rosters filled in somewhere around a month.

8 hour clock -
Does that mean three sections daily, 21 selections and two-and-half rounds weekly, each selection and participant comes up at predictable times?

[Freakshow]

The moniker, “Suburbs of Cooperstown” is great. Taking that a step further, you might consider naming the eight franchises after some of Cooperstown’s actual neighbors. These are the nearest towns I found in the vicinity, Cooperstown’s “suburbs”:

Fly Creek
Oaksville
Cattown
Middlefield
Hartwick Seminary
Westville
Milford
Hartwick
Snowdon
Schuyler Lake
Westford
Roseboom
Springfield Center
Maple Valley
Patent
Elk Creek

[jalbright]

I would hope that our draft could be used as reference material for actual hall of fame voters. For this reason, I think we do want to include all the players on the 2009 BBWAA ballot.

The electors' goal should always be towards electing the BEST candidates; by including recent players with the pool of all candidates we will aim to prioritize them for the electors. Will we verify that Jim Rice deserves to tbe the next player elected to the Hall? Or will he be somewhat lower in the pecking order?:think:

I would recommend we do not include players whose careers were primarily in the Negro leagues, for the reasons I excluded them from the Ultimate Quest project. The gist of it is that we can't really serve these players well; the few we would pick would be mostly random, since a full numerical study of the issue doesn't exist. The HOF has always elected them separately, for good reasons, IMO. It's a quagmire that I don't think we're equipped to tackle.

I absolutely and resolutely disagree. We can try to give them their due--and, frankly, I think a large part of the fun for me will be dealing with these choices. I understand eliminating Perucho Cepeda and the Japanese players and have no problem with that, but I'm rather sure if the door for the Negro Leaguers is closed as well that I don't want to participate.

[leecemark]

8 hour clock -
Does that mean three sections daily, 21 selections and two-and-half rounds weekly, each selection and participant comes up at predictable times?

--Actually I'm hoping we can move along a little faster. The 8 hours would start immediately after each pick. Perhaps we should not count the hours in the middle of the night though.

[leecemark]

I would hope that our draft could be used as reference material for actual hall of fame voters. For this reason, I think we do want to include all the players on the 2009 BBWAA ballot.

The electors' goal should always be towards electing the BEST candidates; by including recent players with the pool of all candidates we will aim to prioritize them for the electors. Will we verify that Jim Rice deserves to tbe the next player elected to the Hall? Or will he be somewhat lower in the pecking order?:think:

.

--I definately want guys on the current ballot included. Rice will be one of the most interesting guys for me as well. Will he be the first player picked - doubtfull. The first leftfielder picked - doubtfull again. I assume he will be one of our starting LFers, but even that is not certain. Not exactly a resounding endorsement of the most popular (with the BWAA) current candidates.

[leecemark]

I absolutely and resolutely disagree. We can try to give them their due--and, frankly, I think a large part of the fun for me will be dealing with these choices. I understand eliminating Perucho Cepeda and the Japanese players and have no problem with that, but I'm rather sure if the door for the Negro Leaguers is closed as well that I don't want to participate.


--I don't intend to exclude them. I wouldn't mind seeing some preliminary discussion on which non-Hall of Fame Negro Leaguers are worthy of consideration though. I'm thinking that list is a short one, but I could be wrong.

[jalbright]

Also, is the draft going to be serpentine (first pick waits to #17 but gets #18 then waits to 33 and 34; #8 gets 9, 24 and 25 and so on)? Otherwise, the first pick has a significant advantage.

[leecemark]

Also, is the draft going to be serpentine (first pick waits to #17 but gets #18 then waits to 33 and 34; #8 gets 9, 24 and 25 and so on)? Otherwise, the first pick has a significant advantage.

--That is how it will work.

[jalbright]

--I don't intend to exclude them. I wouldn't mind seeing some preliminary discussion on which non-Hall of Fame Negro Leaguers are worthy of consideration though. I'm thinking that list is a short one, but I could be wrong.

I don't know how you consider Minoso, but he's a name I'll mention. We have Cannonball Dick Redding, Dobie Moore, and Home Run Johnson in the BBF HOF. I'm voting for Quincy Trouppe and Dick Lundy. Guys who don't mind a short career might like Chino Smith. Oliver Marcelle has received votes for the BBF HOF. There's probably a few I'm missing off the top of my head, especially since we're going a little lower into the well, and some guys who don't have a convincing HOF case might slip in here. One other source is the list of guys nominated for consideration for the 2006 Negro League HOF election. I'll give a list of the players not elected shortly.

[Paul Wendt]

--Actually I'm hoping we can move along a little faster. The 8 hours would start immediately after each pick. Perhaps we should not count the hours in the middle of the night though.

OK. This means that if seven people (fewer if serpentine) are online and ready to go my next deadline might come nine hours after making a selection. I suppose it will be OK to post an emergency list, "If I default take the next available in list order."

[jalbright]

Newt Allen, William Bell, Chet Brewer, Bill Byrd, Rap Dixon, John Donaldson, Sammy Hughes, Fats Jenkins, Grant "Home Run" Johnson, Dick Lundy, Oliver Marcelle, Minnie Minoso, Dobie Moore, Alejandro Oms, Buck O'Neil, Red Parnell, Spotswood Poles, Cannonball Dick Redding, George Scales, and Candy Jim Taylor are the names I come up with as nominated but not elected in the 2006 Negro League HOF election.

I'd add Nip Winters as a peak pitcher as well. I'll look at the BBTF list to see if there's anyone else who catches my eye.

[jalbright]

AG2004 had a Keltner's list for Marvin Williams, and of those listed at BBTF, I'd think there might be support for Newt Allen, Sam Jethroe, Luke Easter, Bruce Petway, Double Duty Radcliffe and Artie Wilson. About the only other source I can think of is the Pittsburgh Courier poll that went five deep, which is here: (http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=568261&postcount=292)

I forgot Bill Monroe in my earlier posts.

[Freakshow]

Mark agrees with Jim that it is better for the project if we conflate the Negro League square pegs with the MLB round holes. That's fine.:shrug:

So I would suggest we aim for about 25-26 Negro leaguers out of the 200 players. This would be in line with the representation of these players in the 3 Halls: HOF (29 of 228), HoM (30 of 234), BBFHOF (30 of 232). That is, unless there is some reason to think the three halls are seriously over/under-representing the Negro leaguers.

[J W]

I think a good list would be that of the nominated yet un-elected negro leaguers. I would definitely include those 19 plus Minoso (who counts as a MLB player to me).

I'll join the club if there's still an opening. We'd be the Milford Musials (get it?). :cap:

Manager - Whitey Herzog (doesn't matter, but to keep the St. Louis Theme...)
Ballpark - if we're testing for who's best, we should probably all play in the same park... the blandest park, closest to a park factor of 100 in all areas. Or maybe you can create such a ballpark and call it Cooperstown Field?

[J W]

Also, I want to bring up Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, and the rest of the few players linked to steroids. Anyone have a problem with these guys? If they're eligible, should we "shrink" them? :p

[jjpm74]

Manager - Whitey Herzog (doesn't matter, but to keep the St. Louis Theme...)
Ballpark - if we're testing for who's best, we should probably all play in the same park... the blandest park, closest to a park factor of 100 in all areas. Or maybe you can create such a ballpark and call it Cooperstown Field?

How about Elysian Fields? :p

[Chickazoola]

Also, I want to bring up Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, and the rest of the few players linked to steroids. Anyone have a problem with these guys? If they're eligible, should we "shrink" them? :p

I am thinking that should be up to everyone's own judgment. Overrate or underrate them as you please.

[jalbright]

I think a good list would be that of the nominated yet un-elected negro leaguers. I would definitely include those 19 plus Minoso (who counts as a MLB player to me).

I'll join the club if there's still an opening. We'd be the Milford Musials (get it?). :cap:

Manager - Whitey Herzog (doesn't matter, but to keep the St. Louis Theme...)
Ballpark - if we're testing for who's best, we should probably all play in the same park... the blandest park, closest to a park factor of 100 in all areas. Or maybe you can create such a ballpark and call it Cooperstown Field?

The only name I'd really seek to add to the 19 nominees is Trouppe. After that, if it is decided to limit the list, I'm fine with it. An alternative would be for me to do a Negro League team, which would obviously use most of those names. As I'd need a pitching staff, I couldn't use all of them.

[leecemark]

--I think the nominated, but not selected Negro Leaguers capture most of the reasonably viable candidates. That pool would actually be a little smaller than the percentage suggested by Freakshow. I do agree with Jim that Quincy Trouppe was a notable oversite of that committe though. We'll be drafting 16 catchers and its hard to imagine there are 16 better candidates than Trouppe available.
--I personally won't be picking many players from that pool. There are only a handfull I realy know enough about to even begin advocating them and none that I'd have any real enthusiam for campaigning for. OTOH there may well be a point in the draft when one of them is a better choice than the available MLB talent at a position of need.

[J W]

Another question: do you know if the program uses career averages when determining how to rate these players Mark? Reason being, I remember certain "peak" players with shorter careers doing very well in our first DM-project (All Time league, HOFers included)

[leecemark]

--We aren't talking about sim specifics at this time. We want the draft to focus on identifying the best players, not who might do best in the DMB program.

[J W]

OK then, thanks.

Judging by our history at the site, I'd think the first overall pick would be a slam-dunk. We'll wait and see though.

[Freakshow]

The moniker, “Suburbs of Cooperstown” is great. Taking that a step further, you might consider naming the eight franchises after some of Cooperstown’s actual neighbors. These are the nearest towns I found in the vicinity, Cooperstown’s “suburbs”:

Fly Creek
Oaksville
Cattown
Middlefield
Hartwick Seminary
Westville
Milford
Hartwick
Snowdon
Schuyler Lake
Westford
Roseboom
Springfield Center
Maple Valley
Patent
Elk Creek
I learned that I should not use Mapquest for this kind of research. Here are a few other communities in the vicinity of Cooperstown:

Bowerstown
Whig Corners
Toddsville
Pail Shop Corners
Index
Phoenix Mills
Hyde Park
Chase
Five Points
Lentsville
Pierstown
Taylortown
Wileytown
Field Crossing
Clintonville
Lidell Corners
Scotch Hill

[jjpm74]

If we're picking team locations and names, I'll take the Fly Creek Appleseeds.

[jalbright]

I'm spinning off a project in the Negro League forum:

I've started a thread which is an outgrowth of the Suburbs of Cooperstown project in the Negro League forum. I'm asking folks to name their all-time blackball team of guys who are not in Cooperstown. I invite you to participate if you are interested. The thread is here, and has some resources to help you if you want to use them: http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=73660

[DoubleX]

OK then, thanks.

Judging by our history at the site, I'd think the first overall pick would be a slam-dunk. We'll wait and see though.

Really? There are a few guys I could see going 1st, I don't see a clear cut candidate, unless I'm forgetting someone. I think there's probably a consensus here that Ron Santo is the best player outside the Hall, but I don't think he'd be the best value with the 1st pick. 3B is fairly deep with quality players outside the Hall, IMO. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be talking about these kind of things before the draft. :)

[Freakshow]

Really? There are a few guys I could see going 1st, I don't see a clear cut candidate, unless I'm forgetting someone. I think there's probably a consensus here that Ron Santo is the best player outside the Hall, but I don't think he'd be the best value with the 1st pick. 3B is fairly deep with quality players outside the Hall, IMO. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be talking about these kind of things before the draft. :)
Yes, positional scarcity inevitably must be considered in this type of draft.

On the issue of who's #1, it helps me to pose the question: If the HOF said, "we're electing one more player before we close the doors forever", who would I pick? I keep coming back to Tim Raines. He's in the mix with Dahlen and Blyleven, as well as Santo.

[J W]

You know what would be interesting? If we picked the worst team possible made from Cooperstowners and have them compete as the 10th team. I wonder how well they'd do? I bet it wouldn't be a cake-walk for them.

[Chickazoola]

You know what would be interesting? If we picked the worst team possible made from Cooperstowners and have them compete as the 10th team. I wonder how well they'd do? I bet it wouldn't be a cake-walk for them.

I kind of like that idea.

So when does the drafting start?

[leecemark]

You know what would be interesting? If we picked the worst team possible made from Cooperstowners and have them compete as the 10th team. I wonder how well they'd do? I bet it wouldn't be a cake-walk for them.

--Actually the plan was to make 2 teams from the least qualified Hall of Famers to get us to 10 teams. Also, sorry I never directly responded to your inquiry, but we had planned on 8 teams and had those spots filled before you expressed interest. As it stands now you are on standby. Classic has also expressed interest so we could expand to 10 owners/250 players if that is alright with everyone? I think we can come up with that many guys at least worth talking about, although even at 200 there will be quite a few draftees who don't merit serious consideration.

[leecemark]

I kind of like that idea.

So when does the drafting start?

--The 21st. We have one participant who is away from home til the 20th. A couple issues to decide before then.
1) The Hall of Fame rosters who will make up 2 teams in our league as a point of reference.
2) Should we expand to 10 drafted teams to include JW and Classic?
3) How to handle Negro Leaguers for the sim? I think I'd like to piggy back on Jim's thread for best Negro Leguers not in the Hall. We'd need to come up with reasonable MLB comps for them.
4) Draft order. I'll do a random draw, but first we need to settle question #2.
5) Should we freeze the clock during the middle of the night? I'm thinking nobody's clock should expire between midnight and 8AM EST, although it would be running (i.e. if you went on the clock late one evening you'd have until 8AM EST the next morning to pick - even if that meant 12 or more hours from the start of your clock.
--Your input on each of these questions is appreciated. I'd like to have these questioned resolved by Monday though, so please get your opinion in soon.

[leecemark]

If we're picking team locations and names, I'll take the Fly Creek Appleseeds.


--I'll be the Cat Town Grays

[leecemark]

--I used the lists of Hall of Famers not selected for the BBFHoF and/or the Hall of Merit to come up with some preliminary rosters. I did not use Negro Leaguers, although Judy Johnson is IMO the least deserving 3B and possibly the least deserving player in Cooperstown. Some NeL pitchers probably belong here too. They can be added if they have "support" here and we can come up with decent MLEs/comps.
--Please remember that we are looking for the weakest Hall of Fame lineups and rotations. The bench and bullpen will have the better players in this inverted quality roster. With that in mind please offer up your suggestions for editting these rosters.

Maple Valley Cronies
C: Rick Ferrell
1B: George Kelly
2B: Tony Lazzeri
3B: Freddie Lindstrom
SS: Dave Bancroft
LF: Chick Hafey
CF: Lloyd Waner
RF: Ross Youngs
SP: Jesse Haines, Rube Marquard, Burleigh Grimes, Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock
C: Ernie Lombardi
IF: Travis Jackson, Red Schoendienst
OF: Henie Manush, Kiki Cuyler
Utl/PH: Jake Beckley
RP: Dizzy Dean, Lefty Gomez, Ted Lyons, Red Ruffing, Stan Coveleski, Red Faber

Whig Corners Good Ole Boys
C: Ray Schalk
1B: Jim Bottomley
2B: Bill Mazeroski
3B: George Kell
SS: Joe Tinker
LF: Lou Brock
CF: Earl Combs
RF: Tommy McCarthy
SP: Chief Bender, Jack Chesbro, Jim Hunter, Mickey Welch, Vic Willis
C: Roger Bresnahan
IF: Johnny Evers, Luis Aparicio
OF: Harry Hooper, Sam Rice
Utl/PH: Tony Perez
RP: Bruce Sutter, Rollie Fingers, Addie Joss, Jim Bunning, Don Drysdale, Eppa Rixey

--There were not enough pitchers to fill the rosters out without some legit Hall of Famers. A few of the bench guys are also legit, although none of the players on either roster is likley to be the best (or close to the best?) at their position in this league.

[Freakshow]

--I'll be the Cat Town Grays
Cattown (http://newyork.hometownlocator.com/NY/Otsego/Cattown.cfm) is one word. Must be a story there.

[Freakshow]

5) Should we freeze the clock during the middle of the night? I'm thinking nobody's clock should expire between midnight and 8AM EST, although it would be running (i.e. if you went on the clock late one evening you'd have until 8AM EST the next morning to pick - even if that meant 12 or more hours from the start of your clock.
--Your input on each of these questions is appreciated. I'd like to have these questioned resolved by Monday though, so please get your opinion in soon.
I think the simplest and fairest way is to use a 12-hour clock, no freezes. That way it's always simple to track the expiration time. Also, if someone only has internet at work (or only at home), they have a better chance of being there for their pick.

If you wanted to be even fairer, make the four hours from 2 am to 6 am EST "stop time"; that is, if you're on the clock in that time frame it doesn't count against your 12-hour time frame.

We would hope and expect that voters would make their choice as soon as they discovered they were on the clock, that they would anticipate this several picks ahead of time, and that they would make their draft choice in a matter of minutes rather then milking the clock.

[Paul Wendt]

There were not enough pitchers to fill the rosters out without some legit Hall of Famers. A few of the bench guys are also legit, although none of the players on either roster is likley to be the best (or close to the best?) at their position in this league.

It's a mind-boggling number of pitchers. Ratio to catchers is 11:2 and ratio is greater than that for the other seven fielding positions.
Two complete teams plus nine pitchers, 9:2 ratio of pitchers to any fielding position --that is still greater than the HOF ratio, right?

If you start at the top of the HOF and fill teams with this shape, how far down will you be at other positions when you have used up all of the HOF pitchers?

[leecemark]

--Perhaps the town was originally centered around a "recreational facility":)

[Freakshow]

2) Should we expand to 10 drafted teams to include JW and Classic?
I say yes. These two members have long had a keen interest in this topic and would be excellent additions.

Exanding our scope to 250 candidates is doable. That's about the number we're starting with in the Ultimate Quest project. That's also a similar scope to what we dealt with in the 500 Player Pyramid project. And in the NBJHBA, James' listings of the top 100 at each position goes well beyond this scope.

[DoubleX]

Yes, positional scarcity inevitably must be considered in this type of draft.

On the issue of who's #1, it helps me to pose the question: If the HOF said, "we're electing one more player before we close the doors forever", who would I pick? I keep coming back to Tim Raines. He's in the mix with Dahlen and Blyleven, as well as Santo.

But that philosophy could cut against consideirng positional scarcity. To answer the question you posed, I'd probably put Santo in as that one guy, but I don't think I'd take Santo first in a draft like this when I don't feel there's a huge drop between him and a number of other guys. The other three guys you mentioned might be guys I'd consider with the first pick, and I'd toss Dick Allen in there as well.

I have another question. How do we consider a guy like Joe Torre. I assume as a catcher, but can we assume that he could have produced his 1971 season as a catcher? This might be a better question for the simulation.

EDIT: Another question - will we be flipping the draft order each round, so that the person that picks last in the first round picks first in the second round?

[DoubleX]

2) Should we expand to 10 drafted teams to include JW and Classic?

No objections here, but with so many players being drafted I think we'll be going well beyond just the "suburbs" of Cooperstown. By the end, I don't think even think we'd still be in NY State :).

[Freakshow]

But that philosophy could cut against consideirng positional scarcity. To answer the question you posed, I'd probably put Santo in as that one guy, but I don't think I'd take Santo first in a draft like this when I don't feel there's a huge drop between him and a number of other guys. The other three guys you mentioned might be guys I'd consider with the first pick, and I'd toss Dick Allen in there as well.

I have another question. How do we consider a guy like Joe Torre. I assume as a catcher, but can we assume that he could have produced his 1971 season as a catcher? This might be a better question for the simulation.

EDIT: Another question - will we be flipping the draft order each round, so that the person that picks last in the first round picks first in the second round?
1) I probably should have separated those thoughts; the first sentence is only somewhat related to the rest.

2) It was said the simulation is based on player's prime years. So Torre's C and 3B years will be lumped together; I assume he'll be able to change positions at will, with his fielding at C being much better than at 3B. The question is, does catching affect your durability? Would you be better off getting another decent C to platoon with Torre, playing him at 3B or 1B some of the time?

3) To the Edit question, yes, it's been said that the draft order will flip each round.

[Freakshow]

I'll join the club if there's still an opening. We'd be the Milford Musials (get it?). :cap:
Milford map (http://newyork.hometownlocator.com/NY/Otsego/Milford.cfm)

[leecemark]

It's a mind-boggling number of pitchers. Ratio to catchers is 11:2 and ratio is greater than that for the other seven fielding positions.
Two complete teams plus nine pitchers, 9:2 ratio of pitchers to any fielding position --that is still greater than the HOF ratio, right?

If you start at the top of the HOF and fill teams with this shape, how far down will you be at other positions when you have used up all of the HOF pitchers?

--We will be selecting quite a few mor pitchers than merit serious Hal of Fame consideration and the ratio will be unusuallly high. There is really no way around that if we approach this with an idea of building a real team. Particularly if it is a team built with modern roster construction in mind. 15/10 or even an old school 16/9 would work, but that still leaves a very high ratio.
--Two points though; 1) The Hall of Fame is basically a lifetime achievemnt All Star selection. All Star teams are also set up in (expanded) working roster style. 2) The bottom half of our selections are pretty much just for fun and are more a requirement to conduct the sim than to get the absolute . If I were doing this soley to identify the best possible candiates I'd just go with a starting lineup, maybe 2 SP and one reliever per team. Anything past that and we are getting into very marginal candidates.

[J W]

Maple Valley Cronies
C: Rick Ferrell
1B: George Kelly
2B: Tony Lazzeri
3B: Freddie Lindstrom
SS: Dave Bancroft
LF: Chick Hafey
CF: Lloyd Waner
RF: Ross Youngs
SP: Jesse Haines, Rube Marquard, Burleigh Grimes, Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock
C: Ernie Lombardi
IF: Travis Jackson, Red Schoendienst
OF: Henie Manush, Kiki Cuyler
Utl/PH: Jake Beckley
RP: Dizzy Dean, Lefty Gomez, Ted Lyons, Red Ruffing, Stan Coveleski, Red Faber

Whig Corners Good Ole Boys
C: Ray Schalk
1B: Jim Bottomley
2B: Bill Mazeroski
3B: George Kell
SS: Joe Tinker
LF: Lou Brock
CF: Earl Combs
RF: Tommy McCarthy
SP: Chief Bender, Jack Chesbro, Jim Hunter, Mickey Welch, Vic Willis
C: Roger Bresnahan
IF: Johnny Evers, Luis Aparicio
OF: Harry Hooper, Sam Rice
Utl/PH: Tony Perez
RP: Bruce Sutter, Rollie Fingers, Addie Joss, Jim Bunning, Don Drysdale, Eppa Rixey

Hmmm....

I have a thought: if the plan was for ten teams, and Classic and I can participate... one of us can draft and the other pick out the HOF team for himself. This way we'll have one team for reference and can do away with some of the stronger bench / relief players.

I'd rather draft but I can do the Maple Valley Cronies (Actually if we combine the two, "Whig Corners Cronies" is a great name)

If we do 12 teams, here are some thoughts:

Maple Valley

That's a strong OF when you think about it. Every one of them hit over .315 for their career, and Waner's empty batting average is tempered by his defense. The IF is nice and shaky, though Lazzeri scored very well with Bill James in his rankings. The pitching rotation looks great -- Dean, Gomez and Coveleski can be trouble out of the pen though.

Whig Corners

That is a much worse OF than Maple Valley even though Brock can lead off and Combs is a peak-type player. The IF will have a very strong defense. Bender, Chesbro and Hunter may benefit from their low career WHIPS combined with the gloves... ERA+ be darned. The Bullpen also is lights-out with Fingers and Sutter (two of the best relievers of all time) and Joss (a career WHIP of 0.968).

True, many of these players' career numbers are skewed from the environment they played in. I'd still predict both of these teams to finish over .500. On the other hand, if we combined the worst of these two teams, I think they'd finish near or at the bottom of the league.

[leecemark]

1) I probably should have separated those thoughts; the first sentence is only somewhat related to the rest.

2) It was said the simulation is based on player's prime years. So Torre's C and 3B years will be lumped together; I assume he'll be able to change positions at will, with his fielding at C being much better than at 3B. The question is, does catching affect your durability? Would you be better off getting another decent C to platoon with Torre, playing him at 3B or 1B some of the time?

3) To the Edit question, yes, it's been said that the draft order will flip each round.

--You could use Torre at C/3B/1B. Personally I think his case looks much better when considered against the pool of available catchers, but even if he'd been a career 3B he would probably be good enough to win a startign job in this league (i.e. one of the 8-10 best non-Hall of Famers at the position). As for the sim, catcher do have a fatigue factor built into the programing, unlike other players. Their preformance starts to decline after 100 defensive innings without a game off. That game off only has to be a game off from catching though, so you could use Torre some at 3B and use him everyday. 1B too, although he doesn't stack up as well against the 1B pool.

[leecemark]

Hmmm....

I have a thought: if the plan was for ten teams, and Classic and I can participate... one of us can draft and the other pick out the HOF team for himself. This way we'll have one team for reference and can do away with some of the stronger bench / relief players.

I'd rather draft but I can do the Maple Valley Cronies (Actually if we combine the two, "Whig Corners Cronies" is a great name)

If we do 12 teams, here are some thoughts:

Maple Valley

That's a strong OF when you think about it. Every one of them hit over .315 for their career, and Waner's empty batting average is tempered by his defense. The IF is nice and shaky, though Lazzeri scored very well with Bill James in his rankings. The pitching rotation looks great -- Dean, Gomez and Coveleski can be trouble out of the pen though.

Whig Corners

That is a much worse OF than Maple Valley even though Brock can lead off and Combs is a peak-type player. The IF will have a very strong defense. Bender, Chesbro and Hunter may benefit from their low career WHIPS combined with the gloves... ERA+ be darned. The Bullpen also is lights-out with Fingers and Sutter (two of the best relievers of all time) and Joss (a career WHIP of 0.968).

True, many of these players' career numbers are skewed from the environment they played in. I'd still predict the Cronies to be over .500 and the Good Ol' Boys to contend for the title.

--As much as we like to criticize some Hall of Fame selections nobody in Cooperstown wasn't a good player. A team of the best outside would be clearly superior to the worst inside, but dividing up the best outsiders 8 or 10 (and I think it will be 10) ways that won't be so clear. I think the Cooperstown teams would have a decent shot at the pennant.

[J W]

OK; thankfully the better players are on the bench. The bullpens are going to be the strongest part of those teams I think -- maybe we can set "use relievers" to less... :D

If Harry Hooper or Tommy McCarthy has a LF rating I'd start that player over Brock. Other than that, I can't argue much with the teams.

[Freakshow]

Maple Valley map (http://newyork.hometownlocator.com/NY/Otsego/Maple-Valley.cfm)

Whig Corners map (http://newyork.hometownlocator.com/NY/Otsego/Whig-Corners.cfm)

[Freakshow]

If we're picking team locations and names, I'll take the Fly Creek Appleseeds.
Shouldn't they be the Swatters?

Fly Creek map (http://newyork.hometownlocator.com/NY/Otsego/Fly-Creek.cfm)

[jjpm74]

Shouldn't they be the Swatters?

Fly Creek map (http://newyork.hometownlocator.com/NY/Otsego/Fly-Creek.cfm)

Fly Creek is known for its hard cider. My alternate would be the Sharon Springs Gilded Ghosts. ;)

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm really glad J W and Classic will be included in this. Looking forward to how this turns out.

[Freakshow]

Maple Valley Cronies
C: Rick Ferrell
1B: George Kelly
2B: Tony Lazzeri
3B: Freddie Lindstrom
SS: Dave Bancroft
LF: Chick Hafey
CF: Lloyd Waner
RF: Ross Youngs
SP: Jesse Haines, Rube Marquard, Burleigh Grimes, Waite Hoyt, Herb Pennock
C: Ernie Lombardi
IF: Travis Jackson, Red Schoendienst
OF: Henie Manush, Kiki Cuyler
Utl/PH: Jake Beckley
RP: Dizzy Dean, Lefty Gomez, Ted Lyons, Red Ruffing, Stan Coveleski, Red Faber

Whig Corners Good Ole Boys
C: Ray Schalk
1B: Jim Bottomley
2B: Bill Mazeroski
3B: George Kell
SS: Joe Tinker
LF: Lou Brock
CF: Earl Combs
RF: Tommy McCarthy
SP: Chief Bender, Jack Chesbro, Jim Hunter, Mickey Welch, Vic Willis
C: Roger Bresnahan
IF: Johnny Evers, Luis Aparicio
OF: Harry Hooper, Sam Rice
Utl/PH: Tony Perez
RP: Bruce Sutter, Rollie Fingers, Addie Joss, Jim Bunning, Don Drysdale, Eppa Rixey

--There were not enough pitchers to fill the rosters out without some legit Hall of Famers. A few of the bench guys are also legit, although none of the players on either roster is likley to be the best (or close to the best?) at their position in this league.
The final election in the Hall of Mistakes (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=41234) may be informative.

From that, the Maple Valley team looks weaker, with 10 of the first 12 mistakes on their roster. Of course, the Hall of Mistakes may have made mistakes!

Others recommended by that project are Judy Johnson (#18), Phil Rizzuto (#27) and Andy Cooper (#29). Others I had on my final ballot were Leon Day, Hack Wilson, Rabbit Maranville, Frank Chance, Hilton Smith and Ray Dandridge.

[jalbright]

--The 21st. We have one participant who is away from home til the 20th. A couple issues to decide before then.
1) The Hall of Fame rosters who will make up 2 teams in our league as a point of reference.
2) Should we expand to 10 drafted teams to include JW and Classic?
3) How to handle Negro Leaguers for the sim? I think I'd like to piggy back on Jim's thread for best Negro Leguers not in the Hall. We'd need to come up with reasonable MLB comps for them.
4) Draft order. I'll do a random draw, but first we need to settle question #2.
5) Should we freeze the clock during the middle of the night? I'm thinking nobody's clock should expire between midnight and 8AM EST, although it would be running (i.e. if you went on the clock late one evening you'd have until 8AM EST the next morning to pick - even if that meant 12 or more hours from the start of your clock.
--Your input on each of these questions is appreciated. I'd like to have these questioned resolved by Monday though, so please get your opinion in soon.

How does one get on the clock? I have to get my son up and out the door by 7 am, so I am a) early to bed (often 9 or 9:30 ET, as my 4:45 alarm comes far too quickly), and b) not at all sure to get on the computer until 4 pm the next day. I do not have regular access to BBF (often not even the internet) during my work day. I might be able to give a several person list if necessary, but then the question of who holds my draft plans is at least something to consider. I mean, Mark and others are good guys, but if the one in the know and I are looking at the same guy and he knows I won't let him slide much longer . . . . how can he ignore such inside info?

On another point, I'm all for adding the two you've mentioned.

[Paul Wendt]

As I've said, I don't plan to use any simulation criteria myself, but for tactical purposes I wonder what they may be.

In particular, can Joe Torre, Dick Allen, or Tony Perez play every inning at 3B? The "prime seasons" cited as basis for DMB player simulation extend far beyond their careers at 3B. If they are limited in play at 3B, what about Tommy Leach or Darrell Evans, who did have a prime-length career at the position but played a long time with many seasons at a second position too? Can they play every inning at 3B?

--
Joe Torre barely played 3B between his C and 1B careers. Maybe I exaggerate there but it is only 23% of his career including only two full seasons.

even if [Torre] had been a career 3B he would probably be good enough to win a starting job in this league (i.e. one of the 8-10 best non-Hall of Famers at the position).
As a historian rather than simulator, it seems to me that 3B has more deserving and borderline players than any other. Here are a dozen in chronological order:
Sutton, Nash, Cross, Leach, Groh, Hack, Elliott, Boyer, Santo, Nettles, Evans, Bell

Joe Torre as a career 3Bman would have a career "worse" than the real Joe Torre. I don't see that he would be greater than any of those players. Here I am passing by Robin Ventura, Matt Williams, and anyone else who is very recent; and passing by Pete Rose, Dick Allen, and anyone else who played more elsewhere, even if he played more 3B than Torre did.

[leecemark]

--Paul, I agree Torre would be wasted at 3B. He hits well enough to be a first teamer, but his defense would be less than optimal. H e is a much better fit at C.
--Allen and Perez is another story. They did play more 1B than 3B, but many of their best years came as thirdbasemen. They are not good defenders at 3B, but you may want to live with below average defense to get an extra bat in. Allen is arguably the best candidate at either first or third.
--Evans and/or Leach can play regularly at third. Playing time would not be pro-rated by percent of real life playing time. Either of those 2 would be a good candidate to start at 3B, but probably not at their 2nd positions of 1B/CF.

[Chickazoola]

I like the 12 hour clock with a reverse snake format.

I want my team to be the Patent Leather Pants.

I would also be ok with 10 teams. But I am concerned about the amount of pitching spots. I think it should be between 7-8, rather than 9-11. I just don't think there is enough depth.

[Paul Wendt]

So in keeping with the rules, a team may have Dick Allen and Pedro Guerrero and no primary thirdbaseman?
Or even Allen and no one else on the roster who ever played thirdbase? (eg, two pure SS and two pure 2B to fill the infield slots; no C, 1B, or OF with time at 3B)

If the answer is no, Allen may not be the only person on the roster with 3B experience. May he be the one listed as starting 3B? You mentioned special interest in the starting teams, who compose the roughly ten best players outside the Hall of Fame at every fielding position

[Paul Wendt]

I see from these team names that you are all much too smart for me.

[J W]

Since we're going off of Diamond Mind, Allen will likely have a 3B rating same as Torre. I can tell you Allen will be a below-average to putrid defensive 3Bman based on our Classic Keeper League, which is near the end of the 1960s at the moment. Torre will probably be average to below-average... but that won't matter, his most valuable position will be catcher I'm sure.

No player is set at any one position in Diamond Mind. You can even play people is places where they have no defensive rating whatsoever... but you do so at your own risk. (Frank Howard at second base? :rofl:)

[J W]

As a historian rather than simulator, it seems to me that 3B has more deserving and borderline players than any other. Here are a dozen in chronological order:
Sutton, Nash, Cross, Leach, Groh, Hack, Elliott, Boyer, Santo, Nettles, Evans, Bell

I've been saying this for years. Third base is the scarcest position in the HOF. I think too much expectation is put on the position... people expect them to hit like first basemen and field the hot corner all the same. As we see from hitters like Allen and Perez, many times you can't have both.

So, I completely agree Paul.

[J W]

I like the 12 hour clock with a reverse snake format.

I want my team to be the Patent Leather Pants.

I would also be ok with 10 teams. But I am concerned about the amount of pitching spots. I think it should be between 7-8, rather than 9-11. I just don't think there is enough depth.

12 hour, reverse snake is fine for a one-time draft I think.

There will be enough depth for pitching... but seriously, this is where the Cooperstowners could run all over us. Especially in the pen. But our goal is to see how many of us can beat the Cronies and Good Ol' Boys, right? That's my goal anyways. (edit - I see the main goal is to identify the players... but I'm more interested in seeing how many teams finish ahead of the Cooperstowners than who precisely wins the league)

Which is why I suggest we mandate three relievers:

- Lefty
- Righty
- Closer (L/R)

...that will keep with the program setup. Even though it may end up better to plug starters in your relief roles, I say this is the way to go. We'd pretty much have the pick of the litter too, with only five relievers in the HOF. I think we can come up with 30 names beyond Eck, Fingers, Gossage, Sutter, and Wilhelm.

And that's 30 less starting pitchers that need drafting. I suggest eight starting pitchers per team for a total of 11. That should carry through one season with no problem. It's also the same number that is on the Cronies & GOBs.

Say Mark, is Cooperstown / Elysian Field doable? 100 park factor across the board? Would we need to make one for every team?

[J W]

The moniker, “Suburbs of Cooperstown” is great. Taking that a step further, you might consider naming the eight franchises after some of Cooperstown’s actual neighbors. These are the nearest towns I found in the vicinity, Cooperstown’s “suburbs”:

Taking a quick look at Google Earth I found some additional names. I'll put them in alphabetical order and name the ones that are taken:


Bowerstown
Brighton
Cattown - Grays
Chase
Cherry Valley
Clintonville
Deowongo Island
Elk Creek
Field Crossing
Five Points
Fly Creek - Appleseeds
Hartwick
Hyde Park
Index
Lentsville
Lidell Corners
Maple Valley - Cronies
Middlefield
Milford
Oaksville
Pail Shop Corners
Patent - Leather Pants
Phoenix Mills
Pierstown
Richfield Springs
Roseboom
Schuyler Lake
Scotch Hill - Tumblers
Snowdon
Springfield Center
Sunken Island - Treasure
Taylortown
Toddsville
Westford
Westville
Whig Corners - Good Old Boys
Wileytown


Also note we changed our name to the Sunken Island Treasure. It fits so well :D

[jalbright]

12 hour, reverse snake is fine for a one-time draft I think.

There will be enough depth for pitching... but seriously, this is where the Cooperstowners could run all over us. Especially in the pen. But our goal is to see how many of us can beat the Cronies and Good Ol' Boys, right? That's my goal anyways. (edit - I see the main goal is to identify the players... but I'm more interested in seeing how many teams finish ahead of the Cooperstowners than who precisely wins the league)

Which is why I suggest we mandate three relievers:

- Lefty
- Righty
- Closer (L/R)

...that will keep with the program setup. Even though it may end up better to plug starters in your relief roles, I say this is the way to go. We'd pretty much have the pick of the litter too, with only five relievers in the HOF. I think we can come up with 30 names beyond Eck, Fingers, Gossage, Sutter, and Wilhelm.

And that's 30 less starting pitchers that need drafting. I suggest eight starting pitchers per team for a total of 11. That should carry through one season with no problem. It's also the same number that is on the Cronies & GOBs.

Say Mark, is Cooperstown / Elysian Field doable? 100 park factor across the board? Would we need to make one for every team?

I don't like having a mandate to come up with 30 relievers. That goes way too deep IMO. Ten guys who finished games, absolutely. I'd also like the flexibility to go with as few as 9 pitchers if we choose. If we go to 11, in this setup we'll be picking guys who aren't likely to play unless a team has a rash of pitching injuries.

[Brad Harris]

The Scotch Hill Tumblers for me, please.

[Freakshow]

I don't like having a mandate to come up with 30 relievers. That goes way too deep IMO. Ten guys who finished games, absolutely. I'd also like the flexibility to go with as few as 9 pitchers if we choose. If we go to 11, in this setup we'll be picking guys who aren't likely to play unless a team has a rash of pitching injuries.
I agree, 11 pitchers is too many; 7 or 8 would be ideal. However, I believe Mark said we need at least 9 for the simulation to function correctly. If this is the case, we should mandate that every team have 9 pitchers, with an option for a 10th.

I also agree that 3 relievers is too many; we should mandate that every team have 1, with an option for a second one.

[leecemark]

--Here is a possible alternative. How about we draft 200 players - 20 per team under the guideline of "best eligible players outside Cooperstown. Pick up your 14 position players, 5 starting pitchers and closer with those 20 picks. The extra 5 pitchers (or whatever combination of players you choose to use your extra 5 on) would not be considered residents of the Suburbs. They would just be roster filler for the purposes of playing the sim(s).

[leecemark]

--I can put all the teams in a nuetral setting and call them whatever you like.

[Brad Harris]

--Only players currently eligible for the Hall of Fame will be eligible for this draft. Active players, players not yet retired for 5 years and banned players are not eligible.

Just so I understand, any player who is not enshrined in Cooperstown and is not on Organized Baseball's Ineligible List, but who last played no later than the 2002 season is eligible for the draft, right? Are negro leaguers included in this?

[leecemark]

--That is correct and yes they are.

[baseballPAP]

First, let me give my stance on a few issues:
1-NeLers are fine to include, but a pool of possible players is likely needed. Mr. Albright seems a likely candidate to help out there.
2-10 drafted teams, and 12 total is a good number to work with, but due to the makeup of candidates, I might suggest a max of 9 pitchers per team, and a 24 man roster.
3- A straight up 12 hour clock makes it easier, but could also be considerable slower. An alternative would be submitting a list of picks once per "round", with 12 names. You get the top name on your list....then after each round, a new list is due within 24 hours. This would be considerably quicker....but could be ahrder to handle for Mark.

Oh, and I'll name my squad the Five Points Stars.

[Freakshow]

Just so I understand, any player who is not enshrined in Cooperstown and is not on Organized Baseball's Ineligible List, but who last played no later than the 2002 season is eligible for the draft, right? Are negro leaguers included in this?
Mark, are you sure this is correct? Earlier, we discussed the 2003 retirees, who are BBWAA eligible in 2009. I thought we agreed that they (Grace, Cone, etc.) would be eligible for drafting (except for Henderson); that anyone on the 2009 BBWAA ballot is eligible.

[J W]

OK, I'll vote for a mandate of nine pitchers including one closer. The all-time sims don't need as many pitchers.

If that's the case, I vote we axe the two best pitchers from each of the Cooperstown clubs. We can probably find four position players (Judy Johnson? Rabbit Maranville?) that won't help them as much.

[leecemark]

Mark, are you sure this is correct? Earlier, we discussed the 2003 retirees, who are BBWAA eligible in 2009. I thought we agreed that they (Grace, Cone, etc.) would be eligible for drafting (except for Henderson); that anyone on the 2009 BBWAA ballot is eligible.


--Has the 2009 ballot been released yet? I'm sure Henderson is the only guy with a shot at first ballot election, but I don't know that the ballot exists yet. If you can post it or a link to it then I am okay with these players being draft eligible.

[leecemark]

First, let me give my stance on a few issues:
1-NeLers are fine to include, but a pool of possible players is likely needed. Mr. Albright seems a likely candidate to help out there.
2-10 drafted teams, and 12 total is a good number to work with, but due to the makeup of candidates, I might suggest a max of 9 pitchers per team, and a 24 man roster.
3- A straight up 12 hour clock makes it easier, but could also be considerable slower. An alternative would be submitting a list of picks once per "round", with 12 names. You get the top name on your list....then after each round, a new list is due within 24 hours. This would be considerably quicker....but could be ahrder to handle for Mark.

Oh, and I'll name my squad the Five Points Stars.

1) I'll go through the best eligible thread Jim started up as a companion to this one and collect a list of candidates Sunday or Monday. I'll post it here for one last chance to add draft eligible candidates. I'd like to have either reasonable MLE or major league comparible players agreed to for each of them before the draft gets started. WE can proceed without that, but I will be conservative in creating their profile for the sim if its left up to me.
2) I think 9 pitchers, including 1 reliever will be required. You may take more if you wish. We don't need to officially adopt by 20 SOC and 5 supplemental suggestion, but if the sim is even a minor concern for you I'd suggest taking a couple extra true relievers in the late rounds to beef up your staff. We'll stic with 25 man rosters.
3) We'll go with the 12 hour clock. I hope that most days most of us will be checking in often enough that they will be able to make their own picks. If you are going to be away you can send me a list or maybe send a short list to the person who draft immediately after you. That would avoid any possible conflict of interest and also get us 2 picks in quickly. I hope we are getting more than 2 picks per day in, but there is no timeline on completing lthe project. Most of the fun is in the process anyway.

[Freakshow]

--Has the 2009 ballot been released yet? I'm sure Henderson is the only guy with a shot at first ballot election, but I don't know that the ballot exists yet. If you can post it or a link to it then I am okay with these players being draft eligible.
The official BBWAA ballot comes out in November. The list of eligible players is sent to the screening committee by Elias sometime around June, IIRC.

In the mean time, you can peruse the list of newly eligible candidates for 2009 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/ML_2003_final.shtml) at BB-Ref.

The HOF website has a list of prominent names you're likely to find on the 2009 ballot (http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/).

[Freakshow]

--Here is a possible alternative. How about we draft 200 players - 20 per team under the guideline of "best eligible players outside Cooperstown. Pick up your 14 position players, 5 starting pitchers and closer with those 20 picks. The extra 5 pitchers (or whatever combination of players you choose to use your extra 5 on) would not be considered residents of the Suburbs. They would just be roster filler for the purposes of playing the sim(s).
I really like this approach. It retains the original concept for the Suburbs of Cooperstown as an exclusive enclave, with 200 individual units available in a sumptuous gated community. (Or perhaps a more apt conception is of 10 scattered subdivisions of 20 units each.) When we have the 200, we then complete our rosters making them more appropriate for the sim. These last 50 are the custodial class, living in trailers in the outlying rural areas.

In future years, when suburban residents are finally called to reside in that "shining city on the hill", we can vote to fill the vacancies in the suburbs.

[leecemark]

--Glad you like it Dan.. This would be my preferred approach. It would actually get us a better 200 with our expansion to 10 teams than we would have gotten with our original 8. Then the supplemental guys being picked with the sim in mind would help us beat up on the Cooperstown teams that have stolen our players rightfull place in the inner cicle:).

[leecemark]

The official BBWAA ballot comes out in November. The list of eligible players is sent to the screening committee by Elias sometime around June, IIRC.

In the mean time, you can peruse the list of newly eligible candidates for 2009 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/ML_2003_final.shtml) at BB-Ref.

The HOF website has a list of prominent names you're likely to find on the 2009 ballot (http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/).

--Okay I don't see anybody besides Henderson who is likley to compromise our rosters by getting enshrined any time soon - or probably ever. We can include this class of players.

[jjpm74]

The official BBWAA ballot comes out in November. The list of eligible players is sent to the screening committee by Elias sometime around June, IIRC.

In the mean time, you can peruse the list of newly eligible candidates for 2009 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/ML_2003_final.shtml) at BB-Ref.

The HOF website has a list of prominent names you're likely to find on the 2009 ballot (http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/).


If you guys are making 2003 the cutoff, why not just make 2007 the cutoff and put together a list of players people feel will get into the HOF? I'm really against the idea of including anyone who's still on or likely to end up on the BBWAA ballot, but if you guys are really insistent in including them, we might as well include ALL players who are retired from the game.

I won't have access to the Internet again until next Wednesday, so I'll go along with whatever you guys decide on. It just seems a bit arbitrary to include some players not yet eligible for the HOF but not others.

The 10 team 20 player idea is a great one, IMO. It will give us a pretty comprehensive list of 200 players who's careers were solid enough to warrant discussion.

EDIT: by putting together a list, I mean putting together a list of players who are pretty much a lock for inclusion in the HOF when they become eligible that are not allowed as choices for the draft.

[leecemark]

--I definately want guys who already been on the ballot and not been elected included. 2009 ballot newbies I don't have strong feelings on either way. I doubt more than 2-3 will make the 200 man pool. The benefit is that including them will keep the project from being dated as qucikly. In principal I wouldn't have a problem with including all retired players, but we would have to agree which of them were likely HoFer and which were eligible. I don't want to delay things further to debate that, so 2009 eligibles is as far as I'd be willing to go at this point.

[jjpm74]

Of the players that will show up on ballots over the next few years, I only see Roberto Alomar, Craig Biggio as locks. Players like Bernie Williams and Barry Larkin may eventually get in, but are not locks. Rafael Palmeiro is also not a lock after the whole steroids scandal. It'd be pretty easy to put together a short list and would open up some possible additions that would keep this project current for a longer period of time.

If not, make the cutoff the 2008 ballot new additions as the 2009 ballot is not even out yet and it is impossible to predict how the BBWAA will approach the candidates on the 2009 ballot. The only given is that Rickey Henderson will be in cooperstown after the 2009 ballot is voted on.

[Freakshow]

If you guys are making 2003 the cutoff, why not just make 2007 the cutoff and put together a list of players people feel will get into the HOF? I'm really against the idea of including anyone who's still on or likely to end up on the BBWAA ballot, but if you guys are really insistent in including them, we might as well include ALL players who are retired from the game.

I won't have access to the Internet again until next Wednesday, so I'll go along with whatever you guys decide on. It just seems a bit arbitrary to include some players not yet eligible for the HOF but not others.

The 10 team 20 player idea is a great one, IMO. It will give us a pretty comprehensive list of 200 players who's careers were solid enough to warrant discussion.

EDIT: by putting together a list, I mean putting together a list of players who are pretty much a lock for inclusion in the HOF when they become eligible that are not allowed as choices for the draft.
I agree with Mark.

I think our job is to rank the current candidates. I said include 2003 because it's easy; there's little doubt that only Henderson is viable among those candidates. And it establishes our recommendations for the upcoming BBWAA election. The 2004 class would be tough, cuz there's so many borderliners coming on that year; Larkin and Alomar deserve to be first-ballot but will they? Nobody much knows.

[jjpm74]

I agree with Mark.

I think our job is to rank the current candidates. I said include 2003 because it's easy; there's little doubt that only Henderson is viable among those candidates. And it establishes our recommendations for the upcoming BBWAA election. The 2004 class would be tough, cuz there's so many borderliners coming on that year; Larkin and Alomar deserve to be first-ballot but will they? Nobody much knows.


I don't agree that the 2009 ballot is a given. It won't be until it is finalized which it is not.

[Freakshow]

I don't agree that the 2009 ballot is a given either.
I think you'll have a very difficult time arguing that Cone or Grace or somebody else is likely to gather more than token support from the BBWAA.

[jjpm74]

I think you'll have a very difficult time arguing that Cone or Grace or somebody else is likely to gather more than token support from the BBWAA.

I think for the purposes of this project, consistency is important. Including some players not yet eligible but not others is not being consistent. Including only players who have already shown up on the ballot is being consistent. Including all retired players would also be consistent.

[leecemark]

--I think all candidates for 2009 but Henderson are FAR more likely to miss the 5% cutoff than to be elected. I'd bet my house against the cost of a good meal that none of them get half the votes they need to be elected. It is much harder going forward. I think Alomar and Larkin should be easy first ballot guys, but I would not be betting the house - or even the price of a meal on that actually happening.
--So here is the deal. We will be including everyone who was eligible as of the 2008 ballot. We won't be including anyone who does not reach eligibility after 2009. 2009 is open for debate. We have one participant firmly in favor and one firmly opposed. I lean towards inclusion, but lets get some additional feedback and let the majority rule.

[jjpm74]

Works for me.

Is the draft starting Wednesday or Thursday? I'll be back in town Wednesday evening (around 8PM EST) if you wanted to start Wednesday.

[Freakshow]

I think for the purposes of this project, consistency is important. Including some players not yet eligible but not others is not being consistent. Including only players who have already shown up on the ballot is being consistent. Including all retired players would also be consistent.
Consistency is not the issue. (Anyway, there's a famous saying about consistency.)

The question is does including the 2009 candidates improve the project? I say yes. If there were any chance that one of them besides Henderson would prove to be a strong candidate to make the Hall in the near future, I would not favor including them now. The benefits outweigh the risk.

[jjpm74]

Consistency is not the issue. (Anyway, there's a famous saying about consistency.)

The question is does including the 2009 candidates improve the project? I say yes. If there were any chance that one of them besides Henderson would prove to be a strong candidate to make the Hall in the near future, I would not favor including them now. The benefits outweigh the risk.

You believe it helps the project, I believe it hurts the project. There are 8 other guys who haven't given their opinion on the issue. Let them weigh in. I'm unlikely to be including any 2009 candidates either way, except maybe in one of the filler roles, so it's not going to have an impact on my choices one way or the other.

[leecemark]

--We'll check off the draft at midnight EST on the 21st. That will give the first picker till noon, although if that looks like it might be a problem for you then you could get you pick in a little early and make it before bed the night of the 20th.
--I did the drawing for draft order;
1) Jim Albright
2) JJPM74
3) J W
4) Double X
5) Chickalooza
6) Leecemark
7) Paul Wendt
8) Freakshow
9) Classic
10) Baseball PAP
--I'll keep track of the draft by editting the first post.

[jjpm74]

One quick question about the draft, lets say as a hypothetical, Jim Albright enters his pick at 12:01AM. Does that mean my clock starts at 12:02AM or would still begin at 12:00PM? Also, once 1 person picks, can the next person go or should they wait until they are on the clock?

[Freakshow]

I'm unlikely to be including any 2009 candidates either way, except maybe in one of the filler roles, so it's not going to have an impact on my choices one way or the other.
Exactly. So it does no harm whatsoever to include them. But we reap several benefits.

1) "Including them will keep the project from being dated as quickly." Mark wrote that.

2) It establishes our recommendations for the upcoming BBWAA election. Let's help the BBWAA voters assess the upcoming election.

3) For ourselves and the discussions we'll have with others the rest of this year: we'll have analyzed the upcoming candidates, so we will gain an edge in our knowledge of where the 2009 candidates stand re the HOF.

If you say it's not a big deal, I'd agree. It's a small pre-emptive step, a nudge into the near-future. Why not do it?

[leecemark]

--You have 12 hours from the previous pick.

[Freakshow]

--You have 12 hours from the previous pick.
So then no freezing the clock or stop time?

[leecemark]

--There would have been with the 8 hour clock, but I think the switch to a 12 hour precludes the need for that.

[jjpm74]

Exactly. So it does no harm whatsoever to include them. But we reap several benefits.

1) "Including them will keep the project from being dated as quickly." Mark wrote that.

2) It establishes our recommendations for the upcoming BBWAA election. Let's help the BBWAA voters assess the upcoming election.

3) For ourselves and the discussions we'll have with others the rest of this year: we'll have analyzed the upcoming candidates, so we will gain an edge in our knowledge of where the 2009 candidates stand re the HOF.

You've made your point several times already. Please don't twist around what I said so you can make it again.

[Paul Wendt]

I don't agree that the 2009 ballot is a given. It won't be until it is finalized which it is not.

Do you mean the 2009 voting results?
It doesn't matter who is on the ballot.
Pending the discussion at hand everyone who has not played in the majors since 2002, or since 2003, or since 2003 except Rickey H (three alternatives) will be eligible for this draft --except Rose, Jackson, and others expelled from Organized Baseball.

I pick seventh, so I say no Rickey ;)

I don't care about the class of 2003/2009 but let me note that the "inconsistency" will be easy to justify. Although the draft will be completed this spring some aspects of the project will be ongoing during and after the 2009 electoral season. We agree that Rickey's election is certain and that by excluding him and only him we will match the pool one year from now.

[jjpm74]

Do you mean the 2009 voting results?
It doesn't matter who is on the ballot.
Pending the discussion at hand everyone who has not played in the majors since 2002, or since 2003, or since 2003 except Rickey H (three alternatives) will be eligible for this draft --except Rose, Jackson, and others expelled from Organized Baseball.

I pick seventh, so I say no Rickey ;)

I don't care about the class of 2003/2009 but let me note that the "inconsistency" will be easy to justify. Although the draft will be completed this spring some aspects of the project will be ongoing during and after the 2009 electoral season. We agree that Rickey's election is certain and that by excluding him and only him we will match the pool one year from now.

I'm referring to whether or not players who retired in 2003 should be included. I feel they should not. Others feel they should.

[J W]

* I vote for 20 rounds -- 8 pitchers (1 reliever) & 12 position players -- and then the supplemental draft for the last five, which will require one more pitcher and a backup catcher if not yet drafted.

* I vote we allow the 2009 ballot, minus Henderson. Henderson is going to be first ballot; if he isn't, there's going to be a lot of heat put on the BBWAA. The Rickey shouldn't be part of this. Otherwise I say no to the 2009 ballot.

[Paul Wendt]

--You have 12 hours from the previous pick.

This is probably easy for Jim Albright(1) and Baseball PAP(10) because eighteen selections must pass before the serpent returns to them.

At the other extreme numbers 2 and 9 know that if 1 and 10 are ready to go their next picks may be due 12 hours and a few minutes after this one.

But that is also true for me at number 7, right? If 8-9-10 are online and ready to go, then my next pick (14th in the draft) may be due only 13 hours after my first one (7th).
So if I'm not sure how soon I will check in again, I should leave a list of seven ordered backup selections.
If Classic(9) doesn't know that Baseball PAP(10) always uses twelve hours for each pick, he leaves a list of three backup selections.

Here is one alternative. When 12 hours pass --or as soon as he gets back and discovers it, if that is the deadline in practice-- leecemark assigns the career win shares leader thru 2001, breaking ties according to the list at Win Shares p594-600, and the clock passes.

[Paul Wendt]

Here is one alternative. When 12 hours pass --or as soon as he gets back and discovers it, if that is the deadline in practice-- leecemark assigns the career win shares leader thru 2001, breaking ties according to the list at Win Shares p594-600, and the clock passes.

Ha, this means that Bill James, choosing strictly by that 2001 list, is everyone's silent partner. If someone drops out part way through, BJ can take over that team entirely!

Now I am curious. If Freakshow goes one-on-one against Bill James, drafting one team each, what share of games will his team win against Bill's.
(In my imagination, he doesn't know BJ's list when he makes his own selections, maybe practically impossible.)

[J W]

That sounds good Paul. Many times that wouldn't mean the best player on the board (since we're doing best ten seasons), but it will be a viable selection.

I think we'll need to have position slots if we do that though, so one team doesn't end up with four first basemen or something.

[jjpm74]

Why don't we just make life easy and not use a clock? There's only 10 of us participating and most of us sign on at least once a day. At most maybe a day would pass between picks and then no one has to worry about when their clock might start/stop/expire.

[Brad Harris]

--So here is the deal. We will be including everyone who was eligible as of the 2008 ballot. We won't be including anyone who does not reach eligibility after 2009. 2009 is open for debate. We have one participant firmly in favor and one firmly opposed. I lean towards inclusion, but lets get some additional feedback and let the majority rule.

The following 2003 retirees meet the 10-year minimum eligibility requirements for addition to the BBWAA ballot:
Steve Avery
Jay Bell
Jason Bere
John Burkett
David Cone
Omar Daal
Ron Gant
Joe Girardi
Mark Grace
Mark Guthrie
Joey Hamilton
Bill Hasselman
Rickey Henderson
Darren Holmes
Trenidad Hubbard
Todd Hundley
Brian L. Hunter
Felix Jose
Chad Kreuter
Graeme Lloyd
Keith Lockhart
Albie Lopez
Pat Mahomes
Al Martin
Orlando Merced
Charles Nagy
Denny Neagle
Troy O'Leary
Jesse Orosco
Lance Painter
Dean Palmer
Craig Paquette
Dan Plesac
Tom Prince
Jeff Reboulet
Rick Reed
Rich Rodriguez
Terry Shumpert
Luis Sojo
Greg Vaughn
Mo Vaughn
Dave Veres
Matt Walbeck
Matt Williams
Mike Williams
Kevin Young

Besides Henderson, only three of these guys - Cone, Grace and Williams - have any kind of an argument. None are likely to be elected by the BBWAA on the 2009 or any other ballot.

I vote squarely for including the 2003 retirees.

[leecemark]

This is probably easy for Jim Albright(1) and Baseball PAP(10) because eighteen selections must pass before the serpent returns to them.

At the other extreme numbers 2 and 9 know that if 1 and 10 are ready to go their next picks may be due 12 hours and a few minutes after this one.

But that is also true for me at number 7, right? If 8-9-10 are online and ready to go, then my next pick (14th in the draft) may be due only 13 hours after my first one (7th).
So if I'm not sure how soon I will check in again, I should leave a list of seven ordered backup selections.
If Classic(9) doesn't know that Baseball PAP(10) always uses twelve hours for each pick, he leaves a list of three backup selections.

Here is one alternative. When 12 hours pass --or as soon as he gets back and discovers it, if that is the deadline in practice-- leecemark assigns the career win shares leader thru 2001, breaking ties according to the list at Win Shares p594-600, and the clock passes.

--There are several problems with this. One, I do not own Win Shares so I could not make selections based on it. Two, I doubt most of us see career Win Shares as the best indicator of worthiness. I'd think this would be especially true for you, Paul, with your interest in earlier players who are poorly represented by that measure due to shorter seasons and lost years off the front of their career.
--The best thing is obviously to check in a couple times during the day to see where the draft is. If you can't always do that then you should either get a list to someone who can be or just catch up when you can. Personally I'm okay with slipping a few spots on occasion. The difference between players at this level is pretty small - at least past the first round. I think our group is coming at this with enough different points of view that our targets will not be the same in most cases anyway.
--Finally the point of this is that we come up with the best 200 as a group. Sure we'd all like to have the "best" team, but that is going to be very subjective and not as important as getting the right guys on one of the teams.

[Paul Wendt]

That sounds good Paul. Many times that wouldn't mean the best player on the board (since we're doing best ten seasons), but it will be a viable selection.

I think we'll need to have position slots if we do that though, so one team doesn't end up with four first basemen or something.

and leecemark, "--There are several problems with this. One, I do not own Win Shares so I could not make selections based on it. Two, I doubt most of us see career Win Shares as the best indicator of worthiness. I'd think this would be especially true for you, Paul, with your interest in earlier players who are poorly represented by that measure due to shorter seasons and lost years off the front of their career."

I was thinking of Bill James as an emergency partner. Relying on him would usually be unplanned, against the spirit of the exercise, and some risk is appropriate. If you rely on him too much you may have four first basemen --or no one from before 1890. But yes, leecemark could set some upper bound on primary fielding position to keep the squad within playable parameters if necessary.

I could mail a photocopy of those pages or we could jointly maintain a list of the next several Penalty for Tardiness selections. At the moment the top three seem to be
399 Mullane
394 Dahlen
390 Raines (#53 overall)

[leecemark]

--I'll leave it to each participant to let me know if they want me to fill in for them if their clock runs out. First choice is, of course, you are online to make your own pick. Second choice would be you have given a short list to me or someone else in the event you aren't on during your 12 hours. Third choice would be for you make up the pick when you or online OR delegate that pick to me. If picks are delegated to me I will give you the highest rated available player at a position of need from the New Bill James Historical Abstract. I would prefer NOT to do that, but will for any of you who request that backup option. If you choose that I would try and make that pick during your 11th hour if I can be online at that time (or anybody else who was online in the 11th hour and has the book could do it for you).

[Freakshow]

Besides Henderson, only three of these guys - Cone, Grace and Williams - have any kind of an argument. None are likely to be elected by the BBWAA on the 2009 or any other ballot.

I vote squarely for including the 2003 retirees.
I agree.

I think you could make a case for considering a couple others as late round draft choices (Mo Vaughn, Jay Bell, Jesse Orosco). In any case, everyone after Rickey is trying not to be one and done on the ballot.

[DoubleX]

My preference would be against including any one that retired in 2003 or later. But I wouldn't be that bothered if we were to include 2003 retirees. In that event though, I would advocate not including Henderson as I think we can all agree that barring some major unforeseen revelation (i.e. steroids or gambling), the 2009 election will be a mere formality for Henderson getting into the Hall.

[Chickazoola]

I agree that we should include the 2009 list, sans Henderson.

I am actually getting kind of excited about this. Here's hoping Bill Dahlen falls to my spot.

[jalbright]

My first pick is already known to mark, and the only reason I will not reveal it here is the #2 selector has indicated he isn't able to access a computer. It wouldn't be fair to him to do that, IMO. That said, if you know my musings thread well, you should be able to deduce my pick and my default list. Of course, my selection is based on the assumption Rickey Henderson isn't allowed. In the unlikely event that decision changes, he would be my pick.

[jalbright]

As for the pool of Negro Leaguers, I'd suggest the list of finalists in the 2006 election who weren't inducted plus those mentioned at least twice, maybe three times in the Negro League thread I started as a companion to this project.

[catcher24]

Posting a note so I receive notice of new posts. Interested in how the draft goes.

[jalbright]

In reviewing the relief aces, I'm glad we're only have to have 1. The lot of them isn't impressive at the HOF level, IMHO. That said, is Firpo Marberry a suitable pick for that role? He was a relief ace or a starter/relief ace his entire career. He was the first big success in relief, and I feel he should count, especially given the dearth of high quality candidates. However, I'm not confident that will be the popular position, and I think we ought to decide before the drafting begins.

On a related note, I assume Dave Righetti and Ellis Kinder qualify as relief aces despite spending three years of their careers as starters. If this is wrong, please advise.

[Paul Wendt]

--One other thing we can work out while we're waiting for the draft to get underway are the rosters to the "worst hall of Fame teams". Looking at this I think they may end up with stronger pitching than some (most?) of the non-Hall of Fame teams. You can't really build too staffs without including some solid Hall of Famers. I guess what we'll do is start the worst 10, as well as the worst 2 at each position with better mistakes (or legit, but lower tier HoFers) coming off the bench or working out of the bullpen.
--This is the pool of Hal of Famers left out of either the HalL of Merit or BBF Hall of Fame (both in most cases);
C: Ferrell, Schalk, Lombardi and Bresnahan
1B: Kelly, Bottomley, Cepeda, Chance, Perez and Beckley
2B: Evers, Lazzeri, Mazeroski, Schoendeniest
3B: Kell, Lindstrom, Traynor
Ss: Aparicio, Bancrodt, Jackson, Maranville, Rizzuto, Tinker
LF: Brock, Manush, Hafey
CF: Combs, Duffy, Puckett, Waner, Wilson
RF: McCarthy, Hooper, Rice, Youngs, Cuyler, Klein
SP: Bender, Chesbro, Dean, Gomez, Grimes, Haines, Hoyt, Hunter, Joss, Marquard, Pennock, Welch, Willis
RP: Sutter

--My suggested starters in bold.

26 of the 55 Hall of Fame players not in the Hall of Merit played in the major leagues (not Negro Leagues) mainly during the 1920s-30s. Here is that team with my suggested starters bold. The ten starters, including two pitchers, were all regular players and close to their prime seasons in 1930.
LF CF RF
Hafey Waner Rice
Manush Combs Klein
Wilson Youngs
Cuyler

3B SS 2B 1B
Lindstr Jackson Lazzeri Bottomley
Traynor Bancroft Kelly
Maranville

P
Haines
Hoyt
Pennock
Gomez
Grimes
Dean

C
Ferrell
Lombardi
Schalk
Who didn't make the cut?
Marquard and Hooper were too early; Rizzuto was too late. Schalk, who is included, also played a little more and better in the teens than in the twenties. If you care about that, call it WWI to WWII (1918-1945 in America) rather than 1920s-30s.

This team is balanced. Indeed, it is the only one with a catcher. The smaller numbers who played earlier, or later, or in the Negro Leagues are not so balanced. The twelve earlier players are six pitchers, five active in the aughts; three multiple pennant-winning Chicago infielders; three multiple pennant-winning Boston outfielders. The first five after WWII are "throwing infielders". From the Negro Leagues there are three pitchers, two thirdbasemen, and one firstbaseman.

[baseballPAP]

Mark, as to the problems of creating the players, I have a copy of a league file that we used in a league I played in a few years back. It contains not only a large selection of NeLers, also many of the other players needed here, and a bunch of Japanese players as well. I'll send it along to you for your viewing pleasure ;) Credit for this one goes to Ed and John Mortimer....although at this time I can't really remember which brother did which addition. The base file is DMB's all time greats disk BTW....which is already based on a 10 year peak period. The additions were also done with the same idea in mind, but IMO, they were boosted above the level of the other players on this disk. If you want to use this, I'll be happy to help with any adjustments we agree on.

[leecemark]

--Are you saying they were overly optimistic in their projections for the Negro Leaguers? I think that is true for all the MLE and projections I've seen from whatever source. The people who are interested enough to do the work generally want to see good numbers for their subjects. Or maybe I am not optimistic enough in my projections:confused:. I'd be happy to take a look at the file anyway if you want to e-mail it to me.

[leecemark]

--Thinking it over I have reconsidered the need to limit Negro Leagues to a pre-assigned list. Some of us may have some less than mainstream choices amoung MLB players - guys who are going to be on a VC shortlist or how were one and doen with the BWAA. I surely wouldn't restrict their eligibilliy for this project, so why do it for Negro Leaguers. The only "penalty" for choosing someone off the list of nominees for the Negro League Committee would be in the sim. They will be unlikley to be projected amoung the better players.
--So our pool of players is; anybody eligible for Cooperstown on the next ballot (except Rickey Henderson), anybody eligible for VC consideration and anybody who might be considered if there was another opportunity for Negro Leaguers. Use your best judgement and try and come up with the best possible pool of players.

[Freakshow]

--So our pool of players is; anybody eligible for Cooperstown on the next ballot (except Rickey Henderson), anybody eligible for VC consideration and anybody who might be considered if there was another opportunity for Negro Leaguers. Use your best judgement and try and come up with the best possible pool of players.
This implies you are using the Hall's 10-years-played rule; I thought the decision was to discard that rule for this project.

Also, I believe you mean to include players not eligible for the next BBWAA ballot who are barred by the 5% rule. Correct?

I believe you also mean to include players who are not under VC consideration due to playing their career before 1876 (Al Reach, Asa Brainard, etc.). Correct?

[leecemark]

--I guess I did phase that poorly. All players who are short of 10 years in MLB due to their career starting prior to MLB have the 10 year rule waived. Are there other players for whom the 10 year rule should be waived? Players who are off ballot due to the 5% rule will eventually be VC eligible and we will consider them now. I don't wish to exclude any player who could conceivably be considered under the rules of the Hall of Fame. I'd err on the side of inclusion where there may be some doubt as to eligibilty.

[jalbright]

Mark,

A few things:

1) are pre 1871 (or 1876) players eligible? I had assumed they were. I think we should allow back to at least 1871. With the sim in mind, I can understand the difficulty with guys 1870 and before. We can use the assumption that guys who played both before and after 1870 would have had more years like their post-1870 data for purposes of the sim.

2) The main guys from the Negro Leagues who I will consider picking in this exercise are mostly already on my ballot or in the BBF HOF, though Nip Winters (with Lefty Gomez as probably the best comp), might sneak in.

3) Should we make some allowance on the clock for selections made by multiple selectors (counting the two by the guys on the ends of the snake as one) quickly (2-3 hours at most) in certain time frames (like 11 PM Eastern and 7 am Pacific [10 am Eastern])? I'll probably be pretty quick on the draw once I sign on and realize I'm up. We want folks to be prepared, but if you're expecting you're 15-16 hours from being on the clock and get hit with being on in 3 or less, I can see how somebody could reasonably be caught short.

4) Please respond to my question as to whether Righetti/Kinder/Marberry are eligible to be considered as relief aces.

[leecemark]

Mark,

A few things:

1) are pre 1871 (or 1876) players eligible? I had assumed they were. I think we should allow back to at least 1871. With the sim in mind, I can understand the difficulty with guys 1870 and before. We can use the assumption that guys who played both before and after 1870 would have had more years like their post-1870 data for purposes of the sim.

--Yes they are eligible. For sim purposes I'd use stats starting from 1871.

2) The main guys from the Negro Leagues who I will consider picking in this exercise are mostly already on my ballot or in the BBF HOF, though Nip Winters (with Lefty Gomez as probably the best comp), might sneak in.

3) Should we make some allowance on the clock for selections made by multiple selectors (counting the two by the guys on the ends of the snake as one) quickly (2-3 hours at most) in certain time frames (like 11 PM Eastern and 7 am Pacific [10 am Eastern])? I'll probably be pretty quick on the draw once I sign on and realize I'm up. We want folks to be prepared, but if you're expecting you're 15-16 hours from being on the clock and get hit with being on in 3 or less, I can see how somebody could reasonably be caught short.

--Guys at the end of the draft will not get 24 hours. Both picks would need to be made in the same 12 hour clock.

4) Please respond to my question as to whether Righetti/Kinder/Marberry are eligible to be considered as relief aces.

--Any pitcher may be used in relief. I'd prefer each team draft at least one true reliever as part of their 20 man SOC roster (and recommend more as part of the supplemental 5 man draft). If you think Righetti, Kinder or Marberry are one of the 10 best relievers outside Cooperstown then by all means select them. I don't think they are int he top 10, but any of them might be good enough to be one of the 60 or so pitchers selected and would be better in releif than as starters. All three of them could be one of the best 100-110 pitchers selected once we add the supplemental choices.

[jalbright]

--Are you saying they were overly optimistic in their projections for the Negro Leaguers? I think that is true for all the MLE and projections I've seen from whatever source. The people who are interested enough to do the work generally want to see good numbers for their subjects. Or maybe I am not optimistic enough in my projections:confused:. .

I understand the skepticism, but I suggest you look at the methodology. I know the biggest flaw in mine for Japan is the lack of data to do Japanese park effects. However, I didn't start with the players I wanted to do MLEs for, but rather to consider what data was available to base an MLE on. The logical place to start, it seemed to me, was to compare those who had played in both places. I wanted to control for the influence of an individual who had 100 AB in one place and 5000 in another, so I went with matched AB as close in time as possible to control for that. One issue I admittedly couldn't control for was the fact that most of the available choices went from the majors to Japan rather than the other way around, which means that the players are older in Japan, which may introduce another bias. As there aren't any good ways I'm aware of to account for it, though, this is a bias I admittedly did not account for. When it came to batters, I went where the data took me, with the exception of downgrading from Oh's projected walks. At least with hitters, I followed a model used successfully by Bill James to project minor league equivalents. I also didn't project steals, in part due to the aging issue. When it came to pitchers, I did the same thing except I ultimately went with projecting runs from adjusted hits, HR, walk and strikeout data using already established formulas for doing so, and projecting wins and losses from those runs totals. They still have the aging and Japanese park effects issues like the hitters do. So there's no question there's a gray area in my projections, and many other MLE projections will have similar problems. However, I tried to be scrupulously fair in following the data. Of course, some players will flourish and some will not, and I'm using an average. That said, I think most people doing projections like this for public consumption know there's enough difficulty in getting them accepted if you're scrupulous in designing and implementing your conversion parameters, much less if you make decisions which can be made to look like cooking the books.

Now, with many of the Negro League conversions I've seen, they have to use a "conversion factor" which relies on the judgment of the person choosing that factor, which lends itself more to the criticism you're implicitly making. Perhaps there is a subconscious shading of a defensible choice in the direction you suggest for those using such methods. But I have seen folks try to use methods which rely on established principles to make their projections which minimize or eliminate such judgment calls. Then all that remains in the "gray area" of the projection are unavoidable holes in the data (like for my Japanese park effects) and the fact not everyone will perform in a new setting the same way.

In sum, I understand your skepticism, and when looking at conversions, you've got to understand the methodology to appraise how much to rely upon them. It helps greatly if that methodology is clearly laid out and known problems such as the lack of Japanese park effect data are made known as well. If those things are given to you, you should rely on the data within the range of the difficulties made known to you. It is probably fair to err on the side of caution (i.e., count the known difficulties to downgrade the conversion), but a more generalized skepticism of such a conversion is probably unwarranted. If those things aren't given to you, the only other thing you can do is see if the person has done other conversions and see if you feel the person doing the conversion is on target or overly optimistic and act accordingly. In that instance, if you don't have a set of converted players to evaluate, a healthy dose of skepticism is probably in order.

[jalbright]

Mark,

Thanks for the answers to my questions, but I'm not talking about 24 hours for me and #10 (sorry, I forgot who it is) when we've got to make two picks. What I was talking about is say I made my pick(s) within an hour of going on the clock and jjpm (#2) did likewise. Should #3, who reasonably would have expected a good deal more than two hours for the two selectors to make their picks, be given a little more time? Take it yet another selector forward, so that three folks make their picks in 4-5 hours. Should #4 get some consideration, especially if the last pick is made after 11 pm Eastern time and before 8 am (assuming the selector is in Eastern Time)? I hope I've been a little clearer in posing that question this time.

[Freakshow]

Mark,

Thanks for the answers to my questions, but I'm not talking about 24 hours for me and #10 (sorry, I forgot who it is) when we've got to make two picks. What I was talking about is say I made my pick(s) within an hour of going on the clock and jjpm (#2) did likewise. Should #3, who reasonably would have expected a good deal more than two hours for the two selectors to make their picks, be given a little more time? Take it yet another selector forward, so that three folks make their picks in 4-5 hours. Should #4 get some consideration, especially if the last pick is made after 11 pm Eastern time and before 8 am (assuming the selector is in Eastern Time)? I hope I've been a little clearer in posing that question this time.
One thing you could do to alleviate this problem is to add to the rule, like this:

Drafters must make their pick within 12 hours after the preceding choice OR
18 hours after their own previous choice, whichever is later.

An example of this is a drafter makes his choice at 7 pm. He goes offline, figuring he'll have at least until late morning to make his next choice. Unbeknownst to him, a flurry of choices follows and he's back on the clock at 8:30 pm. Fortunately for him, the 18 hour rule is in effect; so he doesn't have to pick by 8:30 am, he has until 1 pm. When he goes online at 10 am he's surprised to discover that he's been on the clock over 13 hours; but he still has time to make his choice.

[leecemark]

--That is a very reasonable compromise. I'm in favor.

[Brad Harris]

--That is a very reasonable compromise. I'm in favor.

I'm in agreement here.

[jalbright]

The rule starts to address the issue I raise, but if I through number three all vote from 10 pm to midnight ET and #4 had signed off at 9:45 pm ET for the night, the rule wouldn't help him--but he'd still (rightly, I think) be surprised that the clock expires at noon. How about if three or more selectors (with 2 by #1 and #10 counting as one) made their choices within 6 hours, the next selector has 18 hours on the clock? You'd still have 4 picks within 24 hours, well ahead of the pace we mandate. If you want to tighten it to three within 4 or 5 hours, I'm fine with that as well--and 18 hours should be long enough. I can live with my default picks if necessary, but, as I've indicated before, between when I go to bed (early to bed, because I'm early to rise) and 3:45 pm ET, I'm rarely able to get online during the week. I can prepare for one or two picks ahead, but three gets to be stretching it.

[leecemark]

--I don't know that we need to prepare for EVERY contingincy. If everyone can just take a peek before they leave for the day, when they get home and before they go to bed they would never miss a pick. Even if you skip one of those 3 opportunities you would raely miss a pick. Even if you check in only once a day you would not that often miss your pick and would be unlikely to have slipped more than a spot or two in the draft if you did. 12 hours from last pick and 18 from your last pick I think gives everyone ample opportunity to make their own selection or be prepared enough to pass a short list to me or the guy directly behind them in the draft.

[Paul Wendt]

--I don't know that we need to prepare for EVERY contingincy. If everyone can just take a peek before they leave for the day, when they get home and before they go to bed they would never miss a pick. Even if you skip one of those 3 opportunities you would raely miss a pick. Even if you check in only once a day you would not that often miss your pick and would be unlikely to have slipped more than a spot or two in the draft if you did. 12 hours from last pick and 18 from your last pick I think gives everyone ample opportunity to make their own selection or be prepared enough to pass a short list to me or the guy directly behind them in the draft.

I would go with 24 for the middle of the order, #4-7, but 18 hours is a big big improvement over 12. Thanks.

Jim Albright, I'm sure you'll be safe following 19 picks after yourself.

[jalbright]

I shan't be able to get any advantage from the rule proposed, with 18 picks in between my times up. Your rule thus only applies to a few folks. Furthermore, if you had to get up in the morning and get a six year old out the door by 6:45 am, I think you'd understand why I cannot get on then very often. I substitute teach, and only one district I work at provides me computer access consistently--and that one blocks my access to this site. So it's at best a crapshoot from when I go to bed at night until 3:30-4 PM whether I'll get to see this site. I'm only proposing that if three or more picks are made in the space of six hours or less that the 18 hour rule be invoked. Is that so ridiculous? It's not like it's impossible, based on what happens if monkeys from the local zoo invade my ISP, or anything like that.

[Freakshow]

I won't speak for anyone else, but it doesn't matter to me if it takes four months or whatever to do the draft. To me, this is all about the journey and getting the best results in the end.

I know there are some people chomping at the bit to get started drafting. And there may be others mainly anxious to see the sim get off the ground. But my thought is that we want to avoid disenfranchising voters and skipping their pick. IMO, whatever needs to be done to accomodate the needs of an individual voter we should do.

[jjpm74]

I shan't be able to get any advantage from the rule proposed, with 18 picks in between my times up. Your rule thus only applies to a few folks. Furthermore, if you had to get up in the morning and get a six year old out the door by 6:45 am, I think you'd understand why I cannot get on then very often. I substitute teach, and only one district I work at provides me computer access consistently--and that one blocks my access to this site. So it's at best a crapshoot from when I go to bed at night until 3:30-4 PM whether I'll get to see this site. I'm only proposing that if three or more picks are made in the space of six hours or less that the 18 hour rule be invoked. Is that so ridiculous? It's not like it's impossible, based on what happens if monkeys from the local zoo invade my ISP, or anything like that.

I figured since I have a few minutes between ski runs, I'd check in and see how this is going. I'm in the same boat as you, being a teacher and not living in a world where 24-7 Internet access is a reality. I can rarely sign on between before 3-4PM on a given day and don't understand what the big rush is. If it's that important for people to get this done quickly, count me out and pick someone else to do this. What started out as a fun excercise is turning into an unneeded headache.

[DoubleX]

I won't speak for anyone else, but it doesn't matter to me if it takes four months or whatever to do the draft. To me, this is all about the journey and getting the best results in the end.

I know there are some people chomping at the bit to get started drafting. And there may be others mainly anxious to see the sim get off the ground. But my thought is that we want to avoid disenfranchising voters and skipping their pick. IMO, whatever needs to be done to accomodate the needs of an individual voter we should do.

I agree. Things will get done in due course. My schedule is a little more flexible than some, but there will be times where I won't be checking in here for a day or two at a time (particularly weekends), so I could envision a situation where I might miss a pick, especially if a number of people before me have picked in rapid succession.

I think it would be ok if we give people an entire day to make a pick. That way all a person has to do is check in once during the day and it wouldn't matter when. This will slow things down, but I imagine most people will pick pretty quickly after realizing they are on the clock. The real problem here is that people might not realize they are on the clock because of not being online, and that will be a problem regardless of what kind of clock we use. Under the one day clock, there is much less chance of a person being punished for not getting online at the right time to notice they're up, and I think addressing that concern outweighs the side effect of slowing things down (especially because people will likely pick quickly anyway once they realize they are up).

[jalbright]

If I was given 18 hours to make a pick, I wouldn't have to sign on in the middle of my hectic weekday mornings, and that would be enough. I can even live with having to look when I know it's down to the last one or two voters before me, and to have a contingency list set up for that. But I had concerns about timing to begin with, and was assured that I could basically proceed using the site as I always had. If I don't have some protection against a quick flurry of picks, I cannot work on that basis. Let's just say if some accomodation in this regard is not forthcoming, I'll have to seriously consider whether it's worth participating. I'd hate for it to come to that, as I've done a lot of preparatory work--but I can't ignore the potential disruption to my life beyond this site. I will probably move pretty quickly once I'm aware it's my time to vote, however.

[leecemark]

--It appears my concerns about losing people to too slow a pace are misplaced and the opposite is true. I will go along with the 18 hour clock, although I hope that it will run considerably more quickly than that. I do hope that I can count on everyone to at least check on the draft every time they do log into BBF - and be prepared to make their selection if they find it is their turn.

[Freakshow]

Mark:

It would probably be a good idea to gather all the rules for the project in one post.

[leecemark]

--Once we have arrived at whatever our final rules will be - which will be probably be tonight - I will edit the first post of the thread.

[jalbright]

--It appears my concerns about losing people to too slow a pace are misplaced and the opposite is true. I will go along with the 18 hour clock, although I hope that it will run considerably more quickly than that. I do hope that I can count on everyone to at least check on the draft every time they do log into BBF - and be prepared to make their selection if they find it is their turn.

Thanks, Mark. Aah, the "joys" of running a project like this--there's always some problem, isn't there? It's often thankless, and I do appreciate that fact.

[baseballPAP]

It could be as easy as not allowing more than one pick to pass if an owner gets skipped. That way, you'd never have to worry about slipping any further than one player beyond your guy. So, in the most basic terms, if a pick is missed, a second 12 hour freeze begins, where only one pick may be made, or until the skipped owner catches up.

I highly doubt anyone's options will be so obviously narrow to make a single player beyond the first round or so any more or less valuable than his closest comp.

[DoubleX]

--Once we have arrived at whatever our final rules will be - which will be probably be tonight - I will edit the first post of the thread.

I think we'll find that the draft will move pretty expeditiously. I think people will select soon after they realize it's their turn. The biggest impediment is that people might take a while to realize it's their turn. This will happen regardless of how long the clock run - people can't draft until they log on and see that they're up. This is why I think a longer clock is better because it safeguards against a person missing their spot simply because they didn't know or couldn't log on in time to see that they're up. I'd actually prefer a 24 hour clock just because it's a little easier to manage than 18, but whatever.

I'd also ask that whatever thread we are conducting the draft in be devoid of conversation. I don't want to have to log on and sift through pages of discussion in order to find out who made the last pick and when. I also think it would be good if one of us mods in this project could update a main page giving a draft summary to that point in time. I think this is a simple task that can be shared among the mods in this, in that whenever one of us comes on, we edit the first page to display the most recent information if it isn't already updated.

[Chickazoola]

I am beyond flexible, so I will acquiesce to whatever structure this draft takes. And to echo other sentiments, and voice my appreciation for those doing the dirty work. I think the draft will go pretty smoothly, and am looking forward to it.

[jalbright]

I'd also ask that whatever thread we are conducting the draft in be devoid of conversation. I don't want to have to log on and sift through pages of discussion in order to find out who made the last pick and when. I also think it would be good if one of us mods in this project could update a main page giving a draft summary to that point in time. I think this is a simple task that can be shared among the mods in this, in that whenever one of us comes on, we edit the first page to display the most recent information if it isn't already updated.

Would it be wise to start a thread just for the drafting, with this thread for discussion? I can announce my pick once this is resolved.

[Chickazoola]

Would it be wise to start a thread just for the drafting, with this thread for discussion? I can announce my pick once this is resolved.

I think that's a great idea.

[DoubleX]

Would it be wise to start a thread just for the drafting, with this thread for discussion? I can announce my pick once this is resolved.

I think the following would be a good way to do things"

- One thread dedicated to nothing but the draft. The only posts in that thread will the picks. This way the thread will proceed in order of draft pick, so a person can log on, go to the last page of the thread and immediately see who made the last pick and thus who is on the clock. I also think it would be helpful if the first post of this thread contains a summary of the draft. It could be as simple as showing the picks in order, just so we have one place to look to see which players have so far been drafted. Like I suggested earlier, I think one of us mods in this project could just go update that page whenever one of us is on and sees it needs updating.

- The other thread would be for discussion, and this thread would do nicely. I think we used to have the bifurcated system with the BBF Hall of Fame vote, right (we might still, I haven't participated in a long time)?

- Someplace we can look, preferably in the first post in one of the two threads, where the rules are all put nicely for us, so we're all on the same page before starting this.

[catcher24]

Would anyone in the project have a major objection to my posting a single note in the "draft only" thread, so that I could be alerted whenever a post (pick) is made? If so, let me know and I'll not do it. If OK, I'll toss in a one line note. Thank you, and I think this will be most interesting to observe.:)

[leecemark]

--I would be happy to set up a separate thread for the draft and maintain updated picks. We do have several mods involved in the project and if any of you want to update picks in my absence to keep it simple for everyone that would be great. I'll also be happy to post a notice that discussion should be made in this thread and that all posts other than picks will be deleted form that thread. Again if the other mods involved in the draft would like to help police that it would be appreciated.
--I will make an exception for Lew (catcher24) to make a post in order to subscribe to that thread. If we need an alternate at some point in the draft Lew has expressed interest and I'd be happy to have him. If anyone is going to be unavailable for an extended period during the course of the project and wanted to give their list to a nuetral party it would be nice to have someone reliable following along to help out. Hope I'm not signing you up for more than you bargined for there Lew:).

[catcher24]

Hope I'm not signing you up for more than you bargined for there Lew

Perhaps a bit, but no problem here with that. Looks like a very interesting project and if someone will be absent for a lengthy period, I would be happy to use a list they provide and make their picks. And I thank you for the exception, Mark!:waving

[jalbright]

Hey, it's always nice to have a cop around when you need one! ;) Lew would be perfect for that neutral role, and I thank him for being willing to do it.

[leecemark]

--I'll get the draft thread up momentarily. It officially kicks off at midnight EST tonight. If Jim wants to pick earlier that would be okay amy time after the thread goes up. The clock won't start ticking till midnight though. Thanks for all the input and I hop everyone has fun with this.

[jalbright]

I got the ball rolling early. Bert Blyleven is the first pick. It will help build a team "up the middle", and there just aren't a lot of clearly HOF caliber pitchers not in the Hall IMO, which reinforces the pick.

[Freakshow]

I got the ball rolling early. Bert Blyleven is the first pick. It will help build a team "up the middle", and there just aren't a lot of clearly HOF caliber pitchers not in the Hall IMO, which reinforces the pick.
Sound reasoning. I had him #3.

[DoubleX]

I got the ball rolling early. Bert Blyleven is the first pick. It will help build a team "up the middle", and there just aren't a lot of clearly HOF caliber pitchers not in the Hall IMO, which reinforces the pick.

Darn, I was hoping he'd fall to me at #4. That's the pick I'd probably make too at #1. Oh well.

[jalbright]

I don't want to overuse my rating system, as I know it's not perfect by any means. However, Bert was #1, and when I looked at the four or five others who I felt might reasonably lay claim to that status, the other considerations came into play. It'll be harder next time I draft, when 18 more guys are gone. It's kind of weird knowing that so many will go before I get another chance. It's the fairest approach, I know, but there are reasons to rather have been more in the middle of the pack. Grass is always greener, I guess.

[jalbright]

It doesn't appear anybody has taken Hyde Park, so that's my locale, and the team called the Jekylls. (RL Stevenson reference intentional, and, no, my pitchers won't "doctor" the ball, unless they did it in real life.)

[Paul Wendt]

I'm not sure which "suburbs" have been taken and I'll wait a while on that. I need to practice my wit, not that practice will suffice.

I don't want to overuse my rating system, as I know it's not perfect by any means. However, Bert was #1, and when I looked at the four or five others who I felt might reasonably lay claim to that status, the other considerations came into play.

Yes, the ten-year basis for simulation favors Blyleven.

Blyleven was younger than I knew last hour, a young 19 in his rookie season, 19.6 yrs.mos at its close. Through age 28 he pitched more innings with better ERA+ than all of his ten "most similar pitchers" Vic Willis to Don Drysdale.

Only one of them pitched more than ten seasons, for Larry Dierker was younger yet: 18th birthday debut, about 330 innings pitched as a teenager. Wow, who knew that that happened in my time? My dad was a boy when Bob Feller arrived, as I was for Dierker. If Dierker had been as good as Feller, I would have known more about him. But he is the biggest star who has been a genuine SABR member recently, so maybe I should learn.

It'll be harder next time I draft, when 18 more guys are gone. It's kind of weird knowing that so many will go before I get another chance. It's the fairest approach, I know, but there are reasons to rather have been more in the middle of the pack. Grass is always greener, I guess.
You'll get two clear Hall of Fame-worthy players at #20-21, if you want them.

[jjpm74]

Just a heads up to all. I just entered my 1st round pick and ended up going with Sharon Falls Gilded Ghosts for my team name.

[catcher24]

Hey, it's always nice to have a cop around when you need one!

Ahh, but retired now. Hung it up about 20 months ago now. I can honestly say that I don't miss it, either. 33 years at it was more than enough. An excellent memory, though, Jim!

Let me also say I liked your Blyleven pick. I haven't taken the time to rate any of these players since I knew I wouldn't be picking. But I'm sure Blyleven would've been in my top three. He is, IMHO, the second most egregious oversight (so far) of the BBWAA. Ron Santo tops that list for me.

[DoubleX]

I know we've already started, but can I make a rule suggestion? I was thinking, I have a player very much in mind for my pick, which is one away, so I'm really hope J W doesn't pick him. Now say for some reason the unlikely event happens where J W doesn't pick in time and hasn't named a proxy to draft for him. Mark would fill in the pick with the highest ranked player from the Bill James Abstract, right? Well I was thinking, nothing would piss me off more if that player is the player I'm going to pick (and I'm not saying it is, I'm talking hypothetically - I have no idea what the Bill James rankings are). Who knows who J W would have picked if he picked in time, he may have picked a different player, so I wouldn't want to lose out on the player I want. It's like I'm punished because he missed his time slot.

So my proposal would be that if a person misses their pick, the draft goes on and the next person is free to pick, and the person that missed their slot will just have to get their pick in whenver they can. I remember this happened in the NFL Draft a few years ago when the Vikings missed used up their clock, so the next few teams hurried up to the podium and the Vikings ended up getting their pick in a few spots later. No one picked for them, they just lost their exclusive time slot. So I would propose we adopt the same system. You miss your time on the clock, the draft goes on and you'll just have to get your pick in as soon as you can thereafter.

[jjpm74]

I would support that if we went to a 24 hour clock.

[jalbright]

Ahh, but retired now. Hung it up about 20 months ago now. I can honestly say that I don't miss it, either. 33 years at it was more than enough. An excellent memory, though, Jim!

Let me also say I liked your Blyleven pick. I haven't taken the time to rate any of these players since I knew I wouldn't be picking. But I'm sure Blyleven would've been in my top three. He is, IMHO, the second most egregious oversight (so far) of the BBWAA. Ron Santo tops that list for me.

Oh, I'm a compendium of facts I may not make great use of. Knowing something about people is one of the things I'm more apt to be able to use.

