Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 68 of 68

Thread: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

  1. #61

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jdub67 View Post
    I think that looks about right in a good draft. Better then drafting duds at 7 and 14. Every year.
    So there should be 14 MVP's in every draft? Lol.
    2ML - Padres 1906, 1909, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1931, 1942, 1945, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1971
    BD - Antarctica 1993,1994, 1996, 2004, 2005, 2019, 2041, 2044, 2046
    CBF - Duck 2053, 2056, 2058, 2060, 2070, 2071, 2075, 2077, 2087, 2088, 2091, 2092, 2102, 2105,2106, 2107, 2116
    CWS - UNC 1953, 1954, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1976, 1979
    HR - Phillies 1901, 1903, 1905, 1906, 1917, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1927, 1929, 1931, 1934
    CarL - Port Royal 2026, 2039
    62-48 in WS

  2. #62

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    The guy you got at #14 should of went top 10. Top 10 pick should have chances at mvps / aces.

  3. #63

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    Picking #14 is still a good pick. Usually draft has auto picks and managers reach/ draft need. Leaving picks 11-16 in good shape.

  4. #64

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jdub67 View Post
    Picking #14 is still a good pick. Usually draft has auto picks and managers reach/ draft need. Leaving picks 11-16 in good shape.
    18 is typically where the worst playoff team drafts. There are MVP type players dropping almost to playoff teams. That's just nuts to me.

    You say #14 should've gone top 10. I only see 2 players picked in the top 10 that don't have an easy argument for being picked ahead of him, and they are both strong defenders at key positions, obvious need picks.

    I think there should be 1-3 CYA/MVP type players per draft, NOT 10-14. But I'm obviously in the minority.

    To follow this up, the CARL draft is also deep. I just sent in a list of 5 for pick #41, and I had to NARROW IT DOWN. There are still guys out there I would have taken at, say, #14 in a lot of drafts in the past. There are still guys that are better than guys I've drafted top 10 in weak drafts. There will be potential starters drafted in round 3. I understand, this is a feature, not a bug. I'm just surprised that everyone wants their leagues watered down this much.
    Last edited by Vulpecula; June 1, 2018 at 10:31 AM.
    2ML - Padres 1906, 1909, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1931, 1942, 1945, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1971
    BD - Antarctica 1993,1994, 1996, 2004, 2005, 2019, 2041, 2044, 2046
    CBF - Duck 2053, 2056, 2058, 2060, 2070, 2071, 2075, 2077, 2087, 2088, 2091, 2092, 2102, 2105,2106, 2107, 2116
    CWS - UNC 1953, 1954, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1976, 1979
    HR - Phillies 1901, 1903, 1905, 1906, 1917, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1927, 1929, 1931, 1934
    CarL - Port Royal 2026, 2039
    62-48 in WS

  5. #65

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulpecula View Post
    I'm just surprised that everyone wants their leagues watered down this much.
    I would be pretty disappointed if it turns out that every draft is going to have 10+ MVP/CYA players in it... I thought that the idea was to increase depth without making the draft more top heavy. I would expect that on average there should be about the same number of superstars as before, just more usable/interesting players throughout the draft. Hopefully the examples you gave are an exception to the norm.

    I'm not in favor of "watering down" leagues... but I am in favor of bringing some value to the second/third rounds. Otherwise why even bother having these rounds. You talk about narrowing down options for the #41 pick in the draft... that's a GOOD thing! I can't tell you how many times a pick at that position has been completely worthless to me because there was just nobody left with any value at that point.

    Vulp did bring up a good point earlier that eventually all these good players will cause the average player ability throughout the league to increase, ultimately resulting in a shift in what a "decent player" is defined as. Once that happens, the relative value of the second and third round will probably go down again. But even then, I'd rather have a more balanced draft where there's still value to be had in the 2nd/3rd round, than a draft where if you have anything past pick #40 or so you might as well just give the pick away.

  6. #66

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    Three rounds of drafts was created when owners couldn't scout the draft list. It is no longer appropriate, and CSFBL would be better off going with two rounds and dropping the other undrafted players into FA than continuing on with three rounds. It makes people confused as to how much talent is needed to be drafted to field a team.

    With most players careers averaging ten years or longer, and CSFBL teams needing 14 starters (9 batters, 5 SP) and a six-player bullpen, no team ever needs to use a third round pick.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    5,012

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Vulpecula View Post
    18 is typically where the worst playoff team drafts. There are MVP type players dropping almost to playoff teams. That's just nuts to me.
    Again, this happened in TML, which is historically a weak drafting league, and a major reason why I left that league long ago. I recall you found a MVP in the third round there, and elite talent routinely slipped to the third round like this 97 RA 2B I had.

    The recent CarL draft was quite deep, and deeper than the average I've seen so far yes, but without specific examples I think you are grossly exaggerating about the depth currently left in that draft. Who are these starters that will be taken in the third round? Who are these top 10 picks from weak drafts in the past? Please let me know, since I have full scouting there and would love to evaluate them against picks from past drafts.

  8. #68

    Re: Improvements to Draft Depth - Discussion Thread

    Quote Originally Posted by G Sparks View Post
    I recall you found a MVP in the third round there
    #47, not quite 3rd round. BUT, he was WAAY underscouted, so unless you had great scouting, and did the manual extrapolations (back in the day), you wouldn't have looked twice at him. He would have gone top 10 now with the auto extrap.
    2ML - Padres 1906, 1909, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1931, 1942, 1945, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1971
    BD - Antarctica 1993,1994, 1996, 2004, 2005, 2019, 2041, 2044, 2046
    CBF - Duck 2053, 2056, 2058, 2060, 2070, 2071, 2075, 2077, 2087, 2088, 2091, 2092, 2102, 2105,2106, 2107, 2116
    CWS - UNC 1953, 1954, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1976, 1979
    HR - Phillies 1901, 1903, 1905, 1906, 1917, 1920, 1921, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1927, 1929, 1931, 1934
    CarL - Port Royal 2026, 2039
    62-48 in WS

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •