1970 Off-season Thread (Pre-season/Draft Pool File is up!)

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Heh, didn't mean to start a firestorm, and I was half facetious. I've got one or two guys in my minors who are likely to fill in as a fifth starter, and/or I've got a decent enough bullpen to handle the back end if I need to. I just thought Pate would make a really nice addition.

haha...it's FOOL. The Hot Stove is ALWAYS on.

Pate would've been a nice addition for you, for sure. It'll be interesting to see if Baltimore can ever put it together and produce on the field. They're getting a core together, I wonder if the CL is going to start experiencing a changing of the guard soon...a few teams up there on the rise.

Meanwhile, the RL seems wide open to me. I mean, there IS no presumptive favorite for my money.

[Young Drachma]

I never realized until just now that Chicago/Quad City has NEVER had a winning season. The Rays of FOOL.

[DizzyDizzyDinosaur]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

haha...it's FOOL. The Hot Stove is ALWAYS on.

Pate would've been a nice addition for you, for sure. It'll be interesting to see if Baltimore can ever put it together and produce on the field. They're getting a core together, I wonder if the CL is going to start experiencing a changing of the guard soon...a few teams up there on the rise.

Meanwhile, the RL seems wide open to me. I mean, there IS no presumptive favorite for my money.

Toronto is the dark horse of our league. Trust me.

[Young Drachma]

I've got exports. Time to sim to the start of the preseason/draft lists.

[Young Drachma]

Seattle signed 1B Heath Palmer (VAL) to a 3 year deal worth $15 million

End of an era in Peanuts country. But I guess that Latte laced money was hard to resist.

[Young Drachma]

I look forward to future debates about what hat a player goes into the Hall of Fame under. Not so much about Palmer, but in the case of say, some of those old St. Louis players, etc., or the more traveled of our stars.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Seattle signed 1B Heath Palmer (VAL) to a 3 year deal worth $15 million

End of an era in Peanuts country. But I guess that Latte laced money was hard to resist.

Would have loved to bring him back, but considering 4 different people in the league don't even respond to trade PMs and the ones who do I couldn't find any decent way to make a deal that worked for both teams, it just wasn't going to happen.

I don't get why Seattle wanted him as he's old and at the end of his career and the guy they already had is going to be better than him (as will the guy I offered in a trade to them).. So suprised to see them go after him.

[Young Drachma]

Atlanta signed LF Arthur Wise (ANN) to a 3 year deal worth $16.4 million

Toronto signed Cal Austin (TEX) to a 5 year deal worth $39.4 million

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I look forward to future debates about what hat a player goes into the Hall of Fame under. Not so much about Palmer, but in the case of say, some of those old St. Louis players, etc., or the more traveled of our stars.

I was thinking about that the other day with Prado. Both Hartford and St.Louis would be able to make a claim thus far (probably should be Hartford based on St.Louis not existing anymore in this case).. but if he has another 3 or 4 seasons in Valdosta like last year's it would become a really good debate.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Would have loved to bring him back, but considering 4 different people in the league don't even respond to trade PMs and the ones who do I couldn't find any decent way to make a deal that worked for both teams, it just wasn't going to happen.

I don't get why Seattle wanted him as he's old and at the end of his career and the guy they already had is going to be better than him (as will the guy I offered in a trade to them).. So suprised to see them go after him.

Ya there are a few people here that dont respond back to Pm trade offers, and that gets frustrating.... ( i havent tried seattle) but there are others...

[muns]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I look forward to future debates about what hat a player goes into the Hall of Fame under. Not so much about Palmer, but in the case of say, some of those old St. Louis players, etc., or the more traveled of our stars.

I do to, that should be fun, as there are a few guys that can go either way with hats, I have a few of your St. Louis guys that were close to split on years

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by muns

Ya there are a few people here that dont respond back to Pm trade offers, and that gets frustrating.... ( i havent tried seattle) but there are others...

I wasn't singling out Seattle in that comment, as my offer to them came only about an hour or so ago, and I don't expect people to be on the computer 24/7. Those that have been on FOFC for days without even responding with a no thanks kind of get me upset a bit though when I am struggling to find anyone to do deals with

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I wasn't singling out Seattle in that comment, as my offer to them came only about an hour or so ago, and I don't expect people to be on the computer 24/7. Those that have been on FOFC for days without even responding with a no thanks kind of get me upset a bit though when I am struggling to find anyone to do deals with

I'm guilty of this in my other league (FOBL) on occasion. I think the answer here is, people probably don't wanna do a deal. But rather than just say "no thanks," they just don't respond. Or mean to and just forget to do it.

I know that makes no sense, but...given our participation rate -- especially amongst the group we have now -- is pretty high, it's not that we've got absentee owners who aren't at least exporting, because our participation is still at around 90%

[Young Drachma]

Uploading now. Draft pool is revealed. I think you'll find that there are at least 4-6 rounds of good quality players in this draft.

[Young Drachma]

File is 18.94 MB and it's online now.

[Tellistto]

Guess there wasn't enough talent in the league already...

Tell

[Alan T]

I haven't had a chance to look at the file, but is the draft pretty out of sorts or something? If there is an extreme excess of talent in the draft, that is pretty discouraging as we already have had waaay too much talent in the draft..

Plus it is hard to go year to year planning out a strategy when you just don't know how much talent is being added in the offseason each time...

Any idea how so much talent keeps rushing in?

[Tellistto]

Of the first 24 players listed, I expect 20 of them to be in the major leagues this season. What does that tell you?

As to how...DC created this draft class, not the game. The game has created the past drafts, but not this one.

Tell

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Tellistto

Of the first 24 players listed, I expect 20 of them to be in the major leagues this season. What does that tell you?

As to how...DC created this draft class, not the game. The game has created the past drafts, but not this one.

Tell

[Tellistto]

2b Anthony Payton rivals Tanaka for the leagues best all around hitter. He's got potentials of 99, 99, 84, 87, 72. He's almost maxed out on those potentials at age 23.

Tell

[Cringer]

That seems a little extreme. It's going to be like Rich Lang last season coming in and dominating.

[Chief Rum]

Wow, really? Not that I am complaining, but I didn't hear we were going to do anything different with respect to generating draft talent. DC, how did you do this? Just curious more than anything, to get a handle on it.

Good for me: drafting higher in the draft for than ever, really.
Bad for me: I traded away that 5th rounder in the Davis deal.
Really bad for me: Same draft list program. Yuck.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Tellistto

Of the first 24 players listed, I expect 20 of them to be in the major leagues this season. What does that tell you?

As to how...DC created this draft class, not the game. The game has created the past drafts, but not this one.

Tell

The game hasn't, actually. I've had the game creating "0" players for the draft since the feeder leagues went away. Because of the lack of talent coming in and because I didn't want too many crap free agents slowing down the league file during the season.

I just controlled how many "good" players came in by using the "create fictional player" button. Since the second draft, I've just had the game creating 240 or so "draft-eligible prospects" and then people complained about the quality of the draftees and how the picks weren't worth anything. So this year, I tried to widen the net a bit and so, I mixed it up. I put some "established" players in, I put some "young and slightly established" kids and then the usual crops of draft-eligible players, etc. I thought more rounds of players 'worth drafting' would make people 'happier', because past drafts have thinned out to nil after the 1st or maybe 2nd rounds.

That said, I didn't 1) realize how many impact players there were and 2) my response was directly related to the rancor. But that's what I get for listening to the crowd, I guess.

In retrospect, I should've just kept it how it was.

[Young Drachma]

I didn't look at the file much short of Payton and the two young pitchers until just now.

I have sent any player with overall ratings (gold stars) above 1 star (2-5 stars) to teams in the Vulture League. No one should now be able to come in our league Year 1 and dominate now.

Then it'll just be prospects only coming in and nothing else. Hopefully, that'll allay concerns. And in future drafts, I won't generate anything. I'll just let the game create 15 rounds of whatever it wants and people can just deal with that and blame the game and it's overzealous middle reliever creation tendencies if they want to.

There are 688 players left in the draft. Among them are:

4 5-star potential players
4 4.5-star potential players
2 4-star potential players
9 3.5-star potential players
4 3-star potential players
8 2.5-star potential players

The rest are 2-stars potential and below.

[JimmyOOTP]

Originally Posted by Tellistto

Of the first 24 players listed, I expect 20 of them to be in the major leagues this season. What does that tell you?

As to how...DC created this draft class, not the game. The game has created the past drafts, but not this one.

Tell

This is making my trade with toronto look very good since i have thier draft picks. Good year to trade for draft picks i guess.

[TurnerONU22]

Sorry about not getting back to some of the offers last night, as I must have just missed them. I sent back PM's to those who inquired, so I hope we can still work some deals before tonight.

As for Palmer, I know that we still have McDowell, but I believe (at least I hope I didn't screw this up) that I'll have one of them DH. We were pretty weak at the plate, so I went for adding some more 'pop' to the lineup. We're going to try and not throw some of our young guys in the fire directly and we wanted to give Seattle one last hurrah before we move.

[muns]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I didn't look at the file much short of Payton and the two young pitchers until just now.

I have sent any player with overall ratings (gold stars) above 1 star (2-5 stars) to teams in the Vulture League. No one should now be able to come in our league Year 1 and dominate now.

Then it'll just be prospects only coming in and nothing else. Hopefully, that'll allay concerns. And in future drafts, I won't generate anything. I'll just let the game create 15 rounds of whatever it wants and people can just deal with that and blame the game and it's overzealous middle reliever creation tendencies if they want to.

There are 688 players left in the draft. Among them are:



The rest are 2-stars potential and below.

I for one hate the games generated draft picks, cause they suck and about 10 of them might be worth anything in 10 years, so am not looking forward to this, but if thats what most of you guys want.........

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by TurnerONU22

Sorry about not getting back to some of the offers last night, as I must have just missed them. I sent back PM's to those who inquired, so I hope we can still work some deals before tonight.

As for Palmer, I know that we still have McDowell, but I believe (at least I hope I didn't screw this up) that I'll have one of them DH. We were pretty weak at the plate, so I went for adding some more 'pop' to the lineup. We're going to try and not throw some of our young guys in the fire directly and we wanted to give Seattle one last hurrah before we move.

Yup, you are in the DH league. The RL is the DH league. The CL is no-DH. So your assessment of that was indeed correct.

[JimmyOOTP]

Is it a good idea to bring up a good prospect at the age of 17 even though they says he is ready for ML level?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JimmyOOTP

Is it a good idea to bring up a good prospect at the age of 17 even though they says he is ready for ML level?

It's up to you, really. 17 year old are eligible to be brought up (that's the youngest age they can be...) and really, it just depends on what your needs are, etc., and if you have a guy who can play in front of him better and give him another year to season.

It all depends, because too many years in AAA can kill them and they stop growing, because of the lack of challenge.

[JimmyOOTP]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

It's up to you, really. 17 year old are eligible to be brought up (that's the youngest age they can be...) and really, it just depends on what your needs are, etc., and if you have a guy who can play in front of him better and give him another year to season.

It all depends, because too many years in AAA can kill them and they stop growing, because of the lack of challenge.

Btw, Thanks again for inviting me to this league. I love the fast past speed in this league. Best league to date i been in. I just started a new job so im not on as much as i used to be but i only work wednesday to saturday 6 hours a day so not to bad just the same.

Again GJ DC

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by muns

I for one hate the games generated draft picks, cause they suck and about 10 of them might be worth anything in 10 years, so am not looking forward to this, but if thats what most of you guys want.........

Maybe my thoughts on this aren't going to be popular, but they are my thoughts and I get to share them with you!

The problem with constantly infusing a high quantity of major league ready young talented players is that it breaks all kinds of models for the league. It creates easily accessible cheap talent and it not only devalues what should be "average" players but it makes them virtually worthless.

By having 17-21 year olds that are not only major league ready but among the best in the game, it destroys free agency as there is no reason to grab what would be normally star players when younger and cheaper players are available. It drops the available amount of money spent on free agents over time and eventually creates a way to work around the salary cap of a league actually. I guess I just don't feel that there is any reason that every single year we should get handfuls of what would normally be mvp quality players.

Previously in our league we had multiple problems with the crazy influx of talent added to the completely random method of how it was assigned. Now at least with just a draft, it puts some mechanism behind how the best players are handed out (ideally the worst teams would get the best prospects). This does not address the issue of too much talent however which still is a problem. There just shouldn't be any reason why players with large number of blue ratings should be 2-3 star players. It creates a talent curve that is unhealthy for the league in general.

Now ideally how would I invision the talent should be brought into the league, ie what level of talent? I first of all don't like the "Watering down" that Markus did by setting the default talent randomness to be much less than it should be. Too many people complained about first round busts to the point where he watered down the engine to the point of rarely having first round busts and likewise rarely having 7th round suprise studs. Luckily he leaves the option to set how random you want the draft to be so it is still possible to go back to a more realistic approach of having a more random talent pool.

I personally would love to see 15-24 year olds drafted, the higher the pick the more likely their chance of success, but have the talent randomness high enough that it is very possible to have first round busts and late round Mike Piazza type players occasionally. This creates a system where not only is it important to have higher draft picks but also it is even more important to have -more- draft picks just like how it really is in baseball today. With our development curve set to have players theoretically peak between 27-29, this would allow this crop of players to have an appropriate 2-3 years in some cases in the minors, and in other cases more years to develop. Ideally I think each year it probably makes sense to have 6-12 players that could at any year challenge to be an allstar, but no definite or sure thing. Should probably have a handful (under 6) of sure allstars, but each year I can't imagine there being more than 1 or 2 (or on rare occasions 3) hall of fame type players.

Like I said, fairly opinionated, but it is what I feel

[JimmyOOTP]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Maybe my thoughts on this aren't going to be popular, but they are my thoughts and I get to share them with you!

The problem with constantly infusing a high quantity of major league ready young talented players is that it breaks all kinds of models for the league. It creates easily accessible cheap talent and it not only devalues what should be "average" players but it makes them virtually worthless.

By having 17-21 year olds that are not only major league ready but among the best in the game, it destroys free agency as there is no reason to grab what would be normally star players when younger and cheaper players are available. It drops the available amount of money spent on free agents over time and eventually creates a way to work around the salary cap of a league actually. I guess I just don't feel that there is any reason that every single year we should get handfuls of what would normally be mvp quality players.

Previously in our league we had multiple problems with the crazy influx of talent added to the completely random method of how it was assigned. Now at least with just a draft, it puts some mechanism behind how the best players are handed out (ideally the worst teams would get the best prospects). This does not address the issue of too much talent however which still is a problem. There just shouldn't be any reason why players with large number of blue ratings should be 2-3 star players. It creates a talent curve that is unhealthy for the league in general.

Now ideally how would I invision the talent should be brought into the league, ie what level of talent? I first of all don't like the "Watering down" that Markus did by setting the default talent randomness to be much less than it should be. Too many people complained about first round busts to the point where he watered down the engine to the point of rarely having first round busts and likewise rarely having 7th round suprise studs. Luckily he leaves the option to set how random you want the draft to be so it is still possible to go back to a more realistic approach of having a more random talent pool.

I personally would love to see 15-24 year olds drafted, the higher the pick the more likely their chance of success, but have the talent randomness high enough that it is very possible to have first round busts and late round Mike Piazza type players occasionally. This creates a system where not only is it important to have higher draft picks but also it is even more important to have -more- draft picks just like how it really is in baseball today. With our development curve set to have players theoretically peak between 27-29, this would allow this crop of players to have an appropriate 2-3 years in some cases in the minors, and in other cases more years to develop. Ideally I think each year it probably makes sense to have 6-12 players that could at any year challenge to be an allstar, but no definite or sure thing. Should probably have a handful (under 6) of sure allstars, but each year I can't imagine there being more than 1 or 2 (or on rare occasions 3) hall of fame type players.

Like I said, fairly opinionated, but it is what I feel

I see your point, i noticed for a small 16 team league that there is a handful of good prospects in the minors. It may be ok for now but the future looks like we will all eventually have a bunch of all stars in our lineup for years to come. If this was a 30 team league then i'd say its right on pace. Ever think of expanding to 2 teams per season or something? Expanding the league will thin out the "to much talent" problem. Also would give us more trade options

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Alan T

Maybe my thoughts on this aren't going to be popular, but they are my thoughts and I get to share them with you!

The problem with constantly infusing a high quantity of major league ready young talented players is that it breaks all kinds of models for the league. It creates easily accessible cheap talent and it not only devalues what should be "average" players but it makes them virtually worthless.

By having 17-21 year olds that are not only major league ready but among the best in the game, it destroys free agency as there is no reason to grab what would be normally star players when younger and cheaper players are available. It drops the available amount of money spent on free agents over time and eventually creates a way to work around the salary cap of a league actually. I guess I just don't feel that there is any reason that every single year we should get handfuls of what would normally be mvp quality players.

Previously in our league we had multiple problems with the crazy influx of talent added to the completely random method of how it was assigned. Now at least with just a draft, it puts some mechanism behind how the best players are handed out (ideally the worst teams would get the best prospects). This does not address the issue of too much talent however which still is a problem. There just shouldn't be any reason why players with large number of blue ratings should be 2-3 star players. It creates a talent curve that is unhealthy for the league in general.

Now ideally how would I invision the talent should be brought into the league, ie what level of talent? I first of all don't like the "Watering down" that Markus did by setting the default talent randomness to be much less than it should be. Too many people complained about first round busts to the point where he watered down the engine to the point of rarely having first round busts and likewise rarely having 7th round suprise studs. Luckily he leaves the option to set how random you want the draft to be so it is still possible to go back to a more realistic approach of having a more random talent pool.

I personally would love to see 15-24 year olds drafted, the higher the pick the more likely their chance of success, but have the talent randomness high enough that it is very possible to have first round busts and late round Mike Piazza type players occasionally. This creates a system where not only is it important to have higher draft picks but also it is even more important to have -more- draft picks just like how it really is in baseball today. With our development curve set to have players theoretically peak between 27-29, this would allow this crop of players to have an appropriate 2-3 years in some cases in the minors, and in other cases more years to develop. Ideally I think each year it probably makes sense to have 6-12 players that could at any year challenge to be an allstar, but no definite or sure thing. Should probably have a handful (under 6) of sure allstars, but each year I can't imagine there being more than 1 or 2 (or on rare occasions 3) hall of fame type players.

Like I said, fairly opinionated, but it is what I feel

First off, I appreciate your thoughts. Constructive feedback makes it easier to determine what direction to go in as a league.

The problem with constantly infusing a high quantity of major league ready young talented players is that it breaks all kinds of models for the league. It creates easily accessible cheap talent and it not only devalues what should be "average" players but it makes them virtually worthless.

I've noticed this problem. So maybe a decade of "crap" players is just what the doctor ordered. I'm serious..it might be just what we need. It's why I didn't want a draft at all, to be honest. It's hard to know what you have, when new players keep entering the league.

By having 17-21 year olds that are not only major league ready but among the best in the game, it destroys free agency as there is no reason to grab what would be normally star players when younger and cheaper players are available. It drops the available amount of money spent on free agents over time and eventually creates a way to work around the salary cap of a league actually. I guess I just don't feel that there is any reason that every single year we should get handfuls of what would normally be mvp quality players.

This wasn't my intent, honestly. It's never been my intent. I just feel like people want to see "talent" manifest early, so I think that's led to the developments. I'm not "controlling" it that well. I just push some buttons, players generate and then we roll with what we've got. I think the way we run seasons so fast makes some interesting challenges and like any league, it just adds to the different "eras" that we'll inevitably have over time, once we hash it all out.

I first of all don't like the "Watering down" that Markus did by setting the default talent randomness to be much less than it should be. Too many people complained about first round busts to the point where he watered down the engine to the point of rarely having first round busts and likewise rarely having 7th round suprise studs.

I've got talent change randomness on the max, 200. So there will be players who can "evolve" into top talents and top talents who might bust. We've seen it in small pockets already. But we'll need a larger sample size over time to evaluate it more effectively.

Ideally I think each year it probably makes sense to have 6-12 players that could at any year challenge to be an allstar, but no definite or sure thing. Should probably have a handful (under 6) of sure allstars, but each year I can't imagine there being more than 1 or 2 (or on rare occasions 3) hall of fame type players.

Again, we'll let the game generate them and I think that we'll just see how it shakes out. At least we know that if 10+ years down the road, we hit a talent desert with less talented players in the league reigning, we know how to rectify the problem.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JimmyOOTP

I see your point, i noticed for a small 16 team league that there is a handful of good prospects in the minors. It may be ok for now but the future looks like we will all eventually have a bunch of all stars in our lineup for years to come. If this was a 30 team league then i'd say its right on pace. Ever think of expanding to 2 teams per season or something? Expanding the league will thin out the "to much talent" problem. Also would give us more trade options

Expansion will happen someday. I can't imagine we'd even consider it until at least 1985, though. So another 15 years, before we'd add 4 teams (2 in each league) and only if we have demand, would I think we'd consider doing it faster.

I think FOOL would ideally be a 24-team league. But not for say, another 25-30 years or so.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I've noticed this problem. So maybe a decade of "crap" players is just what the doctor ordered. I'm serious..it might be just what we need. It's why I didn't want a draft at all, to be honest. It's hard to know what you have, when new players keep entering the league.

I don't think we need a decade of "Crap" players, and I also think it would be unfair to teams that are rebuilding currently to have to endure that. Ideally I would think our goal would be minor changes to the talent pool each year to try to fine tune the type and amount of players we want in the draft each year.

In the course of 10-15 years, we ideally would have figured out the developmental cycle with the current settings and the excess talent would have been phased out, and hopefully the draft would have been working well for the preceeding few years prior to that to create a pretty stable universe.

I think creating only crap players for the next decade would swing the problem entirely in the other direction in several years and would fear that we would constantly be teetertotting back and forth. I think we want to work for finding the right settings, and then due to the sim speed it will eventually fix itself fairly quickly.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Alan T

I don't think we need a decade of "Crap" players, and I also think it would be unfair to teams that are rebuilding currently to have to endure that. Ideally I would think our goal would be minor changes to the talent pool each year to try to fine tune the type and amount of players we want in the draft each year.

In the course of 10-15 years, we ideally would have figured out the developmental cycle with the current settings and the excess talent would have been phased out, and hopefully the draft would have been working well for the preceeding few years prior to that to create a pretty stable universe.

I think creating only crap players for the next decade would swing the problem entirely in the other direction in several years and would fear that we would constantly be teetertotting back and forth. I think we want to work for finding the right settings, and then due to the sim speed it will eventually fix itself fairly quickly.

I didn't really mean "creating crap" players. Like literally doing it. I meant letting the game control the status quo.

I think maybe the solution then is say, creating 10 young and slightly established players, 30 very young and raw players and then 200 draft-eligible prospects. That's 240 players or 15 rounds of players.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I've got talent change randomness on the max, 200. So there will be players who can "evolve" into top talents and top talents who might bust. We've seen it in small pockets already. But we'll need a larger sample size over time to evaluate it more effectively.

That explains a lot of what I've been seeing (in addition to the aging modifiers), and frankly I don't think it fits this league. With us blasting through a season, too many things can happen to our ML talent even with no injuries. And with us disallowing movement between majors and minors, it gets worse. I have no recourse when my 3 and 4 star players decide to become 1 star talents over the course of a season, and it's just a random hammer. But it's happened to at least one of my players each season.

If the purpose is to go find players, set a lineup, and see how it rolls, then we should not have big talent swings during the season.

[Tellistto]

Mm, had forgotten you were making the drafts, DC. Apologies for that comment. Didn't have a problem with the previous drafts, and must say that most of the public rancor I read was about the draft list feature, not so much the players.

+1 to Alan's thoughts.

Tell

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

That explains a lot of what I've been seeing (in addition to the aging modifiers), and frankly I don't think it fits this league. With us blasting through a season, too many things can happen to our ML talent even with no injuries. And with us disallowing movement between majors and minors, it gets worse. I have no recourse when my 3 and 4 star players decide to become 1 star talents over the course of a season, and it's just a random hammer. But it's happened to at least one of my players each season.

If the purpose is to go find players, set a lineup, and see how it rolls, then we should not have big talent swings during the season.

One of the reasons went started with 1-100 ratings (I started when I set up the league with 20-80) is because Ben suggested (smartly) that people in a fast league shouldn't have to do guesswork. That ratings should work as advertised, etc.

This makes sense, so this was a good reminder of that. I think it ought to be minimized to the minimum. While it'll mean none of our creepers will creep, it'll allow it to be easier for GM to manage their teams, which is what this is all about anyway, right?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Tellistto

Mm, had forgotten you were making the drafts, DC. Apologies for that comment. Didn't have a problem with the previous drafts, and must say that most of the public rancor I read was about the draft list feature, not so much the players.

+1 to Alan's thoughts.

Tell

It's totally cool. These sorts of things just help us refine the league to what we want it to be. So I'm glad they happen, because if people didn't say anything, I'd never know and could adjust it appropriate or take my hands off the rudder, as necessary.

[gstelmack]

On the draft talent thing, I have no problem with a decent number of future players in the draft, I think the problem is the guys ready to contribute today.

[Alan T]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

One of the reasons went started with 1-100 ratings (I started when I set up the league with 20-80) is because Ben suggested (smartly) that people in a fast league shouldn't have to do guesswork. That ratings should work as advertised, etc.

This makes sense, so this was a good reminder of that. I think it ought to be minimized to the minimum. While it'll mean none of our creepers will creep, it'll allow it to be easier for GM to manage their teams, which is what this is all about anyway, right?

That makes sense I suppose regarding the randomness. In a league like this I can see where that level of realism might ruin the fun. (Along the same lines of why you would set the injury settings to low.. it makes it a bit less real, but overall enjoyment in the league goes up most likely)

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

On the draft talent thing, I have no problem with a decent number of future players in the draft, I think the problem is the guys ready to contribute today.

I think the way it's setup now is ideal, so I just know not to put anymore established players in. That's where the problems started to happen, really. When I started initially with just 240, we had maybe 8 players total who were 3 star + prospects. That was woefully bad. So that's when I started tinkering with adding more to flesh it out better. I think where it is now is a good situation, tho. Plus there are some younger-esque guys who aren't good enough to start now, but have the potential to be real contributors early on.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Alan T

That makes sense I suppose regarding the randomness. In a league like this I can see where that level of realism might ruin the fun. (Along the same lines of why you would set the injury settings to low.. it makes it a bit less real, but overall enjoyment in the league goes up most likely)

You know, we started with fatigue being off too. But then it wasn't an endurance test of who could assemble the best team of players with depth too. It was just about who had the best players.

So we turned on fatigue and left it on average to make it a marathon of a season. Injuries on can't happen, of course. That's absolute kill the league, even if you say, had teams of 40-man rosters and everything, injuries I think, would completely make things hard to manage, because of the randomness involved and will throw off the fun factor.

I never knew that an online league with no injuries would be this interesting though. I was just thinking when we got started that I wanted things to move fast. That's all I cared about, was keeping things moving.

So yeah, anyway...it's lowered to the minimum of "1" now for talent change randomness.

[JimmyOOTP]

Anyway to know the draft order? Compton is looking to move up in the draft.

[JimmyOOTP]

Nvm, i found a way to see last seasons standings.

[muns]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

On the draft talent thing, I have no problem with a decent number of future players in the draft, I think the problem is the guys ready to contribute today.

You said it better than I did. I dont think the game itself generates this properly... Playing SP gets boring to me cause all i see are guys that have 50 ratings all accross the board and when I look through FA im just like..... man doesthis just suck...

Thats what I dont want to happen here I think if we toned down the guys that were ready now, we would be fine.

[Chief Rum]

So, DC, you sent some players to the VL? Do I need to download a new file?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

So, DC, you sent some players to the VL? Do I need to download a new file?

No. The players who were sent to the VL simply will not be able to be drafted. So your draft list will revert to the next best player who is available. Anyone who has overall ratings of more than 1 star in the draft pool was sent to the VL. So that should make it easy to know who to rule out.