I'm sure Santo won't be around when I pick 18 picks from now, so I can talk about him. He was on the short list, but a) my rating system had Bert higher, 2) there's a good selection of 3b guys available, some close to as good as Santo, and 3) there's not a lot of good HOF-caliber pitchers outside the Hall. All those things pushed me towards Bert over Santo, though I certainly wouldn't be upset to have Santo.

[leecemark]

--With the clock now extended to 18 hours everyone will either make their own picks or provide a list to me or someone else. I won't be using James or any other source not generated by the participant in question. If you are going to be unavailable for an extended period please make provisions for a backup.

[DoubleX]

--With the clock now extended to 18 hours everyone will either make their own picks or provide a list to me or someone else. I won't be using James or any other source not generated by the participant in question. If you are going to be unavailable for an extended period please make provisions for a backup.

What happens in the event that someone misses their pick and hasn't made a contingency plan? This is going to go on for a while, so I wouldn't be surprised if at some point a person just plain forgets or doesn't have access to a computer for long than ex?ected. In that scenario can the next person go ahead and pick, and the person that missed their pick will just have to get their pick in when they remember/can?

[leecemark]

--If the 18 hours passes without a pick then the next person can go and the person who missed can make it up when they come on next. I'm sure it will happen on occasion. It may even happen to me if this goes on long enough. After the first few picks I don't think its going to matter too much. If I get the 55th best instead of the 53th the difference between them is going to be pretty slight. That even assuming that the person(s) who skips ahead of me even has the same - or remotely close to the same - evaluation process/team needs.

[catcher24]

--If the 18 hours passes without a pick then the next person can go and the person who missed can make it up when they come on next.

Ala Classic Keeper League rookie draft, except for the length of time.

He was on the short list, but a) my rating system had Bert higher, 2) there's a good selection of 3b guys available, some close to as good as Santo, and 3) there's not a lot of good HOF-caliber pitchers outside the Hall.

And your reasoning was absolutely sound and I think correct. In your position, and had I studied the players and looked at the number of candidates at each position, I may have done the same thing. You certainly have to take into consideration the number of players available at a given position, as well as the ability to obtain (or not obtain) another player of comparable quality at a given position.

[jalbright]

So far, the three picks (of course, one is mine) were in my top 4. Of course, in real life, I might have knocked Allen down a few spots, because he was difficult to deal with at times. He still clearly belongs in Cooperstown, IMHO, though. But that difficulty in dealing with him might make me more enamored of a few similarly talented but more amenable souls.

[DoubleX]

I was really hoping for Allen to drop to me, especially because I could use him at 3B. I'm having quite the internal debate now between two players.

EDIT: So I picked Santo, and I'm still not totally comfortable with the pick. For me, Santo is the one player I'd put in the Hall if I could add one player, but in terms of building a team, there was someone else that I thought would have been a great pick at this spot. I really had my eyes set on Dick Allen or Bert Blyleven and was hopeful someone ahead of me would pick Santo. Dahlen was probably my no. 3.

[J W]

The only reason why is because 3B is so horribly underrepresented in HOF that the position is rich in talent. Otherwise, Santo should've been the first choice IMO. I intend on playing Allen at 1B where he still outshines most of the field.

I thought McGwire was the no-brainer btw... I stand corrected. When my pick came up I saw that Allen nearly matched him offensively. McGwire "only" has six seasons of 40+ HRs and there's no way around his injury-plagued years. Add in the adjustment for both players due to the "neutral setting", and Allen looks even better stacked up against 'roid head.

End result; Allen actually has a higher win shares per 162! He has in fact the highest WS/162 of any position player eligible in the draft.

incidentally, I'd probably turn hypocrite and not draft McGwire anyway, just because the steroids thing is up in the air, and hate myself for being hypocritical...

[leecemark]

--Not only do I see Allen as more deserving than McGwire I also have Hernandez as more deserving. McGriff, Clark and Mattingly are at least close. McGriff not eligible for thsi project yet though.

[DoubleX]

The only reason why is because 3B is so horribly underrepresented in HOF that the position is rich in talent. Otherwise, Santo should've been the first choice IMO. I intend on playing Allen at 1B where he still outshines most of the field.

I thought McGwire was the no-brainer btw... I stand corrected. When my pick came up I saw that Allen nearly matched him offensively. McGwire "only" has six seasons of 40+ HRs and there's no way around his injury-plagued years. Add in the adjustment for both players due to the "neutral setting", and Allen looks even better stacked up against 'roid head.

End result; Allen actually has a higher win shares per 162! He has in fact the highest WS/162 of any position player eligible in the draft.

incidentally, I'd probably turn hypocrite and not draft McGwire anyway, just because the steroids thing is up in the air, and hate myself for being hypocritical...

Well I would have been grateful to you if you had picked McGwire instead of Allen. I still don't feel comfortable with my Santo pick and wonder if I should have picked the "other" guy.

[jjpm74]

I went with Bill Dahlen over Ron Santo because I don't see a significant amount of distance between Santo and several other 3rd basemen not in the HOF and that position seems to be deeper in talent than the SS position. I have 11 potential 3rd basemen picks in my queue for this draft so I'm not too worried about being shut out at that position. So far, no surprises in the first round. I almost went with Allen because of his ability to play several positions and he was in my top 5. Blyleven is easily the best pitcher not in the HOF, IMO so I'm not disappointed to see that he was the first overall pick. I'm really interested in seeing who gets picked up in the first three rounds more than anything as those tend to be the players that are the strongest candidates for the HOF, but even the 200th overall pick should be interesting.

[leecemark]

--Blyleven probably should have been first pick. I'm not sure he is the absolute best player not in Cooperstown. In fact I'm pretty sure he isn't. He is the ONLY pitcher who is an obvious oversight though. The only other pitchers I'm sure I endorse are 19th century guys and they are very much long shots to ever actually be inducted.

[jjpm74]

--Blyleven probably should have been first pick. I'm not sure he is the absolute best player not in Cooperstown. In fact I'm pretty sure he isn't. He is the ONLY pitcher who is an obvious oversight though. The only other pitchers I'm sure I endorse are 19th century guys and they are very much long shots to ever actually be inducted.

There has supposedly been talk of setting up a special committee along the lines of the Negro League committee to take a closer look at pre-1900 baseball players. If that happens, at least 3 of them will probably gain induction and possibly more. At this point, though, it's just "talk" so who knows whether or not it will become a reality. It certainly would be nice given how many deadball era players are deserving (at least to get a closer look) that are not enshrined in Cooperstown.

[Paul Wendt]

Evidently leecemark maintains the top page.
I think I'll wait until my second pick to make a nickname and roster page. Those pages already depart from roster order or I would do it now.

Elmira is too far from Cooperstown to be a suburb, even if they build a superhighway. So is Rochester. Those are the hometowns of Deacon White and Ezra Sutton. There is one Cooperstown native who deserves induction, Bud Fowler, but he is not a plausible player selection at this stage.

Deacon White at #7? I am certain he belongs higher in the Cooper-queue than seventh but my reason for taking him now is simply that I wouldn't forgive myself if someone else did so before #14. (He's my personal number one and he'll be the team captain/manager for all games played in 1870s-80s environments.)

[DoubleX]

Ugh, the more I think about it, the more I wish I picked Raines instead of Santo. I was all set to pick Raines, had my mind made up yesterday if Allen was taken by J W, and even typed in Raines around 5:30 AM, but then decided to think about it some more.

Any chance you want to trade Chickazoola? :dismay:

[J W]

With the selection of Deacon White, we're 7-7 so far in BBFHOFers not in Cooperstown. I wonder how long we'll keep that streak going? :cap:

[J W]

Ugh, the more I think about it, the more I wish I picked Raines instead of Santo. I was all set to pick Raines, had my mind made up yesterday if Allen was taken by J W, and even typed in Raines around 5:30 AM, but then decided to think about it some more.

Any chance you want to trade Chickazoola? :dismay:

I think for this league we can skip the wheeling and dealing. Be happy with one of the six or seven best 3Bmen ever to put on a uniform! :)

[jjpm74]

Evidently leecemark maintains the top page.
I think I'll wait until my second pick to make a nickname and roster page. Those pages already depart from roster order or I would do it now.

Elmira is too far from Cooperstown to be a suburb, even if they build a superhighway. So is Rochester. Those are the hometowns of Deacon White and Ezra Sutton. There is one Cooperstown native who deserves induction, Bud Fowler, but he is not a plausible player selection at this stage.

Deacon White at #7? I am certain he belongs higher in the Cooper-queue than seventh but my reason for taking him now is simply that I wouldn't forgive myself if someone else did so before #14. (He's my personal number one and he'll be the team captain/manager for all games played in 1870s-80s environments.)

Nice pick. You picked who I would have picked had Jalbright settled on Bill Dahlen.

[J W]

To help with Paul and DoubleX... from page 4:

Bowerstown
Brighton
Cattown - Grays
Chase
Cherry Valley
Clintonville
Deowongo Island
Elk Creek
Field Crossing
Five Points
Fly Creek -
Hartwick
Hyde Park - Jekylls
Index
Lentsville
Lidell Corners
Maple Valley - Cronies
Middlefield
Milford
Oaksville
Pail Shop Corners
Patent - Leather Pants
Phoenix Mills
Pierstown
Richfield Springs
Roseboom
Schuyler Lake
Scotch Hill - Tumblers
Sharon Falls - Gilded Ghosts
Snowdon
Springfield Center
Sunken Island - Treasure
Taylortown
Toddsville
Westford
Westville
Whig Corners - Good Old Boys
Wileytown


I have eight taken. Am I missing anyone?

[jjpm74]

To help with Paul... from page 4:

I ended up forgoing Fly Creek Appleseeds in favor of Sharon Springs Gilded Ghosts so Fly Creek is still available as a location.

[DoubleX]

I'll take Schuyler Lake as I've long been admirer of the exploits of Philip Schuyler, father-in-law to Alexander Hamilton....Anyway, I'll think of a team name and update my info.

[jjpm74]

I'll take Schuyler Lake as I've long been admirer of the exploits of Philip Schuyler, father-in-law to Alexander Hamilton....Anyway, I'll think of a team name and update my info.

Schuyler Lake Pasture Patriots?

[J W]

Question -- how do we treat players who are in the HOF as managers? This will really only affect three potential picks: Clark Griffith, John McGraw and Miller Huggins.

I'll vote no just because they are in Cooperstown and many Cooperstowners get the player/manager benefit (Frank Chance, Fred Clarke, Red Schoendienst, Bill Terry). But it's no big deal either way.

[leecemark]

--If you're in the Hall you aren't eligible regardless of how you got there.

[Paul Wendt]

A corner on pails might interest me, it would be a sure fortune, but not pail shops.
Probably Field Crossing or Fly Creek, Fowlers or Forest Citys or whatnot.

[jalbright]

Deacon White at #7? I am certain he belongs higher in the Cooper-queue than seventh but my reason for taking him now is simply that I wouldn't forgive myself if someone else did so before #14. (He's my personal number one and he'll be the team captain/manager for all games played in 1870s-80s environments.)

I had Deacon #5, and could have gone higher because of his flexibility. He could look less impressive in a sim, as your title to your selection indicates--but I'm likely to feel that way about Negro League selections as well.

[jalbright]

With the selection of Deacon White, we're 7-7 so far in BBFHOFers not in Cooperstown. I wonder how long we'll keep that streak going? :cap:

Theoretically, we could keep going through the third round, but my feeling is that between picks 15 and 25 at the latest we'll break the string.

[catcher24]

Posted by Paul Wendt:
Elmira is too far from Cooperstown to be a suburb, even if they build a superhighway. So is Rochester.

Utica is pretty close. The Brewmasters or the Schultz & Dooleys (for anyone from the area) might work...:)

Actually, John McGraw came from a small place in that region of New York - Truxton, about 15 miles south of Syracuse.

[Freakshow]

If you're a "suburb" of Cooperstown, I don't see that you should be exceeding the ~2,000 population of the central city. Additionally, I recommend confining the choice of suburbs to places in Otsego county.

[jjpm74]

If you're a "suburb" of Cooperstown, I don't see that you should be exceeding the ~2,000 population of the central city. Additionally, I recommend confining the choice of suburbs to places in Otsego county.

It's possible to be outside of Otsego County but still be relatively close to Cooperstown. Sharon Springs is not in Otsego County AFAIK, but it is only 20 miles from Cooperstown which is actually closer than some towns that are in the county. It's not unreasonable to include all towns between Cooperstown and Albany as possible places for our sim teams since Cooperstown isn't technically an urban are and thusly, it's not possible to have suburbs of it. At any rate, the team name's just meant to be something fun more than anything else.

[leecemark]

--I don't see any particular reason to dictate the limits of what towns may "host" one of these teams. Using the surrounding towns at all was just kind of a fun add on to the project. It obviously won't affect the results of what we are doing here.

[leecemark]

I had Deacon #5, and could have gone higher because of his flexibility. He could look less impressive in a sim, as your title to your selection indicates--but I'm likely to feel that way about Negro League selections as well.


--Pre-1894 players and Negro Leaguers are not part of the DMB sim program. I'll have to create them and will be as fair as possible and will put those rating up for review here before using them. White will not be a "crummy 1880s 3B". He will be the best catcher of the 1870s. Well catcher/3B/etc.

[jalbright]

Boy, I wouldn't want to be the press going into baseballPAP's clubhouse...2 picks, and Albert Belle and John Beckwith. Talented players, to be sure, but not guys the press would like dealing with.

[leecemark]

--Pre-1894 players and Negro Leaguers are not part of the DMB sim program. I'll have to create them and will be as fair as possible and will put those rating up for review here before using them. White will not be a "crummy 1880s 3B". He will be the best catcher of the 1870s. Well catcher/3B/etc.


--I've played with creating our first old time and Negro League players. My first thought was simply to use nuetralize 162 game stats for the pre-1894 players. That proved to be a bad solution. BBR adjusts for run context and the 1870s had a VERY high run context due to unearned runs. I tried this for a few players (White. Hines and Barnes) and they came out as pretty poor hitters. Instead I just used their 162 game stats "as is". It will minimalize their power, but keep averages high and seems a fair trade off allowing them to keep the numbers earned in those leagues. For White I made him a very good defensive catcher and average 3B/1b/lf/rf. For Beckwith, I too have also compared him to Allen. I copied Allen's profile but subtracted 5 HR and added defensive rankings at SS/2B. Poor rankings, but at least he gets some credit for versatility.
--I don't want to sidetrack this into alot of discussion on sim profiles and won't be talking much about individual players until after the draft is done. Any feedback on the general approach to this issue is appreciated though.

[J W]

Boy, I wouldn't want to be the press going into baseballPAP's clubhouse...2 picks, and Albert Belle and John Beckwith. Talented players, to be sure, but not guys the press would like dealing with.

Maybe he can make an "all jackass" team and they can collectively give Cooperstown the Bob Knight treatment. :p

As if I'm one to speak after drafting Allen. :cap:

[jalbright]

Boy, I wouldn't want to be the press going into baseballPAP's clubhouse...2 picks, and Albert Belle and John Beckwith. Talented players, to be sure, but not guys the press would like dealing with.

Maybe he can make an "all jackass" team and they can collectively give Cooperstown the Bob Knight treatment. :p

As if I'm one to speak after drafting Allen.

Let's just say that one of the advantages of doing this in a simulation is that one doesn't have to deal with the egos in the clubhouse. If we did, our picks might be considerably different.

[J W]

Idunno; their attitude towards the press or their management has little to do with their value as players or even as teammates.

Beckwith is also notably our first negro-leaguer drafted, first pick in Round 2. Did the three-time MVP runner-up miss the NL cut strictly because of his personality?

It'll be interesting to see what Mark does with Beckwith. Here are the HoM win share extrapolations:

John Beckwith’s win shares

Year (games) BWS + FWS = Total
1919 (18) 0.3 + 0.4 = 0.7
1920 (127) 13.6 + 4.3 = 17.9
1921 (149) 19.0 + 5.0 = 24.0
1922 (131) 15.8 + 4.1 = 19.9
1923 (144) 23.4 + 4.3 = 27.7
1924 (146) 26.1 + 4.7 = 30.8
1925 (140) 24.2 + 4.4 = 28.6
1926 (117) 20.0 + 3.2 = 23.2
1927 (151) 22.0 + 4.1 = 26.1
1928 (135) 19.3 + 4.0 = 23.3
1929 (146) 18.5 + 4.0 = 22.5
1930 (100) 15.1 + 2.6 = 17.7
1931 (149) 21.5 + 3.0 = 24.5
1932 (100) 13 + 1.9 = 14.9
1933 (95) 10.8 + 1.3 = 12.1
1934 (54) 0.4 + 0.8 = 1.2
1935 (3) 0.0 + 0.0 = 0.0
17 (1905) 263.0 + 52.1 = 315.1

And here are the MLEs I was looking from from #281

Year G PA BB Hits TB BA OBP SA
1919 18 72 3 18 25 .250 .278 .368
1920 127 533 30 145 189 .288 .328 .377
1921 149 628 40 209 310 .355 .396 .527
1922 131 550 36 173 256 .337 .380 .497
1923 144 606 40 188 323 .332 .376 .571
1924 146 621 47 205 328 .357 .406 .571
1925 140 586 44 198 331 .366 .413 .610
1926 117 491 41 154 249 .343 .397 .552
1927 151 636 56 195 286 .337 .395 .493
1928 135 567 51 170 248 .330 .390 .481
1929 146 615 57 189 301 .339 .401 .541
1930 100 421 39 139 229 .364 .423 .600
1931 149 624 62 187 328 .332 .398 .583
1932 100 421 43 124 215 .327 .396 .569
1933 95 400 39 114 178 .315 .381 .492
1934 54 227 21 43 48 .207 .279 .231
1935 3 12 1 1 2 .084 .180 .138
tot. 1905 8010 648 2451 3847 .333 .387 .522

And David Foss' OPS+ MLEs

-First you have Year, Team(s), PA.
-Second you have Chris's MLE's
-Third, in parentheses, you have pitchers-removed offense context. MLB for the 20s, then NL
-Fourth, you have AVG+/OBP+/SLG+
-Lastly, is the OPS+

1919 72 0.250/0.292/0.368 (0.270/0.331/0.359) 93/ 88/103 91
1920 533 0.288/0.328/0.377 (0.284/0.343/0.384) 101/ 96/ 98 94
1921 628 0.355/0.396/0.527 (0.299/0.357/0.416) 119/111/127 138
1922 550 0.337/0.380/0.497 (0.297/0.359/0.415) 113/106/120 126
1923 606 0.332/0.376/0.571 (0.292/0.356/0.405) 114/106/141 147
1924 621 0.357/0.406/0.571 (0.294/0.356/0.406) 121/114/141 155
1925 586 0.366/0.413/0.610 (0.300/0.364/0.425) 122/113/144 157
1926 491 0.343/0.397/0.552 (0.289/0.355/0.402) 119/112/137 149
1927 636 0.337/0.395/0.493 (0.292/0.355/0.406) 115/111/121 133
1928 567 0.330/0.390/0.481 (0.290/0.355/0.412) 114/110/117 127
1929 615 0.339/0.400/0.541 (0.298/0.363/0.432) 114/110/125 135
1930 421 0.364/0.423/0.600 (0.312/0.370/0.464) 117/114/129 144
1931 624 0.332/0.399/0.583 (0.285/0.344/0.403) 116/116/145 161
1932 421 0.327/0.397/0.569 (0.284/0.337/0.412) 115/118/138 156
1933 400 0.315/0.383/0.492 (0.274/0.327/0.376) 115/117/131 148
1934 227 0.207/0.282/0.231 (0.287/0.342/0.408) 72/ 82/ 57 39
1935 12 0.084/0.167/0.138 (0.286/0.341/0.407) 29/ 49/ 34 -16
Posted by DavidFoss on March 29, 2005 at 11:33 PM (#1223390)
Beckwith:

Counting stats (+/- 2 for rounding)
8010 PA
7365 AB
2452 H
3846 TB

Percentages
Beckwith -- 0.333/0.387/0.522
Context --(0.292/0.353/0.411)
Plusses -- 114/110/127

OPS+ = 137

Whereupon (Don't Call Me Grandma) wrote in #284:

Mule Suttles also has a projected 137 OPS+, which places him behind retired (as of '48) first basemen and leftfielders such as Lou Gehrig (179), Dan Brouthers (170), Joe Jackson (170 - only played half his career in left), Jimmie Foxx (163), Dave Orr (161), Hank Greenberg (158), Roger Connor (154, Ed Delahanty (152), Charley Jones (149), Lefty O'Doul, George Stone (143), Harry Stovey (143), Jack Fournier (142), Tip O'Neill (142), Cap Anson (141), Larkin (141), Jesse Burkett (140), Jeff Heath (139) and Bob Johnson (138). He would also be tied with Sherry Magee and Ken Williams.

...so that's one MVP season and nine all-star seasons if I'm correct? And apparently he'd be a poor fielding SS/3B with some time at 1B. I see comps on the discussion ranging from "who knows" to "Larry Doyle" to "Rogers Hornsby". The consensus is though that he was a "great hitter" with no glove who would be a 1B/OF type in the majors. So yes, similar to Dick Allen.

In 1922 he had the most errors in the league with the worst range at 3B... he also played SS and 1B. That would probably mean SS-PR, 3B-PR, 1B-FR with errors in the 150% range. Still checking for data here.

Update: sorry, I passed over the "wait until we're done" statement. I'll reserve this discussion for later then. But perhaps we can use Beckwith as a template since he was the first such player drafted and I have the info here.

[Paul Wendt]

--Pre-1894 players and Negro Leaguers are not part of the DMB sim program. I'll have to create them and will be as fair as possible and will put those rating up for review here before using them. White will not be a "crummy 1880s 3B". He will be the best catcher of the 1870s. Well catcher/3B/etc.
Good.
I missed that 1894 (1893?) start date and understood 1876.

--I don't want to sidetrack this into alot of discussion on sim profiles and won't be talking much about individual players until after the draft is done. Any feedback on the general approach to this issue is appreciated though.
Maybe there should be a separate thread for simulation design.

[Freakshow]

FYI. Classic missed the 4 am deadline so I jumped past him and made my choice for the 12th pick in the draft.

[J W]

Wow. All the way back to me and still no more pitchers off the board?

I'll pair Allen with Killer Carl Mays then. I might change our name to the Sunken City Scoundrels at this rate. :)

[leecemark]

--Our second pitcher drafted is also our second player who has not been elected to the BBFHoF. Dick Lundy being the first. Mays has a decent arguement, although he is not in my queue. Lundy is also not in my queue. In the best Negro leaguer not in the Hall thread I said he would be a good choice if you thought Dave Bancroft was a good choice. Am I missing something by considering them to be comparable players?

[jalbright]

--Our second pitcher drafted is also our second player who has not been elected to the BBFHoF. Dick Lundy being the first. Mays has a decent arguement, although he is not in my queue. Lundy is also not in my queue. In the best Negro leaguer not in the Hall thread I said he would be a good choice if you thought Dave Bancroft was a good choice. Am I missing something by considering them to be comparable players?

You are clearly wrong about Carl Mays, who has been elected to the BBF HOF. As for Lundy, I think you are mistaken there as well, but due to the old issues of the Negro Leagues, it's more debatable. Bancroft played at about the same time, and had a career .279 average with a .355 BA and .358 slugging, and had 102.9 career defensive win shares. Lundy's last projection in the BBTF thread on him is .303/.360/.406 with 109.8 win shares. Now you may dispute the projection (they agonized over his walk total and revised the projection several times--the one I refer to is in post #97), but Lundy had more power and a better average, though less walks, and probably a tad better defense. I don't think one has to be a great deal better than Bancroft to deserve entry. Actually, they preferred the analogy to recent BBF HOF inductee Bobby Wallace, which I know probably still won't persuade you, Mark.

[leecemark]

--Mays may be in the BBFHoF, but he isn't (or wasn't I guess) in my queue. Strictly by the numbers he is a borderliner I could be convinced on, but he has enough baggage that he slips below my line.
--I think the BTF MLE's for Negro Leaguers tend to be at least a little optimisitc. Maybe erring in their favor is not such a bad thing, but I tend to be more conservative. The MLE's suggest Lundy is slightly better than Bancroft which translates to about the same for me. I do agree you don't have to be ALOT better than Bancroft to be a legit candidate. I could be persuaded on Lundy - but at this time I'll pass.

[leecemark]

--Nice pick on Charlie Bennett. He is a personal favorite of mine and someone I strongly endorse for the Hall of Fame. I thought I may have been reaching a little when I took Freehan, but it appears that had I waited the top catchers would have been off the board.
--Dobie Moore is also a nice pick. I must admit I thought he WAS in the Hall of Fame since he is such an obvious yes. Short career, but great peak.

[jalbright]

I've taken the second guy not in the BBF HOF, Quincy Trouppe, due to the run we've had on catchers. There just aren't many I'm happy with left. He's got a lot of similarities to Ted Simmons, but with perhaps a tad better defense. They're both switch hitting catchers, and Ted had a 117 OPS+ on a .285/.348/.437 avg/obp/slg while the projection for QT is a 119 OPS+ on .270/.372/.407 marks. Trouppe had more walks and less power in that view, but the overall value is close. I'll take it. Moore is a monster hitter for a shortstop, probably most like Joe Cronin in a 10 year career. Ernie Banks as a shortstop only isn't a terrible comp, but Moore didn't slug to the same degree. Post #140 on the BBTF thread on him has him as a .334/.367/.496 hitter, and, like the shortstops I mention as comps, a B fielder at short (not somebody you'd move unless injured, but, absent a dearth of good fielding ss in the league (Banks had this advantage IMO), not a true Gold Glover.

[jalbright]

--Mays may be in the BBFHoF, but he isn't (or wasn't I guess) in my queue. Strictly by the numbers he is a borderliner I could be convinced on, but he has enough baggage that he slips below my line.
--I think the BTF MLE's for Negro Leaguers tend to be at least a little optimisitc. Maybe erring in their favor is not such a bad thing, but I tend to be more conservative. The MLE's suggest Lundy is slightly better than Bancroft which translates to about the same for me. I do agree you don't have to be ALOT better than Bancroft to be a legit candidate. I could be persuaded on Lundy - but at this time I'll pass.

We elected Mays in May of 2007, and you voted for him then.

I disagree with your assessment of the MLEs as being overly optimistic. There are some guys out there making MLEs who deserve it, but I think Chris Cobb at BBTF and Dom Dennaro make assessments which either err on the side of caution and/or are based on very sound statistical principles.

[jjpm74]

I picked Charlie Bennett because he was the highest ranked catcher I had in my queue that had not been picked and I was worried he wouldn't last another round.

I basically had him 4rd with White, Simmons and Freehan ranked higher than him and Torre just below him. Torre probably has more value because he can be used as a catcher, at 1B or at 3B, but Bennett was a perennial favorite of mine even if his sim scores will probably be pretty low compared to the other catchers that have been picked. I'm not familiar enough with any of the Negro Leaguers so I'll leave them for the more knowledgeable members here for now. After I get a chance to read up on a few of them, they'll probably enter into my picks.

There are still 3 decent catchers left I would have gone for had he not been taken, but in fairness to the guys who still don't have a catcher on their team, I won't name them.

I'm having a really hard time settling on pitchers. There just aren't that many that are HOF worthy that aren't in the HOF.

EDIT: Actually, I do have two Negro Leaguers in my queue.

[leecemark]

We elected Mays in May of 2007, and you voted for him then.

--I thought I'd soured on Mays earlier than that, but I guess not. He is certainly amoung the broderliners based on what you see in the record books. The rumors of his game fixing and his jumping the Red Sox are enough to sink his candidacy IMO though.

I disagree with your assessment of the MLEs as being overly optimistic. There are some guys out there making MLEs who deserve it, but I think Chris Cobb at BBTF and Dom Dennaro make assessments which either err on the side of caution and/or are based on very sound statistical principles.

--Their statistical principals may be as sound as possible given the circustances, but their are way too many holes to project NeL stats with any sembance of certainty. The sample size on any play that can be related to the majors is very small. The park factors are very tenuous. I don't doubt their sincere good efforrts. What makes me discount is I believe that anyone who takes make sthe mahor effort to do that much research on NeL numbers is almost certainly predisposed to want them to show good things. I do look at their numbers to try and get a balllpark estimate of how good and what type of player a NeL was. The I try and find a major leaguer of similar skill set to model them on. In the case of Moore I'd agree that Cronin is a good comp for peak/prime performance. Cronin ranks ahead based on the longer career, but he may or may not have been a better player.

[jalbright]

Bennett was behind Trouppe for me, but I might well have gone for him had Trouppe not been there, given the run on catchers.

Carl Mays is one of the very few pitchers I would have taken thus far other than Blyleven. That was a major reason pushing me to go with Bert as the overall #1.

[jalbright]

--Their statistical principals may be as sound as possible given the circustances, but their are way too many holes to project NeL stats with any sembance of certainty. The sample size on any play that can be related to the majors is very small. The park factors are very tenuous. I don't doubt their sincere good efforrts. What makes me discount is I believe that anyone who takes make sthe mahor effort to do that much research on NeL numbers is almost certainly predisposed to want them to show good things. I do look at their numbers to try and get a balllpark estimate of how good and what type of player a NeL was. The I try and find a major leaguer of similar skill set to model them on. In the case of Moore I'd agree that Cronin is a good comp for peak/prime performance. Cronin ranks ahead based on the longer career, but he may or may not have been a better player.

There's no question that there are holes in the Negro League data, and ballpark effects are one big problem. However, the parks could be better or worse than projected. That's not a reason for generalized pessimism. Similarly, if someone uses conservative judgments when not using a sound statistical concept, there's little reason to compound the downgrading likely from the use of conservative judgments with further pessimism. Again, the conservative judgments/sound statistical concepts may yield results which are too low or too high. The idea is to either be in the middle or more likely on the low side if you're approaching it properly. Some people do let their hearts get in the way of their heads (or simply aren't good statistical analysts in the first place), and their projections merit the skepticism I feel you transfer to all projections.

On another issue, Mark, PM me about some ideas on dealing with creating the sims. I have some ideas I've used in some personal sims I think may be helpful, and not just for Negro Leaguers.

[jjpm74]

Are injuries going to factor into the sim? Meaning if a player was injury prone during his career, will he be injury prone in the sim or if a player fatigued easily during his career, will he fatigue easily in the sim?

[jalbright]

I think the fact that we're using a ten year prime should minimize some of these issues, but it can't eliminate them all. Of course, it partially depends on how well the DMB game engine deals with such issues.

[J W]

Ouch. Well despite the run on catchers, I refuse to draft the 7th best one in the 3rd round. I really did want to take a catcher this trip though.

I guess we'll keep taking pitchers if no one else will. We'll probably do really well or really bad. :shrug: But I figure it's the only way at this point to match up with the Cooperstown bunch.

[Paul Wendt]

Sigh.
10 is a lot of participants,
It's practically impossible to get more than 1/9 of the best players.
Then if you do get more than 1/9, you think, it's just as likely that your weights are a little off.